|
NOTICE
REPLACEMENT OF
NATIONAL POLICY 41-201 INCOME TRUSTS AND OTHER INDIRECT OFFERINGS
Introduction
The Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA or we), are amending National Policy 41-201 -- Income Trusts and Other Indirect Offerings (NP 41-201).
NP 41-201 first came into effect in December 2004. On January 5, 2007, we published our proposed amended policy for a 60-day comment period. The amended policy has been, or is expected to be, adopted in all jurisdictions and will replace the December 2004 version of the policy on July 6, 2007.
This notice provides a summary of the key changes to NP 41-201, the comments we received on the proposed amended policy and the additional changes we made to the policy as a result of those comments.
Substance and purpose
We have reorganized NP 41-201 to more clearly group our guidance in the areas of distributable cash, prospectus offerings and continuous disclosure. The following is a summary of the key changes to the policy:
• Part 2 now focuses the guidance specifically on distributable cash. We have added guidance on distributable cash that was previously published in CSA Staff Notice 52-306 -- Non-GAAP Financial Measures (Staff Notice 52-306) and CSA Staff Notice 41-304 -- Income Trusts: Prospectus Disclosure of Distributable Cash, as well as other guidance about distributable cash disclosure.
• We have noted that the guidance on distributable cash applies to all disclosure about cash available for distribution, regardless of the terminology used by the issuer.
• We have noted that the guidance on disclosure of stability ratings will not apply to unsolicited stability ratings.
• We have provided guidance that issuers should include in their interim and annual MD&A a comparison between the expected yield figure previously disclosed and the actual yield.
• We have provided guidance on the presentation of distributable cash figures. We believe this disclosure should accompany all disclosures of distributable cash, including those contained in sales and marketing materials.
• We have clarified the content of the undertakings we expect for insider reporting and financial information of subsidiaries and the circumstances under which we expect these undertakings to be provided.
• We have clarified our expectations of MD&A disclosure of distributed cash.
• We have clarified our guidance on the disclosure of differences between corporate law protections and those provided by an issuer's declaration of trust.
Summary of written comments
We received submissions from 12 commenters during the comment period. See Appendix A for a list of the commenters and Appendix B for a summary of their comments and our responses. We would like to thank everyone who provided us with comments.
Canadian Performance Reporting Board Interpretive Release
When we published the policy for comment, we noted that the Canadian Performance Reporting Board (CPRB) of The Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants had published for comment a draft interpretive release to the CICA publication, Management's Discussion and Analysis: Guidance on Preparation and Disclosure. This release provided the CPRB's views on the measurement and disclosure of distributable cash in MD&A by income trusts and other flow-through entities. We noted that we were looking forward to discussing with the CPRB the comments that they received on their draft interpretive release. We have reviewed these comments and would like to thank the CPRB for their co-operation and input.
The distributable cash guidance in this policy is intended to promote transparent disclosure for investors with respect to presentations of distributable cash. We understand that the CPRB is considering changes to its draft guidance in response to comments received and it plans to provide guidance not only on disclosure but also on a standardized measure of distributable cash derived directly from historical financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP.
We will evaluate the form and impact of the final CPRB guidance when it is published. However, based on our current understanding of the likely content of the CPRB guidance, we believe that presentation of the standardized measure of distributable cash defined in the guidance is consistent with the objectives of the policy. Further, additional disclosure in MD&A consistent with the framework provided in the CPRB guidance would contribute to achieving the disclosure objectives of the policy.
Additional changes to the policy
After considering the comments, we made some changes to the proposed policy that was published for comment in January 2007. We do not believe these changes are material and are not republishing the policy for a further comment period. These changes are summarized in Appendix C.
If you have questions, please contact any of the following:
Sonny Randhawa
Ontario Securities Commission
Telephone: (416) 593-2380
E-mail: srandhawa@osc.gov.on.ca
Kyler Wells
Ontario Securities Commission
Telephone: (416) 593-8229
E-mail: kwells@osc.gov.on.ca
Lara Gaede
Alberta Securities Commission
Telephone: (403) 297-4223
E-mail: lara.gaede@seccom.ab.ca
Jennifer Wong
Alberta Securities Commission
Telephone: (403) 297-3617
E-mail: jennifer.wong@seccom.ab.ca
Manuele Albrino
British Columbia Securities Commission
Telephone: (604) 899-6641
E-mail: malbrino@bcsc.bc.ca
Michael Moretto
British Columbia Securities Commission
Telephone: (604) 899-6767
E-mail: mmoretto@bcsc.bc.ca
Céline Morin
Autorité des marchés financiers
Telephone: (514) 395-0337 ext. 4395
E-mail: celine.morin@ lautorite.qc.ca
Nicole Parent
Autorité des marchés financiers
Telephone: (514) 395-0337 ext. 4455
E-mail: nicole.parent@lautorite.qc.ca
Tony Herdzik
Saskatchewan Financial Services Commission
Telephone: (306) 787-5849
E-mail: therdzik@sfsc.gov.sk.ca
Wayne Bridgeman
The Manitoba Securities Commission
Telephone: (204) 945-4905
E-mail: wayne.bridgeman@gov.mb.ca
Donna Gouthro
Nova Scotia Securities Commission
Telephone: (902) 424-7077
E-mail: gouthrdm@gov.ns.ca
July 6, 2007
Appendix A
List of commenters
|
Commenter |
|
Name |
Date |
|
1. |
Standard & Poor's |
|
Kevin Hibbert |
February 15, 2007 |
|
Canada |
|
|
|
|
2. |
Canadian Oil Sands |
|
Ryan M. Kubik |
February 26, 2007 |
|
Limited |
|
|
|
|
3. |
The Canadian |
|
Kevin Dancey |
March 2, 2007 |
|
Institute of |
|
|
|
|
Chartered |
|
|
|
|
Accountants |
|
|
|
|
4. |
Enerplus Resources |
|
Robert J. Waters |
March 2, 2007 |
|
Fund |
|
|
|
|
5. |
Ontario Teacher's |
|
Brian Gibson |
March 6, 2007 |
|
Pension Plan |
|
|
|
|
6. |
Canadian Coalition |
|
David R. Beatty |
March 6, 2007 |
|
for Good |
|
|
|
|
Governance |
|
|
|
|
7. |
Torys LLP |
|
James Scarlett |
March 6, 2007 |
|
8. |
Financial Executives |
|
Alister Cowan |
March 6, 2007 |
|
International |
|
|
|
|
9. |
Pengrowth |
|
Chris Webster |
March 6, 2007 |
|
Corporation |
|
|
|
|
10. |
Canadian |
|
Margaret M. Lefebvre |
March 6, 2007 |
|
Association of |
|
|
|
|
Income Funds |
|
|
|
|
11. |
Global Financial |
|
Robert Hudson |
March 6, 2007 |
|
Group |
|
|
|
|
12. |
ARC Resources Ltd. |
|
John P. Dielwart |
March 6, 2007 |
Appendix B
Summary of comments on the proposed amended NP 41-201
Item |
Reference |
|
Summarized comment |
|
CSA response |
1. |
General |
|
Two commenters suggested that the work of the CSA in the policy be made into a rule. |
|
We have considered the comment and continue to believe that a principles-based policy approach to the regulation of income trusts and other indirect offering structures is the appropriate regulatory course and that there is currently no justification for turning the policy into a rule. |
|
2. |
General |
|
Four commenters suggested that the same concerns being addressed by the policy should be equally applied to corporations. |
|
We acknowledge the comment and note that the policy applies to indirect offering structures, including those in corporate form. |
|
3. |
General |
|
Two commenters questioned whether the policy would apply to trusts that do not use non-GAAP measures such as "distributable cash". |
|
The presentation of non-GAAP measures, such as distributable cash, is optional disclosure for trusts. The distributable cash guidance in the policy only applies to trusts that present non-GAAP measures. |
|
4. |
Distributable Cash Part 2.1 |
|
Four commenters encouraged the CSA to incorporate the Canadian Performance Reporting Board's (CPRB) draft interpretive release relating to the definition of distributable cash, in order to provide greater certainty and consistency with respect to the application of this concept. |
|
We acknowledge the comment and, where appropriate, we have made changes to the policy to more closely align with the CPRB draft guidance. |
|
5. |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.1 |
|
Three commenters expressed their support for the CSA's principles-based disclosure guidance for distributable cash. The commenters believed that a prescribed calculation for distributable cash may not be meaningful and would reduce the information's usefulness. The commenters also believe that standardizing the concept of distributable cash would result in undue credibility on the amount and over-reliance by investors. |
|
We acknowledge these comments and continue to believe that a principles-based policy approach to the regulation of income trusts and other indirect offering structures is the appropriate regulatory course. |
|
6. |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.1 |
|
One commenter suggested that distributable cash and distributable income should not be used interchangeably since cash and income have different meanings. |
|
We acknowledge the comment and note that it is the responsibility of the issuer to ensure that it uses appropriate non-GAAP terminology to describe its cash available for distribution. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
As set out in the policy, we expect the guidance regarding distributable cash to apply to other non-GAAP terms used to describe the amount available for distribution to securityholders. |
|
7. |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.1 |
|
One commenter suggested that the use of discretionary adjustments would defeat the objective of comparability. |
|
We acknowledge the comment and continue to believe that issuers should be permitted to make appropriate adjustments to the distributable cash reconciliation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We expect that if an issuer makes a discretionary adjustment to its distributable cash reconciliation, the guidance in Part 2.7 will apply. |
|
8. |
Distributable Cash -- Parts 2.2, 2.4 and 2.5 |
|
Two commenters suggested that income trusts should not discuss "cash available for distribution", but rather only "cash distributed", and focus on key financial measures such as "net income" and "cash flow". If distributable cash is to be provided, then the calculation would be derived from and reconciled to the GAAP financial statements and combined with disclosure containing a discussion of the reasons for, and the difference between distributable cash and the actual cash distributions paid. |
|
We agree and have recommended in Part 6.5.2 that issuers provide a summary of actual cash distributions paid as compared to net income and cash flows from operating activities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We believe that a summary of the main elements of a trust's performance will assist investors in assessing the financial condition of the trust and, in turn, the sustainability of the trust's distributions. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
A discussion of the reasons for the difference between distributable cash and actual distributions paid should accompany the summary. |
|
9. |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.3 |
|
One commenter suggested that income trusts should fully disclose their distribution policies, including any amount of distributable cash retained in a reserve fund for future distributions, and that there should be a commentary on how the reserve fund is maintained, how it is funded and whether there has been any past usage of the fund. |
|
We have considered this comment and are of the view that the provisions of item 1.6 -- Liquidity of Form 51-102F1 MD&A would generally require this information to be disclosed in the MD&A. |
|
10. |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.6 |
|
One commenter stated that cash flows from operating activities before non-cash working capital is a more appropriate and widely used measure for comparison with distributed cash than cash flows from operating activities including changes in non-cash working capital. |
|
We believe a distributable cash reconciliation should begin with cash flows from operating activities; a figure that can be derived from an issuer's GAAP financial statements. "Cash flows from operating activities before non-cash working capital" is not a recognized GAAP measure. |
|
11. |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.7 |
|
One commenter suggested that the proposal to discuss the work done by the issuer to ensure the completeness and reasonableness of the disclosure may not be practical or useful. |
|
We disagree. Disclosure about what was done to support an underlying assumption for a reconciling adjustment is important information for investors. |
|
12. |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.7 |
|
Two commenters suggested that the proposals in sections 2.6 and 2.7 which suggest that issuers provide information allowing investors to anticipate distributable cash amounts and the sustainability of distributions is akin to asking issuer to prepare a forecast. |
|
We disagree. The disclosure expectations in sections 2.6 and 2.7 of the policy are consistent with our expectations for other types of forward-looking information. |
|
|
|
|
For example, the statement under section 2.7 that the determination of distributable cash uses "supportable assumptions given management's judgement about the most probable set of economic conditions" implies that management has an ability to forecast such economic conditions. |
|
We strongly believe issuers and their management are in the best position to evaluate and discuss events or conditions that are likely to occur in the future that may impact the sustainability of distributions. |
|
|
|
|
Further, a requirement to "disclose all factors, events or conditions that are likely to occur in the future that may impact the sustainability of future distributions" would be very difficult for any management team to achieve. |
|
|
|
13 |
Distributable Cash -- Part 2.7 |
|
One commenter suggested that information relating to provisions that stipulate when an original vendor's entitlement to distributions ceases to be subordinated is important because these provisions affect the amount of future distributions. |
|
We acknowledge this comment and note that this information is generally disclosed in the IPO prospectus and the material contracts filed with the IPO. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are of the view that the provisions of item 1.6 -- Liquidity of Form 51-102F1 MD&A require this information to be disclosed in the MD&A. |
|
14. |
Distributable Cash -- Maintenance of Productive Capacity |
|
One commenter suggested that the concept of "maintenance of productive capacity" must take into account that the cyclical nature of commodity prices influences the investment decision process of natural resource based income trusts. |
|
We acknowledge this comment and note that the particular variables underlying the concept of "maintenance of productive capacity" may vary from issuer to issuer. Our intent is that issuers consider their particular situation when applying this concept. |
|
15. |
Distributable Cash -- Maintenance of Productive Capacity |
|
One commenter suggested that practical limitations exist in determining a distributable cash adjustment for maintenance of productive capacity. |
|
We acknowledge this comment and as a result, did not prescribe how issuers should calculate their distributable cash adjustment to maintain productive capacity. |
|
|
|
|
The commenter suggested that requiring disclosure about potential commitments for replacing and maintaining capital assets is not sufficient to result in a meaningful discussion of an entity's productive capacity maintenance strategy. |
|
We expect issuers to have extensive knowledge about the operations of their underlying entities and to be able to reasonably determine their current and future cash needs to maintain productive capacity. This determination will likely vary from trust to trust and may be based on actual capital expenditures incurred in prior periods. |
|
16. |
Material Debt Part 3 -- A. |
|
One commenter suggested that the debt disclosure would be enhanced by including disclosure of how much of the debt is secured and what assets have been pledged as security, and what entity level the debt is being issued at. |
|
Details about debt are generally disclosed in the IPO prospectus and in the material contract(s) relating to the debt. |
|
|
|
|
On an ongoing basis, disclosure of covenants and how the trust is performing relative to each measure is important. |
|
We have considered the comment about ongoing covenant disclosure and are of the view that the provisions of item 1.6 -- Liquidity of Form 51-102F1 MD&A generally require similar information to be disclosed in the MD&A. |
|
17. |
Material Debt Part 3 -- A. |
|
One commenter suggested that a separate category on SEDAR be included to identify material contracts. |
|
SEDAR currently has a category for material contracts called "Other -- material contract(s)". |
|
18. |
Material Debt Part 3 -- A. |
|
One commenter suggested that debt obligations also be disclosed in the annual proxy circular in situations where debt covenants are in danger of being breached. |
|
We disagree. We believe that this information is more appropriately disclosed in the MD&A and/or in a material change report (Form 51-102F2), if applicable. |
|
19. |
Material Debt Part 3 -- A. |
|
One commenter suggested that debt agreements are normal course contracts and that they need not be filed on SEDAR. The filing of these agreements can confuse and overwhelm the reader, and these agreements often contain confidentiality conditions imposed by lenders. |
|
We disagree. We continue to believe that, in most cases, agreements relating to the material debt that have been negotiated with a third-party lender other than the issuer will be material contracts under Rule 41-501 and NI 51-102 (or their respective successors) if terms of those agreements have a direct correlation with the anticipated cash distributions. |
|
20. |
Stability Ratings Part 3 -- B. |
|
One commenter suggested that unsolicited stability ratings be disclosed with the fact that they were unsolicited, and that the disclosure of the source of the rating may be useful. |
|
We disagree. We believe that imposing an obligation on issuers to disclose unsolicited stability ratings is not currently justified. Management will not have been involved in preparing the rating and may not even know that a stability rating had been determined. |
|
|
|
|
Another commenter suggested that if a poor stability rating has been received, the rating should also appear in the annual proxy circular. |
|
We also disagree that stability ratings be disclosed in annual proxy circulars. We continue to believe that solicited stability ratings should be disclosed in prospectuses and AIFs. |
|
21. |
Executive Compensation Part 3 -- C. |
|
One commenter suggested that management contracts and incentive plans need not be filed on SEDAR if the key details are adequately disclosed elsewhere. |
|
We continue to believe that management contracts and management incentive plans that contain terms which impact distributable cash are material contracts and should be filed on SEDAR. |
|
22. |
Executive Compensation Part 3 -- C. |
|
One commenter suggested that any management contract of the operating entity should be disclosed on SEDAR and either referenced or disclosed in the proxy circular. |
|
We currently expect management contracts and management incentive plans that may have an impact on distributable cash to be filed on SEDAR. We also expect these plans to be disclosed in the prospectus. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We note that disclosure of these contracts is also currently required by Form 51-102F5 -- Information Circular (Item 13). |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We note that disclosure of provisions related to external management companies is currently required by Form 51-102F6 -- Statement of Executive Compensation (Item 1.4(e)). |
|
23. |
Executive Compensation Part 3 -- C. |
|
One commenter suggested that the compensation of the top five paid named executive officers should be disclosed, whether or not they function at the operating or issuer level. |
|
We believe that the existing rules about disclosure of executive compensation will require the disclosure suggested by this comment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We note that proposed amendments to Form 51-102F6 -- Statement of Executive Compensation, which are consistent with Part 3 of the policy, are currently out for comment. |
|
24. |
Offering Specific Issues -- Part 4 |
|
One commenter suggested that requiring issuers to file the full details of valuations in the context of acquisitions would put them at a competitive disadvantage relative to non-trust issuers because confidential details about earnings estimates, synergies, etc. would be required to be disclosed. |
|
We acknowledge the comment and have removed the expectation that issuers file the valuation report on SEDAR. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
25. |
Offering Specific Issues -- Parts 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 and 4.5.2 |
|
Two commenters stated that many income trusts are acquisitive by nature and expressed concern that the regulator might require the vendor to certify the prospectus disclosure of a trust issuer. Such a requirement would restrict the ability of trusts to make acquisitions and place them at a major competitive disadvantage. |
|
We acknowledge this comment. Currently, vendors are required to certify the prospectus only if they would otherwise be promoters or if it is necessary in the public interest. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Proposed National Instrument 41-101 General Prospectus Requirements (NI 41-101) includes proposals regarding certification requirements for prospectuses generally. The proposed NI 41-101 was published for comment on December 21, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We do not propose changing the existing guidance in the policy at this time and have referred this comment to the CSA Committee responsible for NI 41-101. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
NP 41-201 may be amended to reflect the conclusions reached with respect to NI 41-101. |
|
26. |
Promoter Liability -- Part 4.4 |
|
One commenter suggested that the lack of clarity of the terms "selling securityholder" and "promoter" is problematic. The concept under section 4.4 that the formation of an income trust itself constitutes the party as a promoter of the business of the income trust issuer strains the common sense understanding of "promoter" and is inconsistent with the remainder of the policy which focuses on the underlying operating entity as the business of substance. |
|
We acknowledge this comment. Proposed National Instrument 41-101 General Prospectus Requirements (NI 41-101) includes proposals regarding certification requirements for prospectuses generally. The proposed NI 41-101 was published for comment on December 21, 2006. |
|
|
|
|
As a result of the October 31, 2006 federal government announcement on income trusts, the commenter believes that it is unlikely that any new income trusts will be created, and as a result the promoter analysis under section 4.4 will have no further application. |
|
We do not propose changing the existing guidance in the policy at this time and have referred this comment to the CSA Committee responsible for NI 41-101. |
|
|
|
|
The commenter suggested that current attempts to stretch the application of the promoter rules should be put aside in favour of developing a new and more flexible rule that addresses what might more fairly be called "selling securityholder" liability. |
|
NP 41-201 may be amended to reflect the conclusions reached with respect to NI 41-101. |
|
27. |
Sales and Marketing Materials -- Part 5 |
|
Three commenters suggested that income trusts should refrain from using the term "yield" due to its association with fixed income investments and instead use "return on capital" and "return of capital". |
|
We expect trusts that use the term "yield" to comply with the guidance set out in Part 5 including supplemental disclosure distinguishing units from a fixed income security. |
|
|
|
|
Another commenter suggested that since yields are determined by the distributions and the market price of the security and because the market price is determined by factors that are outside the influence of the issuer, it is inappropriate for issuers to comment on their yield. |
|
As discussed in Part 5.1, we believe is important for the issuer to disclose whether it has made all distributions necessary to achieve the previously stated "yield" figure. |
|
28. |
Continuous Disclosure -- Part 6 |
|
One commenter suggested that disclosing economic return of capital would require complex explanation of these concepts which would result in a discussion that is not meaningful or useful. |
|
We disagree. We believe it is important for investors to be aware that a portion of distributions received may represent a repayment of their principal investment. This disclosure will assist investors in assessing the sustainability of distributions. |
|
29. |
Continuous disclosure -- Maintenance Capital |
|
One commenter suggested that the deduction of "maintenance capital" is extremely difficult to derive for energy trusts. |
|
We agree with the first comment and have made corresponding changes to Part 2.6 of the policy. |
|
|
|
|
The commenter suggested making the disclosure of "maintenance capital" voluntary for trusts that claim they have a sustainable business model. |
|
We disagree with the second comment. We believe that adjustments for capital expenditures, whether to maintain productive capacity of the issuer or otherwise, should be included in an issuer's distributable cash reconciliation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We expect issuers that do not claim to have a sustainable business model to adequately disclose this fact and its implications. |
|
30. |
Continuous Disclosure -- Part 6.5.2 |
|
Several commenters suggested that there should be a clear distinction made between distributions classified as "return on capital" and distributions classified as "return of capital". |
|
We acknowledge the comment. However, we understand that there are practical limitations that may prevent trusts from making a clear distinction between distributions that are a "return on capital" or a "return of capital" for tax purposes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite this limitation, if an issuer's distributed cash, at the end of a period exceeds either its cash flows from operating activities or net income, it should consider whether the excess distributions represent an economic return of capital. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
When distributions paid represent an economic return of capital, we expect issuers to include disclosure stating this and to discuss the impact on future distributions. |
|
31. |
Continuous Disclosure -- Part 6.5.2 |
|
One commenter suggested that including net income as one of the measures in the table in the proposal seemed inconsistent with the earlier assertion that distributable cash is more closely aligned to cash flow from operations. |
|
We did not intend to imply that net income was a more closely aligned measure to distributable cash than cash flows from operating activities. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Net income is another performance indicator that will assist investors in assessing the financial condition of the trust and, in turn, the sustainability of the trust's distributions. |
|
32. |
Continuous Disclosure -- Part 6.5.2 |
|
One commenter suggested that the discussion of cash flow from operating activities compared to net income is not indicative of the productive capacity of an oil and gas trust since net income includes non-cash items such as future income tax and depletion, depreciation, amortization and accretion (DDA&A). DDA&A is based on historical costs of property, plant and equipment and not the fair market value of replacing those assets in the current environment. |
|
The primary goal of the table in Part 6.5.2 is to show the relationship between the GAAP figures for cash flows from operating activities and net income and historical distributed cash figures. This table and the accompanying disclosure were not intended to indicate the productive capacity of an issuer. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
If applicable, we expect a discussion of productive capacity to be provided with the issuer's distributable cash reconciliation. |
|
33. |
Continuous Disclosure -- Part 6.5.2 |
|
One commenter suggested that the concept of providing investors with "information about the sources of the distributed cash that they receive, including whether an issuer borrowed amounts to finance distributions" is an exercise in futility since the allocation of cash to specific sources is arbitrary. |
|
Existing MD&A disclosure requirements for liquidity and capital resources under NI 51-102F1 sections 1.6 and 1.7 give the reader an understanding of the issuer's overall operating and capital requirements compared to their available sources of funding. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
However, we believe it is important to highlight for the reader cases where cash distributions exceed cash flow from operating activities and to explain how the distributions were funded. |
|
34. |
Continuous Disclosure -- Part 6.5.2 |
|
One commenter suggested that the proposed tabular format does not provide additional useful information since all of this quantitative information can be obtained from an issuer's GAAP financial statements. |
|
We acknowledge this comment. However, we believe providing additional prominence to specific financial indicators is useful information for investors. |
|
35. |
Corporate Governance -- Part 7 |
|
One commenter suggested that information comparing the rights of unitholders of a trust to the rights of corporate shareholders should be included in the proxy circular. |
|
We acknowledge this comment and note that we expect disclosure to be provided in the annual information form under the requirements of Item 15.1 of Form 51-102F2. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
We also note that this information is generally available in the IPO prospectus and in the material contract filed on SEDAR, which sets out the rights of securityholders. |
|
36. |
Corporate Governance -- Part 7 |
|
One commenter suggested that operating entities, in addition to issuers, disclose how they will discharge their governance responsibilities. |
|
Part 7 of the policy contains our expectation that the issuer disclose how the issuer and the operating entity will satisfy governance responsibilities. |
Appendix C
Summary of Changes
The following summarizes the changes to the policy from the version published for comment on January 5, 2007.
• Valuation reports: In Part 4.1 we have deleted the expectation that, if a third-party valuation is obtained in an initial public offering, the valuation report should be filed on SEDAR.
• Capital adjustments: In Part 2.6 we have clarified the guidance to note that an issuer that does not intend to sustain the business of its operating entity going-forward (for example, in the case of depleting assets) should clearly state this in its distributable cash reconciliation.
We further clarified the guidance in this part to note that capital adjustments may be based on actual capital expenditures.
NATIONAL POLICY 41-201
INCOME TRUSTS AND OTHER INDIRECT OFFERINGS
Part 1 -- Introduction
1.1 What is the purpose of the policy?
It is a fundamental principle that everyone investing in securities should have access to sufficient information to make an informed investment decision. The Canadian Securities Administrators (the CSA or we) believe that there are distinct attributes of an investment in income trust units that should be clearly disclosed.
Within our securities regulatory framework, raising capital in the public markets results in certain rights and obligations attaching to issuers and investors. We believe that it would be beneficial to express our view in a policy about how the existing regulatory framework applies to non-corporate issuers (such as income trusts) and to indirect offering structures in order to minimize inconsistent interpretations and to better ensure that the principles underlying the requirements are preserved. Our concerns relate to the quality and nature of prospectus and continuous disclosure, accountability for prospectus disclosure and liability for insider trading. We have drafted a policy rather than a rule because we believe that the existing regulatory requirements capture the necessary regulatory outcomes relating to income trusts and other indirect offering structures. Our goal is to provide guidance and recommendations about how income trusts and other indirect offering structures fit within the existing regulatory requirements rather than create new regulatory requirements for income trusts and other indirect offering structures. We also identify factors that relate to the exercise of the regulator's discretion in a prospectus offering.
This policy provides guidance and clarification by all jurisdictions represented by the CSA. The guidance generally relates to the requirements of National Instrument 51-102 Continuous Disclosure Obligations and the prospectus requirements in each jurisdiction. Although the primary focus of this policy is on income trusts, we believe that much of the guidance and clarification that we provide is useful for other indirect offering structures. As well, the guidance may apply more generally to issuers that offer securities which entitle holders of those securities to net cash flow generated by the issuer's business or its properties. We provide guidance about prospectus disclosure and prospectus liability to minimize situations where staff might recommend against issuance of a receipt for a prospectus where it would appear that the offering may be contrary to the public interest due to insufficient disclosure, the structure of the offering, or other factors.
Although the focus of this policy is on the income trust structure in the context of offerings by way of prospectus, these principles also apply to income trust structures in other contexts, such as the reorganization of a corporate entity into a trust. Although an offering document is not prepared in a reorganization, we expect that the information circular provided to relevant security holders, and that contains prospectus-level disclosure, will follow the principles set out in this policy. In addition when we are determining whether to grant exemptive relief to an income trust issuer in connection with a reorganization or other similar transaction, we will consider the principles described in Part 3 of this policy.
This policy may also apply to income trusts in the fulfillment of their continuous disclosure obligations.
1.2 What do we mean when we refer to an income trust in this policy?
When we refer to an income trust or issuer in this policy, we are referring to a trust or other entity (including corporate and non-corporate entities) that issues securities which provide for participation by the holder in net cash flows generated by: (i) an underlying business owned by the trust or other entity, or (ii) the income-producing properties owned by the trust or other entity. This includes business income trusts, real estate investment trusts and royalty trusts. In our view, this does not include an entity that falls within the definition of "investment fund" contained in National Instrument 81-106 Investment Fund Continuous Disclosure, or an entity that issues asset-backed securities or capital trust securities.
1.3 What is an operating entity?
In the most basic income trust structure, the operating entity is: (i) a subsidiary of the income trust with an underlying business, or (ii) income-producing properties owned directly by the income trust. In more complex structures, there may be a number of intervening entities above the operating entity. Generally, the operating entity is the first entity in the structure that has an underlying business that generates cash flows. There may be more than one operating entity in the income trust structure.
In addition to identifying the operating entity, it is also important to understand the operating entity's business. In some cases, its business is to own, operate and produce revenues from its assets. In other cases, its business is to own an interest in a joint venture or to derive a revenue stream from holding a portfolio of investments or financial instruments.
1.4 How is an income trust structured?
Typically, an income trust holds a combination of debt and equity or royalty interests in an entity owning or operating a business. Net cash flows generated by the operating entity's business are distributed to the income trust. The income trust then distributes some or all of that cash flow to its investors (referred to as unitholders or investors).
1.5 What is an income trust offering?
In a typical income trust offering, an income trust is created to distribute units to the public. The income trust then uses the proceeds from the offering to acquire debt and equity or royalty interests in the operating entity, or interests in income producing properties. We view the income trust offering as a form of indirect offering. Instead of offering their securities directly to the public, the vendors sell their interests in the operating entity to the income trust. The income trust purchases those interests with proceeds that it raises through its offering of units to the public. The interests in the operating entity that the income trust acquires are thus indirectly offered to the public. Through their direct investment in units of the income trust, unitholders hold an indirect interest in the operating entity.
By issuing units under a prospectus, the income trust becomes a reporting issuer (or equivalent) under applicable securities laws. The operating entity typically remains a non-reporting issuer.
1.6 How does an indirect offering differ from a direct offering?
In a conventional direct offering, interests in the operating entity are offered to the public through a public distribution of the operating entity's securities. By contrast, in an indirect offering, interests in the operating entity are not offered directly to the public but are instead acquired by a separate entity (for example, an income trust or its subsidiary). The securities of this separate entity, such as units of a trust, are offered to the public under a prospectus. The issuer applies the proceeds of the offering to satisfy the purchase price of the interests in the operating entity.
In a direct initial public offering, an issuer may choose to finance the acquisition of another business with proceeds raised under the offering. In that scenario, the issuer and the vendors of the business are generally arm's length parties. This differs from the structure of an indirect offering, such as the initial public offering by most income trusts, where the income trust and the vendors of the business are not arm's length parties.
In an indirect offering, the vendors negotiate the terms of the purchase of the business by the income trust, and are also involved in the negotiation of the terms of the public offering with the underwriter(s).
If vendors initiate or are involved in the initial public offering process, we believe that they are effectively accessing the capital markets themselves. We consider them to be non-arm's length vendors. This fact gives rise to the concerns that we describe in Part 4. Non-arm's length vendors that are involved in a follow-on offering are also effectively accessing the capital markets through an indirect offering, and the concerns that we describe in Part 4 are equally applicable.
Part 2 -- Distributable cash
2.1 What is distributable cash?
Distributable cash is a non-GAAP measure that generally refers to the net cash generated by the income trust's businesses or assets that is available for distribution, at the discretion of the income trust, to the income trust's unitholders. Some issuers have referred to this net cash available for distribution by a non-GAAP term other than distributable cash. In this policy the guidance about "distributable cash" also applies to such other non-GAAP terms used to describe the amount available for distribution to an income trust's or other indirect offering structure's securityholders (e.g. distributable income).
The cash that is available to an income trust for distribution per unit varies with the operating performance of the income trust's business or assets, its capital requirements, debt obligations and the number of units outstanding.
Income trust distributions are, for Canadian tax purposes, composed of different types of payments that are referred to as "returns on capital" or "returns of capital." These terms are also used more generally, to make an economic rather than a tax-driven distinction. The underlying concern is that the amount of cash distributed by an income trust may sometimes be greater than what it can safely distribute without eroding its productive capacity and threatening the sustainability of its distributions. In this situation, the "excess" amount of the distribution may be regarded as an economic "return of capital." We are concerned that disclosure by income trusts has not always been sufficiently plain to allow an investor to assess whether a possible concern exists in this respect.
Please refer to subsection 6.5.2 for guidance on how issuers can address these concerns.
2.2 Do income trusts provide investors with a consistent rate of return?
No. In many ways, investing in an income trust is more like an investment in an equity security rather than in a debt security. A fundamental characteristic that distinguishes income trust units from traditional fixed-income securities is that the income trust does not have a fixed obligation to make payments to investors. In other words, it has the ability to reduce or suspend distributions if circumstances warrant (see section 2.3 below for further details). In contrast to a traditional fixed-income security, the trust's ability to consistently make distributions to unitholders is closely tied to the operations of the operating entity or the performance of the income trust's assets. The performance of the operating entity may fluctuate from period to period, which might impact both the distributions paid and value of the issuer's units.
Unlike an issuer of a fixed-income security, an income trust does not promise to return the initial purchase price of the unit bought by the investor on a certain date in the future. Investors who choose to liquidate their holdings would generally do so by selling their unit(s) in the market at the prevailing market price.
In addition, unlike interest payments on an interest-bearing debt security, income trust cash distributions are, for Canadian tax purposes, composed of different types of payments (portions of which may be fully or partially taxable or may constitute tax-deferred returns of capital). The composition for tax purposes of those distributions may change over time, thus affecting the after-tax return to investors. Therefore, a unitholder's rate of return over a defined period may not be comparable to the rate of return on a fixed-income security that provides a "return on capital" over the same period. This is because a unitholder in an income trust may receive distributions that constitute a "return of capital" to some extent during the period. Returns on capital are generally taxed as ordinary income or as dividends in the hands of a unitholder. Returns of capital are generally tax-deferred (and reduce the unitholder's cost base in the unit for tax purposes).
2.3 How do the distribution policies of the income trust and the operating entity affect an investor's rate of return?
The distribution policy of the income trust generally stipulates that payments that the income trust receives from the operating entity (such as interest payments on the debt and dividends paid to common shareholders) will be distributed to unitholders. The distribution policy of the operating entity will generally stipulate that distributions to the income trust will be restricted if the operating entity breaches its covenants with third-party lenders (such as covenants requiring the operating entity to maintain specified financial ratios or to satisfy its interest and other expense obligations). Other operating entity obligations such as funding employee incentive plans or funding capital expenditures will frequently rank in priority to the operating entity's obligations to the income trust. In addition, the operating entity, or the income trust, might retain a portion of available distributable cash as a reserve. Funds in this reserve may be drawn upon to fund future distributions if distributable cash generated is below targeted amounts in any period.
2.4 What prospectus cover page disclosure do we expect about distributable cash?
To ensure that the information described in sections 2.1, 2.2 and 2.3 is adequately communicated to investors, we recommend that issuers consider including language substantively similar to the following on the prospectus cover page:
A return on your investment in • is not comparable to the return on an investment in a fixed-income security. The recovery of your initial investment is at risk, and the anticipated return on your investment is based on many performance assumptions. Although the income trust intends to make distributions of its available cash to you, these cash distributions may be reduced or suspended. The actual amount distributed will depend on numerous factors including: [insert a discussion of the principal factors particular to this specific offering that could affect the predictability of cash flow to unitholders]. In addition, the market value of the units may decline if the income trust is unable to meet its cash distribution targets in the future, and that decline may be significant.
It is important for you to consider the particular risk factors that may affect the industry in which you are investing, and therefore the stability of the distributions that you receive. See, for example, ***, under the section "Risk Factors" [insert specific cross-reference to principal factors that could affect the predictability of cash flow to unitholders]. That section also describes the issuer's assessment of those risk factors, as well as the potential consequences to you if a risk should occur.
The after-tax return from an investment in units to unitholders subject to Canadian income tax can be made up of both a return on and a return of capital. That composition may change over time, thus affecting your after-tax return. [If a forecast has been prepared, include specific disclosure about the estimated portion of the investment that will be taxed as a return on capital and the estimated portion that will be taxed as return of capital. If the issuer cannot estimate the portion that will be a return of capital, state that it is unable to reasonably estimate the return of capital on anticipated distributions, and that this amount might vary materially from period to period.] Returns on capital are generally taxed as ordinary income or as dividends in the hands of a unitholder. Returns of capital are generally tax-deferred (and reduce the unitholder's cost base in the unit for tax purposes).
2.5 What disclosure do we expect about non-GAAP financial measures such as distributable cash?
Under GAAP, an income trust must disclose the cash distributed to unitholders in its financial statements. In addition to GAAP disclosure, income trusts generally also include disclosure about historical distributable cash figures in continuous disclosure documents and estimated distributable cash in their prospectuses. Because distributable cash is a non-GAAP financial measure, an income trust's distributable cash disclosure should include a reconciliation to the most directly comparable measure calculated in accordance with GAAP.
We have concluded that distributable cash is a cash flow measure, not an income measure. Therefore, distributable cash is fairly presented only when reconciled to cash flows from operating activities as presented in the income trust's financial statements. For clarity, cash flows from operating activities includes changes during the period in non-cash working capital balances.
Issuers should define any non-GAAP financial measure and explain its relevance to ensure it does not mislead investors. Issuers presenting non-GAAP financial measures should present those measures on a consistent basis from period to period. Specifically, in respect of distributable cash, income trusts should:
(i) state explicitly that distributable cash does not have any standardized meaning prescribed by GAAP and is therefore unlikely to be comparable to similar measures presented by other issuers;
(ii) present cash flows from operating activities with equal or greater prominence than distributable cash;
(iii) explain why distributable cash provides useful information to investors and how management uses distributable cash as a financial measure;
(iv) provide a clear quantitative reconciliation from distributable cash to cash flows from operating activities, and refer to the reconciliation where distributable cash first appears in the disclosure document; and
(v) explain any changes in the composition of distributable cash when compared to previously disclosed measures.
2.6 What are our expectations about the format of the distributable cash reconciliation?
When presenting a reconciliation of distributable cash, income trusts should discuss any adjustments included in the reconciliation and these adjustments should be grouped separately based on the nature of the adjustment. In addition, income trusts should avoid the use of non-GAAP income measures in the reconciliation of distributable cash. For example, it is inappropriate to include non-GAAP measures such as EBITDA, Adjusted EBITDA, and Pro Forma Net Income in the distributable cash reconciliation.
An issuer might group adjustments to cash flows from operating activities included in a reconciliation of distributable cash as follows:
a. Capital adjustments -- Adjustments for capital expenditures, whether to maintain productive capacity of the issuer or otherwise, should be included here and may be based on actual capital expenditures. An issuer that does not intend to maintain productive capacity (for example, in the case of depleting assets) should clearly state this in its distributable cash reconciliation.
Other examples of adjustments that might be included in this section include provisions for maintaining or replacing mineral reserves.
An issuer may include within this grouping a sub-total of cash flows from operating activities after deducting capital expenditures incurred during the period.
b. Non-recurring adjustments -- Generally, an item is considered non-recurring if a similar charge or gain is not reasonably likely to occur within the next two years or if it has not occurred during the prior two years. An example of a non-recurring item is a payment in connection with litigation or a penalty that was levied in the current year and is not expected to be incurred going forward.
c. Other adjustments including discretionary items -- We recognize that, in limited circumstances, certain adjustments may not properly be classified as non-recurring or capital adjustments. Some examples of such adjustments include amounts for asset retirement obligations or external restrictions imposed on the issuer that limit their ability to pay distributions. Where an adjustment is discretionary in nature, we expect income trusts to clearly explain the basis for inclusion of the adjustment and any underlying assumptions which are being relied upon.
2.7 What disclosure do we expect about the adjustments and assumptions underlying distributable cash?
Income trusts should consider how best to provide transparency about the presentation of each adjusting item included in a reconciliation of distributable cash, including a discussion of the work that was done by the issuer to ensure the completeness and reasonableness of the information.
Generally, to achieve acceptable transparency, the reconciliation of distributable cash to cash flows from operating activities should be accompanied by detailed disclosure that:
(i) explains the purpose and relevance of the distributable cash information;
(ii) describes the extent to which actual financial results are incorporated into the reconciliation;
(iii) explicitly states that the reconciliation has been prepared using reasonable and supportable assumptions, all of which reflect the income trust's planned courses of action given management's judgment about the most probable set of economic conditions; and
(iv) cautions investors that actual results may vary, perhaps materially, from the forward-looking adjustments.
Further adjustments made in the reconciliation of distributable cash to cash flows from operating activities should be supported by:
(i) a detailed discussion of the nature of the adjustments;
(ii) a description of the underlying assumptions used in preparing each element of the forward-looking information and the forward-looking information as a whole, including how those assumptions are supported; and
(iii) a discussion of the specific risks and uncertainties that may affect each individual assumption and that may cause actual results to differ materially from the distributable cash figure.
For assumptions to be supportable, they should take into account the past performance of the underlying operating entity, the performance of other entities engaged in similar activities, and any other sources that provide objective corroboration of the assumptions used. Further, for assumptions to be considered reasonable, we believe that they should be consistent with the anticipated plans of the income trust.
In some circumstances, assumptions may be consistent with the issuer's anticipated plans but may not provide an adequate level of transparency about the sustainability of distributable cash. It is important for income trusts to disclose all factors, events or conditions that are likely to occur in the future that may impact the sustainability of future distributions.
For example, capital expenditures to replace productive capacity may be relatively low in initial years but may rise significantly in later years. In these instances, adequate disclosure of the adjustment for estimated future capital maintenance expenditures might include a discussion of the time period over which the income trust anticipates incurring capital maintenance expenditures at the level disclosed and any expected long-term plans to replace productive capacity. A clear and complete explanation should be provided of the reasons why these provisions will be adequate to cover future capital requirements and why these amounts vary from historical amounts, if applicable.
Another example of providing adequate transparency about the sustainability of distributable cash relates to instances where an issuer makes prior arrangements with investors. For example, for some income trusts, the original vendors' entitlement to cash distributions based on their continuing interest is subordinated to that of other investors. The original vendors will not receive cash distributions for a defined period of time if the estimated level of distributable cash disclosed in the prospectus is not achieved. Distributable cash available for distribution to other investors may be higher in the short term while cash distributions are not paid to the original vendors, but may decrease once the subordination conditions are satisfied. In these instances, the key terms and impact of these arrangements should be summarized in proximity to the distributable cash information.
2.8 When should the estimate of distributable cash be derived from a forecast?
If estimated distributable cash information contained in a prospectus includes forward-looking adjustments that are based on significant assumptions, as defined in the CICA Handbook, and those adjustments materially affect estimated distributable cash, the quantitative reconciliation should begin with cash flows from operating activities derived from a forecast prepared in accordance with CICA Handbook section 4250 -- Future-Oriented Financial Information (S.4250 forecast). These forward-looking adjustments should be integrated into the S.4250 forecast, and the S.4250 forecast should be included in the prospectus.
A S.4250 forecast may not be necessary if the adjusting items are derived from historical amounts and the adjusting items can be adequately explained by alternative disclosures. Alternative disclosures may include:
(i) historical financial statements that support the adjustments. In some cases, a recent acquisition may not be considered significant under the significant acquisition tests set out in OSC Rule 41-501 General Prospectus Requirements (Rule 41-501) (or its successor) or the equivalent rule in the applicable jurisdiction for purposes of providing financial statements of the acquired entity. However, the acquisition's anticipated impact on distributable cash may be material. In these case |