You are here:
NZLII >>
Databases >>
New Zealand Securities Commission >>
2002 >>
[2002] NZSecCom 9
Database Search
| Name Search
| Recent Documents
| Noteup
| LawCite
| Download
| Help
A Report on aspects of the initial public offering of Wakefield Hospital Limited in 2001 [2002] NZSecCom 9 (7 August 2002)
Last Updated: 7 November 2014
A Report on Aspects of the Initial Public Offering of
Wakefield Hospital Limited in 2001
7 August 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Securities
Commission
12th Floor, Reserve Bank Building
2 The Terrace
PO Box
1179
Wellington
GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS
"ACC"
|
Accident Compensation Corporation
|
|
"BF"
|
Buddle Findlay
|
|
"CCDHB"
|
Capital Coast District Health Board (previously constituted as Capital
Coast Health Limited ("CCH"))
|
|
"FB"
|
Forsyth Barr Limited & Forsyth Barr Frater Williams Limited
|
|
"FRS-29"
|
Financial Reporting Standard 29: Prospective Financial Information, issued
by the Financial Reporting Standards Board of the Institute
of Chartered
Accountants in New Zealand
|
|
"GAAP"
|
Generally accepted accounting practice in New Zealand.
|
|
"HAC"
|
The Hospital Advisory Committee of CCDHB
|
|
"IPO"
|
Initial public offering
|
|
"MSP"
|
Market Surveillance Panel of the New Zealand Stock Exchange
|
|
"NZSE"
|
The New Zealand Stock Exchange
|
|
"Offer Document"
|
The combined investment statement and registered prospectus of Wakefield
Hospital Limited dated 6 August 2001.
|
|
"PwC"
|
PricewaterhouseCoopers
|
|
"WHL"
|
Wakefield Hospital Limited, a public company, and its subsidiary.
|
SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS
- This
is a report on a review by the Securities Commission of aspects of the initial
public offering of shares (IPO) in Wakefield Hospital
Limited (WHL), a company
incorporated in New Zealand.
- The
Commission has considered three broad questions in its review:
- whether
the offer document for WHL's IPO adequately described the risk factors
associated with the share offer;
- whether
the prospective financial information in the offer document properly set out the
principal assumptions on which it was based;
and
- the
process followed by the directors of WHL in preparing for the IPO.
- The
Commission has formed the view that:
- the
offer document for the IPO was misleading because it failed to adequately
describe the risks faced by WHL relating to subcontracting
of publicly funded
cardiac surgery;
- the
prospective financial information in the offer document was misleading because
it failed to state that the prospective financial
information was based in part
on an assumption that WHL would receive significant revenue from publicly funded
cardiac surgery in
the 2001/02 financial year;
- the
prospective financial information was, by the date of allotment of shares
following the IPO, also likely to mislead investors
because it was presented as
a forecast when, by that date, a significant assumption underlying that
information was more properly
described as a hypothetical rather than a
"best-estimate" assumption;
- the
directors of WHL did not undertake adequate financial due diligence to examine
the risks and uncertainties concerning publicly
funded cardiac surgery
underlying the prospective financial information, in order to ensure that the
offer document properly informed
investors of:
- the key risk
factor in this regard;
- the basis for
the business judgement they had made in relation to that key risk factor, and
how that judgement affected the prospective
financial information.
The inadequacy of the financial due diligence
process may have contributed to the misleading nature of the offer document;
- in
preparing the offer document, and at the time of allotment of shares, the
directors of WHL held an honest but mistaken belief that
subcontracting with
Capital and Coast District Health Board (CCDHB) for the provision of publicly
funded cardiac surgery would re-commence
in the 2001/02 year. The directors of
WHL believed that the risk statements and assumptions were not misleading by
reason of omitting
references to the risks associated with the contracting
situation with CCDHB.
BACKGROUND TO THIS REPORT
- WHL
made an offer of shares to the public in a combined investment statement and
registered prospectus dated 6 August 2001 (the "offer
document"). Following the
IPO, the shares were allotted on 5 September 2001 and WHL listed on the New
Zealand Stock Exchange on 6
September 2001.
- Just
over 2 months later, on 16 November 2001, WHL announced its half-year results
for the period from 1 April 2001 to 30 September
2001. The results showed a
profit after tax that was about 60% lower than the previous year. The company
attributed this to:
"a reduced amount of cardiac surgery done
under contract to public sector healthcare organisations".
- At
the same time the Chairman of the company, Mr John Calder, released a statement
saying that WHL's "full-year earnings are likely to be about 50% of the
profit forecast when the company floated".
- On
17 December 2001 the Market Surveillance Panel announced the outcome of an
investigation into compliance by WHL with the continuous
disclosure obligations
of the NZSE Listing Rules. The Market Surveillance Panel's investigation looked
at the period between the
release of the offer document on 6 August 2001 and the
announcement by WHL on 16 November 2001 of its half-year results.
- The
Market Surveillance Panel concluded that WHL had inadvertently breached Listing
Rule 10.1 in failing to make timely disclosure
of relevant information to the
market, namely a known decline in publicly funded cardiac surgery. WHL accepted
the Panel's findings.
- In
addition to its formal findings the Panel's decision concluded:
"The Panel's investigation necessarily involved some
consideration of the soundness of the Prospectus forecasts themselves. The
determination
of this matter does not fall within the jurisdiction of the Panel,
but it will be referring this question to the Securities Commission
for its
consideration"
- The
matter was referred to the Securities Commission on 17 December 2001.
THE COMMISSION'S REVIEW
- In
early 2002 the Commission decided to conduct a review of WHL's public share
offer and offer document. This review has been carried
out under section 10(c)
of the Securities Act 1978, which provides that it is a function of the
Commission to "keep under review practices relating to securities, and to
comment thereon to any appropriate body".
- Terms
of Reference for this review were settled on 12 March 2002. The Terms of
Reference are set out in Appendix A.
- The
Commission's review focussed on the matters set out in paragraph 2.
- The
Commission considers that the matters under review raise issues of securities
law and practice upon which it is appropriate for
the Commission to comment. The
Commission has decided to comment by way of this report.
- This
report has been prepared by a quorum of Commission Members comprising Jane
Diplock (Chairman), Colin Beyer, Falcon Clouston,
Annabel Cotton, Elizabeth
Hickey, and Lloyd Kavanagh. The Commission was assisted by counsel.
Procedure
- The
Commission determined the procedures for this review. The Commission heard
evidence from the following:
- Mr John Calder,
Chairman of the Board of WHL, Orthopaedic Surgeon;
- Mr Richard
Barnes, General Manager and Director of WHL;
- Mr John Aburn,
Director of WHL;
- Mr Michael
Morris, Director of WHL;
- Mr Andrew
Carpenter, Finance and Administration Manager of WHL;
- Mr John Riordan,
cardiothoracic surgeon, Alternate Director of WHL until July 2001 (and
thereafter User Representative at Board meetings);
Clinical Leader
Cardiothoracic Unit, CCDHB.
- Ms Margot Mains,
Chief Executive Officer, CCDHB;
- Ms Elizabeth
McLean, Business Manager, CCDHB;
- Ms Louise
McKenzie, Legal Adviser, CCDHB;
- The
Commission received affidavit evidence from Mr Bruce Wattie, a partner at
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).
- In
addition the Commission received documents and information from:
- Buddle Findlay,
Barristers & Solicitors;
- PricewaterhouseCoopers,
Chartered Accountants;
- Forsyth Barr
Limited & Forsyth Barr Frater Williams Limited, Members of the NZSE;
- Horsley
Christie, Solicitors.
- Confidentiality
Orders were in place throughout the review. WHL was represented by counsel
throughout the hearing of evidence. No
right of cross- examination was afforded.
Documentary evidence considered by the Commission was provided to WHL. Oral
evidence was
recorded, and transcripts provided to WHL.
- After
receiving evidence the Commission prepared a confidential consultative report
and invited comment from affected parties. These
parties were given a full
opportunity to respond with submissions and to provide further evidence to the
Commission. In addition
to considering written submissions on behalf of WHL, the
Commission re-convened to hear oral submissions from WHL's counsel.
- The
Commission has carefully considered all evidence and submissions before
publishing this report.
THE BUSINESS OF WHL - CARDIAC
SURGERY
- WHL
operates Wakefield Hospital, a private hospital in Wellington. WHL was
incorporated in 1988 by a consortium of medical specialists
to purchase the
Wellcare Hospital. WHL provides specialist surgical and medical services. It
provides these services to private patients
and, under contract, to regional and
government agencies.
- One
such specialist area is cardiac procedures. These comprise both cardiology and
cardiothoracic surgery. The offer document recorded
that cardiac procedures
generated "a significant portion" of WHL's revenue in the 2000/01 financial
year, and disclosed that 44%
of WHL's revenue in 2000/2001 came from cardiac
procedures. In the 1999/2000 year these procedures provided almost 50% of
clinical
revenues.
- This
report is concerned with WHL's contracting arrangements for the provision of
cardiothoracic surgery to CCDHB. This does not include
cardiology.
Cardiothoracic surgery refers to both heart surgery and thoracic surgery. In
this report the term "cardiac surgery" is
used as a generic term to refer to any
cardiac or thoracic surgery (but not cardiology). No distinction is made by WHL
between cardiac
surgery and thoracic surgery for accounting and reporting
purposes.
- The
offer document for the IPO described WHL as the sole private provider of
facilities for cardiac surgery in the central New Zealand
region. According to
the offer document, 35-45% of cardiac surgery in this region was performed at
Wakefield Hospital. Fees from
cardiac surgery have made up a significant part of
the revenue of WHL since 1999.
- Since
February 1999 surgeons at Wakefield Hospital have carried out cardiac surgery
both for private patients and for patients referred
to WHL for treatment by
CCDHB (and its predecessor agency, Capital Coast Health Limited, a Hospital and
Health Service). Cardiac
surgery provided on referral from CCDHB is described in
this report as "publicly funded cardiac surgery".
- The
role of district health boards is set out in the New Zealand Health Strategy
2000 (NZHS), as follows:
"District Health Boards will carry out
health needs assessment with their local communities"
"District Health Boards will agree on the specific areas on which they
will focus in funding agreements entered into with the Minister
of Health. Those
funding agreements will contain clear, measurable performance indicators that
will allow progress to be measured."
"District Health Boards' strategic plans will have to be consistent with
the New Zealand Health Strategy..."
- The
NZHS identifies priority health and service delivery objectives, and states
that:
"These priorities will provide a direction for action on
health. Selecting priorities ... does mean increased emphasis will be placed
on
action on these priorities over time: an evolutionary rather than revolutionary
process. The importance of these priorities will
be recognised in ... the
Minister of Health's funding agreements with District Health Boards, and
District Health Boards' funding
agreements with providers."
- In
setting its annual plans CCDHB must have regard to the Government's objectives
set out in the NZHS. The NZHS identified the reduction
of the incidence and
impact of cardiovascular disease as a health priority. This strategy also
stated, as a key priority in the area
of service delivery, that "District
Health Boards will need to place priority on reducing elective waiting
times...". Key objectives for access to elective services are:
- a maximum
waiting time of 6 months for first specialist assessment;
- a maximum
waiting time for surgery of 6 months for patients who are offered publicly
funded treatment; and
- delivery of a
level of publicly funded service which is sufficient to ensure access to
elective surgery before patients reach a state
of unreasonable distress, ill
health, and/or incapacity.
- The
NZHS also identified strategies for district health boards to achieve the
objectives for access to elective services, including:
- increasing the
supply of elective services.
- improving the
capacity of public hospitals.
- It
is in the context of these performance and accountability arrangements that
CCDHB contracted with WHL to perform various medical
and surgical services.
While CCDHB had adopted the objective to provide all its cardiac surgery
"in-house" from 30 June 2001 (as
stated in its 2000/2001 Business Plan), it also
subcontracted cardiac surgery to WHL during 2000/2001. This was required in this
period to overcome limitations in the operational capacity of its own hospitals.
- Mr
John Riordan is a cardiothoracic surgeon who provides surgical services to both
CCDHB and WHL. He was also an alternate director
of WHL until mid-July 2001,
when he resigned as a director. Mr Riordan told the Commission that CCDHB and
its predecessors viewed
the ability to contract out surgery as "a great
facilitator" for helping to reduce waiting lists, and to ensure that the
district
health board would secure future funding for similar levels of cardiac
surgery.
- The
Commission was informed that publicly funded cardiac surgery accounted for
around 15% of clinical revenues of WHL in 2000/01.
Since 1999 the number of
publicly funded cardiac cases had grown steadily (1999: 24; 2000: 168; 2001:
254).
The Agreements with CCDHB
- Prior
to 2000 cardiac services were provided by WHL to Capital Coast Health Limited
(CCH) under a series of individual agreements.
In January 2000 WHL and CCH
settled an agreement called "Contract for the Purchase and Provision of
Health Services and Supplies for the Period Beginning 1 September 1999". The
introduction to this agreement set out that:
- CCH was
contracted by the Health Funding Authority to provide medical services;
- CCH was entitled
to sub-contract for the provision of those services under certain circumstances;
- WHL had agreed
to provide a range of these services on behalf of CCH "as specified from time
to time in the Second Schedule (if any)";
- the parties were
entering into the agreement "to record the terms upon which the services will
be provided with the intention that the agreement would continue so long as
there
are services to be provided and contained in the Schedules hereto, as
replaced, added to, or varied from time to time".
- The
agreement set out a framework for the provision of services (and payment for
those). This agreement expressly stated that it did
not commit either CCH or WHL
to provide any services or pay any money except as set out in Schedules to the
agreement, which could
be amended from time to time.
- When
this agreement was signed in January 2000 it had a Schedule that referred to
cardiothoracic surgery. In this Schedule CCH estimated
that it would need to
purchase around 20 cardiothoracic procedures per month from WHL until the end of
June 2000 in order to meet
obligations to the Health Funding Authority. The
Schedule set out the various procedures that WHL might perform and the prices at
which this work would be done. The agreement recorded in this Schedule expired
in June 2000. A second part of this Schedule was added
in April 2000, covering
the provision of services for more complex cases.
- The
1999/2000 Schedule was rolled over for the 2000/2001 financial year, with
periodic amendments to the terms and conditions of the
Schedule for the
continued supply of cardiac surgery up until 30 June 2001. These arrangements
were concluded between WHL and CCDHB
in a series of letters dating through 2000
and 2001. The extended contracting arrangements expired on 30 June 2001.
- No
Schedule was agreed for the period after 30 June 2001. The effect of this was
that at the time of WHL's IPO it had no active contract
in place to provide any
cardiac services to CCDHB.
- At
the time of the public offer the contractual relationship between WHL and CCDHB
could at best be described as a "Heads of Agreement".
It was described by Ms
Mains, the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CCDHB, as an "evergreen
contract". The January 2000 agreement provided a framework for the
performance of any services provided by WHL to CCDHB. A further contractual
agreement, such as that put in place for the 2000/01 year, was needed to
activate this framework.
- WHL
advised the Commission that referrals from CCDHB had in the past often been
informal and conducted on a "good faith basis", in
that the arrangements would
be made by telephone, and only later formalised in writing. Mr Aburn, a director
of WHL, described the
practical operation of the CCDHB contracting arrangements
as follows:
"My recollection of the whole arrangement with
Capital and Coast Health is that there is ... an evergreen contract, ... and
schedules
appended to it for work to be done....
The experience that we had during the previous year..., was that sometimes
the paperwork followed the patient being treated and this
would be in the case
where there would be severe or serious or critical patients that had to be dealt
with and had to be dealt with
quickly.
My understanding of the arrangement that we had with Capital Coast Health
was that although it might not have been totally pure and
bullet proof from the
point of view of the paper trail, that it seemed to work and there was good
understanding on both sides and,
more importantly, the clinical procedures were
completed."
- Mr
Morris, a director of WHL, also gave evidence describing the CCDHB contracting
arrangements as follows:
"In respect of the contracted cardiac
surgery, there was a background over the previous two to three years of
fluctuating demand with
requests for procedures often made at short notice in a
way which was, at times, quite disruptive of the hospital's ability to provide
surgery to its private patients."
- The
Commission received evidence to indicate that such informal arrangements for
delivery of services was not an unusual situation
in the public health sector.
The directors of WHL judged that the lack of a Schedule for cardiac surgery in
July 2001 was a temporary
and not unusual situation, having regard to the public
health sector contracting environment.
- In
contrast with the CCDHB contracting arrangements, at the time of the public
offer WHL had two contracts to provide services to
the Accident Compensation
Corporation (ACC), each running until 31 October 2002 (with a right of renewal).
Under these contracts
WHL provided elective surgical and clinical services to
ACC.
Policy Changes at CCDHB
- CCDHB
incurred higher costs for the delivery of cardiac surgery on a sub-contracted
basis than it would have incurred to provide the
service in its public
hospitals. The minutes of the CCDHB Hospital Advisory Committee (HAC) meeting on
27 March 2001 recorded the
Committee's consideration of issues about the
Cardiothoracic Service:
"A workshop with staff in
Cardiothoracic, ICU and Theatres was held to find better ways of processing the
work. ...Lack of available
beds in ICU seems to be the prime issue causing
theatre cancellations and CCH loses about $11 000 per patient that goes to
Wakefield
Hospital, so a possible course of action is to add another four beds
to ICU to cope with the demand."
- In
a letter dated 16 March 2001 Mr Chris Northover, the Contracts Manager at CCDHB,
advised WHL that:
"From our perspective it would obviously be
more financially acceptable to spend public monies in-house, where we can do the
job for
less cost..."
"We are also cognisant of the advantages of having a strong relationship
with a provider such as yourselves, close at hand, and prepared
to explore and
progress synergies benefiting both of us. We are keen to explore the collegial
and training opportunities that present
themselves and to develop our
relationship further.
From the timing perspective, we are not able to sub-contract work to you
that we ourselves are not certain of being contracted to
perform. This means
that our contracts with you cannot extend further than our contract with our own
funder. At present this means
year by year, but we are aware of the advantages
of a longer-term arrangement, and will be discussing this with the funding arm
of
the DHB when appropriate."
- A
further letter to WHL dated 29 March 2001 from Ms Margot Mains, CEO of CCDHB,
stated:
"For the reasons given in Chris's letter to you of 16
March 2001 we will not be able to contract further out than 30 June 2001 at
this
stage, until our next year's funding is determined."
This letter did also discuss possible pricing for future contracts, but
qualified this:
"We would like to explore this further during the next few weeks as a
matter of priority, with a view to contracting for next year
on a costweight
basis (should we need to contract)..."
- WHL
recognised CCDHB's position in relation to the cost of subcontracting. WHL's
2000/2001 Business Plan noted that CCDHB lost a significant
contribution to its
own overheads when it subcontracted cardiac surgery to WHL.
- There
were other warnings available that CCDHB intended to cease sub-contracting
cardiac surgery. The CCDHB 2000/2001 Business Plan
(released publicly in July
2000) stated the objective to "provide all cardiac surgery services from
Wellington Hospital facilities". The Business Plan stated that this
objective was to be achieved by 30 June 2001. The risk analysis approach adopted
for the Business
Plan considered the contingency that subcontracting might be
required if CCDHB was not able to meet this objective. Management of
this
contingency required CCDHB to maintain good relations with external service
providers, including WHL.
- Mr
Richard Barnes, the General Manager of WHL, told the Commission that at a
meeting on 14 June 2001 he was told by the CEO of CCDHB,
Ms Margot Mains, that
CCDHB was going to try to do all cardiac surgery in-house. Mr Barnes told the
Commission he would have passed
this on to the board at its next monthly
meeting. According to Mr Barnes, Ms Mains did not say that CCHDB would do all of
their contracting
in-house, simply that CCDHB would try to achieve this.
- Mr
Barnes told the Commission that correspondence from CCDHB management supported
his view that there would be an ongoing relationship
with CCDHB and that CCDHB
would need to use WHL's services under a subcontracting arrangement. He referred
to the letter from Mr
Northover dated 16 March (quoted in paragraph 45 above),
which recognised the fact that WHL wanted more stable contracts.
- The
CCDHB CEO's Hospital Operating Report for February 2001 for the HAC meeting held
on 27 March 2001 recorded that :
"Planning continues with this
service [Cardiothoracic Service] and the supporting service (ICU, Theatre,
Anaesthesia) to bring cardiothoracic
surgery back in house progressively over
the next 12 months."
- The
Operating Report for March 2001 for the HAC meeting held on 1 May 2001 recorded
that:
"Good progress has been made with planning by the
Cardiothoracic service and the supporting services ... to bring cardiothoracic
surgery
back in house progressively over the next 12 months. The proposal for
approval in the Service Plan for 2001/02 is to bring 95% of
Cardiac surgery in
house starting with 7 theatre days per week (14 sessions) from July ..."
- The
minutes of the HAC Meeting on 1 May 2001 recorded the Committee's consideration
of the financial result reported in the March
2001 HAC Operating Report, as
follows:
"The Committee noted the deterioration of the deficit.
... Margot Mains advised that management is focussing on ... key priorities
for
now and for the coming year. Clinical services contracted out had increased,
contrary to expectations last year, and ways of
reducing the need for this is a
priority."
- The
minutes of the HAC meeting held on 31 July 2001 recorded that "since 1 July
all cardiothoracic cases are to be done within CCH".
- The
meetings of CCDHB and its committees are public meetings. The minutes of the
meetings are publicly available. WHL's directors
told the Commission that they
had not seen these minutes at the time of their preparation for the IPO.
- Evidence
given by the directors and management of WHL indicated that the board believed
that WHL would continue to receive revenue
from publicly funded cardiac surgery.
Mr Barnes told the Commission:
"[CCDHB] were unable to do as
much cardiac surgery as they were required to do under the terms of the contract
with the Funding Authority,
and certainly even less in relation to the six month
maximum waiting list because the demand for surgery exceeds the contract."
- In
his General Manager's report to the WHL board for July 2001 Mr Barnes noted:
"While DHB policy is to avoid subcontracting, it has been
informally reported that the waiting list for cardiac surgery is building
month
by month, so resumption of contracting is considered likely in the second half,
ie possibly commencing in October."
- The
directors' beliefs about the future of cardiac subcontracting were grounded in
their view that the government's benchmark waiting
list period for elective
cardiac surgery would have to be adhered to by CCDHB. This belief was strongly
influenced by clinical and
ethical considerations. Three directors on WHL's
board at the time of the IPO were experienced medical specialists (four up until
mid-July 2001). Their combined experience of the political environment of the
public health sector shaped the WHL board's views on
the influence of government
policy on delivery of health services in the public sector, and particularly by
CCDHB.
- The
Chairman of WHL, Mr John Calder, told the Commission that the board considered
the possibility that waiting lists might be allowed
to continue growing, but
discounted this in view of the Government's key service delivery objective that
waiting lists be no longer
than 6 months. On this basis the board believed that
CCDHB would have to resume subcontracting cardiac surgery.
- Mr
Riordan was an important source of information to WHL regarding the likelihood
of resumption of cardiac contracting with CCDHB.
Mr Riordan was an alternate
director of WHL until mid-July 2002. He was also at that time Clinical Leader of
the Cardiothoracic Unit
at CCDHB, and performed cardiothoracic surgery at both
Wellington Hospital and WHL. After he resigned as an alternate director, just
prior to the IPO, Mr Riordan continued to attend WHL Board meetings as a "User
Representative".
- In
his evidence Mr Riordan told the Commission:
"[CCDHB] were
trying to get all the contracting done in-house for financial reasons but my
view was at the time that this was clinically
not going to be viable and that
the waiting lists had to continue and would continue to grow".
- Mr
Riordan was an attendee at workshops of the CCDHB Cardiothoracic Unit held in
the early stages of 2001 to devise operational strategies
for implementation of
the strategy to bring all cardiac surgery in-house by the target date of 30 June
2001. He told the Commission
that his view of the strategy at the time was that
there were "insurmountable problems that were outside the scope of this
particular group".
- Mr
Riordan informed the directors at the June 2001 board meeting that "CCH was
now firmly against contracting, but "waiting lists" were already growing".
At the July board meeting Mr Riordan reported that waiting lists had already
stretched to 4 to 6 months, and conveyed his view to
the other directors it was
inevitable that "medical priorities were compromised by this combination of
circumstances." In August Mr Riordan updated the board on the capacity
constraints at CCDHB, which were causing service delivery difficulties.
- The
directors shared the view that at some point additional funding would have to be
obtained to bring the waiting list back within
the targeted limits. Mr Aburn
gave evidence to the Commission on the extent to which the directors examined
the prospect of future
contracting with CCDHB.
"That included a
consideration, obviously, of the ability or the inability of Capital Coast
Health to undertake that work. We were
of the view this was a matter that was
discussed frequently by the directors, and of course, we had the advantage of Mr
Riordan sitting
at our Board table some of that time, one of Wellington's
cardiac surgeons, and throughout all these discussions it was patently
apparent
that Capital and Coast Health for a variety of reasons had, in our own view and
probably in their own view, no possibility
of meeting the standards that had
been imposed on them by the government and by the Minister of Health to keep the
waiting list under
six months. There was a gradual build up of cardiac patients.
They simply could not undertake that with themselves. They simply could
not get
through it and Wakefield, of course, was the only hospital in the central area
of the country that was able to undertake
that work."
- Taking
this view of future events, the directors assessed that any uncertainty about
the resumption of subcontracting with WHL after
1 July 2001 was slight because
of the government objective to keep waiting lists below six months. This
clinical/medical professional
judgement dictated the risk analysis, without
regard to the commercial prospect that CCDHB might relegate its aim to achieve
the
target waiting list periods to a lesser priority than that of budgetary or
other considerations.
- The
Commission was told that management of WHL did not expect the number of
contracted cardiac cases for 2001/02 to be as high as
those for the 2000/01
year, which had been described in WHL's 2001/2002 Business Plan as a "bonanza"
in terms of the number of publicly
funded cardiac cases. The WHL 2001/2002
budget prepared by management in March 2001 estimated that 175 publicly funded
cardiac surgery
cases would be undertaken by WHL in the 2001/02 financial year.
- WHL
advised the Commission that it used the budgeted volume of cardiac cases as the
basis for the forecast cardiac surgery revenues
in the prospective financial
information contained in the offer document.
The Effects of
CCDHB Policy Changes on WHL
- WHL's
financial year runs from 1 April to 31 March. While the 2000/01 financial year
had seen an exceptional number of publicly funded
cardiac surgery cases, this
was evidently not the case from the beginning of the 2001/02 financial year. The
General Manager's report
to the board for June 2001 (presented at the July board
meeting) noted that cardiac admissions for the first quarter were down 30%
on
the previous year. Revenues from cardiac surgery were down 33%. This situation
was described as follows:
"While gains have been made where
anticipated the extent of the downturn in cardiac procedures and GI surgery was
not anticipated.
It is due to the complete cessation of subcontracted cardiac
surgery by CCH despite prior "good faith" discussions to the contrary,
and the
absence (sick leave) of one of two GI surgeons."
- In
the same report the General Manager commented on the likely effects of the
situation:
"The actual [net profit after tax] shortfall vs
budget of $345,000 is unlikely to be recovered even given improving levels of
activity
- though not yet cardiac surgery. It has implications for the IPO in
that even if budget is attained from July on NPAT would be just
over the $1.900
million forecast in the Prospectus. (Budget NPAT is $2.278 million.) It is going
to take tight management and a sustained upturn in business to achieve
the $1.9 million forecast, and this probably requires a significant volume of
subcontracted
cardiac surgery. There is little possibility of this occurring in
the first half of our financial year."
- One
month later the General Manager's report for July 2001 (presented at the August
board meeting) showed that the downturn in revenues
continued. This report
stated that earnings before interest and tax (EBIT) was around one third of that
achieved in the same period
of the previous year and 70% down on the budget for
the 2001/02 year. The report described the drop in earnings as "disastrous".
The
General Manager described the cause:
"The major problem is
obviously cardiac surgery where contract work has ceased completely (although
the case for it is reported to
be building steadily, i.e. waiting-list
expanding) and private volumes were also down."
- No
cardiac surgery cases have been referred to WHL by CCDHB since 1 July 2001.
- Evidence
from CCDHB's Board and Committee Meeting minutes available prior to the IPO
indicate that CCDHB's intention, at that time,
was to pursue internal strategies
to provide all cardiac surgery in-house. CCDHB's 2001/2002 Annual Plan
(prepared, but not released
publicly, before the IPO) included the same
strategy.
- This
strategic direction is in line with the suggested NZHS strategies for improving
access to elective services. The NZHS envisaged
that increased emphasis would be
"placed on action on these [government health] priorities over
time".
- Information
provided by CCDHB indicates that waiting lists have been allowed to grow since
their low point in September 2000. At that
time there were 87 patients on the
waiting list, of whom 16 had been waiting for cardiothoracic surgery for more
than 6 months. At
the end of the June quarter of 2001 the number of patients on
the waiting list was 148 (with 10 waiting longer than six months).
By the end of
December 2001 the number of patients on the waiting list was 225 (with 52
waiting longer than six months).
- In
this context it appears to the Commission that the following matters constituted
important risk factors in relation to future financial
performance of Wakefield
hospital:
- the
uncertainty surrounding the future of publicly funded cardiac surgery at
Wakefield Hospital; and
- the
fact that from 1 July 2001 there was no active Schedule between WHL and CCDHB
for the provision of any cardiac services; and
- the
fact that since 1 July 2001 no cardiac contracting with CCDHB had in fact
occurred.
The Commission considers these were risk
factors that were material to the share offer, and which should have been
clearly and specifically
explained to investors in the offer document.
THE IPO PROCESS
- Prior
to the IPO WHL had 68 shareholders. In 1998 and 1999 the WHL board began
investigating ways to increase the market liquidity
of the WHL shares and to
raise further capital.
- In
2000 the board considered an offer from a private institution to purchase WHL,
but turned this down because they considered the
offer was too low. In the same
year WHL considered listing on the New Capital Market of the NZSE. This was also
rejected.
- In
March 2001, following talks with Mr Andrew McDouall of Forsyth Barr (FB) the
board decided to make a public offer of WHL shares
and to list on the NZSE. FB
was appointed to act as lead manager and organising broker.
- In
April 2001 FB prepared a timetable for the IPO. This contemplated an offer
document being ready in July 2001 for the offer to be
made in August 2001.
- WHL
appointed Buddle Findlay (BF) as solicitors for the offer, and to carry out
legal due diligence. PwC was WHL's auditor.
- The
Finance Committee of WHL, comprising the General Manager, Mr Richard Barnes and
two independent directors, Mr John Aburn and Mr
Michael Morris, took primary
responsibility for the share offer, including preparation of the offer document.
- The
final form of the registered prospectus was approved by the board at its meeting
on 27 July 2001. The prospectus was registered
on 6 August 2001. The offer was
fully subscribed, and the new shares were allotted on 5 September 2001.
THE OFFER DOCUMENT
Disclosure Requirements
- Offers
of securities to the public must be made in compliance with the Securities Act
1978. In general this requires issuers to register
a prospectus and to produce
an investment statement. Each of these documents must contain certain
information that is relevant to
decisions whether or not to invest in the
securities being offered.
- The
purpose of these documents is to allow prospective investors to make an informed
decision about their investment.
- A
registered prospectus contains detailed historical and prospective financial
information, and information about the issuer, its
directors, promoters, and
substantial security holders, and the terms of the offer of securities.
- An
investment statement is designed to provide key information to assist the
"prudent but non-expert" person to make an investment
decision, and to draw to
that person's attention the fact that more information is available in other
documents. The investment statement
must contain prescribed information
answering eleven important questions about the offer of securities.
- The
prospectus and investment statement disclosure requirements are set out in the
Securities Act 1978 and the Securities Regulations
1983. Both the registered
prospectus and investment statement must disclose risks associated with the
offer of securities.
- The
purpose of risk disclosure in a prospectus or an investment statement is to
inform prospective investors about matters that may
impact adversely on their
investment. In the course of operating a business it is ordinarily the
responsibility of the management
and directors of a company to consider risk
factors and to take decisions based on assessment of those risks. However, where
a company
decides to raise money from the public the securities laws require
these material risk factors to be publicly disclosed so that prospective
investors and their advisers can carry out their own assessment of the
desirability of investment in the company.
- Whether
or not a risk or a fact must be disclosed in a prospectus or an investment
statement depends on whether it is "material".
When this term is used in
securities law it means that a matter is one that would be likely to influence a
reasonable person in making
a decision whether or not to subscribe for the
securities, without necessarily being determinative of the decision.
- Information
is material if it is needed to allow a reader of the prospectus or investment
statement to properly assess the risk of
an investment. Because of this the
disclosure of risk factors in a prospectus and an investment statement is
particularly important.
- Assessing
whether a risk factor is material to an offer of securities requires a balancing
of its potential impact on the investment
with the degree of likelihood that it
will eventuate. If a risk factor would, if it came about, have a serious impact
on the investment
then it may be material even though there is a low likelihood
of the risk eventuating. Equally, a risk factor that would have a less
serious
impact on the investment may need to be disclosed as material if it is highly
likely to eventuate.
The investment statement
- One
of the questions to be answered in the investment statement is: "What are my
risks?". Under this heading the investment statement must set out:
"(1)
|
A brief description of the principal risks of-
- The
money paid by a subscriber not being recovered in full by the subscriber:
- A
subscriber not receiving the returns referred to in the investment statement:
- A
subscriber being required to pay more money in respect of a security than is
disclosed as the subscription cost or any amount payable
in
insolvency.
|
(2)
|
If it is reasonably foreseeable that, on termination of any security at
any time, a subscriber will have received, in total, less
than the amount paid
to the issuer or an associated person for the security, a statement to this
effect and a brief description of
the circumstances that may produce this
result."
|
- All
the information that is required to answer this question must be set out
together in the investment statement under the heading.
The
registered prospectus
- A
registered prospectus for shares must contain certain information that is
prescribed in regulations. These regulations include a
"catch-all" obligation
requiring the registered prospectus to contain "particulars of any material
matters relating to the offer of securities".
- One
of the specific disclosure requirements relates to "prospects and forecasts".
The relevant provision says the registered prospectus
must contain:
- A
statement as to the trading prospects of the issuing group, together with any
material information that may be relevant thereto.
- The
statement required by subclause (1) of this clause shall include a description
of all special trade factors and risks that-
- Are
not mentioned elsewhere in the registered prospectus; and
- Are
not likely to be known or anticipated by the general public; and
- Could
materially affect the prospects of the issuing group.
- The
disclosure requirements of the Securities Regulations 1983 do not limit the
information that an issuer can put in a registered
prospectus. These Regulations
provide that if any statement that is required to be in a registered prospectus
would be misleading
if additional information were not also included, then the
prospectus must also contain that additional information.
Risk
Disclosure in WHL's Offer Document
- WHL
combined the registered prospectus and investment statement into one document.
This is allowed under the Securities Act 1978,
although the Commission has
warned in the past that care must be taken in doing this to ensure that neither
document is concealed
by the other. Each must remain clearly distinguishable and
prospective investors must be able to find the important information they
require.
- The
offer document discussed risks in several places. The principal discussion about
risks material to the offer of securities was
set out in a section entitled
"Risk Factors".
- The
Risk Factors section began on page 30 of the offer document. Both the investment
statement part of the document, under the question
"What are my Risks?",
and the registered prospectus part of the document, detailing risks and special
trade factors, referred readers to the Risk Factors
section.
- The
introduction to the Risk Factors section contained the following statement:
"In analysing an investment in the Shares, prospective investors
should carefully consider, along with other matters referred to in
this Offer
Document, the risk factors described below. Wakefield cautions prospective
investors, however, that this list of risk
factors may not be exhaustive."
- The
description of risks began with a general statement about the nature of
investment risk. Other risk factors were described under
the heading
"Specific Risks". The subheadings to this were:
- Loss of key
surgeons
- Lower patient
admissions
- Competitive
risks
- Government
policy changes
- Regional
government contracts
- Loss of key
personnel
- Infectious
diseases
- Professional
negligence
- Costs of medical
supplies and labour
- Development
project
- Technological or
medical advancements
- Regulation
- Risks to
operations
- Taxation
- The
directors of WHL invited the Commission to conclude that the offer document
comprehensively covered the uncertainties and risks
facing the company in
relation to its business, and particularly with regard to contracting for
publicly funded cardiac surgery.
- Cardiac
surgery is referred to under the heading "Loss of key surgeons". Here the
offer document noted that WHL relies on surgeons electing to perform surgery at
Wakefield Hospital. It stated that WHL's
performance could be adversely affected
if it lost certain key surgeons. The example given stated:
"For
example, a significant portion of Wakefield's revenue in the 2000/01 financial
year was generated by cardiac procedures, carried
out by two surgeons."
- Under
the heading "Lower patient admissions" the offer document noted WHL's
revenue is predominantly generated by the number of patients admitted for
medical/surgical procedures
by surgeons, and the use of WHL's facilities. It
stated that a material decrease in the number of patients admitted to Wakefield
Hospital or in the usage of WHL's facilities would adversely affect WHL's
financial performance.
- This
section described a general risk that was fundamental to WHL's business. The
statement was undoubtedly true. It was not, however,
a description of the risk
associated with subcontracted cardiac surgery. In the Commission's opinion a
generic statement such as
this may be a material matter in its own right, but it
does not substitute for a clear description of a specific risk, even if the
general statement can be said to cover the specific case.
- Risk
factors relating to the provision of publicly funded services were set out under
the headings "Government policy changes" and "Regional Government
contracts". The first of these read:
"Government Policy
Changes
The Government, through the Ministry of Health and the District Health
Boards, remains the single largest provider of health care
funding in New
Zealand. A change in policy in relation to the level and targeting of health
expenditure could adversely impact on
Wakefield's business. In particular any
increase in the public funding of elective surgery in public hospitals could
impact adversely
on Wakefield's financial performance.
The Directors believe that, for any policy change to have an adverse
effect on Wakefield's business, it would have to result in increased
expenditure
on elective surgery in public hospitals over and above the real rate of
inflation in the healthcare industry. In the
Directors' opinion, it would be
contrary to national and international trends if the government increased
expenditure to that extent."
- This
section referred to a change in the government's policy regarding public funding
for elective surgery. Higher government funding
for elective surgery could
result in a decrease in private surgery demand. However, under the current model
for funding of public
health services by government, the decision as to how
public funding is applied to the provision of health services is influenced
by
the district health boards' assessment of regional health priority needs,
together with government health objectives and strategies.
District health
boards have a discretion to apply public funding either for the provision of
services by public hospitals or for
the purchase of services from private
hospitals, subject to the application of appropriate financial management
principles to that
consideration.
- This
section addressed the risk of a change in government policy leading to a
decrease in private surgery revenues. It did not differentiate
between
government policy and District Health Board strategies. It also did not address
the specific risk presented by the CCDHB
policy that could prevent future
revenues for WHL from publicly funded cardiac surgery.
- Risks
associated with WHL's contracting with CCDHB were set out under the heading
"Regional Government Contracts". This read:
"Regional
Government Contracts
Wakefield performs elective surgical and consultative services on behalf
of DHB and ACC. Any material variation in the volume of this
work carried out at
Wakefield may effect [sic] the financial performance of Wakefield.
The current contracts with ACC expire on 31 October 2002, each with a two
year right of renewal if each party is satisfied with the
arrangements. To date,
DHB has contracted with Wakefield on an as needed basis and has not
contractually committed to any particular
level of expenditure."
- The
continuation of a significant volume of contracted cardiac surgery was important
if WHL was to achieve the forecast financial
performance, position, and
cashflows indicated in the offer document (see below). In view of this the
Commission does not consider
the statement headed "Regional Government
Contracts" accurately or adequately described the risks WHL faced at the time of
its public
offer in relation to its cardiac surgery contracting with CCDHB,
which are summarised in paragraph 75 above.
Other
disclosures
- As
noted above, all the information required to answer the risk questions in an
investment statement is required to be set out under
the relevant heading.
Nevertheless, the Commission was invited to read the risk disclosures on page 30
of the offer document in conjunction
with other statements in the offer
document. Attention was drawn to a statement on page 11 of the offer document,
in the section
entitled "Company Background and Profile" that referred to
relationships with Government agencies:
"Wakefield contracts
with DHB to provide surgical services to DHB patients. Whilst these contracts do
not require DHB to commit to
any level of expenditure and may be terminated by
DHB at any time, they have provided significant revenue streams in recent years.
The Directors believe that surgery for DHB is likely to continue to be a source
of revenue for Wakefield."
- WHL
noted that this disclosed that there was no commitment by CCDHB to any level of
expenditure. The statement did not disclose, however,
that at the time of the
offer document, no cardiac contracting revenues were in fact being received by
WHL.
- The
Commission was also asked to consider a statement on page 53 of the offer
document, under the heading "Other Material Matters":
"From time to time Wakefield contracts with DHB to provide
surgical services on a fixed price basis as required. To date, there has
been no
contractual commitment by DHB to any level of expenditure and DHB has retained
the discretion to terminate any such contract
at any time without cause."
- The
offer document was finalised in early August 2001. In an e-mail message to
Buddle Findlay sent on 2 August Mr Barnes ordered a
change to the wording of the
section headed "Other Material Matters" in the draft offer document. The draft
had previously included
the following sentence at the end of the paragraph
dealing with district health board contracting:
"The only
current contract is for surgical cardiac services."
Mr Barnes' e-mail instructed Buddle Findlay to delete this, saying:
"40 '... contracts with the DHB ....'
Delete the last sentence
of the first paragraph - there is no current contract or understanding
even."
- The
statement under "Other Material Matters" appears to be the most cautious
statement in the offer document regarding the contracting situation with CCDHB.
It says that Wakefield
contracts with the DHB "from time to time" and "as
required". In contrast to other descriptions it refers to "any such contract",
rather than "these contracts". In the Commission's opinion the disclosure would
have been clarified further had Mr Barnes' comment
that there was "no current
contract or understanding even" been included in the offer document.
- The
Commission's attention was drawn also to the assumptions on which WHL's
forecasts were based. We consider these separately below.
- In
its submissions to the Commission WHL argued that the offer document adequately
disclosed the risk to investors associated with
publicly funded cardiac surgery.
WHL submitted that the directors of WHL, who between them had considerable
commercial and clinical
experience, assessed the risk of cardiac contracting not
resuming after 1 July 2001, and considered it to be slight.
- The
directors' assessment of that risk was formed with reference to:
- their belief
that CCDHB would continue to refer cardiac surgery to WHL after 30 June 2001;
- the growing
waiting list for cardiac surgery; and
- the past
inability of CCDHB to perform all its cardiac surgery in-house.
- On
this basis the directors of WHL considered that the risk statements in the offer
document to be sufficient.
- Despite
the caveats in the "Other Material Matters" statement, the Commission is
of the opinion that the offer document failed to adequately describe the risks
associated with the provision
of publicly funded cardiac surgery. Further, it
fails to set out the required information under the relevant heading in so far
as
the document is an investment statement. The Commission accepts that the
directors of WHL turned their minds to the risks associated
with cardiac
contracting. The directors made a judgement as to the likely future of cardiac
contracting based on their experience.
Without making any finding on the
reasonableness of the directors' judgement, the Commission is of the opinion
that the material
risk factors relating to that judgement should have been fully
disclosed in the offer document. In the Commission's opinion the offer
document:
- failed to fully
describe the nature of the existing contractual relationship, and was misleading
by reason of this omission;
- was misleading
in the manner in which it described the ACC contracts in conjunction with the
CCDHB contract; and
- failed to
describe the risks arising from the stated CCDHB policy to undertake all future
cardiac surgery in public hospitals, and
was misleading by reason of this
omission.
Existing Contractual Relationship
- It
is the Commission's opinion that the statements in the offer document relating
to contracting with CCDHB were likely to mislead
readers by giving the
impression that there was, at the time of the public offer, an active (in the
sense of revenue-producing) cardiac
surgery contract between WHL and CCDHB.
Readers are likely to have gained the impression that at the time of the public
offer WHL
was providing services to CCDHB under contract.
- In
reaching these conclusions the Commission refers in particular to the following:
- the statement
under "Company Background and Profile" that WHL "contracts with DHB to
provide surgical services on a fixed price basis as required";
- the reference in
the same section to CCDHB's ability to terminate the contracts between itself
and WHL at any time;
- the statement
under "Regional Government contracts" that WHL "performs elective
surgical and consultative services on behalf of DHB";
- the reference
under "Other Material Matters" to CCDHB's ability to terminate the
contracts.
- It
was argued by WHL that the existence of the January 2000 agreement meant that
WHL did have "a contract" with CCDHB at the time
of the public offer. What it
did not have was an active Schedule relating to cardiac surgery. Even accepting
that the agreement was
a "contract", the Commission considers the limited nature
of this agreement should have been disclosed. The Prospectus was required
to
refer to the contracting arrangements with CCDHB as a matter material to the
investment (and as a principal risk factor). If disclosure
of a matter in a
prospectus would be misleading without the inclusion of additional information,
then this additional information
must also be disclosed. The Commission
considers that without clarification of the limited effect of the "evergreen
contract", references
to this agreement as "contracting with CCDHB" were likely
to mislead investors by omitting material information.
ACC
Contracts
- In
the Commission's opinion the misleading effect of the disclosures about
contracting with CCDHB was aggravated by the juxtapositioning
in the offer
document of statements about the ACC and CCDHB contracts.
- The
ACC and CCDHB contracts in place at the time of the IPO were very different.
This was put to Mr Barnes in questioning:
- As
I understand it, the nature of those two contracts [ACC and CCDHB] at [the time
the offer document was prepared] was quite different?
- Yes.
- A
distinction between those two contracts is not very clearly spelt out for
investors, it seems to me, because the ACC contract was
going to continue. You
had been told the DHB contract was not going to be renewed, or was unlikely to
be renewed, because they were
going to do all of their cardiac surgery in-house.
Now, you had some other optimistic hopes, perhaps, about that but the nature of
those two contracts is quite different, and I would suggest to you that it's not
clear in the prospectus, the position?
- Well,
in hindsight, I would agree with you, but that hindsight; actually now and
probably back to about November.
- Mr
Barnes, in June the distinction between those two contracts was clear to you?
There was a difference between the nature or quality
of those contracts in the
potential revenues that they were going to bring?
- Yes,
they were important, and certainly the revenues from the ACC contract are - they
are set out very exactly and precisely.
The nature
of our contracting with Capital Coast Health has always been more casual, good
faith is in fact a kind word for it, and
there was an underlying contract that
said 'Whenever we deal with you, Wakefield, this is how we'll deal with you and
we will activate
a contract from time to time by uplifting the schedule', and
frequently a schedule to cover a specific tranche of surgery for whatever,
at a
price and a volume, and a speciality. A number of those were raised over the
preceding time and, I think, that their letters
to me in March indicated quite
clearly, though they were unable to commit beyond the end of June they were
certainly contemplating
making a contractual arrangement with us soon after,
actually, in their new financial year."
- In
the Commission's opinion the offer document did not clearly set out the
differences between these contracts and the differences
in the contracting
relationships with ACC and CCDHB. By referring to both relationships together
the impression was given that active
contracts existed with both agencies. This
was not the case. CCDHB Policy
- The
offer document disclosed a risk associated with a change in government health
policy relating to the level and targeting of health
expenditure. It
particularly identified a risk associated with an increase in public funding for
elective surgery. It did not identify
a risk associated with the CCDHB policy to
cease subcontracting of cardiac surgery.
- The
CCDHB policy is described above. This policy had been expressed publicly and
CCDHB's intention had been conveyed to WHL prior
to the public offer. The change
in policy is not described in the offer document.
- WHL's
directors put it to the Commission that several factors were relevant in
assessing the change in CCDHB policy.
- According to Mr
Barnes, CCDHB had not unequivocally said that there would be no further
subcontracting. As he said to the Commission:
"I had
spoken to Margot Mains. She had never said to me 'We are not going to do any
more contracting with you.' She said 'We will
be trying to avoid contracting
with you'."
- Mr Barnes told
the Commission that correspondence from CCDHB management (see paragraph 45)
supported his view that there would be
an ongoing subcontracting relationship
with CCDHB.
Ms Mains told the Commission that she did not believe
she gave WHL any signal that CCDHB was going to recommence contracting after
30
June 2001.
- WHL told the
Commission that a major factor in assessing this risk was its belief, based on
past experience, that CCDHB would resume
subcontracting despite its stated
policy. The principal reason for this belief was that CCDHB did not have
resources in public hospitals
sufficient to carry out enough cardiac surgery to
meet the targets for which it had been funded, and to meet the government
objective
that waiting lists for elective cardiac surgery should be kept within
six months. This was stated in questioning by Mr Morris, an
independent director
of WHL:
"Q:
|
The Commission has been through the various points in the prospectus
that potentially address this. What I think is the position that
they have to
consider is that at the time the prospectus went out the Capital Coast cardiac
referrals ceased on the 30th of June,
that was a fact. They stated publicly they
intended to try and do all the procedures in-house. There was a growing waiting
list where
it was relative to six months. The Wakefield directors believed that
notwithstanding what Capital Coast was saying publicly, they
couldn't continue
without contracting their services. Is that a fair summation of the
position?
|
A:
|
Yes, and I think that belief was based on the experience of the
relationship in the previous three years."
|
- For CCDHB, Ms
Mains acknowledged that in previous years CCDHB had not achieved its intention
(first expressed publicly in July 2000)
to take all cardiac surgery in-house:
- "We certainly
had signalled it to Wakefield. Wakefield may have felt that, 'Well, you haven't
achieved it for two years, are you going
to achieve it next year?'. Now, that's
a decision that Wakefield makes.."
- Mr Barnes told
the Commission:
- "...we
reassessed the position again in July, knowing there had been no contracting and
knowing that the policy was that they would
try not to contract, and we said.
'Okay, but how real is this?'."
- WHL pointed out
that a legal due diligence exercise was carried out by Buddle Findlay. A legal
opinion dated 6 August 2001 stated:
We are of the opinion, on
the basis of the assumptions and subject to the qualifications set out in
sections 3 to 6 of this letter,
that the Offer Document complies with the
relevant provisions of the Securities Act 1978, the Securities Regulations 1983,
and any
other applicable New Zealand laws.
The qualifications included the following:
The management of Wakefield has carried out verification of the material
contained in the Offer Document, and we assume no responsibility
for the
accuracy or completeness of the information contained in the Offer Document.
However, we confirm that nothing has come to
our attention in the course of
acting in this matter that causes us to believe the Offer Document contains any
material misstatement
or that there is any material omission from the Offer
Document;
This legal opinion was accompanied by a due diligence report. On the subject
of CCDHB this report stated:
We have not sighted any executed contract in relation to the services
provided for CCDHB. We understand from Wakefield's management
that Wakefield is
very much an "on-call" supplier and has a contract to provide services as and
when required. We understand that
the services that are required from time to
time are agreed in a Schedule to the main agreement (which we have not sighted).
Since
the cardiac surgical services schedule expired on 30 June 2001, management
have advised that there are no current schedules in place
and therefore
Wakefield is not currently providing any services to CCDHB...
The informal nature of the arrangements with surgeons and with CCDHB may
constitute a risk to Wakefield's business as there is no
contractual certainty
of tenure/revenue, even if the commercial reality is that Wakefield is
guaranteed a certain level of work from
CCDHB.
- On
the basis of the evidence it has received the Commission accepts the directors
of WHL believed that subcontracting would need to
resume.
- The
directors of WHL weighed up their past contracting experiences with CCDHB, the
statements from CCDHB management that were perceived
as supporting
recommencement of contracting, and their awareness of government objectives for
waiting lists against CCDHB's stated
policy, and formed the view that the risk
that contracting would not resume was slight.
- The
Commission is primarily concerned with the disclosure in the offer document of
the bases of the directors' judgement.
- The
CCDHB policy had been expressed publicly in the 2000/2001 Business Plan,
published in July 2000. CCDHB was aware that it would
take some time to achieve
this strategic intention. The Business Plan set a target date of 30 June 2001 to
"Provide all cardiac surgery services from Wellington Hospital
facilities". Internal planning workshops of the Cardiothoracic Service were
held early in 2001 to establish ways to implement the policy. The
workshops were
attended by Mr Riordan, in his capacity as a cardiothoracic surgeon working for
CCDHB.
- The
target date for CCDHB's policy was 30 June 2001. No Schedule for cardiac surgery
was in place between CCDHB and WHL beyond that
date. No cardiac surgery cases
had been referred to WHL after 30 June 2001. In the Commission's view these
facts increased the need
for the offer document to disclose the risk presented
by the policy.
- In
the opinion of the Commission, the offer document should have disclosed as a
risk factor CCDHB's policy to perform all cardiac
surgery in-house after 1 July
2001. It should also have disclosed that there was no active Schedule for
cardiac surgery in place
after 30 June 2001 and that no contracting had occurred
since 30 June 2001. This could have been accompanied by an expression of
the
directors' belief that contracting would resume, and the basis for that
judgement. Disclosure of the risk would have allowed
investors to take this into
account in making their decisions.
FORECAST FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS
Legal Requirements
- Under
the Securities Act and Securities Regulations a registered prospectus for an
offer of shares to the public must contain certain
financial information. The
registered prospectus for a company making its first offer of shares to the
public must also contain certain
prospective financial information.
- The
share offer made in August 2001 was WHL's first public offer of shares. The
registered prospectus for the offer was required by
law to contain a prospective
statement of cash flows of WHL and any subsidiaries which the directors expected
to occur in the year
commencing on the date the prospectus was delivered for
registration (i.e., a prospective statement of cash flows for the year ending
5
August 2002).
- The
offer document contained this prospective statement of cash flows. In addition,
WHL included prospective statements of financial
performance, financial
position, and cash flows for the year ending 31 March 2002 (as noted earlier,
WHL's financial year runs from
1 April to 31 March).
- Prospective
financial information presented in a registered prospectus falls within the
meaning of "general purpose prospective financial
information" contained in
Financial Reporting Standard 29 Prospective Financial Information
(FRS-29), issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of New Zealand
(ICANZ). Financial reporting standards are the primary
indicators of generally
accepted accounting practice (GAAP) in New Zealand.
- The
Securities Regulations do not expressly require that prospective financial
information in a registered prospectus be prepared
in accordance with GAAP.
However, the professional standards of ICANZ require accountants and auditors to
ensure that general purpose
prospective financial information is prepared in
accordance with GAAP (i.e. FRS-29). The Commission is of the opinion that
information
prepared other than in accordance with FRS-29 is likely to be
misleading.
- Prospective
financial information is forward looking financial information which is
necessarily based on assumptions about the future.
Knowledge of the assumptions
is vital to those using the prospective financial information. The soundness of
the prospective financial
information depends on the assumptions on which it is
based.
- FRS-29
establishes principles for the preparation and presentation of general purpose
prospective financial information, and specifies
minimum disclosures. The
Standard explains that, "the preparation of prospective financial information
requires the exercise of significant judgement", given the inherent
uncertainty associated with assumptions about events or actions that may or may
not occur in the future.
- The
Securities Regulations require that where an issuer includes prospective
financial information in a registered prospectus then
the prospectus must also
disclose the principal assumptions on which the prospective financial
information is based.
- In
addition, where a registered prospectus contains prospective financial
information the auditor's report in the prospectus must
contain the following
statement:
"In our opinion, the prospective financial
information, so far as the accounting policies and calculations are concerned,
has been
properly compiled on the footing of the assumptions made or adopted by
the issuer set out at pp... of this prospectus and is presented
on a basis
consistent with the accounting policies normally adopted by the company."
- Both
the prospective statement of cash flows for the year to 5 August 2002 and the
prospective financial statements for the year to
31 March 2002 in WHL's offer
document were required to include the principal assumptions that WHL had used
when preparing this information.
PwC, as WHL's auditor, was required to examine
the prospective financial information with a view to expressing an opinion that
the
information was compiled on the basis of the assumptions made by the company
.
- It
should be noted that an auditor's task in respect of prospective financial
information in a prospectus is limited. He or she is
not required to verify the
information the company used to prepare the prospective information in a
prospectus, or to go behind the
assumptions used to seek information about their
validity. This increases the importance of clear and complete disclosure of all
the principal assumptions that underlie the prospective information, for
prospective investors to properly understand the basis of
its preparation and to
be able to consider the reasonableness of the assumptions.
- Prospective
financial information can be presented in the form of a forecast or a
projection. Put simply, the difference is that a
forecast is considered by those
preparing the information to be "the most probable outcome", whereas a
projection reflects one of
a range of possible outcomes. FRS-29 defines the two
terms in the following way:
"'A forecast' means prospective
financial information prepared on the basis of assumptions as to future events
that the governing
body reasonably expects to occur associated with the actions
the governing body reasonably expects to take as at the date that the
information is prepared (best-estimate assumptions).
'A projection' means prospective financial information prepared on the
basis of one of more hypothetical but realistic assumptions,
(or 'what-if'
scenarios), that reflect possible courses of action for the reporting periods
concerned as at the date that the information
is prepared."
- The
WHL offer document stated that the prospective financial information it
contained was forecast financial information.
- The
offer document stated that the forecasts were based on "events and conditions
existing at the date of this Offer Document".
- As
with other information in a registered prospectus or investment statement,
prospective financial information must not be false
or misleading. Prospective
financial information is not false or misleading simply because the results
projected or forecast do not
eventuate. It may be false or misleading if it is
based on demonstrably incorrect, unreasonable, or incompletely stated
assumptions.
- FRS-29
requires that any error in prospective financial information must be amended as
soon as this comes to the attention of the
governing body of the issuer (the
board of directors in the case of WHL). The Standard describes the meaning of
the expression "errors
in prospective financial information" as follows:
"For the purposes of this Standard, an error in prospective
financial information occurs where:
- in
the case of a forecast:
- an
arithmetic error is made in the preparation of the forecast; or
- an
error is made in the process of deriving the assumptions underlying the
forecast; or
- one
or more of the assumptions as to future events on which the forecast is based
are subsequently deemed not to be reasonably expected.
- in
the case of a projection:
- an
arithmetic error is made in the preparation of the projection; or
- an
error is made in the process of deriving the assumptions underlying the
projection; or
- one
or more of the assumptions as to future courses of action on which the
projection is based are subsequently deemed not to be realistic
or deemed not to
reflect possible courses of action.
- The
question of when a forecast might be considered "untrue" or "false or
misleading" under securities legislation has not been considered
by the courts
in New Zealand. The High Court has held that forecast financial information
prepared for a stock exchange profile can
be found to be "likely to mislead or
deceive" for the purpose of section 9 of the Fair Trading Act 1986 if a
representation in the
forecast either is not honestly believed by its maker or
if there was no reasonable ground for it.
- The
Commission considers that an offer document is likely to be false or misleading
if it contains prospective financial information
that contains an "error in
prospective financial information" for the purposes of FRS-29. For the purposes
of securities law the
Commission considers that an offer document containing
prospective financial information is likely to be misleading (in addition
to
being in breach of the law) if it does not fully and accurately disclose the
principal assumptions on which the information is
based.
WHL's
Forecast Financial Information
Forecasts
- WHL's
forecast statement of financial performance in the offer document predicted a
net profit after tax (NPAT) for the year ending
31 March 2002 of $1.96 million,
from revenues of $26.57 million. This represented an expected increase of 7.4%
in revenues and 14.7%
in net profit compared with the results for the year ended
31 March 2001.
- The
forecast statement of financial position stated that total net tangible assets
as at 31 March 2002 were expected to be $19.36
million, up from $12.17 million
at the same time the previous year.
- The
forecast statement of cash flows forecast a decline in cash flow from operating
activities for the year ending 31 March 2002 (to
$3.14 million as against $3.42
million for the year ended 31 March 2001), and an increase for the year ending 5
August 2002 (to $3.66
million).
- The
figures included in the forecast financial statements were based on WHL's
2001/2002 Business Plan, which was approved by the board
in April 2001. The
Business Plan incorporated the 2002 budget for WHL, which was finalised in March
2001 and presented at that month's
board meeting. Mr Andrew Carpenter, WHL's
Finance and Administration Manager at the time of the IPO, described the process
for deriving
prospective figures for the Business Plan:
"The
major assumptions throughout the Plan are the number of admissions from each
speciality by month and the average revenue received
by Wakefield for each
admission under each speciality. These are initially prepared by Mr Barnes and
validated by myself using the
admissions recorded in the Hospital's patient
administration system databases and the billing system...
On 14 February 2001 Mr Barnes completed the revenue assumptions and gave
them to me for inclusion in the Plan. These assumptions included
175 hearts for
CCH with a value of $2.6 million and 'private' hearts at 290 with a value of
$4.3m (In the year to 31 March 2001 254
CCH and 243 private hearts were
performed, therefore the assumption was valid and the capacity available).
- The
2000/01 year was described in the WHL Business Plan as a "bonanza" in terms of
the number of publicly funded cardiac cases subcontracted
to WHL by CCDHB. The
2001/2002 Business Plan (finalised for approval by the board in April 2001) and
the 2002 Budget (completed in
March 2001) allowed for a 30% reduction in the
number of contracted cardiac cases. Mr Barnes informed the Commission that he
budgeted
for a drop of 30% "because in March 2001 it became evident CCH had
funding issues". Mr Barnes said it was apparent to him from information he
received in early March that CCDHB had funding difficulties in respect
of
services to be provided to the end of the CCDHB year, being 30 June 2001.
However, he believed contracting would continue after
this date.
- Internal
working papers prepared by Mr Barnes and provided to the Commission show that
the budgeted number of 175 contracted cases
was taken as an approximate
mid-point between the previous year high of 254 cases and a possible "minimum"
of 100 cases. It does
not appear that any sensitivity analysis was undertaken
that estimated the financial effect of the possibility of contracted cardiac
surgery ceasing altogether.
- The
Commission was informed by Mr Barnes that the WHL board and management reviewed
the forecast figures in late July, just before
the prospectus was registered.
This review took account of the actual first quarter results (which were lower
than budgeted). It
also included adjustments to the revenues and expenses for
the remainder of the year to allow for higher than previously budgeted
volumes
of contract cardiac surgery for the remainder of the year. In this way the
revised forecast accommodated the lower (than
budgeted) number of contract
cardiac cases actually performed in the first quarter within the total forecast
volume of 175 cases
for the year. The directors' assumption that 175 contract
cases would be completed over the full year remained unchanged at this
time. In
the opinion of the board this forecast was achievable.
- The
directors also gave evidence that the board again reviewed the reasonableness of
the prospective information in August, prior
to the allotment date. At this time
the total expected volume of contracted cardiac surgery for the year was recast
to a lower volume
(135 cases). This was on the assumption that CCDBH contracting
would recommence from October 2001. Expected revenues for contracted
cardiac
surgery were also revised downwards by around 25%. The anticipated volume of
private cardiac surgery remained at the same
level as before, but expected
revenues from private cardiac surgery were revised upwards reflecting an overall
increase in those
revenues of around 4.5% in the August revised forecast for the
full year.
- Mr
Aburn told the Commission that the October recommencement date was assumed on
the basis that CCDHB had to complete its budget discussions
for the 2001/02
year, so it was unlikely that contracting would recommence before October.
- The
effect of these changes was a 7% overall reduction in total expected revenue
from cardiac surgery (contracted and private). The
effect of the changes to
prospective revenue from contracted cardiac surgery was that almost 80% of the
total was expected to be
earned in the second half of WHL's financial year
ending 31 March 2002. WHL's directors advised the Commission that they
considered
this to be achievable.
Assumptions
- The
offer document said that investors must read the assumptions described in the
offer document in order to fully understand the
prospective financial
information. The offer document also advised readers to refer to the risks and
uncertainties discussed in the
offer document under the heading "Risk Factors"
when considering the forecasts. It advised readers not to place "undue reliance"
on the forecasts.
- Under
the heading "Assumptions for Forecasts" the offer document stated:
"Those forward-looking statements are based on the current
beliefs of Wakefield's Board and management as well as on assumptions made
by,
and information available to, Wakefield's Board and management at the time those
statements were made."
- The
list of assumptions was introduced by a statement about a drop in actual
revenues and profits for the first quarter of the year
ending 31 March 2002:
"For the first quarter of the 2002 year, actual revenues and
profits have been adversely affected by a combination of the temporary
absences
of some surgeons and a reduction in the volume of contracted cardiac surgery.
These events are not unusual and allowance
for them has been made in the
forecast of financial performance for the year."
- The
assumptions listed included, under the heading "General Assumptions":
- "There will
be no change in legislation or its administration which will have a material
impact on the operations of the Group.
- There will be
no major structural changes in the way health care is delivered by the public
health system.
- Wakefield's
present senior executives and other key staff will continue in their current
roles..."
- Under
the heading "Revenues and Receivables" was added:
- "Existing
activities of Wakefield will be continued. Revenues will continue to grow both
in terms of volume (6.4% increase in theatre
hours) and price (1% increase).
- The current
specialists using the clinical facilities will continue to base their practices
at the Hospital..."
- The
assumptions to the forecasts did not otherwise mention publicly funded cardiac
surgery.
Issues
- The
Commission has concluded above that the uncertainties surrounding the
contracting situation with CCDHB constituted a risk factor
that was material to
the offer of securities. For the same reasons the Commission considers that the
board's assumptions regarding
the recommencement of publicly funded cardiac
surgery should have been disclosed as significant assumptions underlying the
prospective
financial information.
- FRS-29
requires, in paragraph 5.15, that:
"All significant assumptions
underlying prospective financial information shall be disclosed separately and
clearly identified."
The question of whether an assumption is significant is assessed with
reference to its potential impact on the prospective financial
information and
the degree of uncertainty associated with the assumption. There is a higher
degree of uncertainty associated with
assumptions about matters over which
management has little control or influence.
"FRS-29 also states that:
" Where significant assumptions are subject to a high degree of
uncertainty, this uncertainty, together with its potential financial
effect on
the prospective financial information, shall be disclosed."
This indicates that in addition to disclosing significant assumptions, where
there is a high degree of uncertainty associated with
an assumption then the
uncertainty must be disclosed. Furthermore, a sensitivity analysis should be
undertaken to determine the potential
financial effect of the uncertainty on the
prospective financial information. The financial effects should be disclosed
together
with the assumptions.
- The
Commission is of the opinion that the prospective financial information in the
offer document raises three specific issues:
- the adequacy of
disclosure of the assumptions; and
- the disclosure
of general assumptions to cover specific risks, rather than disclosure of
specific significant assumptions and the
risks and uncertainties associated with
them; and
- whether the
forecast financial statements in the prospectus qualified to be presented to
investors as forecasts on the basis of the
underlying assumptions.
Adequacy of Disclosure of Assumptions
- The
forecast figures for the offer document were prepared on the basis of an
assumption that WHL would receive 175 subcontracted cardiac
cases from CCDHB in
the 2001/02 financial year. These forecasts were based on the 2002 Budget
approved in March 2001 and the 2001/2002
Business Plan finalised in April 2001.
The assumption that WHL would receive 175 subcontracted cardiac cases from CCDHB
did not change
during the period from March 2001 to August 2001.
- This
report has discussed already the indications given to WHL by CCDHB that it did
not intend to subcontract further cardiac surgery
after 30 June 2001. Clear
indications seem to have been given in March 2001, if not earlier, of this
intention. As is also noted
above, the directors of WHL were aware of the CCDHB
intention, but did not believe that CCDHB would be able to meet its goal.
- The
Commission considers the assumptions in the offer document were misleading by
reason of omission of a principal assumption underlying
the prospective
financial information, namely that the directors assumed that CCDHB would
subcontract a certain number of cardiac
cases to WHL in the 2001/02 year.
- Further,
the Commission is of the view that the assumptions stated were likely to mislead
investors regarding the status of subcontracted
cardiac surgery. The statement
in the offer document disclosing the drop in revenue in the first quarter as a
result of a reduction
in the number of subcontracted cardiac cases gives the
impression that this was a temporary and not unusual matter. The statement
went
on to say that this reduction had been taken into account in determining the
forecast figures.
- The
reduction in the volume of contracted cardiac surgery cases in the first quarter
amounted to a 37% drop in actual contracted cardiac
admissions against the
budgeted admissions for the quarter (28 actual cases against 45 budgeted cases).
The associated revenue effect
was a 43% drop in actual revenues measured against
forecast revenue for the first quarter.
- The
minutes of WHL's June 2001 board meeting show that Mr Riordan confirmed that
"CCH was now firmly against contracting". The General Manager's Report to
the board for June 2001 reported the "complete cessation of subcontracted
surgery by CCH despite prior "good faith" discussions to the contrary". On
the Commission's assessment of the information available to the board, it
appears that the reduction in the volume of cardiac
surgery contracting was in
fact unusual, and was not of a temporary nature at the time of the offer
document.
- The
statement in the assumptions that "Existing activities at Wakefield will be
continued" also lends support to an impression that subcontracted cardiac
surgery was being undertaken by WHL as at the date of the registered
prospectus.
This was not so.
- The
directors of WHL formed the business judgement that CCDHB would recommence
subcontracting at a level that would provide a significant
percentage of WHL's
total revenue for the 2001/02 year. They assumed this despite indications that
this was uncertain.
- When
the potential impact of this assumption on WHL's financial performance is
assessed alongside the level of uncertainty surrounding
the future contracting
situation, it is the Commission's opinion that the directors had adopted an
assumption for the prospective
financial information which was significant. This
assumption should have been disclosed to investors in the offer document.
- The
Commission is of the opinion that the statement of assumptions in the offer
document was misleading by reason of failing to specifically
state a significant
assumption underlying the prospective financial information in the offer
document, namely the assumption that
WHL would receive significant revenues from
publicly funded cardiac surgery in the 2001/02 year.
Use of
General Assumptions
- FRS-29
requires that any significant assumptions be disclosed separately and clearly
identified. The Standard explains why this is
required:
"Prospective financial information will be based on many
assumptions about future conditions and events which may or may not occur.
The
quality of the information will be dependent largely on the appropriateness of
these assumptions. Therefore, users are to be
provided with these assumptions so
as to make their own informed judgement on the quality and reliability of the
assumptions. For
users to make their own judgement it is necessary to provide
information which assists them in assessing the sensitivity of prospective
financial information to changes in assumptions which are subject to high
degrees of uncertainty."
- In
his statement to the Commission Mr Barnes drew attention to the disclosure in
the offer document, under "General Assumptions", of the assumption that
"There will be no major structural changes in the way health care is
delivered in the public health system", and the assumption that "Existing
activities...will be continued".
- A
stated assumption regarding "no major structural changes in the way health
care is delivered by the public health system" may be viewed as a general
assumption covering the possibility that future changes in CCDHB policy could
have an effect on WHL's
prospective financial information.
- In
evidence given to the Commission Mr John Aburn, an independent director of WHL,
spoke of the importance of publicly funded cardiac
surgery to WHL:
"Q:
|
The District Health Board contract was one of the critical factors in
achieving that forecast?
|
A:
|
It was a significant part of our overall cashflow and
profitability"
|
- For
the purpose of the prospective financial information in the offer document the
directors had made a business judgement that future
revenues and profits would
flow from entering into a new Schedule for cardiac surgery during the
forthcoming year. The revenues,
profits and cash flows included in the
prospective information on the basis of that business judgement were
significant. At the date
of the prospectus no Schedule was in place for publicly
funded cardiac surgery, and there was uncertainty as to whether a contract
would
be concluded in future at all. No such Schedule was concluded in the year
following the issue of the prospectus.
- Assumptions
accompanying prospective financial information in prospectuses should be capable
of assisting prospective investors to
make their investment decisions.
Significant assumptions need to be set out with sufficient clarity to allow
investors to identify
the particular risks to the achievement of a forecast or
projection that may eventuate if those assumptions prove to be incorrect.
- In
this context the Commission does not consider that the general assumptions in
the offer document provide an adequate substitute
for disclosure of the specific
assumption regarding future district health board contracting on which the
directors of WHL based
the forecast financial statements.
- The
Commission does not consider that the disclosure of the general assumptions was
sufficient for the purposes of the obligation
under the Securities Regulations
1983 to disclose "principal assumptions" underlying its prospective financial
information.
Assumptions Relating to the Forecast Financial
Statements
- FRS-29
requires all disclosures of prospective financial information to be labelled
clearly as a forecast or a projection. WHL's prospective
financial information
in the prospectus was presented as forecast financial information.
- FRS-29
requires that prospective financial information include a statement explaining
the differences between forecasts and projections.
This statement must emphasise
that a forecast is based on "assumptions which the governing body reasonably
expects to occur", while a projection is based on "one or more
hypothetical but realistic assumptions".
- Potential
investors can expect to be able to place more confidence in forecasts than in
projections. The commentary to FRS-29 notes
that a clear distinction between the
two reduces the possibility of unwarranted credibility being attached to the
information. Where
prospective financial information is labelled as a forecast
it is important that it qualifies as a forecast under the definition
of that
term in FRS-29.
- The
component of the prospective financial information in WHL's offer document
relating to revenues, profits, and cash flows from
subcontracted cardiac surgery
with CCDHB rested on the directors' business judgement that cardiac contracting
would recommence, and
would provide significant revenue in the 2001/02 year.
- The
contracted cardiac surgery component of the prospective financial information
may have been based originally (when the budgets
were finalised in March /April
2001) on an assumption that was a "best-estimate". In the Commission's opinion
this assumption became
objectively less supportable as the year progressed.
- This
raises questions for the Commission as to whether or not, at the date of the
prospectus, and at the latest by the date of allotment
of the shares, the
prospective financial information qualified to be described as forecast
financial statements because one of the
significant assumptions on which they
were based was a hypothetical rather than a "best-estimate" assumption.
- Mr
John Aburn, an independent director of WHL, told the Commission that WHL's
management were asked to "retest" the forecast figures
at both the July and
August board meetings (prior to signing off on the prospectus and prior to
allotment of the shares). The management
reports for June and July (presented at
board meetings at the end of July and August respectively) show an awareness
that the actual
revenues and net profits were less than the budget and forecast
amounts on a year-to-date basis, and the acknowledgement that this
was due
largely to the cessation in publicly funded cardiac surgery.
- The
assumptions for the forecasts stated that an allowance had been made for the
reduction in contracted cardiac surgery in the first
quarter of 2001/02.
Evidence was given by Mr Aburn, Mr Morris, and Mr Barnes that the directors
continued, until after the date of
the registered prospectus, to assume that 175
cases would be referred to WHL in the 2001/02 financial year. Mr Barnes told the
Commission:
"Our forecast had always been on the basis that the
175 cases that we anticipated at the time we made that forecast would not
commence
at earliest until about mid-September."
- The
July General Manager's report, given to the board at the end of August, spoke of
a "disastrous drop in profitability" compared to the previous year. That
report still expected contracting to resume, possibly re-commencing in October,
on the basis
of information available to management and the directors concerning
the growing public waiting lists for elective cardiac surgery.
- The
July General Manager's report attached a revised forecast for the 2001/02 year,
which estimated a total 135 publicly funded cardiac
cases instead of the
previously estimated 175 cases. This revised forecast showed only a relatively
small variation in the total
forecast revenue and total forecast net profit for
the year. The decline in total forecast net profit amounted to $45,000, which
the directors considered was not a material decline. The reason for this was
mainly that the revised forecast incorporated the effects
of proposed increased
prices for various services, including cardiac surgery.
- It
appears that no sensitivity analysis was undertaken at the time of the revised
forecast in August 2001, to examine the financial
effects on the prospective
information of a total cessation of publicly funded cardiac surgery. Mr Aburn
and Mr Morris told the Commission
that WHL anticipated subcontracting would
resume around mid-October. The Commission asked whether this would make it
difficult for
WHL to deal with the forecast number of publicly funded cardiac
cases, even if CCDHB resumed contracting:
"Q:
|
By [late August] you had 130 cases that you would have had to do between
then and the beginning of November, with the time out over
Christmas, and then
have them achieve the forecast; you would have been
squeezed?
|
A:
|
It would have been more difficult..."
|
- The
directors did, however, consider it achievable:
"...the forecast
in the prospectus was based on the fact that with contracting resuming in
October we built a figure of slightly in
excess of 100 cases into our forecast
and we believe we could manage that with the resources we have..."
- At
the August board meeting the board resolved, after considering the revised
forecast, that:
"nothing has occurred since the 6 August signing
of the offer document which makes the offer misleading."
The board authorised Mr Barnes to sign the required notice.
- The
chairman of WHL, Mr Calder, told the Commission that he warned the board to take
care with this decision:
"I recall myself saying to members of
the Board that they should be very clear that if they had any doubts as to our
ability to perform
that they should speak up, but at that meeting we affirmed
our opinion of the July meeting, which was we were confident that predictions
were as accurate as they could be."
- It
appears to the Commission that the directors of WHL continued to believe that
contracting would recommence and, from an operational
perspective, that WHL had
the capacity and resources to cope with the additional operational demands of
undertaking almost 80% of
the total forecast cardiac admissions in the second
half of the year. The directors informed the Commission that WHL had, in the
past year, coped with as many as 28 contracted cardiac cases per month, in
addition to its normal level of demand for private cardiac
and other surgery.
- FRS-29
states, in relation to the assumptions supporting a forecast, that:
"Assumptions used in preparing forecasts shall be reasonable,
supportable, consistent among themselves and with the strategic plans
of the
entity, and be applied consistently."
The Standard further explains the term "supportable":
"To be supportable, best-estimate assumptions need to be based on the past
performance of the entity itself, the performance of similar
entities,
feasibility or other studies that provide objective corroboration, and the
prevailing economic environment...The extent
of detailed information supporting
each assumption and an assessment of the reasonableness of each assumption will
vary according
to circumstances, and will be influenced by factors such as the
significance of the assumption and the availability and quality of
the
supporting information"
- On
the basis of the criteria set out in FRS-29, an assumption for a forecast must
be supportable on the basis of objective information.
The directors' belief that
the forecast was likely to be achieved continued to rely on the assumption that
cardiac contracting was
likely to recommence. The Commission doubts whether this
assumption was supportable at latest by the date of allotment of the shares.
- It
appears to the Commission that evidence available at the time gives rise to
clear questions about whether the assumption was supportable.
In particular:
- CCDHB had
publicly communicated its strategic intention to work towards performing all
cardiac surgery on an "in-house" basis from
1 July 2001. Information about its
intention to implement this plan was publicly available prior to the date of the
prospectus and
prior to the date of the allotment.
- CCDHB had
communicated its intention to WHL that it would not enter into a new contract
for cardiac surgery after 30 June 2001 (and
after that date had not done so).
The communication of this information took place between CCDHB and WHL at the
executive management
level, and was available to the directors at the date of
the prospectus and the date of the allotment.
- No Schedule to
perform publicly funded cardiac surgery existed at the date of the prospectus
and at the date of allotment.
- CCDHB had not
referred any cardiac cases to WHL after 30 June 2001.
- WHL
argued that evidence provided by the directors to the Commission demonstrated
that the board's beliefs were sufficiently supported.
This support was derived
from the individual directors' past experience of WHL's business and, in the
case of certain directors,
from their experiences as medical specialists with
extensive experience of the delivery of health services in the public sector.
Fundamental to this opinion was their view that the pressure on waiting lists
that would result from the attempt by CCDHB to perform
all its cardiac surgery
in-house would require CCDHB to resume contracting.
- WHL
also submitted that Ms Mains had been non-committal in her response regarding
the assumption on cardiac subcontracting:
"Q:
|
...was it ever in your minds a reasonable supposition by anyone that you
would contract out 175 cases in the year 2001 to 2002 to
Wakefield?
|
A:
|
Maybe if I answer it, but I don't want to answer it from Wakefield
because I have to make these judgement calls myself in terms of
the revenue you
are projecting for a year. You could rule either way. Was it based on any
indication we had given to them in writing
or commitments? No. Was it based on
an interpretation, would I base it on an interpretation? Well, this has happened
this year and
this has happened that year, and management do make those
calls."
|
- The
Commission's impression of Ms Main's response was that she declined to express
any view herself, but considered this a role for
others.
- Mr
Bruce Wattie, a partner at PwC, was involved in the review of the prospective
financial information. He provided an affidavit for
the Commission in which he
said:
"From the work undertaken by PwC to enable it to give the
auditor's report in respect of prospective financial information contained
in
the Prospectus and Investment Statement I believed that WHL had such confidence,
that the future events on which the prospective
financial information contained
in the Prospectus and Investment Statement was based were likely to occur, that
the information could
be characterised as a forecast rather than a
projection."
- Taking
into account the arguments and submissions of WHL and the evidence of Mr Wattie
regarding the directors' confidence in the
assumptions, the Commission notes
that by the date of allotment two months had passed with no referrals from CCDHB
and no positive
indications from CCDHB that any would be forthcoming, despite
the growing waiting lists. At that stage the directors' expectation
that the
forecast revenues would flow from the anticipated recommencement of contracting
later in the year would seem to have been
possible, but not probable.
- In
the circumstances the Commission considers that, by the date of allotment, the
use of the term "forecast" to describe the prospective
financial information was
likely to mislead prospective investors in terms of the level of confidence they
could have in the prospective
financial information.
THE DUE
DILIGENCE PROCESS
- The
Commission has concluded that the offer document for the IPO failed to
adequately disclose key risks associated with the offer
of shares, and failed to
adequately identify and disclose the assumptions underlying the prospective
financial information set out
in the offer document. The Commission has
concluded that a significant assumption underlying the prospective financial
information
had become, by the date of the allotment, a hypothetical possibility
rather than a "best-estimate".
- Having
heard evidence the Commission is satisfied that at the time of allotment of the
shares the directors of WHL believed that the
subcontracting for publicly funded
cardiac surgery would resume, and that WHL would be able to achieve its forecast
results for the
financial year ending 31 March 2002. However, the Commission
considers that this honest belief on the part of the directors was mistaken.
- The
Commission is aware that hindsight provides for much easier identification of
risks. One of the documents obtained by the Commission
in the course of its
inquiry was a copy of minutes of a meeting held by Forsyth Barr, the lead
manager for the share offer, on 28
November 2001. Mr Barnes attended this
meeting. The minutes of the meeting record him saying:
"with the
benefit of hindsight would have said assumption that cardiac contract will not
be reduced."
When questioned about this by the Commission Mr Barnes explained this
statement:
"With the benefit of hindsight we should probably have flagged that the
non-resumption of a contract at all was a risk. If not a likely
risk, a risk and
it should have been said. But that, I might say, is with the benefit of
hindsight and, of course, I have even more
acute hindsight now."
- Other
than by hindsight, identification of risk factors is often best achieved by
involving an independent person in the identification
and assessment process. We
note this is supported by FRS-29, which makes the following point in relation to
developing assumptions
for prospective financial information:
"It is usual to examine closely for inherent flaws the process
used to develop the assumptions. The use of an independent third party
to review
these assumptions is often a valuable aid to reduce internal bias, and to
provide an additional perspective on the validity
of the assumptions. This is
particularly so when the development of assumptions requires specialist
skills."
- In
the case of WHL the identification and assessment of financial risks for the
preparation of the offer document, and the development
of assumptions for the
prospective financial information responsive to the risks, was undertaken
largely in reliance on members of
WHL's management and directors who were
themselves very close to the offer process. In particular, reliance was placed
on Mr Barnes
to provide accurate figures to the board. Mr Barnes, as well as the
other directors, appear to have placed significant weight on
the opinion
repeatedly expressed by Mr Riordan that CCDHB would have to resume contracting,
as it would be untenable, in terms of
government's health policy, to allow the
waiting list for elective cardiac surgery to grow beyond the six month waiting
period.
- The
Commission has concluded that it seems unlikely that the directors' implicit
assumptions relating to contracted cardiac surgery
could, on an objective
assessment, have been considered probable, at latest by the date of allotment.
It appears to the Commission
that WHL should have obtained external assessment
of financial aspects of its offer document, and in particular its prospective
financial
information.
WHL's Due Diligence
Legal due diligence
- WHL's
solicitors and auditors both advised of the importance of a thorough due
diligence process for the IPO, particularly in relation
to financial aspects.
Buddle Findlay (BF) wrote to the board of WHL on 1 June 2001 to clarify the due
diligence process to be implemented
for the IPO. This letter summarised the
objectives of the due diligence process prior to finalisation of offer documents
for the
share offer:
"(a)
|
to ensure that the offer documents make full and fair disclosure of all
material facts, do not contain any false or misleading statements
and that there
are no material omissions from those documents; and
|
(b)
|
there is evidence to show that those involved in the preparation of the
offer documents made reasonable enquiries such as to provide
reasonable grounds
for the belief that all material statements in those documents were true and not
misleading and that there were
no material omissions."
|
- In
relation to the second objective, Buddle Findlay clarified that the aim was to
assist the company and its directors to take advantage
of any available "due
diligence" defences to liability under the Securities Act and Regulations. On
this point Buddle Findlay noted:
"while the SA provisions
relating to those defences refer to directors having reasonable grounds for
believing statements to be true
and not misleading, where offer documents
contain material errors or omissions the Courts are likely to impose a high
threshold on
directors seeking to avail themselves of such defences. In other
words, a high standard of investigation and enquiry by directors
would need to
be shown to take advantage of the due diligence defences."
- Buddle
Findlay provided a legal opinion and due diligence report on 6 August 2001. The
legal opinion is referred to earlier in this
Report. It concluded that the Offer
Document complied with relevant law, but was expressly qualified and did not
extend to "statements of a financial, accounting or commercial nature".
Commercial due diligence
- Forsyth
Barr, the lead manager and organising broker for the IPO, also undertook a due
diligence process. This was carried out by
Forsyth Barr's solicitors, Horsley
Christie, and was termed "Commercial Due Diligence". Forsyth Barr advised
WHL that this due diligence was part of Forsyth Barr's usual internal procedures
to cover reputational risks
for Forsyth Barr.
- The
commercial due diligence process included provision of a questionnaire for WHL
management addressing commercial, business, strategic,
and financial aspects of
WHL's operations. This questionnaire was completed and discussed at a meeting on
25 June 2001 between Forsyth
Barr and WHL's directors. Horsley Christie provided
a due diligence report for Forsyth Barr on 10 July 2001.
- This
exercise was intended for the benefit of Forsyth Barr, not WHL. The opinion
provided by Horsley Christie confirmed this.
- It
is clear from evidence received by the Commission that WHL understood the
purpose of the Forsyth Barr due diligence. The matter
was raised in evidence
from Mr Barnes.
"Q:
|
Is it correct that Forsyth Barr's due diligence was for their own
purposes?
|
A:
|
That was my understanding.
|
"Q:
|
So, whatever they did, Wakefield Hospital wouldn't be relying on that,
it was doing its own due diligence?
|
A:
|
Correct."
|
- However,
it also appears from evidence heard by the Commission that WHL's directors did
take some comfort from the Forsyth Barr exercise,
despite this being carried out
expressly for the benefit of the broker. Mr Calder was asked about the purpose
of the due diligence:
"Q:
|
In terms of Forsyth Barr's due diligence was it the case that was purely
for their own purposes?
|
A:
|
I assume so, but obviously if they weren't comfortable then they
wouldn't have proceeded with the issue."
|
- A
copy of the transcript of the commercial due diligence questionnaire and the
answers given was provided to WHL. It was reported
at the Finance Committee
meeting on 6 July 2001 and at the WHL board meeting on 13 July 2001 that no
material matters were reported
arising from the commercial due diligence.
- A
file note prepared by a Buddle Findlay solicitor of a meeting of the WHL Finance
Committee held on 29 May 2001 records that the
position of the Forsyth Barr due
diligence was explained to the Finance Committee. It appears from this that
Forsyth Barr did not
intend this process to be something that WHL should rely
on:
"AZS [solicitor from Buddle Findlay] asked [Forsyth Barr]
where the commercial due diligence being carried out by Forsyth Barr fit
in in
the process - i.e. would it result in a report to the Board or was it merely an
internal report by Forsyth Barr to protect
its reputational interests. [Forsyth
Barr] noted it was to protect Forsyth Barr's interests. AZS asked ... whether
Forsyth Barr's
report could be presented to Wakefield's board - he noted that,
in terms of the legal due diligence, we would be presenting a report
to
Wakefield's directors, for them to rely on. Michael Morris remarked that he
assumed that if Forsyth Barr came across any difficulties,
those would be
communicated to Wakefield. There was no response from Forsyth Barr and the
matter was not decided."
- It
appears that the Horsley Christie due diligence report was not given to the WHL
board.
Financial due diligence
- In
late April PwC offered to provide, in addition to its audit services, a
financial due diligence service for the IPO. This would
be undertaken by a
specialist due diligence partner, separate from the audit partners, reporting
directly to WHL's due diligence
committee. The purpose was to act in a quality
control role ensuring that all financial and tax matters required by the due
diligence
committee were completed.
- Mr
Morris told the Commission that WHL's Finance Committee decided on 29 May 2001
that an external financial due diligence was unnecessary,
and that WHL would get
no benefit from such an exercise. This decision was commented on by Buddle
Findlay in their letter of 1 June
2001:
"In our experience it is
common for the directors of a company preparing for an IPO to engage either its
auditors or other independent
accountants to conduct financial (and sometimes
commercial) due diligence on the company as part of the due diligence process.
As noted above, the Committee has concluded that in this case, external
financial due diligence is not necessary, given the proximity
to the end of the
previous financial year (for which there will be audited accounts), the steady
nature of the business's financial
performance, and the close and detailed
understanding that directors have of Wakefield's financial affairs. We
understand the Committee
is confident that in practical terms, the internal due
diligence proposed will be sufficient in the present circumstances to identify
all material financial information for inclusion in the prospectus and to ensure
the accuracy of the offer documents as far as Wakefield's
financial position is
concerned.
External due diligence would obviously provide the highest level of
assurance to a company's directors that all material financial
matters had been
included in the offer documents. In Court proceedings in relation to offer
documents that are found to be false
or misleading or to omit material
information, it is possible that the Court may perceive internal management
financial due diligence
on its own to be less rigorous than external due
diligence, which in turn might undermine the availability of due diligence
defences
under the Securities Act."
- In
order to be able to demonstrate that the internal due diligence process was
thorough, Buddle Findlay recommended a documented process
for the Committee's
requirements for investigations by management. The Commission was told that
precedent forms were provided for
completion by management, detailing aspects of
the financial affairs of the company. Mr Aburn and Mr Morris told the Commission
that
these forms were not used. Mr Morris told the Commission:
"I did ask about that. They weren't used in the form that I had
seen them used for other issues but, again, Wakefield is a relatively
small
straightforward business operating from one location.
The other one I have seen has been a much larger complex organisation
operating from a number of locations. It would have been good
practice for it to
have been signed off but I didn't think it was necessary."
- Mr
Aburn said:
"We decided that the process we were using was
robust enough and it followed the process that we had been using in previous
years,
and the executives Carpenter and Barnes having taken that information
past Michael Morris and myself and then taken along to the
Board, and it being
discussed and questioned by the Board in some detail, we decided that was
sufficient."
- According
to the Finance Committee members the financial due diligence process followed
the same processes adopted in previous years
for the annual planning process and
completion of the business plan.
- PwC's
engagement letter confirmed the limited nature of its review of the prospective
financial information. This consisted solely
of a review of the information for
the purposes of the required statement under the Securities Regulations.
Importantly PwC did not
undertake any external verification of the information
in the offer document.
- It
does not appear that WHL's internal financial due diligence involved steps to
obtain an objective, independent evaluation of the
assumptions underlying the
prospective financial information. In particular WHL did not directly enquire
into CCDHB's future plans
to bring all cardiac surgery in-house, or the
likelihood of subcontracting of cardiac surgery resuming in future.
- In
the Commission's opinion this weakened WHL's due diligence process. Publicly
funded cardiac surgery represented a significant part
of the prospective
revenues of WHL. Whether this was a source of revenue that was likely to
continue may have been clarified by a
direct approach to CCDHB at the executive
or Board level. The question was put to Ms Mains:
"Q:
|
This is just hypothetical, but if Wakefield, as part of doing their
prospectus, had instructed their auditors Pricewaterhouse to check
every item of
their projection and Pricewaterhouse had come to you and said Mr Barnes thinks
he's going to do 175 heart procedures
on contract for you this year in, say,
July of last year, how would Capital Coast Health have responded to
that?
|
A:
|
I would have been very clear without, you know, breaching
confidentiality which was around our business plan at that stage with the
Ministry of Health, I would have been very clear that we had no intention of
contracting any cardiac surgery, that we had a firm
resolve to carry out all of
our contract in-house."
|
- In
the event no enquiry was made. On the evidence before the Commission, an
objective enquiry such as one undertaken by an external
due diligence adviser
could have achieved a more thorough assessment of the risks and assumptions that
needed to be disclosed in
the offer document.
- Mr
Wattie's affidavit referred also to the subject of financial due diligence. Mr
Wattie told the Commission that he has participated
in about 10 due diligence
assignments. Mr Wattie did not consider that an external due diligence exercise
would have been likely
to include an approach to CCDHB:
"A
financial due diligence would have been undertaken for the Board of Directors of
WHL under terms of reference agreed with the board.
The initial investigations
would have been internal to the company and would have included a detailed
consideration of the financial
reports of WHL, and its business records. From
these a report would have been prepared for submission to the Board of
Directors.
The scope of the work undertaken at this time is most unlikely to
have included direct contact with either major customers or suppliers
of WHL. If
the financial due diligence report identified that there was a high risk in
relation to any particular issue, then this
would have been brought to the
attention of the Board. Following this initial report to the Board, any
additional procedures to be
performed would have been agreed by the Board.
I cannot exclude the possibility that the Board of Directors of WHL,
having received an initial report, may have wished to have inquiries
made of
Capital Coast District Health Board. However, this would only have been
undertaken at the request of the Board of Directors
of WHL and only if it
believed it required more information to enable it to assess the risks
identified as a result of the initial
inquiries. If the Board of Directors of
WHL believed they had an adequate understanding of the risks identified in an
initial report,
then it is unlikely that they would have thought it necessary to
ask an external adviser to make contact with purchasers or suppliers."
- Mr
Morris also told the Commission that from his experience it would be unusual for
an investigating accountant carrying out financial
due diligence to approach
customers.
- Despite
these statements the Commission is of the view that an objective financial due
diligence exercise would have carefully reviewed
risks and uncertainties around
the key sources of revenue, including major customers. Use of an external
financial due diligence
adviser could have allowed for more objective testing of
the assumptions. It may have included seeking out CCDHB's public statements
about its future plans and its position in relation to contracting (including
the minutes of CCDHB meetings referred to in this report).
It could have
assisted to obtain sufficient information about CCDHB's policy in relation to
future contracting to convince directors
to seek some formal confirmation from
the board of CCDHB about the contracting for the coming year, and to make a more
objectively
informed assessment of the risks and assumptions underlying the
information in the offer document.
- The
Commission is of the opinion that the failure by WHL either to engage an
external firm to carry out financial due diligence or
to conduct a structured
internal process that included appropriate objective assessment of its forecasts
and assumptions may have
contributed to the offer document being likely to
mislead prospective investors in its description of the risks of investment in
the business and in its presentation of the assumptions underlying the
prospective financial information.
CONSEQUENCES
- In
view of the Commission's findings about the offer document we describe the
possible consequences below.
Voidable Allotments
- Under
section 37A(1)(b) of the Securities Act a security offered to the public must
not be allotted if at the time of allotment the
investment statement or
registered prospectus relating to the security is known by the issuer of the
security, or any director of
the issuer, to be false or misleading in a material
particular by reason of failing to refer, or give proper emphasis, to adverse
circumstances. This applies whether or not the investment statement or
registered prospectus became false or misleading as a result
of a change of
circumstances occurring after the date of the investment statement or registered
prospectus.
- If
an allotment of securities is made in contravention of this section then that
allotment is voidable if the subscriber gives notice
in writing to the issuer.
This notice can only be given within a certain time period, which is the lesser
of:
- a
period of one year after the security or a certificate of the security has been
sent to the subscriber; or
- a
period of 6 months after the subscriber knows, or ought reasonably to know, that
the allotment was made in contravention of the
section.
- The
shares were allotted on 5 September 2001. Because WHL is listed on the NZSE (and
its shares traded on the FASTER electronic trading
system) there is no
requirement for it to issue share certificates. In the circumstances we think
the one year period, if applicable,
is likely to apply from the date on which
shareholders were given confirmation of their allotments.
- The
Commission is of the view that the offer document was at the time of allotment
of shares, false or misleading in a material particular
by reason of failing to
refer, or give proper emphasis to, adverse circumstances. The adverse
circumstances in this case were the
uncertainties surrounding contracting with
CCDHB and, by the date of allotment in particular, the fact that there had been
no referrals
of publicly funded cardiac surgery cases to WHL after 30 June 2001.
- On
the evidence it has heard the Commission is satisfied that the directors of WHL
held an honest belief that the subcontracting with
CCDHB would resume, both when
they prepared the offer document and when the securities were allotted.
Liability
- The
Securities Act imposes criminal and civil liability for breaches of the Act and
for use of offer documents containing untrue statements.
It is possible that
some of these liability provisions might apply. It is also possible that some
defences might apply. It is not
for the Commission to determine liability under
any of these provisions - that is the role of the Courts.
- The
Securities Act provides for both criminal and civil liability where a registered
prospectus or advertisement (including an investment
statement) contains an
"untrue statement". These liability provisions apply to the issuer of the
securities and/or its directors.
- For
these purposes an "untrue statement" includes one that is misleading:
- in
the form and context in which it is included; or
- by
reason of the omission of a particular that is material to the statement in the
form and context in which it is included.
- Under
section 56 of the Securities Act, every person who has signed the registered
prospectus as a director of the issuer (or who
has authorised someone else to
sign for him or her) may be liable to compensate anyone who subscribes for
securities on the faith
of a registered prospectus which contains any untrue
statement for any loss or damage sustained by reason of the untrue statement.
- Section
58 of the Securities Act states that if a registered prospectus containing an
untrue statement is distributed then any person
who has signed the registered
prospectus as a director of the issuer (or who has authorised someone else to
sign for him or her)
may be liable to be fined or imprisoned.
- Under
section 59 of the Securities Act, where an offer of securities is made to the
public, or a registered prospectus is distributed,
or a security allotted, in
contravention of the Securities Act, the issuer and every person who has
authorised himself or herself
to be named in the registered prospectus as a
director of the issuer (and who is named) may be liable to be fined.
- There
are certain defences available to liability under each of these provisions.
Principally, a person will not be liable under sections
56 or 58 in respect of
any untrue statement if that person proves that he or she had reasonable grounds
to believe, and did believe,
that the statement was true.
- On
the evidence it has heard the Commission is satisfied that the directors of WHL
held an honest belief that the subcontracting with
CCDHB would resume. The
Commission is satisfied that the directors of WHL believed that the risk
statements and assumptions were
not misleading by reason of omitting references
to the risks associated with the contracting situation with CCDHB.
- Whether
the belief held by the directors of WHL was, objectively, held on reasonable
grounds will depend on the circumstances of the
offer and of WHL, and the steps
taken by WHL and its directors in preparing the offer document.
- The
Commission considers that relevant factors to any assessment of the
reasonableness of the beliefs held by directors may include:
- the extent of
the financial due diligence conducted, and the failure to perform an objective,
independent evaluation of the basis
for the directors' beliefs about the future
of publicly funded cardiac surgery at WHL;
- the fact that
WHL did obtain an external legal due diligence report, and a legal opinion in
respect of the legal compliance of the
offer document (excluding statements of a
financial, accounting, or commercial nature);
- the history of
the contracting arrangements between WHL and CCDHB, and of CCDHB's past
inability to carry out all its own cardiac
surgery in public hospitals.
- It
is not for the Commission to determine liability of any person under these
provisions. That is the role of the Court.
ACTIONS
- The
Commission refers this report to the shareholders of WHL who subscribed for
shares in the IPO, for them to consider the questions
of civil liability and the
question of voidable allotments. Whether any action should be taken is a matter
for those shareholders
to determine.
- The
Commission's findings have highlighted possible breaches of securities law. The
Commission will refer this report to the Companies
Office.
________________________________
Jane Diplock
Chairman of
the Securities Commission
7 August 2002
TERMS OF REFERENCE: WAKEFIELD HOSPITAL LIMITED
PURSUANT to section 10 of the Securities Act 1978 the Securities
Commission has decided to undertake an inquiry to review the facts and
circumstances
of the offer and allotment of the shares of Wakefield Hospital
Limited ("WHL") for the company's initial public offering as a company
listed on
the New Zealand Stock Exchange ("NZSE") in September 2001, and the company's
communications to the share market subsequent
to the allotment.
|
THE Commission wishes to consider any evidence which may be material
to:
|
|
(a)
|
(i)
|
whether the registered prospectus issued by WHL dated 6 August 2001 was
false or misleading as to any material information, or omitted
any material
information or did not comply with the Securities Act 1978 or the Securities
Regulations 1983;
|
|
|
(ii)
|
whether at the time of allotment of the securities offered under the WHL
prospectus it was known by WHL or any of its directors to
be false or misleading
in a material particular by reason of failing to refer, or give emphasis, to
adverse circumstances affecting
the entity and any information included in or
omitted from the prospectus pertaining to those circumstances;
|
|
|
(ii)
|
whether, in respect of any materially untrue, inaccurate or misleading
information included in the WHL prospectus or any material
information omitted
from the prospectus, the directors of WHL had reasonable grounds to believe, and
did believe up to the time of
allotment of the securities, that the prospectus
was true in respect of the manner of presentation of that information in the
prospectus;
|
|
(b)
|
the nature of the information communicated to shareholders and the NZSE
about the performance and prospective performance of WHL after
the date of
allotment of the securities;
|
|
(c)
|
the procedures observed by the directors of WHL in relation to:
|
|
|
(i)
|
preparation of the prospectus dated 6 August 2001;
|
|
|
(ii)
|
approval of the allotment of securities under the offer supported by that
prospectus;
|
|
AND to consider:
|
|
(d)
|
any other matters material to the inquiry;
|
|
(e)
|
whether the Commission should comment on any matters arising in the inquiry
to WHL, its directors, its shareholders, the NZSE or to
any other appropriate
body under section 10(c) of the Securities Act;
|
|
(f)
|
whether the Commission should publish a report or take any other action.
|
|
SUBJECT to the discretion of the Commission to amend these Terms of
Reference as it may consider fit.
12 March 2002
|
NZLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/nz/other/NZSecCom/2002/9.html