ULGX Urologix Inc (CE)

Item 1. Reports to Stockholders.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

Jerry V. Swank				Daniel L. Spears
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer				President

Opinions expressed above are subject to change at any time, are not guaranteed and should not be considered investment advice.

Past performance does not guarantee future results.

Mutual fund investing involves risk. Principal loss is possible. There is a risk to the future viability of the ongoing operation of MLPs that return investor’s capital in the form of distributions. The Fund is non-diversified, meaning it may concentrate its assets in fewer individual holdings than a diversified fund. Therefore, the Fund is more exposed to individual stock volatility than a diversified fund. The Fund will invest in Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs), which concentrate investments in the natural resource sector and are subject to the risks of energy prices and demand and the volatility of commodity investments. Damage to facilities and infrastructure of MLPs may significantly affect the value of an investment and may incur environmental costs and liabilities due to the nature of their business. MLPs are subject to significant regulation and may be adversely affected by changes in the regulatory environment. Investments in smaller companies involve additional risks such as limited liquidity and greater volatility. Investments in foreign securities involve political, economic and currency risks, greater volatility and differences in accounting methods. MLPs are subject to certain risks inherent in the structure of MLPs, including complex tax structure risks, the limited ability for election or removal of management, limited voting rights, potential dependence on parent companies or sponsors for revenues to satisfy obligations, and potential conflicts of interest between partners, members and affiliates.

The Fund does not receive the same tax benefits as a direct investment in an MLP. The Fund is organized as a “C” corporation and is subject to U.S. federal income tax on its taxable income at the corporate tax rate (currently as high as 35%) as well as state and local income taxes. The potential tax benefits of investing in MLPs depend on them being treated as partnerships for federal income tax purposes. If the MLP is deemed to be a corporation then its income would be subject to federal taxation at the entity level, reducing the amount of cash available for distribution to the Fund which could result in a reduction of the Fund’s value.

The Fund accrues deferred income taxes for future tax liabilities associated with the portion of MLP distributions considered to be a tax-deferred return of capital and for any net operating gains as well as capital appreciation of its investments. This deferred tax liability is reflected in the daily NAV and as a result the Fund’s after-tax performance could differ significantly from the underlying assets even if the pre-tax performance is closely tracked.

Fund holdings and sector allocations are subject to change at any time and are not recommendations to buy or sell any security. Please refer to the Schedule of Investments for a complete list of fund holdings.

For each fund with at least a three-year history, Morningstar calculates a Morningstar Rating™ based on a Morningstar Risk Adjusted Return measure that accounts for variation in a fund’s monthly performance (including the effects of sales charges, loads, and redemption fees), placing more emphasis on downward variations and rewarding consistent performance. The top 10% of funds in each category receive 5 stars, the next 22.5% receive 4 stars, the next 35% receive 3 stars, the next 22.5% receive 2 stars and the bottom 10% receive 1 star. (Each share class is counted as a fraction of one fund within this scale and rated separately, which may cause slight variations in the distribution percentages.) The Cushing ^® MLP Premier Fund-Class I Shares received 5 stars among 94 Equity Energy funds for the 3 year period ending 11/30/2013. Morningstar Rating is for the I share class only; other classes may have different performance characteristics. ^© 2014 Morningstar, Inc. All Rights Reserved. The information contained herein (1) is proprietary to Morningstar (2) may not be copied or distributed and (3) is not warranted to be accurate, complete or timely. Neither Morningstar nor its content providers are responsible for any damages or losses arising from any use of this information. Past performance is no guarantee of future performance.

The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index of common stocks that is frequently used as a general measure of stock market performance. The index does not include fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

Cushing MLP Asset Management, LP, the investment adviser to the Cushing Funds, is wholly owned by Swank Capital, LLC.

This report must be preceded or accompanied by a current prospectus.

The Cushing ^® MLP Premier Fund is distributed by Quasar Distributors, LLC

 

5

---

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® MLP Premier Fund — Class A

Growth of a $10,000 Investment

Performance data quoted represents past performance; past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance of the Fund may be lower or higher than the performance quoted. Performance data current as of the most recent quarter end may be obtained by visiting www.cushingfunds.com.

Class A, Class C and Class I shares were first available on October 20, 2010.

Class A performance has been restated to reflect the maximum sales charge of 5.75%. Class C performance would reflect the maximum contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC) of 1.00%, terminating on the anniversary date of your purchase of shares. Class I is not subject to a sales charge.

The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index of common stocks that is frequently used as a general measure of stock market performance. This index does not include fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

The graph and table do not reflect the deduction of taxes that a shareholder would pay on Fund distributions or the redemption of the Fund shares.

6

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® MLP Premier Fund

Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Fund, you incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, including sales charges (loads) on purchase payments, reinvested dividends, or other distributions; and exchange fees; and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees; and other Fund expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the Fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period from June 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013.

Actual Expenses

For each class, the first line of the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

For each class, the second line of the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Fund’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expense you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Fund and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect current and deferred income tax expense (which may be significantly higher or lower) or any transactional costs, such as sales charges (loads) or exchange fees. Therefore, the second line of the table for each class is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. If current and deferred income tax expense and transaction costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

7

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® MLP Premier Fund

Allocation of Portfolio Assets ⁽¹⁾ (Unaudited)

November 30, 2013

(Expressed as a Percentage of Total Investments)

8

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® Renaissance Advantage Fund

Performance Report

Dear Fellow Shareholders,

The Cushing ^® Renaissance Advantage Fund (the “Fund”) commenced operations on April 1, 2013. As discussed in the letter accompanying the Fund’s semi-annual report to shareholders, the core of the Fund’s investment thesis is the belief that dramatic changes in the domestic oil and gas landscape, both in terms of production volume growth and prices relative to the rest of the world, have led to a revival and growth in the U.S. energy, industrial and manufacturing sectors. We believe this has implications for energy, manufacturing, transportation, utilities, and other industries, providing a variety of investment options for the Fund.

Equity markets in general had a strong year, as illustrated by the S&P 500 Index’s approximate 27% return from April 1 through November 30, 2013. The market seems to be taking in stride the Fed’s announced intention to “taper” its asset purchase programs; the concern is that this may translate to higher interest rates, which is potentially harmful for stock prices. However, the counterbalance to higher interest rates is the fact that the macroeconomic backdrop has continued to improve, albeit slowly, as evidenced by rising leading indicators, expectations for 5-10% earnings growth through 2015 (based on Bloomberg S&P 500 earnings estimates), and a shrinking unemployment rate.

Indicators for the sectors we monitor were more consistent at year end than they were at mid-year, and generally higher, with oil up slightly versus at our mid-year update but about 12% off its summer peak; natural gas was higher at the end of the period thanks to the onset of winter; natural gas liquids (NGLs) tracked higher with natural gas; refining margins staged a fourth quarter comeback; and petrochemical margins were higher despite the recent strength in gas-based feedstock cost as ethylene and propylene prices kept pace.

Fund Performance

For the eight month period from the Fund’s inception through November 30, 2013, the Fund’s Class I Shares delivered a 14.97% total return, versus a total return 17.26% for the S&P 500 Index (Total Return). The Fund’s Class A Shares and Class C Shares are subject to additional fees and expenses, which would reduce their total return relative to Class I Shares. The largest individual contributors to the Fund’s performance for the period were United Rentals Inc. (NYSE: URI), Tesoro Corporation (NYSE: TSO), and Phillips 66 (NYSE: PSX). TSO and PSX benefitted from a rally in refining margins late in the year and an increase in the value of affiliated midstream operations, while URI benefited from a rebound in non-residential construction spending and an early-cycle bias toward equipment rental over purchase. The largest detractors from the Fund’s performance were Franks International NV (NYSE: FI), Cabot Oil & Gas Corporation (NYSE: COG), and EOG Resources, Inc. (NYSE: EOG). FI had a successful initial public offering, but disappointed Wall Street expectations with its first quarterly earnings announcement. Both COG and EOG were hurt by commodity price movements — COG experienced wider Northeast natural gas basis differentials while EOG experienced lower crude oil realizations.

Outlook

We believe the domestic energy, industrial and manufacturing Renaissance has manifested itself first through margin or volume growth driven by natural gas-based feedstock cost for U.S. petrochemical companies that is a fraction of their global competitors whose feedstock is priced off crude oil or the

9

Table of Contents

increase in crude-by-rail volumes benefiting railroads who move oil from newer basins. In fact, we believe the margin benefits for some of these subsectors began as early as 2011. However, as we look at the natural progression of the Renaissance theme, we believe a large, long-term opportunity still exists as new found profitability is just beginning to drive capital expenditures to expand production capacity, logistics/transportation capabilities, and export capabilities. Finally, we believe economic recovery, especially in Europe and emerging markets, can augment growth through gross domestic product (GDP)-linked volume expansion; to date, the Renaissance theme has taken hold despite a tepid economic recovery and elevated unemployment. We believe the end result for the companies benefiting from this opportunity can be higher multiples driven fundamentally by bigger margins, cleaner balance sheets, higher dividends or share buybacks, and strong-for-longer profitability.

Some of the investment themes we see going into 2014 are:

We believe the equity markets may ultimately move higher in 2014, though this may be a second-half event as uncertainty around Fed tapering may inject more volatility into markets in the first half. We also believe the domestic unemployment rate could continue its slow march lower and global GDP growth may accelerate with recovery in Europe and emerging markets.

The U.S, energy, industrial, and manufacturing Renaissance is a secular growth opportunity, the benefits of which, we believe, are just starting to be felt. We believe the Fund’s exposure to this growth, along with the opportunity to receive current income, can offer attractive benefits for both growth- and income-focused investors.

In closing, we at Swank Capital, LLC and Cushing ^® MLP Asset Management truly appreciate your support and we look forward to helping you achieve your investment goals during the Fund’s next fiscal year.

Sincerely,

Performance data quoted represents past performance; past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance of the Fund may be lower or higher than the performance quoted. Performance data current as of the most recent quarter end may be obtained by visiting www.cushingfunds.com.

Class A, Class C and Class I shares were first available on April 2, 2013.

Class A performance has been restated to reflect the maximum sales charge of 5.75%. Class C performance would reflect the maximum contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC) of 1.00%, terminating on the anniversary date of your purchase of shares. Class I is not subject to a sales charge.

The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index of common stocks that is frequently used as a general measure of stock market performance. This index does not include fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

The graph and table do not reflect the deduction of taxes that a shareholder would pay on Fund distributions or the redemption of the Fund shares.

12

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® Renaissance Advantage Fund

Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Fund, you incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, including sales charges (loads) on purchase payments, reinvested dividends, or other distributions; and exchange fees; and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees; and other Fund expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the Fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period from June 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013.

Actual Expenses

For each class, the first line of the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

For each class, the second line of the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Fund’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expense you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Fund and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect any transactional costs, such as sales charges (loads) or exchange fees. Therefore, the second line of the table for each class is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. If transaction costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

13

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® Renaissance Advantage Fund

Allocation of Portfolio Assets ⁽¹⁾ (Unaudited)

November 30, 2013

(Expressed as a Percentage of Total Investments)

14

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® Royalty Energy Income Fund

Performance Report

Dear Fellow Shareholders,

The Cushing ^® Royalty Energy Income Fund (“the Fund”) ended the fiscal year with positive performance. For the twelve month period ended November 30, 2013, the Fund’s Class I Shares delivered a 1.49% total return, versus a total return of 30.30% for the S&P 500 Index (Total Return). Of note, the Fund is subject to fees and expenses and is taxed as a regular corporation for federal income tax purposes, while the S&P 500 Index does not include taxes, fees and expenses. The Fund’s Class A Shares and Class C Shares are subject to additional fees and expenses, which would reduce their total return relative to Class I Shares.

Energy Trust and Upstream MLP Market Review

2013 proved to be a challenging year in the upstream master limited partnership (MLP) sector and for the U.S. royalty trusts and Canadian royalty trusts and exploration and production (E&P) companies (Energy Trusts) sectors due to a number of negative events that impacted these sectors. The first half of the Fund’s fiscal year was marked with challenging operating conditions including extreme cold weather and pipeline and infrastructure constraints, as well as weak natural gas liquid (NGL) and natural gas prices. In the second half of the year, a series of negative Barron’s articles and continued pressure from a short sale investment advisory firm on Linn Energy (NASDAQ: LINE) precipitated an informal inquiry by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). This announcement had an immediate negative impact on the upstream MLP sector. The uncertainty created by the inquiry drove investors to sell virtually any upstream MLP and sent unit prices lower, thus creating a “cloud” of uncertainty over the whole group of upstream MLPs. Much of the concern centered on put hedge accounting (such as the methodology utilized by LINE) and maintenance capital allocation necessary to sustain the business model.

Since the announcement of the SEC inquiry, a number of positive events have occurred, and we believe momentum is improving going into 2014. Most importantly, although the informal SEC inquiry into LINE is still ongoing, the SEC declared LINE’s registration statement to issue additional shares effective and the company’s planned merger with Berry Petroleum (NYSE: BRY) has been finalized. Furthermore, upstream MLP management teams have been actively working to clarify, defend and detail their accounting methodology for determining maintenance capital expenditures. Due at least in part to this persistent “cloud” of uncertainty over the upstream MLP sector, there was a wider than historically typical spread between the yield of the upstream and midstream MLP sectors during the period. We remain optimistic that as this uncertainty diminishes, upstream MLP yields and yield spreads to midstream MLPs can revert to the mean historical relationships over time.

As the upstream MLP sector continues to develop and mature, we believe more upstream MLPs could adopt an alternative equity structure similar to LINE and LinnCo., LLC (NASDAQ: LNCO) in order to maintain their competiveness and cost of capital. LINE originally offered LNCO as a security structured as a corporation, rather than a partnership, designed only to own LINE units. The corporate structure was intended to allow LNCO investors to receive essentially the same distribution from LINE’s operations (less corporate level taxes), yet eliminate the complications of receiving a partnership’s K-1 tax form. Additionally, company management anticipated that the LNCO equity structure could increase the company’s access to capital from a larger universe of Form K-1 averse investors, such as institutional and IRA investors. Now that LINE has essentially proven that the LNCO structure can be a viable vehicle for

15

Table of Contents

buying other upstream companies outright, rather than just packages of oil and natural gas assets, we believe other upstream MLPs may seek to utilize similar structures to compete with LINE. Because this alternative equity structure may offer cost of capital advantages as well as tax advantages for acquisitions, those upstream MLPs without such a structures may be at a competitive disadvantage.

Turning briefly to the Energy Trust sector, we continued to significantly underweight this sector due to declining cash flows and poor production performance. We believe good value exists in owning certain Energy Trusts with perpetual or long-term lives, and diversified royalty or mineral interests in multiple fields, counties, and states. However, as we have seen in some of the newer trust structures, such as the “drilling” trusts which have an obligation by the sponsor to drill a specified number of wells, results have continued to disappoint, thus validating our initial concerns and reasons for maintaining low or no exposure to the sector. Because of the limited opportunities in the Energy Trust sector we have added a few select MLPs that pay a variable distribution. These variable distribution MLPs have attractive yields, and based on our proprietary fundamental research, may offer compelling total return prospects.

Energy Commodity Market Review

Crude oil prices remained relatively robust through the Fund’s fiscal year, generally trading between $90/barrel (bbl) and $110/bbl. Domestically, crude oil production from shale resources continued to increase, and U.S. imports of crude oil continued to decline; however, internationally, supplies from large producing countries such as Libya, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, and others remained subject to significant political, economic, and social unrest risk. Natural gas prices also remained relatively robust, generally trading between $3.10/million British Thermal Units (mmBTUs) and $4.40/mmBTUs. We are encouraged by what we view as an improving equilibrium in the North American natural gas market as supply growth has slowed, while demand growth has been emerging and new potential demand from LNG exports has the potential to become more likely over the next several years.

Distributions

We were pleased to be able to maintain the Fund’s quarterly distribution rate at $0.40 per share during its second fiscal year of operation. This was achieved through active portfolio management and the appropriate utilization of leverage. Over time, the Fund’s distributions will vary based upon the distributions received from underlying investments. The underlying investments have both direct and indirect commodity exposure, so significant moves in commodity prices over long periods of time can and will have an effect on future distributions by the Fund.

Closing

In summary, the MLP industry has continued to grow, mature and evolve and at a rapid pace. While 2013 proved to be a tumultuous year in the upstream MLP sector, we remain focused on the favorable long-term fundamental attributes of upstream MLPs, select Energy Trusts and variable distribution MLPs and the potential for attractive total returns based on current yield and expected distribution growth. We believe the thesis of growth of the upstream MLP sector through acquisitions of mature, low-decline producing assets could continue to look very favorable as the U.S. “Shale Revolution” continues and E&P companies seek alternatives to fund their shale development opportunities. Furthermore, we believe upstream MLP valuations and yields look attractive relative to midstream MLPs owing to the sector’s discount as a result of the controversy surrounding LINE. Now that LINN’s merger with Berry Petroleum has been finalized and uncertainty is diminishing, we believe the sector could be poised for a recovery in the Fund’s next fiscal year.

With the recent announcement by the Fed to commence quantitative easing “tapering,” equities (including MLPs) may experience some volatility. The focus on tapering over the summer of 2013 led

16

Table of Contents

to market weakness, which was particularly pronounced in “defensive” stocks and interest rate sensitive equity subsectors (such as real estate investment trusts (REITs), utilities and, to a much lesser extent, MLPs), as well as investment grade and high yield bonds.

Nonetheless, we remain focused on the favorable long-term fundamental attributes of upstream MLPs and Energy Trusts and the potential for attractive total returns based on current yield and expected distribution growth. We at Swank Capital, LLC and Cushing ^® MLP Asset Management, LP truly appreciate your support, and we look forward to helping you achieve your investment goals for the remainder of the Fund’s fiscal year.

Sincerely,

Performance data quoted represents past performance; past performance does not guarantee future results. The investment return and principal value of an investment will fluctuate so that an investor's shares, when redeemed, may be worth more or less than their original cost. Current performance of the Fund may be lower or higher than the performance quoted. Performance data current as of the most recent quarter end may be obtained by visiting www.cushingfunds.com.

Class A, Class C and Class I shares were first available on July 2, 2012.

Class A performance has been restated to reflect the maximum sales charge of 5.75%. Class C performance would reflect the maximum contingent deferred sales charge (CDSC) of 1.00%, terminating on the anniversary date of your purchase of shares. Class I is not subject to a sales charge.

The S&P 500 Index is an unmanaged index of common stocks that is frequently used as a general measure of stock market performance. This index does not include fees or expenses. It is not possible to invest directly in an index.

The graph and table do not reflect the deduction of taxes that a shareholder would pay on Fund distributions or the redemption of the Fund shares.

18

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® Royalty Energy Income Fund

Expense Example

As a shareholder of the Fund, you incur two types of costs: (1) transaction costs, including sales charges (loads) on purchase payments, reinvested dividends, or other distributions; and exchange fees; and (2) ongoing costs, including management fees; distribution and/or service (12b-1) fees; and other Fund expenses. This example is intended to help you understand your ongoing costs (in dollars) of investing in the Fund and to compare these costs with the ongoing costs of investing in other mutual funds. The example is based on an investment of $1,000 invested at the beginning of the period and held for the entire period from June 1, 2013 to November 30, 2013.

Actual Expenses

For each class, the first line of the table below provides information about actual account values and actual expenses. You may use the information in this line, together with the amount you invested, to estimate the expenses that you paid over the period. Simply divide your account value by $1,000 (for example, an $8,600 account value divided by $1,000 = 8.6), then multiply the result by the number in the first line under the heading entitled “Expenses Paid During Period” to estimate the expenses you paid on your account during this period.

Hypothetical Example for Comparison Purposes

For each class, the second line of the table below provides information about hypothetical account values and hypothetical expenses based on the Fund’s actual expense ratio and an assumed rate of return of 5% per year before expenses, which is not the Fund’s actual return. The hypothetical account values and expenses may not be used to estimate the actual ending account balance or expense you paid for the period. You may use this information to compare the ongoing costs of investing in the Fund and other funds. To do so, compare this 5% hypothetical example with the 5% hypothetical examples that appear in the shareholder reports of the other funds.

Please note that the expenses shown in the table are meant to highlight your ongoing costs only and do not reflect current and deferred income tax expense (which may be significantly higher or lower) or any transactional costs, such as sales charges (loads) or exchange fees. Therefore, the second line of the table for each class is useful in comparing ongoing costs only, and will not help you determine the relative total costs of owning different funds. If current and deferred income tax expense and transaction costs were included, your costs would have been higher.

19

Table of Contents

The Cushing ^® Royalty Energy Income Fund

Allocation of Portfolio Assets ⁽¹⁾ (Unaudited)

November 30, 2013

(Expressed as a Percentage of Total Investments)

20

Table of Contents