THE CONTINUED US ENERGY RENAISSANCE AND INFRASTRUCTURE BUILD-OUT:CAPTURING THE REENERGIZING OF AMERICA WITH MLP INVESTING1

Over the last decade, the unforeseen production growth experienced within the continental U.S. has radically changed the en-ergy landscape, domestically and abroad, and pushed the U.S. towards energy independence. From 2000 to 2008, U.S. crude oil production went from 5.8 million barrels per day to 5.0 million barrels per day, a steady decline of approximately 14%. It was during this time that people began to talk about “peak oil,” a concept that gained enough traction to inspire award-winning documentaries such as the 2006 documentary A Crude Awakening: The Oil Crash; We’re Running Out and We Don’t Have a Plan. Then from 2008 to the end of 2014, as a result of technological breakthroughs that unlocked production from vast unconventional “tight oil” reservoirs, U.S. crude oil production went from 5.0 million barrels per day to 9.3 million barrels per day—a staggering increase of 86% in just six years. New infrastructure was, and is still, needed to gather; process; treat; store; and transport the vast new supply of natural resources. Connecting this new supply to the final customer requires midstream infrastructure, the majority of which is being built by Midstream Master Limited Partnerships (“MLPs”). Midstream companies are generally engaged in the treatment, gathering, processing, and transportation, among other activities of natural gas, NGLs, crude oil, refined products or coal.

Since Summer of 2014, the discussion over the last 24 months has centered on the plunge in the price of crude oil and the aftershocks for the U.S. oil and gas industry. Namely, how will producers adapt to lower crude prices? A similar story has played out before with natural gas and natural gas liquids (“NGLs”). Going back to September 2005, domestic natural gas prices had fallen by more than 75% while production increased by more than 50%, as seen in Figure 1. How is that possible? Natural gas producers did this by increasing production in the most cost-effective regions through ever-increasing efficiency at the expense of field service providers. While the price of natural gas dropped significantly from 2007-2009, the price for NGLs remained high due to their historical link with crude. Like natural gas, continued drilling eventually created tremendous supply growth (>70% growth from 2005 to 2012) that finally oversaturated the market in early 2012, causing prices to crash more than 50%.

Figure 1: Natural Gas Production and Prices since January 2000

1: All data in this material sourced from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (“EIA”) and available at www.eia.gov

CCCAX • CCCCX• CCCNXCENTER COAST MLP FOCUS FUND

The same phenomenon is happening today with crude oil producers. As U.S. crude producers were incentivized to drill with oil prices greater than $100/bbl, production increased by >60% to almost 9 million barrels per day (“Mbpd”) causing crude prices to plummet ~50% in the second half of 2014 after OPEC decided not to cut production in an already oversup-plied market (primarily due to the US increasing production by ~4 Mbpd in just five years’ time).

Figure 2: Crude Oil Production and Prices since January 2000

In March of 2016, the U.S. Energy Information Association (“EIA”) released their annual “Trends in U.S. Oil and Natural Gas Upstream Costs”, which shows that for 2015 the average well drilling and completion costs were 25%-30% below 2012 levels. Per the report, “The oil price collapse of 2014 forced changes upon the market, including capital cost reductions, downsized budgets and focus on better prospects within these plays.” Upstream producers have buckled down and fo-cused on the most economic projects and reduced operating costs; and today rig counts in the U.S. are on the rise. Starting the last week of May 2016 through December 31, 2016, the U.S. oil rig count increased by 254 rigs, a whopping ~63% increase from the rig count bottom.

We believe underlying oil and gas supply fundamentals continue to improve and each quarter we get closer to a sup-ply-demand equilibrium. U.S. oil and gas production is a crucial component of the global oil and gas market and, we be-lieve, it will continue to be over the foreseeable future. This requires continued investment along the value chain, especially in midstream – the key link between supply basins and end users. Yes, it is true that some areas of the U.S. are completely built out and do not require any additional material capital expenditures. However, there continues to be a myriad of op-portunities where midstream infrastructure can meet growing demand and continue to improve netbacks to producers, ultimately lowering the cost of energy, both domestically and abroad.

The Opportunity Still AheadWith the growth of energy production over the past decade, the U.S. has witnessed robust increases in energy infrastructure capital expenditure (“capex”). See Figure 3. These infrastructure projects come in all shapes and sizes – from multi-billion dollar Liquefied Natural Gas (“LNG”) export facilities to small gathering and processing systems in the Permian Basin. All are important and play a crucial role in increasing efficiencies along the energy value chain and making the U.S. a competitive player in the global crude market.

The need for capital is diverse: by region (Midwest, Northeast, Southeast, West Coast, Rockies, Gulf Coast); by commodity (crude, natural gas, natural gas liquids); and by asset (e.g., gathering, long-haul pipes, processing, fractionation, LNG, shipping). MLPs, in particular, are the entities best positioned to capitalize on this tremendous infrastructure build-out because of their cheap cost of capital and tax-advantaged corporate structure.

After all the news surrounding the collapse in global oil prices, an April 2016 report released by the Interstate Natural Gas Association of America (“INGAA”) Foundation estimates that over $500 billion in crude, gas and NGL infrastructure will be needed through 2035. The focus of that infrastructure build out has shifted from the source of the hydrocarbon to the use of that hydrocarbon. Domestically, we continue to see significant bottlenecks that result in price spikes during high-demand periods, such as the one seen recently in the southeast. In early September 2016, a massive leak was discovered in the Colonial Pipeline – the main conduit for transporting gasoline from Gulf Coast refineries to consumers along the Atlantic. As a result, gasoline prices skyrocketed (16 cents above the national average) across the southeast due to the lack of other supply options. Midstream projects can help alleviate such price dislocations by providing low cost optionality and reliability to end users.

Looking at natural gas and NGLs – where ~70% of the aforementioned $500 billion will be invested – years of depressed prices have funneled directly to increased demand. Additional pipeline capacity is needed to service the demand of the petrochemical and utility sectors for their necessary feedstocks. In addition, the pricing outlook and global spreads continue to incentivize natural gas exports through the newly constructed LNG facilities. Ethane and Liquefied Petroleum Gas (propane and butane) exports from the petrochemical industry (which has never existed before) will also need associated pipelines, terminals and storage facilities. For the U.S. to realize its full potential as a low-cost energy source – significant infrastructure investment remains a high priority.

Fueling the Continued Infrastructure Build out…The below drivers are underpinning the continued build-out of U.S. energy infrastructure assets. 1. Global Exports and Expanding Markets: Today, the U.S. is the world’s largest producer of natural gas. While

historically natural gas was a domestic market, the U.S. is now expected to be a net exporter of natural gas and NGLs by 2018. Due to the rapid increase in the domestic supply of natural gas, the U.S. experienced a major wave of LNG export terminal planning and construction to capitalize on global demand. With Sabine Pass, the first LNG facility on the Gulf Coast, opened in 2016, U.S. LNG exports are expected to grow to 2.5 trillion cubic feet (“tcf”) in 2020. These facilities will continue to require efficient feedstock logistics to be able to remain profitable in the current competitive global marketplace. Closer to home, the U.S. continues to ramp up natural gas pipeline exports to Mexico. Mexican natural gas production has been gradually decreasing for the last seven years while consumption continues to increase, particularly in the industrial and utility sector. Mexico’s national energy ministry, SENER, projects that U.S. natural gas pipeline exports will reach 3.8 billion cubic feet per day (“bcf/d”) by 2018 – more than double the amount seen in 2013.

2. The Resurgent Petrochemical Industry: Before the shale boom, the U.S. did not have significant NGL production and, most large petrochemical companies were moving offshore, closer to NGL sources. India, Brazil, Trinidad and the Middle East all became increasingly in favor to both multinational and U.S. petrochemical companies. New extraction techniques, however, have allowed U.S. producers to drill significant wet gas reserves that are rich in NGLs. This new NGL supply has directed much of the petrochemical investment to the U.S., where companies can rely on more

Figure 3: Historical and Forecast Organic Midstream Capital Expenditures (“Capex”)

Note: Figures reflect Wells Fargo coverage universe onlySource: Wells Fargo estimates

$2.0$4.4

$10.2$13.8

$7.8 $8.5

$13.1

$20.2

$26.4 $26.9 $28.1

$21.9$18.7

$14.8 $13.7 $13.1

$0.7

$1.1

$3.1

$2.7

$3.3 $1.2

$1.6

$2.3

$4.4 $4.4$4.1

$6.2

$6.7

$6.1$4.4

$2.5

$2.7

$5.5

$13.3

$16.5

$11.1$9.7

$14.7

$22.5

$30.8 $31.3$32.2

$28.1

$25.4

$20.9

$18.1

$15.6

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$30

$35

$40

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017E

2018E

2019E

2020E

Organiccapexinvestments($inbillions)

C-Corp OrganicCapex MLPOrganicCapex TotalCapex

5-YearHistoricalAverage(2011-2015)

stable fiscal framework and a more extensive infrastructure network. In response to abundant ethane supply, several corporations have approved or are currently constructing massive new Ethane cracking petrochemical complexes along the Gulf Coast and across the U.S. (see Figure 4) – projects dubbed “world scale crackers.” These crackers often carry multibillion dollar price tags and with two to three year or longer construction times, convert cheap ethane into ethylene and are currently expected to increase ethane demand by over 500 thousand barrels a day (“mpbd”) by the end of 2019. These new facilities will require pipelines to supply the feedstock and to ultimately deliver the processed goods to the end-user.

3. Shifting Utility Sector Dynamics: America’s prominent electricity sources have historically been coal, nuclear and natural gas, in that order. The risks of both nuclear and coal are well known around the globe. With recent nuclear incidents and the heavy environmental taxes on coal, the traditional heavyweight sources of electricity are consistently being replaced by cleaner, safer natural gas. Accounting for over 52% of electricity generation as recently as 2000, today coal accounts for ~30% of total electricity output. This number is widely expected to continue its downward trend. In 2000, Natural Gas accounted for just 16% of total U.S. electricity production, as of 2016 it represented 34%. Motivated by its abundant and decreasing costs, companies are willing to build new infrastructure to bring natural gas to power plants. With the vast supplies coming to market, natural gas seems poised to take an ever-more prominent role in the production of U.S. electricity. Transportation is key with electricity switching though; natural gas needs to be brought to the centers of demand, densely populated areas, which will require natural gas pipelines directly tied to demand centers. (i.e. not dependent on commodity prices)

Coal51.9%

Nuclear 19.9%

Natural Gas 15.9%

Hydroelectric 7.3%

Other5.1%

Electricty Generation by Source - 2000

Figure4:USPlanned(NewandExpanded)EthaneCrackersCompany Ethanecapacity,tonnes/year Location Start-upNewCrackersChevronPhillipsChemical 1.5million CedarBayou,Texas Mid-Late2017ExxonMobilChemical 1.5million Baytown,Texas Late2016DowChemical 1.5million Freeport,Texas 2017Sasol 1.5million LakeCharles,Louisiana 2017FormosaPlastics 1.0million PointComfort,Texas Q12017FormosaPlastics 1.2million Louisiana NotgivenOccidentalChemical/Mexichem 544,000 Ingleside,Texas 2017Axiall/Partner Notgiven Louisiana 2018ShellChemical Notgiven Monaca,Pennsylvania NotgivenOdebrecht Notgiven WoodCounty,WestVirginia Notgiven

ExpansionsINEOS 115,000 ChocolateBayou,Texas 2014WilliamsPartners 273,000 Geismar,Louisiana Apr-14WestlakeChemical 82,000 CalvertCity,Kentucky Q22014LyondellBasell 363,000 LaPorte,Texas Mid-2014ChevronPhillipsChemical 91,000 Sweeny,Texas 2014WestlakeChemical 113,000 LakeCharles,Louisiana 2014LyondellBasell 113,000 Channelview,Texas 2015LyondellBasell 363,000 CorpusChrisit,Texas Late2015Huntsman 19,300 PortNeches,Texas NABASFFinaPetrochemicals NA PortArthur,Texas 2014Source:Companies,ICISanalysis

4. Refinery Landscape Transformation: The geographical locations of new supply basins are reshaping America’s historical refinery landscape. Long stagnant due to prohibitions and lack of permits, the refinery picture was set 45 years ago and that system was built to service yesterday’s energy realities. This meant refineries designed to process the heavy crude originating from the Middle East, Mexico and South America were built along the Gulf Coast. The refineries built in the Northeast were designed to process light sweet crude originating from the “Brent (North) Sea” and finally the West Coast refineries were built to process both light and heavy crudes. There has been a significant change in the locations of supply over the past decade; heavy crude which is needed for the Gulf Coast refineries is now coming from Canada and the light sweet that the coastal refineries require is originating in North Dakota and Texas. Refineries, however, are cost prohibitive to convert and permits to construct new or relocate are non-existent (a new refinery has not been constructed in the United States in over 35 years!) This means the energy transportation network must be significantly expanded and re-routed to bring the proper sources of crude to the refineries that can process them – from Texas and North Dakota to the East and West coasts and from Canada down to the Gulf Coast. The infrastructure needed by refineries is not dependent on commodity prices – a fact the market tends to overlook. Demand-oriented assets, such as these, can actually do better in a low commodity price environment since low prices tend to stimulate demand.

5. New Supply Basins: While producers may have temporarily cut back on the exploration side of the business, the proliferation of new supply basins has been essential to recent production growth. Advancements in technology and Exploration & Production (“E&P”) efficiencies continue to lower breakeven costs around the country and have led to new reserve discoveries, such as the SCOOP/STACK and the Alpine High. The SCOOP / STACK play (oil field) in Oklahoma has been generating buzz for the large amount of potential liquid resources. In September 2016 Apache Corporation (NYSE: APA), an E&P company, announced the discovery of “Alpine High” a potential large, low cost, organic resource play in the western part of the Permian basin. New discoveries like the ones mentioned above will require new gathering and processing systems and long haul takeaway capacity.

MLPs: Still Leading the Buildout The five drivers mentioned above will support the continuation of the necessary infrastructure build-out. In the last decade alone ~$200 billion of capital investment has been made in energy infrastructure and the INGAA study projects that over $500 billion will be needed through 2035. This infrastructure build-out has been, and will be, led by MLPs. Historically, MLPs primarily acquired existing infrastructure assets from other companies which transitioned these assets into the tax-advantaged MLP status. That has changed significantly in the past decade. Much of the future capital expenditures will take place at the MLP or MLP affiliate level, which in turn will drive new asset development, increased cash flow generated by those assets, and ultimately the potential for distribution growth to investors. To put the magnitude of such spending into context, if only 50% of the estimated required capital is spent at the MLP level, or $250 billion, that equates to roughly 75%2 of the market capitalization of the Alerian MLP index. This should translate into continued top-tier growth well beyond the next ten years.

To remind us why MLPs are essential to the continuing build-out, it is important to remember that MLPs are companies that by law must have 90% of their asset base producing revenue from the transportation, storage and/or treatment of a natural resource. Due to the tax structure of the vehicles, MLPs must distribute a majority of their distributable cash flow to unitholders. With the U.S. economy stuck in a tepid recovery, the drivers underpinning the infrastructure development and accompanying MLP growth are not dependent on increased aggregate U.S. economic activity. The projected investment growth of the asset class, coupled with the relatively low correlation to total economic activity, highlights the compelling nature of the investment thesis and the sector as an attractive option.

Our Outlook: Safety FirstAs we have stressed repeatedly, every MLP is different and requires its own analysis. Investors will need to understand distribution risk, the way contracts are structured and the manner in which cash flows are generated. We feel low leverage, consistent distribution growth supported by long-term, fee-based contracts that could bring dependable cash flows is the most attractive way to invest. In the face of the Energy Renaissance and accompanying infrastructure build-out, skillful active management by seasoned operators may assist investors in capitalizing on these exciting developments for the coming decade and beyond.

2: Market capitalization of the Alerian MLP Index, a widely followed MLP index, as of 12/31/16 was $329 billion

Coal30.3%

Natural Gas 34.8%

Nuclear 19.6%

Hydroelectric6.6% Other

8.8%

Electricty Generation by Source - 2016

Before investing you should carefully consider the Center Coast MLP Focus Fund’s investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses. This and other information is in the prospectus and summary prospectus, a copy of which may be obtained by calling 877-766-0066 or by visiting the Fund’s website at www.libertystreetfunds.com. Please read the prospectus or summary prospectus carefully before investing.

As of September 30th, 2017 the Fund’s top 5 holdings were as follows: Andeavor Logistics LP (ANDX) 7.58%, MPLX LP (MPLX) 7.52%, Enterprise Products Partners LP (EPD) 7.32%, Energy Transfer Partners LP (ETP) 7.08%, Enlink Midstream Partners LP (ENLK) 6.33%

RISK AND OTHER DISCLOSURES:An investment in the Center Coast MLP Focus Fund is subject to risk, including the possible loss of principal amount invested and including, but not limited to, the following risks, which are more fully described in the prospectus:•The Fund concentrates its investments in master limited partnerships (MLPs), which involve additional risks compared to those from investments in common stock, including, but not limited to, cash flow risk, tax risk, and risks associated with limited voting rights.

•Unlike most other open-end mutual funds, the Fund will be taxable as a regular corporation, or “C” corporation. Consequently, the Fund will accrue and pay federal, state and local income taxes on its taxable income, if any, at the Fund level, which will ultimately reduce the returns that the shareholder would have otherwise received. Additionally, on a daily basis the Fund’s net asset value per share (“NAV”) will include a deferred tax expense (which reduces the Fund’s NAV) or asset (which increases the Fund’s NAV, unless offset by a valuation allowance). To the extent the Fund has a deferred tax asset, consideration is given as to whether or not a valuation allowance is required. The Fund’s deferred tax expense or asset is based on estimates that could vary dramatically from the Fund’s actual tax liability/benefit and, therefore, could have a material impact on the Fund’s NAV.

•The Fund, unlike the MLPs in which it invests which are treated as partnerships for U.S. federal income tax purposes, is not a pass-through entity. Consequently, the tax characterization of the distributions paid by the Fund, such as dividend income or return of capital, may differ greatly from those of its MLP investments. An investment in the Fund does not provide the same tax benefits as a direct investment in an MLP.

•The Fund currently anticipates paying monthly cash distributions to shareholders at a rate that over time is similar to the distribution rate the Fund receives from the MLPs in which it invests, without offset for the expenses of the Fund. The Fund may maintain cash reserves, borrow or sell certain investments at less desirable prices in order to pay the expenses of the Fund. Because the Fund’s distribution policy takes into consideration estimated future cash flows from its underlying holdings, and to permit the Fund to maintain a stable distribution rate, the Fund’s distributions may not represent yield or investment return on the Fund’s portfolio. To the extent that the distributions paid exceed the distributions the Fund has received, the distributions will reduce the Fund’s net assets.

•The Fund is not required to make distributions and in the future could decide not to make such distributions or not to make distributions at a rate that over time is similar to the distribution rate it receives from the MLPs in which it invests.

•It is expected that a portion of the distributions will be considered tax deferred return of capital (ROC). ROC is tax deferred and reduces the shareholder’s cost basis (until the cost basis reaches zero); and when the Fund shares are sold, if the result is a gain, it would then be taxable to the shareholder at the capital gains rate. Any portion of distributions that are not considered ROC are expected to be characterized as qualified dividends for tax purposes. Qualified dividends are taxable in the year received and do not serve to reduce the shareholder’s cost basis. The portion of the Fund’s distributions that may be classified as ROC is uncertain and can be materially impacted by events that are not subject to the control of the Fund’s advisor or sub-advisor (e.g. mergers, acquisitions, reorganizations and other capital transactions occurring at the individual MLP level, changes in the tax characterization of distributions received from the MLP investments held by the Fund, or change in tax laws). The ROC portion may also be impacted by the Fund’s strategy, which may recognize gains on its holdings. Because of these factors, the portion of the Fund’s distributions that are considered ROC may vary materially from year to year. Accordingly, there is no guarantee that future distributions will maintain the same classification for tax purposes as past distributions.

•The MLPs owned by the Fund are subject to regulatory and tax risks, including but not limited to changes in current tax law which could result in MLPs being treated as corporations for U.S. federal income tax purposes or the elimination or reduction of MLPs tax deductions, which could result in a material decrease in the Fund’s NAV and/or lower after-tax distributions to Fund shareholders.

•As a non-diversified fund, the Fund may focus its assets in the securities of fewer issuers, which exposes the Fund to greater market risk than if its assets were diversified among a greater number of issuers.

•Equity securities issued by MLPs may trade less frequently than larger companies due to their smaller capitalizations, which may result in erratic price movement or difficulty in buying or selling.

•A substantial portion of the MLPs within the Fund are primarily engaged in the energy sector. As a result, any negative development affecting that sector, such as regulatory, environmental, commodity pricing or extreme weather risk, will have a greater impact on the Fund than a fund that is not over-weighted in that sector.

Distributed by Foreside Fund Services, LLC. www.foreside.com

The Fund may not be suitable for all investors. We encourage you to read the Fund’s prospectus carefully and consult with appropriate tax and financial professionals before considering an investment in the Fund.

The Alerian MLP Index is a market-cap weighted, float-adjusted index which tracks the performance of the 50 most promi-nent energy Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs). Unlike the Fund, the Alerian MLP Index is not structured as a C-corp. The Fund accrues deferred income tax liabilities/assets which is reflected daily in the Fund’s NAV. Index returns do not reflect deferred income tax liabilities/assets. One cannot invest directly in an index.

The views in this material do not constitute investment advice. The views in this material were those of the Fund’s Sub-advisor as of the date written and may not reflect its views on the date this material is first disseminated or any time thereafter.

Liberty Street Advisors, Inc. is the advisor to the Fund. The Fund is part of the Liberty Street family of funds within the series of Investment Managers Series Trust.