Upcoming income trust tax changes expected to increase M&A

Stikeman Elliott lawyer Simon Romano recently discussed the anticipated conversions of income trusts due to the impending tax changes on the Business News Network program Market Call. Once effective, the tax changes will essentially eliminate the comparative advantage of the income trust structure but for a narrow exemption for certain "qualifying" REITs. According to Mr. Romano, as the date for the upcoming tax changes approaches, "I think the pressure will mount to either sell yourself, convert, or decide, for all the reasons that make sense to you, to stay where you are in the status quo."

For more information on the options for income trust conversions and the upcoming tax changes, effective on January 1, 2011, see our 2010 Income Trust Conversion Guide.

Income trust conversion survey published

A Harris/Decima survey of Canadian income trust executives was published today, revealing that 84% of trust executives expect that conversion to a corporation will trigger a reduction in distributions/dividends currently paid to investors. The survey, conducted on behalf of BarnesMcInerney Inc., Stikeman Elliott LLP and Computershare/Georgeson, surveyed 82 income fund executives during November/December 2009 in anticipation of legislation scheduled to come into effect on January 1, 2011 that will affect the tax advantage currently enjoyed by the approximately 165 income trusts currently operating in Canada. Andrew Willis discusses the survey and the hard decisions facing income trusts in today's Globe and Mail, stating that "[t]he overarching theme for trusts CEOs is that the coming year will mean walking a tightrope." According to Stikeman Elliott partner Simon Romano, quoted in Mr. Willis' article, "[i]n directing trust conversions, boards will have to select a dividend policy which will typically be based on a mix of factors, including expected free cash flow, tax pool availability, a balancing of where the company wants to fit on the growth vs. steady-state continuum, and the nature of the shareholder base."

For more information on conversions, see our Income Trust Conversion Guide, updated for 2010.

Revised Income Trust Conversion Guide published

Stikeman Elliott has recently published the 2010 edition of the Income Trust Conversion Guide From taxation and securities law to employment and corporate governance matters, this concise publication identifies key legal issues that an income trust will need to consider as it embarks on the process of converting to corporate form.

Download a copy here.

Income trust conversions: dealing with retained interests

Income trusts have played a relatively unique role in Canadian capital markets over the last few years and, with the recent changes to their tax treatment and the proposed "conversion" rules, they promise to do so for at least another few years. The following excerpt from our Income Trust Conversion Guide discusses the issue of retained interests.

Update: A revised 2010 version of the Guide has now been published. Download a copy here.

Dealing with a Retained Interest

Many income trusts feature “retained interests”; i.e., individual equity interests held by the pre-IPO owners of the underlying business of the trust. These retained interests are, for tax (and other) reasons, often held at a different structural level than the public (i.e., often directly in the underlying operating business), are usually exchangeable for units of the trust, and often carry voting rights at the trust level on an “as exchanged” basis. The retained interests also frequently have substantial governance rights and protections, including veto rights over certain kinds of transactions by the trust.

Many retained interests are “subordinated” in priority of distributions to the public, and generally cannot be exchanged for trust units during the period of subordination. The subordination typically continues for a specified period of time, and may in certain cases also require that certain cash distribution and/or other performance measures be met by the trust before subordination can be lifted. Note that the specific subordination provisions of each particular trust, if any, need to be carefully considered, as they vary from trust to trust.

Given the foregoing, a trust with a retained interest raises a number of issues that would need to be addressed by any conversion to corporate form, including:

  • Whether the retained interest is also to be “converted”, and if so, at what ratio?

    • If the retained interest is subordinated, and the tests for lifting the subordination have not yet been satisfied, then a conversion of the retained interest may disadvantage either the unitholders, who would presumably be diluted by a full conversion of the retained interest, or the retained interest holder, who could potentially lose the ability to meet the test for lifting the subordination.
       
    • If the retained interest is not converted, then in addition to the structural complications, the tax impact of the conversion of the trust to a corporate form could, if it reduced the future cash available for distribution by the (post-conversion) corporation, negatively impact the retained interest holder by reducing the distributions payable to the former unitholders and potentially making it more difficult for the retained interest holder to meet the applicable performance targets for lifting the subordination. This might have “value” effects that would preclude the Exchange Method and require the Distribution Method.
       
    • The impact of the conversion transaction on the retained interest holder could potentially give rise to “minority approval” requirements if the retained interest holder, in effect, gains a benefit under the conversion relative to its pre-conversion position.
       
  • What, if any, governance rights the retained interest holder will continue to enjoy following the conversion.

    • A retained interest holder frequently enjoys trustee nomination rights, as well as veto rights over significant transactions. Any conversion transaction would need to consider if these rights would continue post-conversion.
       
    • In the Exchange Method, given the “equal value” and one share class limits, query whether security holder agreements could be kept in place, or if not then put in place contemporaneously with a conversion into corporate form.

TSX provides guidance on securityholder rights plans and special year-end distributions by trusts

On November 24, 2008, the TSX published a staff notice to provide guidance on (i) the adoption by listed issuers of securityholder rights plans with triggering thresholds of less than 20% and (ii) special year-end distributions by trusts.

Income Trust Conversion Guide published

Stikeman Elliott has published the Income Trust Conversion Guide, which carefully reviews the options open to Canada's income trusts, with special attention to the federal government's proposed Specified Investment Flow-Through (SIFT) rules, which may facilitate tax-free conversion and acquisitions.

Please note - The 2010 edition has now been published. Download a copy here.

Minister of Finance releases rules for income trust conversions

John Lorito, Simon Romano, Jeffrey Singer and Joel Binder | Version française

On July 14, 2008 the Minister of Finance released draft legislative proposals that implement certain measures from the 2008 federal Budget together with certain previously announced tax changes, including certain proposals to amend the rules relating to specified investment flow-through (SIFT) trusts and partnerships that were announced in December 2007.

In addition, the proposals contain the rules for allowing a SIFT trust to convert into a publicly traded corporation without adverse consequences for the trust or its unitholders. The SIFT conversion rules generally allow the unitholders of a SIFT trust to transfer their units of the trust to a corporation in exchange for shares of the corporation on a tax deferred basis.  While such a transfer is possible under the current rules in the Income Tax Act, the new rules allow this tax deferred transfer to be effected without the need for a joint election to be filed by the unitholder and the corporation.  In addition, the new rules will allow the trust and its subsidiary trusts to be subsequently wound up into the corporation without adverse tax consequences and will permit the flow-through of certain tax attributes of the trust and its subsidiary trusts to the corporation.  Alternatively, a SIFT trust (or a subsidiary trust of a SIFT trust) whose only asset is shares of a taxable Canadian corporation may wind-up and distribute the shares of the corporation to its beneficiaries on a tax deferred basis.

The SIFT conversion rules will apply to conversions that are effected after July 14, 2008 and before 2013 and, on election, may also apply to conversions occurring after December 20, 2007 and prior to July 14, 2008.

Update: See our recent post regarding our Income Trust Conversion Guide.

CSA Releases Staff Notice 41-304 Requiring Enhanced Disclosure of Estimated Distributable Cash

On Friday, August 26, the Canadian Securities Administrators (CSA) issued Staff Notice 41-304 - Income trusts: prospectus disclosure of distributable cash. The Notice is intended to provide additional guidance on the CSA's expectations about the nature and extent of estimated distributable cash disclosure in prospectuses.

Most income trust issuers present information about estimated distributable cash (or distributable income) in their prospectuses, as this often forms the basis upon which an income trust is valued in connection with its initial public offering.  These estimates are usually based on trailing 12-month net income, adjusted for interest expenses, taxes, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA). EBITDA is usually further adjusted for certain additional items, ranging from non-recurring historical items to normalizing the effect of a recent or prospective acquisition, in order to arrive at distributable cash. The specific adjustments, as well as the level of explanatory disclosure provided in prospectuses concerning these various adjustments, generally vary from issuer to issuer.

Staff Notice 41-304 reflects the CSA's prospectus disclosure expectations in response to their concern that prospective income fund investors are not always being provided with adequate disclosure of the significant estimates and assumptions underlying the reconciling distributable cash or income adjustments. The Notice also addresses Staff's concerns about adjustments that are based on the expected economic effect of anticipated future events.

Adjusted EBITDA - A Forward-Looking Perspective

Staff Notice 41-304 makes clear Staff's view that any reconciling adjustment based on the expected economic effects of anticipated future events provides a "forward-looking perspective," and therefore raises many of the same issues that have concerned Staff with other forms of future-oriented financial information (FOFI). The Staff Notice seems to implicitly recognize a distinction, however, between a "forward-looking perspective" and FOFI; the former requiring enhanced disclosure in the prospectus from what has heretofore generally been provided, and the latter necessitating the inclusion of a forecast in accordance with National Policy 48 - Future-oriented financial information.

With Staff Notice 41-304, the CSA's aim is to provide prospective investors with sufficient disclosure to allow them to determine whether the adjustments used by management in arriving at estimated distributable cash represent a balanced and complete assessment of all factors affecting estimated distributable cash. To this end, the CSA expects the presentation of estimated distributable cash to include a discussion of (among other things):

  • the work that was done by the issuer to ensure the completeness and reasonableness of the estimated distributable cash information;

  • the nature of the adjustments, including a description of the underlying assumptions used in preparing each element of the forward-looking information as well as the forward-looking information as a whole, including how those assumptions are supported; and

  • the specific risks and uncertainties that may affect each individual assumption and that may cause actual results to differ materially from the estimated distributable cash figure; general cautionary language accompanying the estimated distributable cash presentation, that "actual results may vary materially from the amounts presented", will be considered insufficient.

While we have noticed a trend over the past year towards requiring such enhanced disclosure, it is our expectation that in the future the CSA will require far greater disclosure of the underlying assumptions, how they are supported and the particular risks affecting them, than in most recent filings.  Staff has noted that it expects objective corroboration of the assumptions used in the distributable cash presentation. In many circumstances, providing such a level of disclosure should not be problematic; however, in other circumstances it may require specificity at a level that raises concerns over disclosure of competitively sensitive strategies, programs, contractual terms, and pricing and cost structures.

When FOFI Requires a Forecast

If (A) the estimated distributable cash information includes forward-looking adjustments that are based on "significant assumptions," and (B) those adjustments materially affect estimated distributable cash, then Staff expects that a forecast be prepared in accordance with CICA Handbook Section 4250 - Future-oriented financial information and included in the income trust's prospectus.

According to Section 4250, an assumption would usually be considered significant when:

  • it reflects an expectation of economic conditions significantly different from those currently prevailing;

  • there is a relatively high probability of a sizeable variation; or

  • a small change in the assumption would have a significant impact on the forward-looking information.

The above definition, which is imported into the Staff Notice by reference, arguably sets a fairly high bar that, when combined with the second test (i.e., that the particular significant assumption materially affect estimated distributable cash), will likely provide most issuers with a safe harbour from the requirement to prepare a Section 4250 Forecast.

Aside from the time and expense involved in the preparation of a Section 4250 Forecast, and the attendant future disclosure obligations that result from providing one, most issuers and their professional advisors are reluctant to include a Section 4250 Forecast in a prospectus due to a general perception that it creates greater potential for liability.  Moreover, because many accounting firms have recently been interpreting the audit guidelines relating to the preparation of financial forecasts (examination of a financial forecast or projection included in a prospectus or other public offering documents) conservatively, issuers may find it difficult to engage a professional auditing firm to examine the required financial forecast.
 

Compendium

CSA Staff Notice 41-304 makes it clear that, at the very least, significantly enhanced and detailed disclosure of the adjustments used to arrive at estimated distributable cash will be required in prospectuses. Although in certain circumstances such disclosure may necessitate the preparation of a Section 4250 Forecast, even where a forecast is not required, the specificity and objective corroboration required by such enhanced disclosure may require issuers to disclose competitively sensitive strategies, programs, contractual terms, pricing and cost structures.

In situations where issuers anticipate making reconciling adjustments to estimated distributable cash that may necessitate a Section 4250 Forecast, issuers will need to work closely with their professional advisors in order to determine if such a forecast can be prepared. We would expect that issuers may find it increasingly difficult to include Section 4250 Forecasts in their prospectuses, and as a result creative alternative structures (e.g., "earn-ins" or "reverse grinds") will likely be employed to deliver to issuers and their sponsors the appropriate level of value.