Proposed OSC Policy 51-604 provides guidance on how the OSC interprets the defence to misrepresentations in forward-looking information under the newly enacted civil liability provisions of the Securities Act (Ontario).
Amendments to the Securities Act (Ontario) (the "Securities Act") that came into force December 31, 2005 (the "Bill 198 Amendments") now allow secondary market purchasers to assert a new statutory cause of action for misrepresentations contained in public documents and public oral statements. Along with these newly created causes of action, the Bill 198 Amendments also make available certain statutory defences, including a defence for misrepresentations contained in forward-looking information (the "forward-looking information defence") included in either a document or a public oral statement.
The purpose of proposed OSC Policy 61-504 Defence for Misrepresentations in Forward-Looking Information (the "Draft Policy") is to express the views of the Ontario Securities Commission (the "OSC") on the policy considerations underlying the forward-looking information defence and to explain how the OSC interprets certain aspects of this defence. It includes guidance on satisfying the requirement to present cautionary language "proximate" to the forward-looking information which it qualifies and on application of the materiality thresholds that qualify the risk factors and assumptions that are to be disclosed. While issuers may have hoped for more detailed direction on how the technical elements of the defence are to be applied, the Draft Policy does provide valuable insight into the underlying objectives of the defence and is welcome guidance for all those dealing with disclosure compliance under Ontario’s new secondary market liability regime. The Draft Policy is open for comments until August 2, 2006.
Background
Forward-looking information is defined under the Securities Act as "disclosure regarding possible events, conditions or results that is based on assumptions about future economic conditions and courses of action and includes future oriented financial information with respect to prospective results of operations, financial position or cash flows that is presented as either a forecast or a projection."
To rely on the forward-looking information defence, the document or public oral statement in question is required to contain, "proximate" to the forward-looking information:
- reasonable cautionary language identifying the forward-looking information and the material factors (risk factors) that could cause actual results to differ from a conclusion, forecast or projection contained in it; and
- a statement of the material factors or assumptions that were applied in drawing a conclusion or making a forecast.
For public oral statements a person is deemed to have satisfied these requirements if he or she states that (i) the oral statement contains forward-looking information, (ii) actual results could differ materially from what is expected, (iii) certain factors or assumptions were applied in arriving at the forward-looking information, and (iv) that additional information about the material factors or assumptions that were applied in arriving at the forward-looking information and the material risk factors that may affect actual results is contained in a readily-available document. This means a document that is filed with the OSC or otherwise generally disclosed must contain the required cautionary statements and be identified for further reference. As well, to satisfy the forward-looking information defence for both documents and public oral statements, the person or company must have a reasonable basis for drawing the conclusions or making the forecasts or projections contained in the forward-looking information.
What the OSC says about the Defence
Recognizing that forward-looking information is both valuable and necessary "yet by its very nature carries a level of uncertainty," the Draft Policy states that the objective behind the forward-looking information defence is to avoid a "disclosure chill" on account of the risk of liability, while facilitating balanced and responsible disclosure about future prospects. The need for the OSC to provide clarification arises from the concern and confusion caused in the market by the specter of secondary market liability together with the technical aspects of the forward-looking information defence.
These technical aspects include the requirement that the cautionary language required to satisfy the defence be presented proximate to the forward-looking information itself and include a statement of both the relevant risk factors and the underlying assumptions. Depending on how these elements of the defence are interpreted and applied, it has the potential of rendering a disclosure document confusing, unwieldy and potentially of little use in conveying what is sought to be communicated to the reader.
In the Draft Policy, the OSC explains that it does not interpret the term "proximate" to require immediate juxtaposition of the cautionary language in every instance and where a disclosure document contains various threads of forward-looking information that are subject to common assumptions and risk factors, the proximity requirement may generally be satisfied by adding the required cautionary language either before or after the disclosure containing these threads. The OSC has also clarified that where particular assumptions and risk factors apply equally to multiple instances of forward-looking information, issuers should use their judgment in making cross-references to cautionary language in a manner that supports the principle underling the forward-looking information defence (namely, that an investor reading or hearing the information should be able to identify the forward-looking information, understand that it is being provided and be informed of the material assumptions and risk factors underlying or associated with it). In the OSC’s view, these principles suggest that the more closely tied a particular risk factor or assumption is to a particular conclusion, forecast or projection, the more "proximate" it should be to the forward-looking information.
The OSC has also stated that in its view the reference to "material" risk factors requires the disclosure of only "significant and reasonably foreseeable" risk factors and does not require the issuer to anticipate and discuss every risk factor that could conceivably cause actual results to differ from expectations. Similarly, the requirement to state the assumptions underlying the forward-looking information is also subject to a materiality standard and does not require an exhaustive statement of every factor or assumption applied.
To satisfy the forward-looking information defence the person or company must also have a reasonable basis for drawing the conclusion or making the forecasts or projections contained in the forward-looking information. The OSC believes that the reasonableness of assumptions applied, inquiries made and the process followed in preparing and reviewing the information are all factors to be considered in determining what is a "reasonable basis" for this purpose.
With respect to the defence for misrepresentations in forward-looking information contained in public oral statements, the OSC states that the requirement that the person making the oral statement also make certain required cautionary statements (in order to be deemed to have satisfied the forward-looking information defence) should be interpreted pragmatically and is not meant to be exhaustive. This means, for example, that in appropriate circumstances these cautionary statements may be made by one person on behalf of another person who actually makes the statement containing the forward-looking information. Finally, the OSC has also expressed its view that it does not interpret the forward-looking information defence to impose a duty to update such information beyond what is currently required under Ontario securities law or otherwise.
The Draft Policy cautions that the guidance contained in it represents the views of the OSC only, which do not have the force of law. Notwithstanding this proviso, given the historic deference that courts have shown towards the OSC as a specialized regulatory body, the OSC’s interpretation would conceivably be persuasive if not compelling before a court of law.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.