The Project manager introduced the paper related to a request for clarification received by the IFRS Interpretations Committee (IC) in respect of the requirement to disclose summary financial information about material joint ventures and associates in paragraph 21(b)(ii) of IFRS 12 Disclosure of Interests in Other Entities.

The outreach activities identified two issues:

• Issue 1—whether the summarised financial information for material joint ventures/associates can be aggregated:  The submitter has identified two views (a) View A—an entity can aggregate the information required to be disclosed for each material joint venture or associate; and (b) View B—an entity should disclose the information required for each material joint venture or associate on an individual basis
• Issue 2—Whether the summarised financial information for material joint ventures/associates must be disclosed in accordance with IFRS 12.21(b)(ii), even in the case of regulatory barriers.

The staff concluded not to take these issues onto its agenda given that the issues were not widespread and they did not identify diversity in practice.

Discussion:

One IC member mentioned that he agreed with the staff recommendation. However, he would like to have more discussion in the final agenda decision regarding other areas that are under discussion. As regards materiality, he questioned whether the assessment was on a stand-alone basis or as a whole at group level. He clarified that the topics were being analysed in Germany and by Big 4s but not at IFRIC level.

Another IC member mentioned that it was necessary to clarify the aggregation criteria under the requirements of IAS 1 Presentation of Financial Statements. Another IC member indicated that there was tension between aggregation guidance and the requirements to disclose material information and he understood that there was diversity in practice. Another IC member pointed out that the aggregation criteria was also a decision about materiality, if it was material it should be disclosed. He also believed that the agenda decision should indicate what current practice was. In that regard, the Chairman pointed out that he was hesitant about defining what current practice was when there were a lot of jurisdictions and they have not received responses from all of them. Another IC member said that when there were subsidiaries with different businesses, the aggregation criteria might be difficult to apply.

Decision:

The Chairman concluded that the wording of the agenda decision would be revised and the IC would be provided with an update. The agenda decision will state that disclosures should be on an individual basis. No objections were raised.