3.B. CAPITALIZATION AND INDEBTEDNESS

Not applicable.

3.C. REASONS FOR THE OFFER AND USE OF PROCEEDS

Not applicable.

  3.D. RISK FACTORS

Your holding of units of our company will involve substantial risks. You should carefully consider the following factors in addition to the other information set forth in this Form 20-F. If any of the following risks actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations and the value of your units would likely suffer.

Risks Relating to Us and Our Company

Our company is a recently formed partnership with limited separate operating history and the historical financial information included herein does not reflect the financial condition or operating results we would have achieved during certain of the periods presented, and therefore may not be a reliable indicator of our future financial performance.

Our company was formed on January 3, 2013. Our limited operating history will make it difficult to assess our ability to operate profitably and make distributions to unitholders. Although most of our assets and operations have been under Brookfield’s control prior to our acquisition of such assets and operations, the historical financial statements included in this Form 20-F covering the periods prior to our formation may not be indicative of our future financial condition or operating results. We urge you to carefully consider the basis on which the historical financial information included herein for such periods was prepared and presented.

Our company relies on the Property Partnership and, indirectly, the Holding Entities and our operating entities to provide us with the funds necessary to pay distributions and meet our financial obligations.

Our company’s sole direct investment is its managing general partnership interest in the Property Partnership, which owns all of the common shares or equity interests, as applicable, of the Holding Entities, through which we hold all of our interests in the operating entities. Our company has no independent means of generating revenue. As a result, we depend on distributions and other payments from the Property Partnership and, indirectly, the Holding Entities and our operating entities to provide us with the funds necessary to pay distributions on our units and to meet our financial obligations. The Property Partnership, the Holding Entities and our operating entities are legally distinct from our company and they will generally be required to service their debt obligations before making distributions to us or their parent entity, as applicable, thereby reducing the amount of our cash flow available to pay distributions on our units, fund working capital and satisfy other needs. In addition, the Property Partnership is required to make distributions to Preferred Unitholders before making distributions to us. Any other entities through which we may conduct operations in the future will also be legally distinct from our company and may be restricted in their ability to pay dividends and distributions or otherwise make funds available to our company under certain conditions.

We anticipate that the only distributions our company will receive in respect of our managing general partnership interests in the Property Partnership will consist of amounts that are intended to assist our company in making distributions to our unitholders in accordance with our company’s distribution policy and to allow our company to pay expenses as they become due.

We may not be able to make distributions to holders of our units in amounts intended or at all.

Our company intends to make quarterly cash distributions in an amount currently anticipated to be approximately $1.06 per unit on an annualized basis. However, despite our projections, there can be no assurance that we will be able to make such distributions or meet our target growth rate range of 5% to 8% annually. Based on amounts received in distributions from our operating entities and our projected operating cash flow from our direct investments, our proposed distributions would be significantly greater than such amounts.

Although we may use distributions from our operating entities, the proceeds of sales of certain of our direct investments and/or borrowings to fund any shortfall in distributions, we may not be able to do so on a consistent and sustainable basis. Our ability to make distributions will depend on several other factors, some of which are out of our control, including, among other things, general economic conditions, our results of operations and financial condition, the amount of cash that is generated by our operations and investments, restrictions imposed by the terms of any indebtedness that is incurred to finance our operations and investments or to fund liquidity needs, levels of operating and other expenses, and contingent liabilities, any or all of which could prevent us from meeting our anticipated distribution levels. Finally, the BPY General Partner has sole authority to determine when and if our distributions will be made in respect of our units, and there can be no assurance that the BPY General Partner will declare and pay the distributions on our units as intended or at all.

We are subject to foreign currency risk and our risk management activities may adversely affect the performance of our operations.

Some of our assets and operations are in countries where the U.S. Dollar is not the functional currency. These operations pay distributions in currencies other than the U.S. Dollar which we must convert to U.S. Dollars prior to making distributions on our units. A significant depreciation in the value of such foreign currencies may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

When managing our exposure to such market risks, we may use forward contracts, options, swaps, caps, collars and floors or pursue other strategies or use other forms of derivative instruments. The success of any hedging or other derivative transactions that we enter into generally will depend on our ability to structure contracts that appropriately offset our risk position. As a result, while we may enter into such transactions in order to reduce our exposure to market risks, unanticipated market changes may result in poorer overall investment performance than if the transaction had not been executed. Such transactions may also limit the opportunity for gain if the value of a hedged position increases.

We are subject to interest rate risk and a rise in interest rates may adversely affect us and the value of an investment in our units.

A number of our assets are interest rate sensitive: increases in long-term interest rates will, absent all else, decrease the value of these assets by reducing the present value of the cash flows expected to be produced by the asset. If interest rates were to rise, it may affect the market perceived or actual value of our assets and/or distributions and consequently the market price of our units may decline in value. Additionally, an increase in interest rates could decrease the amount buyers may be willing to pay for our properties, thereby reducing the market value of our properties and limiting our ability to sell properties or to obtain mortgage financing secured by our properties. Further, increased interest rates may effectively increase the cost of properties we acquire to the extent we utilize leverage for those acquisitions and may result in a reduction in our acquisitions to the extent we reduce the amount we offer to pay for properties, due to the effect of increased interest rates, to a price that sellers may not accept.

Our company is not, and does not intend to become, regulated as an investment company under the U.S. Investment Company Act of 1940, or the Investment Company Act, (and similar legislation in other jurisdictions) and if our company were deemed an “investment company” under the Investment Company Act applicable restrictions would make it impractical for us to operate as contemplated.

The Investment Company Act and the rules thereunder (and similar legislation in other jurisdictions) provide certain protections to investors and impose certain restrictions on companies that are registered as investment companies. Among other things, such rules limit or prohibit transactions with affiliates, impose limitations on the issuance of debt and equity securities and impose certain governance requirements. Our company has not been and does not intend to become regulated as an investment company and our company intends to conduct its activities so it will not be deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act (and similar legislation in other jurisdictions). In order to ensure that our company is not deemed to be an investment company, we may be required to materially restrict or limit the scope of our operations or plans, we will be limited in the types of acquisitions that we may make and we may need to modify our organizational structure or dispose of assets that we would not otherwise dispose of. Moreover, if anything were to happen that would potentially cause our company to be deemed an investment company under the Investment Company Act, it would be impractical for us to operate as intended, agreements and arrangements between and among us and Brookfield would be impaired and our business, financial condition and results of operations would be materially adversely affected. Accordingly, we would be required to take extraordinary steps to address the situation, such as the amendment or termination of our Master Services Agreement, the restructuring of our company and the Holding Entities, the amendment of our limited partnership agreement or the termination of our company, any of which would materially adversely affect the value of our units. In addition, if our company were deemed to be an investment company under the Investment Company Act, it would be taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and such treatment would materially adversely affect the value of our units. See Item 10.E. “Additional Information - Taxation - U.S. Tax Considerations - Partnership Status of Our Company and the Property Partnership”.

Our company is a “foreign private issuer” under U.S. securities laws and as a result is subject to disclosure obligations different from requirements applicable to U.S. domestic registrants listed on the New York Stock Exchange, or NYSE.

Although our company is subject to the periodic reporting requirement of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or the Exchange Act, the periodic disclosure required of foreign private issuers under the Exchange Act is different from periodic disclosure required of U.S. domestic registrants. Therefore, there may be less publicly available information about us than is regularly published by or about other public companies in the United States and our company is exempt from certain other sections of the Exchange Act that U.S. domestic registrants would otherwise be subject to, including the requirement to provide our unitholders with information statements or proxy statements that comply with the Exchange Act. In addition, insiders and large unitholders of our company are not obligated to file reports under Section 16 of the Exchange Act and certain of the governance rules imposed by the NYSE are inapplicable to our company.

Our company is a “SEC foreign issuer” under Canadian securities regulations and is exempt from certain requirements of Canadian securities laws.

Although our company is a reporting issuer in Canada, we are a “SEC foreign issuer” and exempt from certain Canadian securities laws relating to continuous disclosure obligations and proxy solicitation as long as we comply with certain reporting requirements applicable in the United States, provided that the relevant documents filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, are filed in Canada and sent to our company’s unitholders in Canada to the extent and in the manner and within the time required by applicable U.S. requirements. Therefore, there may be less publicly available information in Canada about us than is regularly published by or about other reporting issuers in Canada.

We may be subject to the risks commonly associated with a separation of economic interest from control or the incurrence of debt at multiple levels within an organizational structure.

Our ownership and organizational structure is similar to structures whereby one company controls another company which in turn holds controlling interests in other companies; thereby, the company at the top of the chain may control the company at the bottom of the chain even if its effective equity position in the bottom company is less than a controlling interest. Brookfield is the sole shareholder of the BPY General Partner and, as a result of such ownership of the BPY General Partner, Brookfield controls the appointment and removal of the BPY General Partner’s directors and, accordingly, exercises substantial influence over us. In turn, we often have a majority controlling interest or a significant influence in our investments. Even though Brookfield has an effective economic interest in our business of approximately 68% as of the date of this Form 20-F as a result of its ownership of our units and the Redemption-Exchange Units, over time Brookfield may reduce this economic interest while still maintaining its controlling interest, and therefore Brookfield may use its control rights in a manner that conflicts with the economic interests of our other unitholders. For example, despite the fact that our company has a conflicts policy in place which addresses the requirement for independent approval and other requirements for transactions in which there is greater potential for a conflict of interest to arise, including transactions with affiliates of Brookfield, because Brookfield exerts substantial influence over us, and, in turn, over our investments, there is a greater risk of transfer of assets of our investments at non-arm’s length values to Brookfield and its affiliates. In addition, debt incurred at multiple levels within the chain of control could exacerbate the separation of economic interest from controlling interest at such levels, thereby creating an incentive to leverage our company and our investments. Any such increase in debt would also make us more sensitive to declines in revenues, increases in expenses and interest rates, and adverse market conditions. The servicing of any such debt would also reduce the amount of funds available to pay distributions to our company and ultimately to our unitholders.

Risks Relating to Our Business

Our economic performance and the value of our assets are subject to the risks incidental to the ownership and operation of real estate assets.

Our economic performance, the value of our assets and, therefore, the value of our units are subject to the risks normally associated with the ownership and operation of real estate assets, including but not limited to:

We are dependent upon the economic conditions of the markets where our assets are located.

We are affected by local, regional, national and international economic conditions and other events and occurrences that affect the markets in which we own assets. A protracted decline in economic conditions will cause downward pressure on our operating margins and asset values as a result of lower demand for space.

Our properties are largely located in North America, Europe, and Australia but also include a growing presence in China, Brazil and India. A prolonged downturn in one or more of these economies or the economy of any other country where we own property would result in reduced demand for space and number of prospective tenants and will affect the ability of our properties to generate significant revenue. If there is an increase in operating costs resulting from inflation and other factors, we may not be able to offset such increases by increasing rents.

Additionally, as part of our strategy for our office property platform is to focus on markets underpinned by major financial, energy, technology, and professional services businesses, a significant downturn in one or more of the industries in which these businesses operate would also adversely affect our results of operations.

We face risks associated with the use of debt to finance our business, including refinancing risk.

We incur debt in the ordinary course of our business and therefore are subject to the risks associated with debt financing. In addition, our debt increased substantially in 2014 in connection with our acquisition of the common shares of Brookfield Office Properties Inc., or Brookfield Office Properties or BPO, as we entered into a $2.5 billion credit facility, or the BPY Credit Facility, to finance part of that acquisition. The BPY Credit Facility has a term of two years, with a one year extension option for up to $1.5 billion of commitments subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. The risks associated with our debt financing, including the following, may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations:

Our operating entities have a significant degree of leverage on their assets, which increased upon entering into the BPY Credit Facility. Highly leveraged assets are inherently more sensitive to declines in revenues, increases in expenses and interest rates, and adverse market conditions. A leveraged company’s income and net assets also tend to increase or decrease at a greater rate than would otherwise be the case if money had not been borrowed. As a result, the risk of loss associated with a leveraged company, all other things being equal, is generally greater than for companies with comparatively less debt.

We rely on our operating entities to provide our company with the funds necessary to make distributions on our units and meet our financial obligations. The leverage on our assets may affect the funds available to our company if the terms of the debt impose restrictions on the ability of our operating entities to make distributions to our company. In addition, our operating entities will generally have to service their debt obligations before making distributions to our company or their parent entity. The Property Partnership is also required to make distributions to Preferred Unitholders before making distributions to us.

Leverage may also result in a requirement for liquidity, which may force the sale of assets at times of low demand and/or prices for such assets.

In addition to the BPY Credit Facility which provides for an aggregate of $2.5 billion in committed credit availability, we have a $1 billion subordinated credit facility with Brookfield to supplement our liquidity. We may also incur indebtedness under future credit facilities or other debt-like instruments, in addition to any asset-level indebtedness. We may also issue debt or debt-like instruments in the market in the future, which may or may not be rated. Should such debt or debt-like instruments be rated, a credit downgrade will have an adverse impact on the cost of such debt.

In addition, Brookfield holds $1.25 billion of redeemable preferred shares of Brookfield BPY Holdings Inc., one of our Holding Entities. We have agreed to use our commercially reasonable efforts to, as soon as reasonably practical, subject to any restrictions in the BPY Credit Facility, issue debt or equity securities or borrow money from one or more financial institutions or other lenders, on terms reasonably acceptable to us, in an aggregate amount sufficient to fund the redemption of $500 million of the preferred shares. The terms of any such financing may be less favorable to us than the terms of the preferred shares.

If we are unable to refinance our indebtedness on acceptable terms, or at all, we may need to dispose of one or more of our properties or other assets upon disadvantageous terms. In addition, prevailing interest rates or other factors at the time of refinancing could increase our interest expense, and if we mortgage property to secure payment of indebtedness and are unable to make mortgage payments, the mortgagee could foreclose upon such property or appoint a receiver to receive an assignment of our rents and leases. This may adversely affect our ability to make distributions or payments to our unitholders and lenders.

Restrictive covenants in our indebtedness may limit management’s discretion with respect to certain business matters.

Instruments governing any of our indebtedness or indebtedness of our operating entities or their subsidiaries may contain restrictive covenants limiting our discretion with respect to certain business matters. These covenants could place significant restrictions on, among other things, our ability to create liens or other encumbrances, to make distributions to our unitholders or make certain other payments, investments, loans and guarantees and to sell or otherwise dispose of assets and merge or consolidate with another entity. These covenants could also require us to meet certain financial ratios and financial condition tests. A failure to comply with any such covenants could result in a default which, if not cured or waived, could permit acceleration of the relevant indebtedness.

If we are unable to manage our interest rate risk effectively, our cash flows and operating results may suffer.

Advances under credit facilities and certain property-level mortgage debt bear interest at a variable rate. We may incur further indebtedness in the future that also bears interest at a variable rate or we may be required to refinance our debt at higher rates. In addition, though we attempt to manage interest rate risk, there can be no assurance that we will hedge such exposure effectively or at all in the future. Accordingly, increases in interest rates above that which we anticipate based upon historical trends would adversely affect our cash flows.

We face potential adverse effects from tenant defaults, bankruptcies or insolvencies.

A commercial tenant may experience a downturn in its business, which could cause the loss of that tenant as a tenant or weaken its financial condition and result in its inability to make rental payments when due or, for retail tenants, a reduction in percentage rent payable. If a tenant defaults, we may experience delays and incur costs in enforcing our rights as landlord and protecting our investments.

We cannot evict a tenant solely because of its bankruptcy. In addition, in certain jurisdictions where we own properties, a court may authorize a tenant to reject and terminate its lease. In such a case, our claim against the tenant for unpaid, future rent would be subject to a statutory cap that might be substantially less than the remaining rent owed under the lease. In any event, it is unlikely that a bankrupt or insolvent tenant will pay the full amount it owes under a lease. The loss of rental payments from tenants and costs of re-leasing would adversely affect our cash flows and results of operations. In the case of our retail properties, the bankruptcy or insolvency of an anchor tenant or tenant with stores at many of our properties would cause us to suffer lower revenues and operational difficulties, including difficulties leasing the remainder of the property. Significant expenses associated with each property, such as mortgage payments, real estate taxes and maintenance costs, are generally not reduced when circumstances cause a reduction in income from the property. In the event of a significant number of lease defaults and/or tenant bankruptcies, our cash flows may not be sufficient to pay cash distributions to our unitholders and repay maturing debt or other obligations.

Reliance on significant tenants could adversely affect our results of operations.

Many of our properties are occupied by one or more significant tenants and, therefore, our revenues from those properties are materially dependent on the creditworthiness and financial stability of those tenants. Our business would be adversely affected if any of those tenants failed to renew certain of their significant leases, became insolvent, declared bankruptcy or otherwise refused to pay rent in a timely fashion or at all. In the event of a default by one or more significant tenants, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment and re-leasing the property. If a lease of a significant tenant is terminated, it may be difficult, costly and time consuming to attract new tenants and lease the property for the rent previously received.

Our inability to enter into renewal or new leases with tenants on favorable terms or at all for all or a substantial portion of space that is subject to expiring leases would adversely affect our cash flows and operating results.

Our properties generate revenue through rental payments made by tenants of the properties. Upon the expiry of any lease, there can be no assurance that the lease will be renewed or the tenant replaced. The terms of any renewal or replacement lease may be less favorable to us than the existing lease. We would be adversely affected, in particular, if any major tenant ceases to be a tenant and cannot be replaced on similar or better terms or at all. Additionally, we may not be able to lease our properties to an appropriate mix of tenants. Retail tenants may negotiate leases containing exclusive rights to sell particular types of merchandise or services within a particular retail property. These provisions may limit the number and types of prospective tenants for the vacant space in such properties.

Our competitors may adversely affect our ability to lease our properties which may cause our cash flows and operating results to suffer.

Each segment of the real estate industry is competitive. Numerous other developers, managers and owners of commercial properties compete with us in seeking tenants and, in the case of our multifamily properties, there are numerous housing alternatives which compete with our properties in attracting residents. Some of the properties of our competitors may be newer, better located or better capitalized. These competing properties may have vacancy rates higher than our properties, which may result in their owners being willing to make space available at lower prices than the space in our properties, particularly if there is an oversupply of space available in the market. Competition for tenants could have an adverse effect on our ability to lease our properties and on the rents that we may charge or concessions that we must grant, which may cause our cash flows and operating results to suffer.

Our ability to realize our strategies and capitalize on our competitive strengths are dependent on the ability of our operating entities to effectively operate our large group of commercial properties, maintain good relationships with tenants, and remain well-capitalized, and our failure to do any of the foregoing would affect our ability to compete effectively in the markets in which we do business.

Our insurance may not cover some potential losses or may not be obtainable at commercially reasonable rates, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We maintain insurance on our properties in amounts and with deductibles that we believe are in line with what owners of similar properties carry; however, our insurance may not cover some potential losses or may not be obtainable at commercially reasonable rates in the future.

There also are certain types of risks (such as war, environmental contamination such as toxic mold, and lease and other contract claims) that are either uninsurable or not economically insurable. Should any uninsured or underinsured loss occur, we could lose our investment in, and anticipated profits and cash flows from, one or more properties, and we would continue to be obligated to repay any recourse mortgage indebtedness on such properties.

Possible terrorist activity could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and our insurance may not cover some losses due to terrorism or may not be obtainable at commercially reasonable rates.

Possible terrorist attacks in the markets where our properties are located may result in declining economic activity, which could reduce the demand for space at our properties, reduce the value of our properties and harm the demand for goods and services offered by our tenants.

Additionally, terrorist activities could directly affect the value of our properties through damage, destruction or loss. Our office portfolio is concentrated in large metropolitan areas, some of which have been or may be perceived to be subject to terrorist attacks. Many of our office properties consist of high-rise buildings, which may also be subject to this actual or perceived threat. Our insurance may not cover some losses due to terrorism or may not be obtainable at commercially reasonable rates.

We are subject to risks relating to development and redevelopment projects.

On a strategic and selective basis, we may develop and redevelop properties. The real estate development and redevelopment business involves significant risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, including the following:

We are subject to risks that affect the retail environment.

We are subject to risks that affect the retail environment, including unemployment, weak income growth, lack of available consumer credit, industry slowdowns and plant closures, low consumer confidence, increased consumer debt, poor housing market conditions, adverse weather conditions, natural disasters and the need to pay down existing obligations. Any of these factors could negatively affect consumer spending and adversely affect the sales of our retail tenants. This could have an unfavorable effect on our operations and our ability to attract new retail tenants.

In addition, our retail tenants face competition from retailers at other regional malls, outlet malls and other discount shopping centers, discount shopping clubs, catalogue companies, and through internet sales and telemarketing. Competition of these types could reduce the percentage rent payable by certain retail tenants and adversely affect our revenues and cash flows. Additionally, our retail tenants are dependent on perceptions by retailers and shoppers of the safety, convenience and attractiveness of our retail properties. If retailers and shoppers perceive competing properties and other retailing options such as the internet to be more convenient or of a higher quality, our revenues may be adversely affected.

Some of our retail lease agreements include a co-tenancy provision which allows the mall tenant to pay a reduced rent amount and, in certain instances, terminate the lease, if we fail to maintain certain occupancy levels at the mall. In addition, certain of our tenants have the ability to terminate their leases prior to the lease expiration date if their sales do not meet agreed upon thresholds. Therefore, if occupancy, tenancy or sales fall below certain thresholds, rents we are entitled to receive from our retail tenants would be reduced and our ability to attract new tenants may be limited.

The computation of cost reimbursements from our retail tenants for common area maintenance, insurance and real estate taxes is complex and involves numerous judgments including interpretation of lease terms and other tenant lease provisions. Most tenants make monthly fixed payments of common area maintenance, insurance, real estate taxes and other cost reimbursements and, after the end of the calendar year, we compute each tenant’s final cost reimbursements and issue a bill or credit for the full amount, after considering amounts paid by the tenant during the year. The billed amounts could be disputed by the tenant or become the subject of a tenant audit or even litigation. There can be no assurance that we will collect all or any portion of these amounts.

We are subject to risks associated with the multifamily residential industry.

We are subject to risks associated with the multifamily residential industry, including the level of mortgage interest rates which may encourage tenants to purchase rather than lease and housing and governmental programs that provide assistance and rent subsidies to tenants. If the demand for multifamily properties is reduced, income generated from our multifamily residential properties and the underlying value of such properties may be adversely affected.

In addition, certain jurisdictions regulate the relationship of an owner and its residential tenants. Commonly, these laws require a written lease, good cause for eviction, disclosure of fees, and notification to residents of changed land use, while prohibiting unreasonable rules, retaliatory evictions, and restrictions on a resident’s choice of landlords. Apartment building owners have been the subject of lawsuits under various “Landlord and Tenant Acts” and other general consumer protection statutes for coercive, abusive or unconscionable leasing and sales practices. If we become subject to litigation, the outcome of any such proceedings may materially adversely affect us for long periods of time. A few jurisdictions may offer more significant protection to residential tenants. In addition to state or provincial regulation of the landlord-tenant relationship, numerous towns and municipalities impose rent control on apartment buildings. The imposition of rent control on our multifamily residential units could have a materially adverse effect on our results of operations.

A business disruption may adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Our business is vulnerable to damages from any number of sources, including computer viruses, unauthorized access, energy blackouts, natural disasters, terrorism, war and telecommunication failures. Any system failure or accident that causes interruptions in our operations could result in a material disruption to our business. If we are unable to recover from a business disruption on a timely basis, our financial condition and results of operations would be adversely affected. We may also incur additional costs to remedy damages caused by such disruptions, which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Because certain of our assets are illiquid, we may not be able to sell these assets when appropriate or when desired.

Large commercial properties like the ones that we own can be hard to sell, especially if local market conditions are poor. Such illiquidity could limit our ability to diversify our assets promptly in response to changing economic or investment conditions.

Additionally, financial difficulties of other property owners resulting in distressed sales could depress real estate values in the markets in which we operate in times of illiquidity. These restrictions reduce our ability to respond to changes in the performance of our assets and could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We face risks associated with property acquisitions.

Competition from other well-capitalized real estate investors, including both publicly traded real estate investment trusts and institutional investment funds, may significantly increase the purchase price of, or prevent us from acquiring, a desired property. Acquisition agreements will typically contain conditions to closing, including completion of due diligence to our satisfaction or other conditions that are not within our control, which may not be satisfied. Acquired properties may be located in new markets where we may have limited knowledge and understanding of the local economy, an absence of business relationships in the area or unfamiliarity with local government and applicable laws and regulations. We may be unable to finance acquisitions on favorable terms or newly acquired properties may fail to perform as expected. We may underestimate the costs necessary to bring an acquired property up to standards established for its intended market position or we may be unable to quickly and efficiently integrate new acquisitions into our existing operations. We may also acquire properties subject to liabilities and without any recourse, or with only limited recourse, with respect to unknown liabilities. Each of these factors could have an adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

We do not control certain of our operating entities, including General Growth Properties, Inc., or GGP, and Canary Wharf Group plc, or Canary Wharf, and therefore we may not be able to realize some or all of the benefits that we expect to realize from those entities.

We do not have control of certain of our operating entities, including GGP and Canary Wharf. Our interests in those entities subject us to the operating and financial risks of their businesses, the risk that the relevant company may make business, financial or management decisions that we do not agree with, and the risk that we may have differing objectives than the entities in which we have interests. Because we do not have the ability to exercise control over those entities, we may not be able to realize some or all of the benefits that we expect to realize from those entities. For example, we may not be able to cause such operating entities to make distributions to us in the amount or at the time that we need or want such distributions. In addition, we rely on the internal controls and financial reporting controls of the companies in which we invest and the failure of such companies to maintain effective controls or comply with applicable standards may adversely affect us.

We do not have sole control over the properties that we own with co-venturers, partners, fund investors or co-tenants or over the revenues and certain decisions associated with those properties, which may limit our flexibility with respect to these investments.

We participate in joint ventures, partnerships, funds and co-tenancies affecting many of our properties. Such investments involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that our co-venturers, partners, fund investors or co-tenants might become bankrupt or otherwise fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. The bankruptcy of one of our co-venturers, partners, fund investors or co-tenants could materially and adversely affect the relevant property or properties. Pursuant to bankruptcy laws, we could be precluded from taking some actions affecting the estate of the other investor without prior court approval which would, in most cases, entail prior notice to other parties and a hearing. At a minimum, the requirement to obtain court approval may delay the actions we would or might want to take. If the relevant joint venture or other investment entity has incurred recourse obligations, the discharge in bankruptcy of one of the other investors might result in our ultimate liability for a greater portion of those obligations than would otherwise be required.

Additionally, our co-venturers, partners, fund investors or co-tenants might at any time have economic or other business interests or goals that are inconsistent with those of our company, and we could become engaged in a dispute with any of them that might affect our ability to develop or operate a property. In addition, we do not have sole control of certain major decisions relating to these properties, including decisions relating to: the sale of the properties; refinancing; timing and amount of distributions of cash from such properties; and capital improvements. For example, when we participate with institutional investors in Brookfield-sponsored or co-sponsored consortiums for asset acquisitions and as a partner in or alongside Brookfield-sponsored or co-sponsored partnerships, there is often a finite term to the investment which could lead to the investment being sold prior to the date we would otherwise choose.

In some instances where we are the property manager for a joint venture, the joint venture retains joint approval rights over various material matters such as the budget for the property, specific leases and our leasing plan. Moreover, in certain property management arrangements the other venturer can terminate the property management agreement in limited circumstances relating to enforcement of the property managers’ obligations. In addition, the sale or transfer of interests in some of our joint ventures and partnerships is subject to rights of first refusal or first offer and some joint venture and partnership agreements provide for buy-sell or similar arrangements. Such rights may be triggered at a time when we may not want to sell but we may be forced to do so because we may not have the financial resources at that time to purchase the other party’s interest. Such rights may also inhibit our ability to sell an interest in a property or a joint venture or partnership within our desired time frame or on any other desired basis.

We are subject to risks associated with commercial property loans.

We have interests in loans or participations in loans, or securities whose underlying performance depends on loans made with respect to a variety of commercial real estate. Such interests are subject to normal credit risks as well as those generally not associated with traditional debt securities. The ability of the borrowers to repay the loans will typically depend upon the successful operation of the related real estate project and the availability of financing. Any factors that affect the ability of the project to generate sufficient cash flow could have a material effect on the value of these interests. Such factors include, but are not limited to: the uncertainty of cash flow to meet fixed obligations; adverse changes in general and local economic conditions, including interest rates and local market conditions; tenant credit risks; the unavailability of financing, which may make the operation, sale, or refinancing of a property difficult or unattractive; vacancy and occupancy rates; construction and operating costs; regulatory requirements, including zoning, rent control and real and personal property tax laws, rates and assessments; environmental concerns; project and borrower diversification; and uninsured losses. Security underlying such interests will generally be in a junior or subordinate position to senior financing. In certain circumstances, in order to protect our interest, we may decide to repay all or a portion of the senior indebtedness relating to the particular interests or to cure defaults with respect to such senior indebtedness.

We invest in mezzanine debt, which can rank below other senior lenders.

We invest in mezzanine debt interests in real estate companies and properties whose capital structures have significant debt ranking ahead of our investments. Our investments will not always benefit from the same or similar financial and other covenants as those enjoyed by the debt ranking ahead of our investments or benefit from cross-default provisions. Moreover, it is likely that we will be restricted in the exercise of our rights in respect of our investments by the terms of subordination agreements with the debt ranking ahead of the mezzanine capital. Accordingly, we may not be able to take the steps necessary to protect our investments in a timely manner or at all and there can be no assurance that the rate of return objectives of any particular investment will be achieved. To protect our original investment and to gain greater control over the underlying assets, we may elect to purchase the interest of a senior creditor or take an equity interest in the underlying assets, which may require additional investment requiring us to expend additional capital.

We are subject to risks related to syndicating or selling participations in our interests.

The strategy of the finance funds in which we have interests depends, in part, upon syndicating or selling participations in senior interests, either through capital markets collateralized debt obligation transactions or otherwise. If the finance funds cannot do so on terms that are favorable to us, we may not generate the returns we anticipate.

We face risks relating to the legal aspects of mortgage loans and may be subject to liability as a lender.

Certain interests acquired by us are subject to risks relating to the legal aspects of mortgage loans. Depending upon the applicable law governing mortgage loans (which laws may differ substantially), we may be adversely affected by the operation of law (including state or provincial law) with respect to our ability to foreclose mortgage loans, the borrower’s right of redemption, the enforceability of assignments of rents, due on sale and acceleration clauses in loan instruments, as well as other creditors’ rights provided in such documents. In addition, we may be subject to liability as a lender with respect to our negotiation, administration, collection and/or foreclosure of mortgage loans. As a lender, we may also be subject to penalties for violation of usury limitations, which penalties may be triggered by contracting for, charging or receiving usurious interest. Bankruptcy laws may delay our ability to realize on our collateral or may adversely affect the priority thereof through doctrines such as equitable subordination or may result in a restructuring of the debt through principles such as the “cramdown” provisions of applicable bankruptcy laws.

We have significant interests in public companies, and changes in the market prices of the stock of such public companies, particularly during times of increased market volatility, could have a negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

We hold significant interests in public companies, and changes in the market prices of the stock of such public companies could have a material impact on our financial condition and results of operations. Global securities markets have been highly volatile, and continued volatility may have a material negative impact on our consolidated financial position and results of operations.

We have significant interests in Brookfield-sponsored real estate funds, and poor investment returns in these funds could have a negative impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

We have, and expect to continue to have in the future, significant interests in Brookfield-sponsored real estate funds, and poor investment returns in these funds, due to either market conditions or underperformance (relative to their competitors or to benchmarks), would negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, interests in such funds are subject to the risks inherent in the ownership and operation of real estate and real estate-related businesses and assets generally.

Our ownership of underperforming real estate properties involves significant risks and potential additional liabilities.

We hold interests in certain real estate properties with weak financial conditions, poor operating results, substantial financial needs, negative net worth or special competitive problems, or that are over-leveraged. Our ownership of underperforming real estate properties involves significant risks and potential additional liabilities. Our exposure to such underperforming properties may be substantial in relation to the market for those interests and distressed assets may be illiquid and difficult to sell or transfer. As a result, it may take a number of years for the fair value of such interests to ultimately reflect their intrinsic value as perceived by us.

We face risks relating to the jurisdictions of our operations.

We own and operate commercial properties in a number of jurisdictions, including but not limited to North America, Europe, Australia, China, Brazil and India. Our operations are subject to significant political, economic and financial risks, which vary by jurisdiction, and may include:

We are subject to possible health and safety and environmental liabilities and other possible liabilities.

As an owner and manager of real property, we are subject to various laws relating to environmental matters. We could be liable under these laws for the costs of removal and remediation of certain hazardous substances or wastes present in our buildings, released or deposited on or in our properties or disposed of at other locations. These costs could be significant and reduce cash available for our business which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. The failure to remove or remediate such substances could adversely affect our ability to sell our properties or our ability to borrow using real estate as collateral and could potentially result in claims or other proceedings against us, which could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Environmental laws and regulations can change rapidly and we may become subject to more stringent environmental laws and regulations in the future. Compliance with more stringent environmental laws and regulations could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition or results of operations.

The ownership and operation of our assets carry varying degrees of inherent risk or liability related to worker health and safety and the environment, including the risk of government imposed orders to remedy unsafe conditions and potential civil liability. Compliance with health, safety and environmental standards and the requirements set out in our licenses, permits and other approvals are important to our business. We have incurred and will continue to incur significant capital and operating expenditures to comply with health, safety and environmental standards and to obtain and comply with licenses, permits and other approvals and to assess and manage potential liability exposure. Nevertheless, we may be unsuccessful in obtaining or maintaining an important license, permit or other approval or become subject to government orders, investigations, inquiries or other proceedings (including civil claims) relating to health, safety and environmental matters. The occurrence of any of these events or any changes, additions to, or more rigorous enforcement of, health, safety and environmental standards, licenses, permits or other approvals could have a significant impact on our operations and/or result in material expenditures. As a consequence, no assurance can be given that additional environmental and workers’ health and safety issues relating to presently known or unknown matters will not require unanticipated expenditures, or result in fines, penalties or other consequences (including changes to operations) material to our business and operations.

Negative publicity could damage our reputation and business.

Our ability to attract and retain tenants, investors and employees is impacted by our reputation and negative publicity can expose us to litigation and regulatory action could damage our reputation, adversely affect our ability to attract and retain tenants and employees, and divert management’s attention from day-to-day operations. Significant harm to our reputation can also arise from employee misconduct, unethical behavior, environmental matters, litigation or regulatory outcomes, failing to deliver minimum or required standards of safety, service and quality, compliance failures, unintended disclosure of confidential information and the activities of our tenants and counterparties, including vendors.

We may suffer reputational harm or a significant loss resulting from fraud, other illegal acts and inadequate or failed internal processes or systems.

We may suffer a significant loss resulting from fraud, other illegal acts and inadequate or failed internal processes or systems. We operate in different markets and rely on our employees to follow our policies and processes as well as applicable laws in their activities. Risk of illegal acts or failed systems is managed through our infrastructure, controls, systems, policies and people, complemented by central groups focusing on enterprise-wide management of specific operational risks such as fraud, trading, outsourcing, and business disruption, as well as people and systems risks. Failure to adequately manage these risks could result in direct or indirect financial loss, reputational impact, regulatory censure or failure in the management of other risks such as credit or market risk.

There is an increasing global focus on the implementation and enforcement of anti-bribery and corruption legislation, and this focus has heightened the risks that we face in this area, particularly as we expand our operations globally. We are subject to a number of laws and regulations governing payments and contributions to public officials or other third parties, including restrictions imposed by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and similar laws in non-U.S. jurisdictions, such as the UK Bribery Act and the Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act. Different laws that are applicable to us may contain conflicting provisions, making our compliance more difficult. The policies and procedures we have implemented to protect against non-compliance with anti-bribery and corruption legislation may be inadequate. If we fail to comply with these laws and regulations, we could be exposed to claims for damages, financial penalties, reputational harm, incarceration of our employees, restrictions on our operations and other liabilities, which could negatively affect our operating results and financial condition. In addition, we may be subject to successor liability for violations under these laws or other acts of bribery committed by companies in which we or our funds invest.

Instances of bribery, fraud, accounting irregularities and other improper, illegal or corrupt practices can be difficult to detect, and fraud and other deceptive practices can be widespread in certain jurisdictions. We invest in emerging market countries that may not have established stringent anti-bribery and corruption laws and regulations, or where existing laws and regulations may not be consistently enforced. For example, we invest in jurisdictions that are perceived to have materially higher levels of corruption according to international rating standards, such as China, India and Brazil. Due diligence on investment opportunities in these jurisdictions is frequently more challenging because consistent and uniform commercial practices in such locations may not have developed or do not meet international standards. Bribery, fraud, accounting irregularities and corrupt practices can be especially difficult to detect in such locations.

We may be subject to litigation.

In the ordinary course of our business, we may be subject to litigation from time to time. The outcome of any such proceedings may materially adversely affect us and may continue without resolution for long periods of time. Any litigation may consume substantial amounts of our management’s time and attention, and that time and the devotion of these resources to litigation may, at times, be disproportionate to the amounts at stake in the litigation.

The acquisition, ownership and disposition of real property expose us to certain litigation risks which could result in losses, some of which may be material. Litigation may be commenced with respect to a property we have acquired in relation to activities that took place prior to our acquisition of such property. In addition, at the time of disposition of an individual property, a potential buyer may claim that it should have been afforded the opportunity to purchase the asset or alternatively that such buyer should be awarded due diligence expenses incurred or statutory damages for misrepresentation relating to disclosures made, if such buyer is passed over in favor of another as part of our efforts to maximize sale proceeds. Similarly, successful buyers may later sue us under various damage theories, including those sounding in tort, for losses associated with latent defects or other problems. We may also be exposed to litigation resulting from the activities of our tenants or their customers.

Climate change may adversely impact our operations and markets.

There is growing concern from members of the scientific community and the general public that an increase in global average temperatures due to emissions of greenhouse gases and other human activities have or will cause significant changes in weather patterns and increase the frequency and severity of climate stress events. Climate change, including the impact of global warming, creates physical and financial risk. Physical risks from climate change include an increase in sea level and changes in weather conditions, such as an increase in intense precipitation and extreme heat events, as well as tropical and non-tropical storms.

We own buildings in coastal locations that may be particularly susceptible to climate stress events or adverse localized effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise and increased storm frequency or intensity. The occurrence of one or more natural disasters, such as hurricanes, fires, floods, and earthquakes (whether or not caused by climate change), could cause considerable damage to our properties, disrupt our operations and negatively impact our financial performance. To the extent these events result in significant damage to or closure of one or more of our buildings, our operations and financial performance could be adversely affected through lost tenants and an inability to lease or re-lease the space. In addition, these events could result in significant expenses to restore or remediate a property, increases in fuel (or other energy) prices or a fuel shortage and increases in the costs of insurance if they result in significant loss of property or other insurable damage.

Risks Relating to Our Relationship with Brookfield

Brookfield exercises substantial influence over us and we are highly dependent on the Service Providers.

Brookfield is the sole shareholder of the BPY General Partner. As a result of its ownership of the BPY General Partner, Brookfield is able to control the appointment and removal of the BPY General Partner’s directors and, accordingly, exercise substantial influence over us. In addition, the Service Providers, wholly-owned subsidiaries of Brookfield Asset Management, provide management services to us pursuant to our Master Services Agreement. Our company and the Property Partnership do not currently have any senior management and depend on the management and administration services provided by the Service Providers. Brookfield personnel and support staff who provide services to us are not required to have as their primary responsibility the management and administration of our company or the Property Partnership or to work exclusively for either our company or the Property Partnership. Any failure to effectively manage our business or to implement our strategy could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Brookfield has no obligation to source acquisition opportunities for us and we may not have access to all acquisitions of commercial properties that Brookfield identifies.

Our ability to grow will depend in part on Brookfield identifying and presenting us with acquisition opportunities. Pursuant to the Relationship Agreement, Brookfield Asset Management has identified our company as the primary entity through which Brookfield Asset Management will own and operate its commercial property businesses on a global basis. However, Brookfield has no obligation to source acquisition opportunities specifically for us. In addition, Brookfield has not agreed to commit to us any minimum level of dedicated resources for the pursuit of acquisitions of commercial property other than as contemplated by our Master Services Agreement. There are a number of factors that could materially and adversely impact the extent to which acquisition opportunities are made available to us by Brookfield.

For example:

The departure of some or all of Brookfield’s professionals could prevent us from achieving our objectives.

We depend on the diligence, skill and business contacts of Brookfield’s professionals and the information and opportunities they generate during the normal course of their activities. Our success will depend on the continued service of these individuals, who are not obligated to remain employed with Brookfield. Brookfield has experienced departures of key professionals in the past and may do so in the future, and we cannot predict the impact that any such departures will have on our ability to achieve our objectives. The departure of a significant number of Brookfield’s professionals for any reason, or the failure to appoint qualified or effective successors in the event of such departures, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to achieve our objectives. Our limited partnership agreement and our Master Services Agreement do not require Brookfield to maintain the employment of any of its professionals or to cause any particular professionals to provide services to us or on our behalf.

Control of our company may be transferred directly or indirectly to a third party without unitholder consent.

The BPY General Partner may transfer its general partnership interest in our company to a third party, including in a merger or consolidation or in a transfer of all or substantially all of its assets, without the consent of our unitholders. Furthermore, at any time, the sole shareholder of the BPY General Partner may sell or transfer all or part of its shares in the BPY General Partner without the approval of our unitholders. If a new owner were to acquire ownership of the BPY General Partner and to appoint new directors or officers of its own choosing, it would be able to exercise substantial influence over our policies and procedures and exercise substantial influence over our management, our distributions and the types of acquisitions that we make. Such changes could result in our company’s capital being used to make acquisitions in which Brookfield has no involvement or that are substantially different from our targeted acquisitions. Additionally, we cannot predict with any certainty the effect that any transfer in the ownership of the BPY General Partner would have on the trading price of our units or our ability to raise capital or make investments in the future, because such matters would depend to a large extent on the identity of the new owner and the new owner’s intentions with regards to us. As a result, the future of our company would be uncertain and our financial condition and results of operations may suffer.

Our Master Services Agreement and our other arrangements with Brookfield do not impose on Brookfield any fiduciary duties to act in the best interests of our unitholders.

Our Master Services Agreement and our other arrangements with Brookfield do not impose on Brookfield any duty (statutory or otherwise) to act in the best interests of the Service Recipients, nor do they impose other duties that are fiduciary in nature. As a result, the BPY General Partner, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, in its capacity as our general partner, has the sole authority to enforce the terms of such agreements and to consent to any waiver, modification or amendment of their provisions, subject to approval by the independent directors in accordance with our conflicts policy.

The Bermuda Limited Partnership Act 1883, under which our company and the Property Partnership were established, does not impose statutory fiduciary duties on a general partner of a limited partnership in the same manner that corporate statutes, such as the Canada Business Corporations Act , impose fiduciary duties on directors of a corporation. In general, under applicable Bermudian legislation, a general partner has certain limited duties to its limited partners, such as the duty to render accounts, account for private profits and not compete with the partnership in business. In addition, Bermuda common law recognizes that a general partner owes a duty of utmost good faith to its limited partners. These duties are, in most respects, similar to duties imposed on a general partner of a limited partnership under U.S. and Canadian law. However, to the extent that the BPY General Partner owes any fiduciary duties to our company and our unitholders, these duties have been modified pursuant to our limited partnership agreement as a matter of contract law. We have been advised by counsel that such modifications are not prohibited under Bermuda law, subject to typical qualifications as to enforceability of contractual provisions, such as the application of general equitable principles. This is similar to Delaware law which expressly permits modifications to the fiduciary duties owed to partners, other than an implied contractual covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

Our limited partnership agreement contains various provisions that modify the fiduciary duties that might otherwise be owed to our company and our unitholders, including when conflicts of interest arise. For example, the agreement provides that the BPY General Partner and its affiliates do not have any obligation under our limited partnership agreement, or as a result of any duties stated or implied by law or equity, including fiduciary duties, to present business or investment opportunities to our company, the Property Partnership, any Holding Entity or any other holding entity established by us. It also allows affiliates of the BPY General Partner to engage in activities that may compete with us or our activities. In addition, the agreement permits the BPY General Partner to take into account the interests of third parties, including Brookfield, when resolving conflicts of interest. The agreement prohibits our limited partners from advancing claims that otherwise might raise issues as to compliance with fiduciary duties or applicable law. These modifications to the fiduciary duties are detrimental to our unitholders because they restrict the remedies available for actions that might otherwise constitute a breach of fiduciary duty and permit conflicts of interest to be resolved in a manner that is not in the best interests of our company or the best interests of our unitholders. See Item 7.B. “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions - Related Party Transactions - Relationship with Brookfield - Conflicts of Interest and Fiduciary Duties”.

Our organizational and ownership structure, as well as our contractual arrangements with Brookfield, may create significant conflicts of interest that may be resolved in a manner that is not in the best interests of our company or the best interests of our unitholders.

Our organizational and ownership structure involves a number of relationships that may give rise to conflicts of interest between us and our unitholders, on the one hand, and Brookfield, on the other hand. In certain instances, the interests of Brookfield may differ from the interests of our company and our unitholders, including with respect to the types of acquisitions made, the timing and amount of distributions by us, the reinvestment of returns generated by our operations, the use of leverage when making acquisitions and the appointment of outside advisors and Service Providers, including as a result of the reasons described under Item 7.B. “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions - Related Party Transactions - Relationship with Brookfield”.

In addition, the Service Providers, affiliates of Brookfield, provide management services to us pursuant to our Master Services Agreement. Pursuant to our Master Services Agreement, we pay a base management fee to the Service Providers equal to $12.5 million per quarter subject to an annual escalation by a specified inflation factor. Additionally, the Property Partnership pays a quarterly equity enhancement distribution to Property Special LP of 0.3125% of the amount by which the company’s total capitalization value at the end of each quarter exceeds its total capitalization value determined immediately following the Spin-off, subject to certain adjustments. Property Special LP also receives incentive distributions based on an amount by which quarterly distributions on the limited partnership units of the Property Partnership exceed specified target levels as set forth in the Property Partnership’s limited partnership agreement. For a further explanation of the equity enhancement and incentive distributions, together with examples of how such amounts are calculated, see Item 10.B. “Additional Information - Memorandum and Articles of Association - Description of the Property Partnership Limited Partnership Agreement - Distributions”. This relationship may give rise to conflicts of interest between us and our unitholders, on the one hand, and Brookfield, on the other, as Brookfield’s interests may differ from the interests of our company and our unitholders.

The BPY General Partner, the sole shareholder of which is Brookfield, has sole authority to determine whether our company will make distributions and the amount and timing of these distributions. The arrangements we have with Brookfield may create an incentive for Brookfield to take actions that would have the effect of increasing distributions and fees payable to it, which may be to the detriment of our company and our unitholders. For example, because the equity enhancement distribution is calculated based on our company’s total capitalization, it may create an incentive for Brookfield to increase or maintain our company’s total capitalization over the near-term when other actions may be more favorable to our company or our unitholders. Similarly, Brookfield may take actions to increase our distributions in order to ensure Brookfield is paid incentive distributions in the near-term when other investments or actions may be more favorable to our company or our unitholders. Also, through Brookfield’s ownership of our units and the Redemption-Exchange Units of the Property Partnership, it has an effective economic interest in our business of approximately 68% as of the date of this Form 20-F and therefore may be incented to increase distributions payable to unitholders and thereby to Brookfield. Finally, the management fee is payable to the Service Providers, which are controlled by Brookfield, irrespective of our actual performance.

Our arrangements with Brookfield were effectively determined by Brookfield in the context of the Spin-off and may contain terms that are less favorable than those which otherwise might have been obtained from unrelated parties.

The terms of our arrangements with Brookfield were effectively determined by Brookfield in the context of the Spin-off. These terms, including terms relating to compensation, contractual or fiduciary duties, conflicts of interest and Brookfield’s ability to engage in outside activities, including activities that compete with us, our activities and limitations on liability and indemnification, may be less favorable than those which otherwise might have resulted if the negotiations had involved unrelated parties. The transfer agreements under which our assets and operations were acquired from Brookfield do not contain representations and warranties or indemnities relating to the underlying assets and operations. Under our limited partnership agreement, persons who acquire our units and their transferees will be deemed to have agreed that none of those arrangements constitutes a breach of any duty that may be owed to them under our limited partnership agreement or any duty stated or implied by law or equity.

The BPY General Partner may be unable or unwilling to terminate our Master Services Agreement.

Our Master Services Agreement provides that the Service Recipients may terminate the agreement only if: (i) any of the Service Providers defaults in the performance or observance of any material term, condition or covenant contained in the agreement in a manner that results in material harm to the Service Recipients and the default continues unremedied for a period of 60 days after written notice of the breach is given to such Service Provider; (ii) any of the Service Providers engages in any act of fraud, misappropriation of funds or embezzlement against any Service Recipient that results in material harm to the Service Recipients; (iii) any of the Service Providers is grossly negligent in the performance of its obligations under the Master Services Agreement and such gross negligence results in material harm to the Service Recipients; or (iv) upon the happening of certain events relating to the bankruptcy or insolvency of each of the Service Providers. The BPY General Partner cannot terminate the agreement for any other reason, including if any of the Service Providers or Brookfield experiences a change of control, and there is no fixed term to the agreement. In addition, because the BPY General Partner is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management, it may be unwilling to terminate our Master Services Agreement, even in the case of a default. If the Service Providers’ performance does not meet the expectations of investors, and the BPY General Partner is unable or unwilling to terminate our Master Services Agreement, the market price of our units could suffer. Furthermore, the termination of our Master Services Agreement would terminate our company’s rights under the Relationship Agreement. See “Relationship Agreement” under Item 7.B. “Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions - Related Party Transactions - Relationship with Brookfield”.

The liability of the Service Providers is limited under our arrangements with them and we have agreed to indemnify the Service Providers against claims that they may face in connection with such arrangements, which may lead them to assume greater risks when making decisions relating to us than they otherwise would if acting solely for their own account.

Under our Master Services Agreement, the Service Providers have not assumed any responsibility other than to provide or arrange for the provision of the services described in our Master Services Agreement in good faith and will not be responsible for any action that the BPY General Partner takes in following or declining to follow their advice or recommendations. In addition, under our limited partnership agreement, the liability of the BPY General Partner and its affiliates, including the Service Providers, is limited to the fullest extent permitted by law to conduct involving bad faith, fraud, gross negligence or willful misconduct or, in the case of a criminal matter, action that was known to have been unlawful. The liability of the Service Providers under our Master Services Agreement is similarly limited. In addition, we have agreed to indemnify the Service Providers to the fullest extent permitted by law from and against any claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs or expenses incurred by an indemnified person or threatened in connection with our operations, investments and activities or in respect of or arising from our Master Services Agreement or the services provided by the Service Providers, except to the extent that the claims, liabilities, losses, damages, costs or expenses are determined to have resulted from the conduct in respect of which such persons have liability as described above. These protections may result in the Service Providers tolerating greater risks when making decisions than otherwise would be the case, including when determining whether to use leverage in connection with acquisitions. The indemnification arrangements to which the Service Providers are parties may also give rise to legal claims for indemnification that are adverse to our company and our unitholders.

Risks Relating to our Units

The price of our units may fluctuate significantly and you could lose all or part of the value of your units.

The market price of our units may fluctuate significantly and you could lose all or part of the value of your units. Factors that may cause the price of our units to vary include:

Securities markets in general have experienced extreme volatility that has often been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies or partnerships. Any broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our units.

Our company may issue additional units in the future in lieu of incurring indebtedness which may dilute existing holders of our units or our company may issue securities that have rights and privileges that are more favorable than the rights and privileges accorded to holders of our units.

Our company may issue additional securities, including units and options, rights, warrants and appreciation rights relating to partnership securities for any purpose and for such consideration and on such terms and conditions as the BPY General Partner may determine. The BPY General Partner’s board of directors will be able to determine the class, designations, preferences, rights, powers and duties of any additional partnership securities, including any rights to share in our company’s profits, losses and distributions, any rights to receive partnership assets upon a dissolution or liquidation of our company and any redemption, conversion and exchange rights. The BPY General Partner may use such authority to issue additional units or additional securities exchangeable for our units, such as the Class A Preferred Units, which would dilute existing holders of our units, or to issue securities with rights and privileges that are more favorable than those of our units. You will not have any right to consent to or otherwise approve the issuance of any such securities or the terms on which any such securities may be issued.

Future sales or issuances of our units in the public markets, or the perception of such sales, could depress the market price of our units.

The sale or issuance of a substantial number of our units or other equity-related securities in the public markets, or the perception that such sales could occur, could depress the market price of our units and impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional equity securities. Although Brookfield intends to maintain a significant interest in our company, Brookfield expects its interests in the Property Partnership to be reduced over time through mergers, treasury issuances or secondary sales which could also depress the market price of our units. We cannot predict the effect that future sales or issuances of units, other equity-related securities, or the limited partnership units of the Property Partnership would have on the market price of our units.

Our unitholders do not have a right to vote on partnership matters or to take part in the management of our company.

Under our limited partnership agreement, our unitholders are not entitled to vote on matters relating to our company, such as acquisitions, dispositions or financing, or to participate in the management or control of our company. In particular, our unitholders do not have the right to remove the BPY General Partner, to cause the BPY General Partner to withdraw from our company, to cause a new general partner to be admitted to our partnership, to appoint new directors to the BPY General Partner’s board of directors, to remove existing directors from the BPY General Partner’s board of directors or to prevent a change of control of the BPY General Partner. In addition, except as prescribed by applicable laws, our unitholders’ consent rights apply only with respect to certain amendments to our limited partnership agreement. As a result, unlike holders of common stock of a corporation, our unitholders will not be able to influence the direction of our company, including its policies and procedures, or to cause a change in its management, even if they are dissatisfied with our performance. Consequently, our unitholders may be deprived of an opportunity to receive a premium for their units in the future through a sale of our company and the trading price of our units may be adversely affected by the absence or a reduction of a takeover premium in the trading price.

Our company is a Bermuda exempted limited partnership and it may not be possible for our investors to serve process on or enforce U.S. or Canadian judgments against us.

Our company is a Bermuda exempted limited partnership and a substantial portion of our assets are located outside the United States and Canada. In addition, certain of the directors of the BPY General Partner and certain members of the senior management team who will be principally responsible for providing us with management services reside outside of the United States and Canada. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for U.S. or Canadian investors to effect service of process within the United States or Canada upon us or our directors and executive officers, or to enforce, against us or these persons, judgments obtained in the U.S. or Canadian courts predicated upon the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal securities laws or Canadian securities laws. We believe that there is doubt as to the enforceability in Bermuda, in original actions or in actions to enforce judgments of U.S. or Canadian courts, of claims predicated solely upon U.S. federal securities laws or Canadian securities laws. See Item 10.B. “Additional Information - Memorandum and Articles of Association - Description of Our Units and Our Limited Partnership Agreement - Our Units”.

Risks Relating to Taxation

General

We participate in transactions and make tax calculations for which the ultimate tax determination may be uncertain.

We participate in many transactions and make tax calculations during the course of our business for which the ultimate tax determination is uncertain. While we believe we maintain provisions for uncertain tax positions that appropriately reflect our risk, these provisions are made using estimates of the amounts expected to be paid based on a qualitative assessment of several factors. It is possible that liabilities associated with one or more transactions may exceed our provisions due to audits by, or litigation with, relevant taxing authorities which may materially affect our financial condition and results of operations.

Changes in tax law and practice may have a material adverse effect on the operations of our company, the Holding Entities, and our operating entities and, as a consequence, the value of our assets and the net amount of distributions payable to our unitholders.

Our structure, including the structure of the Holding Entities and our operating entities, is based on prevailing taxation law and practice in the local jurisdictions in which we operate. Any change in tax legislation (including in relation to taxation rates) and practice in these jurisdictions could adversely affect these entities, as well as the net amount of distributions payable to our unitholders. Taxes and other constraints that would apply to our operating entities in such jurisdictions may not apply to local institutions or other parties, and such parties may therefore have a significantly lower effective cost of capital and a corresponding competitive advantage in pursuing such acquisitions.

Our company’s ability to make distributions depends on it receiving sufficient cash distributions from its underlying operations, and we cannot assure unitholders that we will be able to make cash distributions to them in amounts that are sufficient to fund their tax liabilities.

Our Holding Entities and operating entities may be subject to local taxes in each of the relevant territories and jurisdictions in which they operate, including taxes on income, profits or gains and withholding taxes. As a result, our company’s cash available for distribution is indirectly reduced by such taxes, and the post-tax return to our unitholders is similarly reduced by such taxes. We intend for future acquisitions to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and, where possible and commercially viable, structured so as to minimize any adverse tax consequences to our unitholders as a result of making such acquisitions.

In general, a unitholder that is subject to income tax in Canada or the United States must include in income its allocable share of our company’s items of income, gain, loss, and deduction (including, so long as it is treated as a partnership for tax purposes, our company’s allocable share of those items of the Property Partnership) for each of our company’s fiscal years ending with or within such unitholder’s tax year. See Item 10.E. “Taxation”. However, the cash distributed to a unitholder may not be sufficient to pay the full amount of such unitholder’s tax liability in respect of its investment in our company, because each unitholder’s tax liability depends on such unitholder’s particular tax situation and the tax treatment of the underlying activities or assets of our company. If our company is unable to distribute cash in amounts that are sufficient to fund our unitholders’ tax liabilities, each of our unitholders will still be required to pay income taxes on its share of our company’s taxable income.

Our unitholders may be subject to non-U.S., state and local taxes and return filing requirements as a result of owning our units.

Based on our expected method of operation and the ownership of our operating entities indirectly through corporate Holding Entities, we do not expect any unitholder, solely as a result of owning our units, to be subject to any additional income taxes imposed on a net basis or additional tax return filing requirements in any jurisdiction in which we conduct activities or own property. However, our method of operation and current structure may change, and there can be no assurance that our unitholders, solely as a result of owning our units, will not be subject to certain taxes, including non-U.S., state and local income taxes, unincorporated business taxes and estate, inheritance or intangible taxes imposed by the various jurisdictions in which we do business or own property now or in the future, even if our unitholders do not reside in any of these jurisdictions. Consequently, our unitholders may also be required to file non-U.S., state and local income tax returns in some or all of these jurisdictions. Further, our unitholders may be subject to penalties for failure to comply with these requirements. It is the responsibility of each unitholder to file all U.S. federal, non-U.S., state and local tax returns that may be required of such unitholder.

Our unitholders may be exposed to transfer pricing risks.

To the extent that our company, the Property Partnership, the Holding Entities or our operating entities enter into transactions or arrangements with parties with whom they do not deal at arm’s length, including Brookfield, the relevant tax authorities may seek to adjust the quantum or nature of the amounts received or paid by such entities if they consider that the terms and conditions of such transactions or arrangements differ from those that would have been made between persons dealing at arm’s length. This could result in more tax (and penalties and interest) being paid by such entities, and therefore the return to investors could be reduced. For Canadian tax purposes, a transfer pricing adjustment may in certain circumstances result in additional income being allocated to a unitholder with no corresponding cash distribution or in a dividend being deemed to be paid by a Canadian-resident to a non-arm’s length non-resident, which deemed dividend is subject to Canadian withholding tax.

The BPY General Partner believes that the base management fee and any other amount that is paid to the Service Providers will be commensurate with the value of the services being provided by the Service Providers and comparable to the fees or other amounts that would be agreed to in an arm’s length arrangement. However, no assurance can be given in this regard.

If the relevant tax authority were to assert that an adjustment should be made under the transfer pricing rules to an amount that is relevant to the computation of the income of the Property Partnership or our company, such assertion could result in adjustments to amounts of income (or loss) allocated to our unitholders by our company for tax purposes. In addition, we might also be liable for transfer pricing penalties in respect of transfer pricing adjustments unless reasonable efforts were made to determine, and use, arm’s length transfer prices. Generally, reasonable efforts in this regard are only considered to be made if contemporaneous documentation has been prepared in respect of such transactions or arrangements that support the transfer pricing methodology.

The U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, or Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, may not agree with certain assumptions and conventions that we use to comply with applicable U.S. and Canadian federal income tax laws or to report income, gain, loss, deduction, and credit to our unitholders.

We will apply certain assumptions and conventions to comply with applicable tax laws and to report income, gain, deduction, loss, and credit to a unitholder in a manner that reflects such unitholder’s beneficial ownership of partnership items, taking into account variation in ownership interests during each taxable year because of trading activity. A successful IRS or CRA challenge to such assumptions or conventions could adversely affect the amount of tax benefits available to our unitholders and could require that items of income, gain, deduction, loss, or credit, including interest deductions, be adjusted, reallocated or disallowed in a manner that adversely affects our unitholders. See Item 10.E. “Taxation”.

United States

If our company or the Property Partnership were to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the value of our units might be adversely affected.

The value of our units to our unitholders will depend in part on the treatment of our company and the Property Partnership as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, in order for our company to be treated as a partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes, under present law, 90% or more of our company’s gross income for every taxable year must consist of qualifying income, as defined in Section 7704 of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, and our company must not be required to register, if it were a U.S. corporation, as an investment company under the Investment Company Act and related rules. Although the BPY General Partner intends to manage our affairs so that our company will not need to be registered as an investment company if it were a U.S. corporation and so that it will meet the 90% test described above in each taxable year, our company may not meet these requirements, or current law may change so as to cause, in either event, our company to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If our company (or the Property Partnership) were treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences could result for our unitholders and our company (or the Property Partnership, as applicable), as described in greater detail in Item 10.E. “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Partnership Status of Our Company and the Property Partnership”.

The failure of certain of our operating entities (or certain of their subsidiaries) to qualify as real estate investment trusts under U.S. federal income tax rules generally would have adverse tax consequences which could result in a material reduction in cash flow and after-tax return for our unitholders and thus could result in a reduction of the value of our units.

Certain of our operating entities (and certain of their subsidiaries), including operating entities in which we do not have a controlling interest, intend to qualify for taxation as REITs for U.S. federal income tax purposes. However, no assurance can be provided that any such entity will qualify as a REIT. An entity’s ability to qualify as a REIT depends on its satisfaction of certain asset, income, organizational, distribution, shareholder ownership, and other requirements on a continuing basis. No assurance can be provided that the actual results of operations for any particular entity in a given taxable year will satisfy such requirements. If any such entity were to fail to qualify as a REIT in any taxable year, it would be subject to U.S. federal income tax, including any applicable alternative minimum tax, on its net taxable income at regular corporate rates, and distributions would not be deductible by it in computing its taxable income. Any such corporate tax liability could be substantial and could materially reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our company, which in turn would materially reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders or investment in our business and could have an adverse impact on the value of our units. Unless entitled to relief under certain U.S. federal income tax rules, any entity which so failed to qualify as a REIT would also be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which it ceased to qualify as a REIT.

We may be subject to U.S. “backup” withholding tax or other U.S. withholding taxes if any unitholder fails to comply with U.S. tax reporting rules or if the IRS or other applicable state or local taxing authority does not accept our withholding methodology, and such excess withholding tax cost will be an expense borne by our company and, therefore, by all of our unitholders on a pro rata basis.

We may become subject to U.S. backup withholding tax or other U.S. withholding taxes with respect to any U.S. or non-U.S. unitholder who fails to timely provide our company (or the applicable clearing agent or other intermediary) with an IRS Form W-9 or IRS Form W-8, as the case may be, or if the withholding methodology we use is not accepted by the IRS or other applicable state or local taxing authority. See Item 10.E “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Administrative Matters — Withholding and Backup Withholding”. To the extent that any unitholder fails to timely provide the applicable form (or such form is not properly completed), or should the IRS or other applicable state or local taxing authority not accept our withholding methodology, our company might treat such U.S. backup withholding taxes or other U.S. withholding taxes as an expense, which would be borne indirectly by all of our unitholders on a pro rata basis. As a result, our unitholders that fully comply with their U.S. tax reporting obligations may bear a share of such burden created by other unitholders that do not comply with the U.S. tax reporting rules.

Tax-exempt organizations may face certain adverse U.S. tax consequences from owning our units.

The BPY General Partner intends to use commercially reasonable efforts to structure our activities to avoid generating income connected with the conduct of a trade or business (which income generally would constitute “unrelated business taxable income”, or UBTI, to the extent allocated to a tax-exempt organization). However, no assurance can be provided that we will not generate UBTI in the future. In particular, UBTI includes income attributable to debt-financed property, and we are not prohibited from financing the acquisition of property with debt. The potential for income to be characterized as UBTI could make our units an unsuitable investment for a tax-exempt organization, as addressed in greater detail in Item 10.E. “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Consequences to U.S. Holders — U.S. Taxation of Tax-Exempt U.S. Holders of Our Units”.

If our company were engaged in a U.S. trade or business, non-U.S. persons would face certain adverse U.S. tax consequences from owning our units.

Based on our organizational structure, as well as our expected income and assets, the BPY General Partner currently believes that our company is unlikely to earn income treated as effectively connected with a U.S. trade or business, including effectively connected income attributable to the sale of a “United States real property interest”, as defined in the U.S. Internal Revenue Code. If our company were deemed to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business, or to realize gain from the sale or other disposition of a U.S. real property interest, Non-U.S. Holders (as defined in Item 10.E “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations”) generally would be required to file U.S. federal income tax returns and could be subject to U.S. federal withholding tax at the highest marginal U.S. federal income tax rates applicable to ordinary income. See Item 10.E “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Consequences to Non-U.S. Holders”.

To meet U.S. federal income tax and other objectives, our company and the Property Partnership may invest through U.S. and non-U.S. Holding Entities that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and such Holding Entities may be subject to corporate income tax.

To meet U.S. federal income tax and other objectives, our company and the Property Partnership may invest through U.S. and non-U.S. Holding Entities that are treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and such Holding Entities may be subject to corporate income tax. Consequently, items of income, gain, loss, deduction, or credit realized in the first instance by our operating entities will not flow, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, directly to the Property Partnership, our company, or our unitholders, and any such income or gain may be subject to a corporate income tax, in the U.S. or other jurisdictions, at the level of the Holding Entity. Any such additional taxes may adversely affect our company’s ability to maximize its cash flow.

Our unitholders taxable in the United States may be viewed as holding an indirect interest in an entity classified as a “passive foreign investment company” for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

U.S. holders may face adverse U.S. tax consequences arising from the ownership of a direct or indirect interest in a “passive foreign investment company”, or PFIC. Based on our organizational structure, as well as our expected income and assets, the BPY General Partner currently believes that one or more of our current Holding Entities and operating entities are likely to be classified as PFICs. In addition, we may in the future acquire certain investments or operating entities through one or more Holding Entities treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and such future Holding Entities or other companies in which we acquire an interest may be treated as PFICs. In general, gain realized by U.S. Holders from the sale of stock of a PFIC is subject to tax at ordinary income rates, and an interest charge generally applies. Alternatively, U.S. Holders making certain elections with respect to their direct or indirect interest in a PFIC may be required to recognize taxable income prior to the receipt of cash relating to such income. The adverse consequences of owning an interest in a PFIC, as well as the availability of certain tax elections for mitigating these adverse consequences, are described in greater detail in Item 10.E. “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Consequences to U.S. Holders — Passive Foreign Investment Companies”. You should consult an independent tax adviser regarding the implication of the PFIC rules for an investment in our units.

Tax gain or loss from the disposition of our units could be more or less than expected.

If a sale of our units by a unitholder is taxable in the United States, the unitholder will recognize gain or loss for U.S. federal income tax purposes equal to the difference between the amount realized and the unitholder’s adjusted tax basis in such units. Prior distributions to a unitholder in excess of the total net taxable income allocated to such unitholder will have decreased such unitholder’s tax basis in our units. Therefore, such excess distributions will increase a unitholder’s taxable gain or decrease such unitholder’s taxable loss when our units are sold, and may result in a taxable gain even if the sale price is less than the original cost. A portion of the amount realized, whether or not representing gain, could be ordinary income to such unitholder.

Our partnership structure involves complex provisions of U.S. federal income tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. The tax characterization of our partnership structure is also subject to potential legislative, judicial, or administrative change and differing interpretations, possibly on a retroactive basis.

The U.S. federal income tax treatment of our unitholders depends in some instances on determinations of fact and interpretations of complex provisions of U.S. federal income tax law for which no clear precedent or authority may be available. Unitholders should be aware that the U.S. federal income tax rules, particularly those applicable to partnerships, are constantly under review by the Congressional tax-writing committees and other persons involved in the legislative process, the IRS, the U.S. Treasury Department and the courts, frequently resulting in changes which could adversely affect the value of our units or cause our company to change the way it conducts its activities. For example, changes to the U.S. federal tax laws and interpretations thereof could make it more difficult or impossible for our company to be treated as a partnership that is not taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, change the character or treatment of portions of our company’s income, reduce the net amount of distributions available to our unitholders, or otherwise affect the tax considerations of owning our units. In addition, our company’s organizational documents and agreements permit the BPY General Partner to modify our limited partnership agreement, without the consent of our unitholders, to address such changes. These modifications could have a material adverse impact on our unitholders. See Item 10.E. “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Administrative Matters — New Legislation or Administrative or Judicial Action”.

Our company’s delivery of required tax information for a taxable year may be subject to delay, which could require a unitholder who is a U.S. taxpayer to request an extension of the due date for such unitholder’s income tax return.

Our company has agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts to provide U.S. tax information (including IRS Schedule K-1 information needed to determine a unitholder’s allocable share of our company’s income, gain, losses, and deductions) no later than 90 days after the close of each calendar year. However, providing this U.S. tax information to our unitholders will be subject to delay in the event of, among other reasons, the late receipt of any necessary tax information from lower-tier entities. It is therefore possible that, in any taxable year, a unitholder will need to apply for an extension of time to file such unitholder’s tax returns. See Item 10.E “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Administrative Matters — Information Returns”.

The sale or exchange of 50% or more of our units will result in the constructive termination of our partnership for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Our partnership will be considered to have been terminated for U.S. federal income tax purposes if there is a sale or exchange of 50% or more of our units within a 12-month period. A constructive termination of our partnership would, among other things, result in the closing of its taxable year for U.S. federal income tax purposes for all of our unitholders and could result in the possible acceleration of income to certain of our unitholders and certain other consequences that could adversely affect the value of our units. However, the BPY General Partner does not expect a constructive termination, should it occur, to have a material impact on the computation of the future taxable income generated by our company for U.S. federal income tax purposes. See Item 10.E. “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Administrative Matters — Constructive Termination”.

Under the Foreign Account Tax Compliance provisions of the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act of 2010, commonly known as “FATCA”, certain payments made or received by our company may be subject to a 30% federal withholding tax, unless certain requirements are met.

Under FATCA, a 30% withholding tax may apply to certain payments of U.S.-source income made to our company, the Property Partnership, the Holding Entities, or the operating entities, or by our company to a unitholder, unless certain requirements are met, as described in greater detail in Item 10.E “Taxation — U.S. Tax Considerations — Administrative Matters — Foreign Account Tax Compliance”. The 30% withholding tax may also apply to certain payments made on or after January 1, 2017 that are attributable to U.S.-source income or that constitute gross proceeds from the disposition of property that could produce U.S.-source dividends or interest. To ensure compliance with FATCA, information regarding certain unitholders’ ownership of our units may be reported to the IRS or to a non-U.S. governmental authority. Unitholders should consult their own tax advisers regarding the consequences under FATCA of an investment in our units.

Canada

If any of the non-Canadian subsidiaries in which the Property Partnership directly invests earns income that is characterized as “foreign accrual property income”, or FAPI, as defined in the Income Tax Act (Canada), or, together with the regulations thereunder, the Tax Act, our unitholders may be required to include amounts allocated from our company in computing their income for Canadian federal income tax purposes even though there may be no corresponding cash distribution.

Any non-resident subsidiaries in which the Property Partnership directly invests are expected to be “foreign affiliates” and “controlled foreign affiliates”, each as defined in the Tax Act, collectively referred to herein as CFAs, of the Property Partnership. If any CFA of the Property Partnership or any direct or indirect subsidiary thereof that is itself a CFA of the Property Partnership, or an Indirect CFA, earns income that is characterized as FAPI in a particular taxation year of the CFA or Indirect CFA, the FAPI allocable to the Property Partnership must be included in computing the income of the Property Partnership for Canadian federal income tax purposes for the fiscal period of the Property Partnership in which the taxation year of that CFA or Indirect CFA that earned the FAPI ends, whether or not the Property Partnership actually receives a distribution of that FAPI. Our company will include its share of such FAPI of the Property Partnership in computing its income for Canadian federal income tax purposes and our unitholders will be required to include their proportionate share of such FAPI allocated from our company in computing their income for Canadian federal income tax purposes. As a result, our unitholders may be required to include amounts in their income for Canadian federal income tax purposes even though they have not and may not receive an actual cash distribution of such amounts. The Tax Act contains anti-avoidance rules to address certain foreign tax credit generator transactions, or the Foreign Tax Credit Generator Rules. Under the Foreign Tax Credit Generator Rules, the “foreign accrual tax,” as defined in the Tax Act, applicable to a particular amount of FAPI included in the Property Partnership’s income in respect of a particular CFA of the Property Partnership may be limited in certain specified circumstances.

Our unitholders may be required to include imputed amounts in their income for Canadian federal income tax purposes in accordance with section 94.1 of the Tax Act.

Section 94.1 of the Tax Act contains rules relating to investments in entities that are not resident or deemed to be resident in Canada for purposes of the Tax Act or not situated in Canada, other than a CFA of the taxpayer, or Non-Resident Entities, that could in certain circumstances cause income to be imputed to our unitholders for Canadian federal income tax purposes, either directly or by way of allocation of such income imputed to our company or to the Property Partnership. See Item 10.E. “Taxation — Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations”.

Our unitholders’ foreign tax credits for Canadian federal income tax purposes will be limited if the Foreign Tax Credit Generator Rules apply in respect of the foreign “business income tax” or “non-business income tax”, each as defined in the Tax Act, paid by our company or the Property Partnership to the government of a foreign country.

Under the Foreign Tax Credit Generator Rules, the foreign “business-income tax” or “non-business-income tax” for Canadian federal income tax purposes for any taxation year may be limited in certain circumstances. If the Foreign Tax Credit Generator Rules apply, the allocation to a unitholder of foreign “business income tax” or “non-business income tax” paid by our company or the Property Partnership, and therefore, such unitholder’s foreign tax credits for Canadian federal income tax purposes, will be limited. See Item 10.E. “Taxation—Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations”.

Unitholders who are not resident in Canada or deemed to be resident in Canada for purposes of the Tax Act and who do not use or hold and are not deemed to use or hold our units in connection with a business carried on in Canada, or non-resident limited partners, may be subject to Canadian federal income tax with respect to any Canadian source business income earned by our company or the Property Partnership if our company or the Property Partnership were considered to carry on business in Canada.

If our company or the Property Partnership were considered to carry on a business in Canada for purposes of the Tax Act, non-resident limited partners would be subject to Canadian federal income tax on their proportionate share of any Canadian source business income earned or considered to be earned by our company, subject to the potential application of the safe harbour rule in section 115.2 of the Tax Act and any relief that may be provided by any relevant income tax treaty or convention.

The BPY General Partner intends to manage the affairs of our company and the Property Partnership, to the extent possible, so that they do not carry on business in Canada and are not considered or deemed to carry on business in Canada for purposes of the Tax Act. Nevertheless, because the determination of whether our company or the Property Partnership is carrying on business and, if so, whether that business is carried on in Canada, is a question of fact that is dependent upon the surrounding circumstances, the Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, might contend successfully that either or both of our company and the Property Partnership carries on business in Canada for purposes of the Tax Act.

If our company or the Property Partnership is considered to carry on business in Canada or is deemed to carry on business in Canada for purposes of the Tax Act, non-resident limited partners that are corporations would be required to file a Canadian federal income tax return for each taxation year in which they are a non-resident limited partner regardless of whether relief from Canadian taxation is available under an applicable income tax treaty or convention. Non-resident limited partners who are individuals would only be required to file a Canadian federal income tax return for any taxation year in which they are allocated income from our company from carrying on business in Canada that is not exempt from Canadian taxation under the terms of an applicable income tax treaty or convention.

Non-resident limited partners may be subject to Canadian federal income tax on capital gains realized by our company or the Property Partnership on dispositions of “taxable Canadian property”, as defined in the Tax Act.

A non-resident limited partner will be subject to Canadian federal income tax on its proportionate share of capital gains realized by our company or the Property Partnership on the disposition of “taxable Canadian property”, other than “treaty protected property”, as defined in the Tax Act. “Taxable Canadian property” includes, but is not limited to, property that is used or held in a business carried on in Canada and shares of corporations resident in Canada that are not listed on a “designated stock exchange” if more than 50% of the fair market value of the shares is derived from certain Canadian properties during the 60-month period immediately preceding the disposition. Property of our company and the Property Partnership generally will be “treaty-protected property” to a non-resident limited partner if the gain from the disposition of the property would, because of an applicable income tax treaty or convention, be exempt from tax under the Tax Act. Our company and the Property Partnership are not expected to realize capital gains or losses from dispositions of “taxable Canadian property”. However, no assurance can be given in this regard. Non-resident limited partners will be required to file a Canadian federal income tax return in respect of a disposition of “taxable Canadian property” by our company or the Property Partnership unless the disposition is an “excluded disposition” for the purposes of section 150 of the Tax Act. However, non-resident limited partners that are corporations will still be required to file a Canadian federal income tax return in respect of a disposition of “taxable Canadian property” that is an “excluded disposition” if tax would otherwise be payable under Part I of the Tax Act by such non-resident limited partners in respect of the disposition but is not because of an applicable income tax treaty or convention (otherwise than in respect of a disposition of “taxable Canadian property” that is “treaty-protected property” of the corporation). In general, an “excluded disposition” is a disposition of property by a taxpayer in a taxation year where: (i) the taxpayer is a non-resident of Canada at the time of the disposition; (ii) no tax is payable by the taxpayer under Part I of the Tax Act for the taxation year; (iii) the taxpayer is not liable to pay any amounts under the Tax Act in respect of any previous taxation year (other than certain amounts for which the CRA holds adequate security); and (iv) each “taxable Canadian property” disposed of by the taxpayer in the taxation year is either: (A) “excluded property” (as defined in subsection 116(6) of the Tax Act); or (B) property in respect of the disposition of which a certificate under subsections 116(2), (4) or (5.2) of the Tax Act has been issued by the CRA. Non-resident limited partners should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the requirements to file a Canadian federal income tax return in respect of a disposition of “taxable Canadian property” by our company or the Property Partnership.

Non-resident limited partners may be subject to Canadian federal income tax on capital gains realized on the disposition of our units if our units are “taxable Canadian property”.

Any capital gain arising from the disposition or deemed disposition of our units by a non-resident limited partner will be subject to taxation in Canada, if, at the time of the disposition or deemed disposition, our units are “taxable Canadian property” of the non-resident limited partner, unless our units are “treaty-protected property” to such non-resident limited partner. In general, our units will not constitute “taxable Canadian property” of any non-resident limited partner at the time of disposition or deemed disposition, unless (a) at any time in the 60-month period immediately preceding the disposition or deemed disposition, more than 50% of the fair market value of our units was derived, directly or indirectly (excluding through a corporation, partnership or trust, the shares or interests in which were not themselves “taxable Canadian property”), from one or any combination of: (i) real or immovable property situated in Canada; (ii) “Canadian resource property”, as defined in the Tax Act; (iii) “timber resource property”, as defined in the Tax Act; and (iv) options in respect of or interests in, or for civil law rights in, such property, whether or not such property exists, or (b) our units are otherwise deemed to be “taxable Canadian property”. Since our company’s assets will consist principally of units of the Property Partnership, our units would generally be “taxable Canadian property” at a particular time if the units of the Property Partnership held by our company derived, directly or indirectly (excluding through a corporation, partnership or trust, the shares or interests in which were not themselves “taxable Canadian property”) more than 50% of their fair market value from properties described in (i) to (iv) above, at any time in the 60-month period preceding the particular time. Even if our units constitute “taxable Canadian property”, units of our company will be “treaty protected property” if the gain on the disposition of our units is exempt from tax under the Tax Act under the terms of an applicable income tax treaty or convention. It is not expected that our units will constitute “taxable Canadian property” of any non-resident limited partner at any time but no assurance can be given in this regard. If our units constitute “taxable Canadian property”, non-resident limited partners will be required to file a Canadian federal income tax return in respect of a disposition of our units unless the disposition is an “excluded disposition” (as discussed above). If our units constitute “taxable Canadian property”, non-resident limited partners should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the requirement to file a Canadian federal income tax return in respect of a disposition of our units.

Non-resident limited partners may be subject to Canadian federal income tax reporting and withholding tax requirements on the disposition of “taxable Canadian property”.

Non-resident limited partners who dispose of “taxable Canadian property”, other than “excluded property” and certain other property described in subsection 116(5.2) of the Tax Act (or who are considered to have disposed of such property on the disposition of such property by our company or the Property Partnership) are obligated to comply with the procedures set out in section 116 of the Tax Act and obtain a certificate pursuant to the Tax Act. In order to obtain such certificate, the non-resident limited partner is required to report certain particulars relating to the transaction to the CRA not later than 10 days after the disposition occurs. Our units are not expected to be “taxable Canadian property” and neither our company nor the Property Partnership is expected to dispose of property that is “taxable Canadian property”, but no assurance can be given in these regards.

Payments of dividends or interest (other than interest exempt from Canadian federal withholding tax) by residents of Canada to the Property Partnership will be subject to Canadian federal withholding tax and we may be unable to apply a reduced rate taking into account the residency or entitlement to relief under an applicable income tax treaty or convention of our unitholders.

Our company and the Property Partnership will be deemed to be a non-resident person in respect of certain amounts paid or credited or deemed to be paid or credited to them by a person resident or deemed to be resident in Canada, including dividends or interest. Dividends or interest (other than interest exempt from Canadian federal withholding tax) paid or deemed to be paid by a person resident or deemed to be resident in Canada to the Property Partnership will be subject to withholding tax under Part XIII of the Tax Act at the rate of 25%. However, the CRA’s administrative practice in similar circumstances is to permit the rate of Canadian federal withholding tax applicable to such payments to be computed by looking through the partnership and taking into account the residency of the partners (including partners who are resident in Canada) and any reduced rates of Canadian federal withholding tax that any non-resident limited partners may be entitled to under an applicable income tax treaty or convention, provided that the residency status and entitlement to treaty benefits can be established. In determining the rate of Canadian federal withholding tax applicable to amounts paid by the Holding Entities to the Property Partnership, we expect the Holding Entities to look-through the Property Partnership and our company to the residency of the partners of our company (including partners who are residents of Canada) and to take into account any reduced rates of Canadian federal withholding tax that non-resident limited partners may be entitled to under an applicable income tax treaty or convention in order to determine the appropriate amount of Canadian federal withholding tax to withhold from dividends or interest paid to the Property Partnership. However, there can be no assurance that the CRA will apply its administrative practice in this context. If the CRA’s administrative practice is not applied and the Holding Entities withhold Canadian federal withholding tax from applicable payments on a look-through basis, the Holding Entities may be liable for additional amounts of Canadian federal withholding tax plus any associated interest and penalties. Under the Canada-United States Tax Convention (1980), or the Treaty, in certain circumstances a Canadian resident payer is required to look-through fiscally transparent partnerships, such as our company and the Property Partnership, to the residency and Treaty entitlements of their partners and to take into account the reduced rates of Canadian federal withholding tax that such partners may be entitled to under the Treaty.

While the BPY General Partner expects the Holding Entities to look-through our company and the Property Partnership in determining the rate of Canadian federal withholding tax applicable to amounts paid or deemed to be paid by the Holding Entities to the Property Partnership, we may be unable to accurately or timely determine the residency of our unitholders for purposes of establishing the extent to which Canadian federal withholding taxes apply or whether reduced rates of withholding tax apply to some or all of our unitholders. In such a case, the Holding Entities will withhold Canadian federal withholding tax from all payments made to the Property Partnership that are subject to Canadian federal withholding tax at the rate of 25%. Canadian resident unitholders will be entitled to claim a credit for such taxes against their Canadian federal income tax liability, but non-resident limited partners will need to take certain steps to receive a refund or credit in respect of any such Canadian federal withholding taxes withheld equal to the difference between the withholding tax at a rate of 25% and the withholding tax at the reduced rate they are entitled to under an applicable income tax treaty or convention. See Item 10.E. “Taxation — Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations” for further detail. Investors should consult their own tax advisors concerning all aspects of Canadian federal withholding taxes.

Our units may or may not continue to be “qualified investments” under the Tax Act for registered plans.

Provided that our units are listed on a “designated stock exchange”, as defined in the Tax Act (which currently includes the NYSE and the Toronto Stock Exchange, or the TSX), our units will be “qualified investments” under the Tax Act for a trust governed by a registered retirement savings plan, or RRSP, deferred profit sharing plan, registered retirement income fund, or RRIF, registered education savings plan, registered disability savings plan, and tax-free savings account, or TFSA. However, there can be no assurance that our units will be listed or continue to be listed on a “designated stock exchange”. There can also be no assurance that tax laws relating to “qualified investments” will not be changed. Taxes may be imposed in respect of the acquisition or holding of non-qualified investments by such registered plans and certain other taxpayers and with respect to the acquisition or holding of “prohibited investments”, as defined in the Tax Act, by a RRSP, RRIF or TFSA.

Our units will not be a “prohibited investment” for a trust governed by a RRSP, RRIF or TFSA, provided that the holder of the TFSA or the annuitant under the RRSP or RRIF, as the case may be, deals at arm’s length with our company for purposes of the Tax Act and does not have a “significant interest”, as defined in the Tax Act for purposes of the prohibited investment rules, in our company. Unitholders who intend to hold our units in a RRSP, RRIF or TFSA should consult with their own tax advisors regarding the application of the foregoing prohibited investment rules having regard to their particular circumstances.

The Canadian federal income tax consequences to you could be materially different in certain respects from those described in this Form 20-F if our company or the Property Partnership is a “SIFT partnership”, as defined in the Tax Act.

Under the rules in the Tax Act applicable to a “SIFT partnership”, or the SIFT Rules, certain income and gains earned by a “SIFT partnership” will be subject to income tax at the partnership level at a rate similar to a corporation and allocations of such income and gains to its partners will be taxed as a dividend from a “taxable Canadian corporation”, as defined in the Tax Act. In particular, a “SIFT partnership” will be required to pay a tax on the total of its income from businesses carried on in Canada, income from “non-portfolio properties”, as defined in the Tax Act (other than taxable dividends), and taxable capital gains from dispositions of “non-portfolio properties”. “Non-portfolio properties” include, among other things, equity interests or debt of corporations, trusts or partnerships that are resident in Canada, and of non-resident persons or partnerships the principal source of income of which is one or any combination of sources in Canada (other than an “excluded subsidiary entity”, as defined in the Tax Act), that are held by the “SIFT partnership” and have a fair market value that is greater than 10% of the equity value of such entity, or that have, together with debt or equity that the “SIFT partnership” holds of entities affiliated (within the meaning of the Tax Act) with such entity, an aggregate fair market value that is greater than 50% of the equity value of the “SIFT partnership”. The tax rate that is applied to the above mentioned sources of income and gains is set at a rate equal to the “net corporate income tax rate” plus the “provincial SIFT tax rate”, each as defined in the Tax Act.

A partnership will be a “SIFT partnership” throughout a taxation year if at any time in the taxation year (i) it is a “Canadian resident partnership”, as defined in the Tax Act, (ii) “investments”, as defined in the Tax Act, in the partnership are listed or traded on a stock exchange or other public market, and (iii) it holds one or more “non-portfolio properties”. For these purposes, a partnership will be a “Canadian resident partnership” at a particular time if (a) it is a “Canadian partnership”, as defined in the Tax Act, at that time, (b) it would, if it were a corporation, be resident in Canada (including, for greater certainty, a partnership that has its central management and control located in Canada), or (c) it was formed under the laws of a province. A “Canadian partnership” for these purposes is a partnership all of whose members are resident in Canada or are partnerships that are “Canadian partnerships”.

Under the SIFT Rules, our partnership and the Property Partnership could each be a “SIFT partnership” if it is a “Canadian resident partnership”. However, the Property Partnership would not be a “SIFT partnership” if our partnership is a “SIFT partnership” regardless of whether the Property Partnership is a “Canadian resident partnership” on the basis that the Property Partnership would be an “excluded subsidiary entity”.

Our company and the Property Partnership will be a “Canadian resident partnership” if the central management and control of these partnerships is located in Canada. This determination is a question of fact and is expected to depend on where the BPY General Partner is located and exercises central management and control of the partnerships. The BPY General Partner will take appropriate steps so that the central management and control of these entities is not located in Canada such that the SIFT Rules should not apply to our company or to the Property Partnership at any relevant time. However, no assurance can be given in this regard. If our company or the Property Partnership is a “SIFT partnership”, the Canadian federal income tax consequences to our unitholders could be materially different in certain respects from those described in Item 10.E. “Taxation — Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations”. In addition, there can be no assurance that the SIFT Rules will not be revised or amended in the future such that the SIFT Rules will apply to our company or to the Property Partnership.