FORM 10-QSB--QUARTERLY OR TRANSITIONAL REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
Quarterly or Transitional Report
U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
Form 10-QSB
(Mark One)
[X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2002
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES
EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
For the transition period from _________to _________
Commission file number 0-8851
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)
California 95-3215214
(State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) Identification No.)
55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089
Greenville, South Carolina 29602
(Address of principal executive offices)
(864) 239-1000
(Issuer's telephone number)
Check whether the issuer (1) filed all reports required to be filed by Section
13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter
period that the Partnership was required to file such reports), and (2) has been
subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
Yes X No___
PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
a)
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
March 31, 2002
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 161
Receivables and deposits 15
Other assets 117
Restricted escrows 108
Investment property:
Land $ 366
Buildings and related personal property 5,918
6,284
Less accumulated depreciation (5,059) 1,225
$ 1,626
Liabilities and Partners' Capital (Deficit)
Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 17
Tenant security deposit liabilities 19
Accrued property taxes 12
Other liabilities 84
Mortgage note payable 2,845
Partners' Capital (Deficit)
General partner $ 194
Limited partners (8,669 units issued and
outstanding) (1,545) (1,351)
$ 1,626
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
b)
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2002 2001
Revenues:
Rental income $ 326 $ 351
Other income 20 20
Total revenues 346 371
Expenses:
Operating 113 114
General and administrative 29 27
Depreciation 67 69
Interest 49 44
Property taxes 11 10
Total expenses 269 264
Net income $ 77 $ 107
Net income allocated to general partner (1%) $ 1 $ 1
Net income allocated to limited partners (99%) 76 106
Net income $ 77 $ 107
Net income per limited partnership unit $ 8.77 $ 12.23
Distributions per limited partnership unit $ -- $ 15.92
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
c)
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' CAPITAL (DEFICIT)
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Limited
Partnership General Limited
Units Partner Partners Total
Original capital contributions 8,674 $ 88 $ 8,674 $ 8,762
Partners' capital (deficit) at
December 31, 2001 8,669 $ 193 $(1,621) $(1,428)
Net income for the three months
ended March 31, 2002 -- 1 76 77
Partners' capital (deficit)
at March 31, 2002 8,669 $ 194 $(1,545) $(1,351)
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
d)
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2002 2001
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income $ 77 $ 107
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 67 69
Amortization of loan costs 1 --
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits 25 6
Other assets (37) (17)
Accounts payable (2) (35)
Tenant security deposit liabilities 2 (2)
Accrued property taxes 12 10
Other liabilities (6) 5
Net cash provided by operating activities 139 143
Cash flows from investing activities:
Net deposits to restricted escrows (31) --
Property improvements and replacements (13) (83)
Net cash used in investing activities (44) (83)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage note payable (42) (39)
Distributions to partners -- (139)
Net cash used in financing activities (42) (178)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 53 (118)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 108 210
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 161 $ 92
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest $ 48 $ 44
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
e)
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Angeles Partners VII (the
"Partnership" or "Registrant") have been prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the
instructions to Form 10-QSB and Item 310(b) of Regulation S-B. Accordingly, they
do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally
accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion
of Angeles Realty Corporation (the "General Partner"), all adjustments
(consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair
presentation have been included. Operating results for the three month period
ended March 31, 2002, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be
expected for the year ending December 31, 2002. For further information, refer
to the financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2001. The General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management
Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust.
Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties
The Partnership has no employees and is dependent on the General Partner and its
affiliates for the management and administration of all partnership activities.
The Partnership Agreement provides for (i) certain payments to affiliates for
services and (ii) reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on
behalf of the Partnership.
Affiliates of the General Partner are entitled to receive 5% of gross receipts
from the Registrant's property for providing property management services. The
Registrant paid to such affiliates approximately $17,000 and $19,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively, which is included in
operating expenses.
An affiliate of the General Partner received reimbursement of accountable
administrative expenses amounting to approximately $16,000 and $13,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively, which is included in
general and administrative expenses.
The Partnership Agreement provides for a fee equal to 7.5% of "net cash flow
from operations", as defined in the Partnership Agreement to be paid to the
General Partner for executive and administrative management services. As of
March 31, 2002, the Partnership owed the General Partner approximately $28,000
for services rendered in prior years related to the Partnership management fees.
Subsequent to March 31, 2002, the Partnership paid approximately $20,000 related
to this accrual.
Beginning in 2001, the Partnership began insuring its property up to certain
limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a
portion of losses and liabilities related to workers compensation, property
casualty and vehicle liability. The Partnership insures its property above the
AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers
unaffiliated with the General Partner. During the three months ended March 31,
2002 and 2001, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates
approximately $21,000 and $23,000, respectively, for insurance coverage and fees
associated with policy claims administration.
Note C - Legal Proceedings
In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the
Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia
Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as
defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of
their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purports to
assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on
behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) which are
named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of
interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc.
("Insignia") and entities which were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past
tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units;
management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of
transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby
Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO.
The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial
dissolution of the Partnership. On June 25, 1998, the General Partner filed a
motion seeking dismissal of the action. In lieu of responding to the motion, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The General Partner filed demurrers to
the amended complaint which were heard February 1999.
Pending the ruling on such demurrers, settlement negotiations commenced. On
November 2, 1999, the parties executed and filed a Stipulation of Settlement,
settling claims, subject to court approval, on behalf of the Partnership and all
limited partners who owned units as of November 3, 1999. Preliminary approval of
the settlement was obtained on November 3, 1999 from the Court, at which time
the Court set a final approval hearing for December 10, 1999. Prior to the
December 10, 1999 hearing, the Court received various objections to the
settlement, including a challenge to the Court's preliminary approval based upon
the alleged lack of authority of prior lead counsel to enter the settlement. On
December 14, 1999, the General Partner and its affiliates terminated the
proposed settlement. In February 2000, counsel for some of the named plaintiffs
filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff's lead and liaison counsel who negotiated
the settlement. On June 27, 2000, the Court entered an order disqualifying them
from the case and an appeal was taken from the order on October 5, 2000. On
December 4, 2000, the Court appointed the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP as new lead counsel for plaintiffs and the putative class.
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 19, 2001. On March 2,
2001, the General Partner and its affiliates filed a demurrer to the third
amended complaint. On May 14, 2001, the Court heard the demurrer to the third
amended complaint. On July 10, 2001, the Court issued an order sustaining
defendants' demurrer on certain grounds. On July 20, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' demurrer. On September 7, 2001, Plaintiffs filed
a fourth amended class and derivative action complaint. On September 12, 2001,
the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On October 5, 2001, the
General Partner and affiliated defendants filed a demurrer to the fourth amended
complaint, which was heard on December 11, 2001. On February 2, 2002, the Court
served its order granting in part the demurrer. The Court has dismissed without
leave to amend certain of the plaintiffs' claims. On February 11, 2002,
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a putative class comprised of all
non-affiliated persons who own or have owned units in the partnerships. The
General Partner and affiliated defendants oppose the motion. On April 29, 2002,
the Court heard argument on the motion and ordered further briefing after which
time the matter will be taken under submission. The Court has set the matter for
trial in January 2003.
During the third quarter of 2001, a complaint (the "Heller action") was filed
against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action, captioned
Heller v. Insignia Financial Group. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed
a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint in the Heller action is
brought as a purported derivative action, and asserts claims for among other
things breach of fiduciary duty; unfair competition; conversion, unjust
enrichment; and judicial dissolution. Plaintiffs in the Nuanes action filed a
motion to consolidate the Heller action with the Nuanes action and stated that
the Heller action was filed in order to preserve the derivative claims that were
dismissed without leave to amend in the Nuanes action by the Court order dated
July 10, 2001. On October 5, 2001, the General Partner and affiliated defendants
moved to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety for violating the
Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part and denying in part defendants'
demurrer in the Nuanes action, or alternatively, to strike certain portions of
the complaint based on the statute of limitations. Other defendants in the
action demurred to the fourth amended complaint, and, alternatively, moved to
strike the complaint. On December 11, 2001, the court heard argument on the
motions and took the matters under submission. On February 4, 2002, the Court
served notice of its order granting defendants' motion to strike the Heller
complaint as a violation of its July 10, 2001 order in the Nuanes action. On
March 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the order striking the
complaint.
The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs, whether legal or
settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the
Partnership's overall operations.
The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation that
is not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary course of business.
ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATION
The matters discussed in this Form 10-QSB contain certain forward-looking
statements and involve risks and uncertainties (including changing market
conditions, competitive and regulatory matters, etc.) detailed in the
disclosures contained in this Form 10-QSB and the other filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission made by the Registrant from time to time. The
discussion of the Registrant's business and results of operations, including
forward-looking statements pertaining to such matters, does not take into
account the effects of any changes to the Registrant's business and results of
operation. Accordingly, actual results could differ materially from those
projected in the forward-looking statements as a result of a number of factors,
including those identified herein.
The Partnership's investment property consists of one apartment complex. The
following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for the three
months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001:
Average Occupancy
Property 2002 2001
Cedarwood Apartments 92% 95%
Gretna, Louisiana
The General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy to the weakening of the
general economy in the area.
Results of Operations
The Partnership's net income for the three months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001
was approximately $77,000 and $107,000, respectively. The decrease in net income
is due to a decrease in total revenues. Total revenues decreased primarily due
to a decrease in rental income. The decrease in rental income is due to a
decrease in occupancy and a decrease in the average rental rate at the
Partnership's investment property. Total expenses for the Partnership remained
relatively constant for the three months ended March 31, 2002 as compared to the
corresponding period in 2001.
Included in general and administrative expense at both March 31, 2002 and 2001
are management reimbursements to the General Partner allowed under the
Partnership Agreement. In addition, costs associated with the quarterly and
annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual
audit required by the Partnership Agreement are also included.
As part of the ongoing business plan of the Registrant, the General Partner
monitors the rental market environment of its investment property to assess the
feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and
protecting the Registrant from increases in expense. As part of this plan, the
General Partner attempts to protect the Registrant from the burden of
inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a
high overall occupancy level. However, due to changing market conditions, which
can result in the use of rental concessions and rental reductions needed to
offset softening market conditions, there is no guarantee that the General
Partner will be able to sustain such a plan.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
At March 31, 2002, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of
approximately $161,000 as compared to approximately $92,000 at March 31, 2001.
The increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $53,000 for the three
months ended March 31, 2002, from the year ended December 31, 2001, is primarily
due to approximately $139,000 of cash provided by operating activities offset by
approximately $42,000 and $44,000 of cash used in financing and investing
activities, respectively. Cash used in investing activities consisted of net
deposits to restricted escrows held by the mortgage lender and property
improvements and replacements. Cash used in financing activities consisted of
principal payments made on the mortgage encumbering the Registrant's investment
property. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest
bearing accounts.
The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital
expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital
expenditures required at the investment property to adequately maintain the
physical assets and other operating needs of the Registrant and to comply with
Federal, state and local legal and regulatory requirements. Capital improvements
planned for the Partnership's property are detailed below.
Cedarwood Apartments: For 2002, the Partnership has budgeted approximately
$80,000 for capital improvements, consisting primarily of light fixtures,
structural improvements, resurfacing and floor covering and appliance
replacements. The Partnership completed approximately $13,000 in capital
expenditures at Cedarwood Apartments as of March 31, 2002, consisting primarily
of water heater replacement, resurfacing, and appliance and floor covering
replacements. These improvements were funded from operations.
The additional capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available
from operations or from the Partnership reserves. To the extent that such
budgeted capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable
cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term.
The Registrant's current assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term
needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Registrant. The mortgage
indebtedness of approximately $2,845,000 has a maturity date of July 2013 at
which time the mortgage will be fully amortized.
The Partnership distributed the following amounts during the three months ended
March 31, 2002 and 2001 (in thousands, except per unit data):
Three Months Per Limited Three Months Per Limited
Ended Partnership Ended Partnership
March 31, 2002 Unit March 31, 2001 Unit
Operations $ -- $ -- $ 139 $15.92
The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly
basis. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated
from operations, the availability of cash reserves, and the timing of the debt
maturity, refinancing, and/or the sale of the property. There can be no
assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations,
after required capital improvement expenditures, to permit any distributions to
its partners during the remainder of 2002 or subsequent periods.
In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the
Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 5,870 limited partnership units (the
"Units") in the Partnership representing 67.71% of the outstanding Units at
March 31, 2002. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers
made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates
will make one or more additional offers to acquire additional limited
partnership interests in the Partnership for cash or in exchange for units in
the operating partnership of AIMCO. Under the Partnership Agreement, unitholders
holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a
variety of matters which would include voting on certain amendments to the
Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of
its ownership of 67.71% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO is in a position to
control all such voting decisions with respect to the Registrant. When voting on
matters, AIMCO would in all likelihood vote the Units it acquired in a manner
favorable to the interest of the General Partner because of its affiliation with
the General Partner.
PART II - OTHER INFORMATION
ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the
Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia
Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as
defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of
their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purports to
assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on
behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) which are
named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of
interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc.
("Insignia") and entities which were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past
tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units;
management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of
transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby
Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO.
The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial
dissolution of the Partnership. On June 25, 1998, the General Partner filed a
motion seeking dismissal of the action. In lieu of responding to the motion, the
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The General Partner filed demurrers to
the amended complaint which were heard February 1999.
Pending the ruling on such demurrers, settlement negotiations commenced. On
November 2, 1999, the parties executed and filed a Stipulation of Settlement,
settling claims, subject to court approval, on behalf of the Partnership and all
limited partners who owned units as of November 3, 1999. Preliminary approval of
the settlement was obtained on November 3, 1999 from the Court, at which time
the Court set a final approval hearing for December 10, 1999. Prior to the
December 10, 1999 hearing, the Court received various objections to the
settlement, including a challenge to the Court's preliminary approval based upon
the alleged lack of authority of prior lead counsel to enter the settlement. On
December 14, 1999, the General Partner and its affiliates terminated the
proposed settlement. In February 2000, counsel for some of the named plaintiffs
filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff's lead and liaison counsel who negotiated
the settlement. On June 27, 2000, the Court entered an order disqualifying them
from the case and an appeal was taken from the order on October 5, 2000. On
December 4, 2000, the Court appointed the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP as new lead counsel for plaintiffs and the putative class.
Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 19, 2001. On March 2,
2001, the General Partner and its affiliates filed a demurrer to the third
amended complaint. On May 14, 2001, the Court heard the demurrer to the third
amended complaint. On July 10, 2001, the Court issued an order sustaining
defendants' demurrer on certain grounds. On July 20, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part
and denying in part defendants' demurrer. On September 7, 2001, Plaintiffs filed
a fourth amended class and derivative action complaint. On September 12, 2001,
the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On October 5, 2001, the
General Partner and affiliated defendants filed a demurrer to the fourth amended
complaint, which was heard on December 11, 2001. On February 2, 2002, the Court
served its order granting in part the demurrer. The Court has dismissed without
leave to amend certain of the plaintiffs' claims. On February 11, 2002,
plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a putative class comprised of all
non-affiliated persons who own or have owned units in the partnerships. The
Managing General Partner and affiliated defendants oppose the motion. On April
29, 2002, the Court heard argument on the motion and ordered further briefing
after which time the matter will be taken under submission. The Court has set
the matter for trial in January 2003.
During the third quarter of 2001, a complaint (the "Heller action") was filed
against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action, captioned
Heller v. Insignia Financial Group. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed
a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint in the Heller action is
brought as a purported derivative action, and asserts claims for among other
things breach of fiduciary duty; unfair competition; conversion, unjust
enrichment; and judicial dissolution. Plaintiffs in the Nuanes action filed a
motion to consolidate the Heller action with the Nuanes action and stated that
the Heller action was filed in order to preserve the derivative claims that were
dismissed without leave to amend in the Nuanes action by the Court order dated
July 10, 2001. On October 5, 2001, the General Partner and affiliated defendants
moved to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety for violating the
Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part and denying in part defendants'
demurrer in the Nuanes action, or alternatively, to strike certain portions of
the complaint based on the statute of limitations. Other defendants in the
action demurred to the fourth amended complaint, and, alternatively, moved to
strike the complaint. On December 11, 2001, the court heard argument on the
motions and took the matters under submission. On February 4, 2002, the Court
served notice of its order granting defendants' motion to strike the Heller
complaint as a violation of its July 10, 2001 order in the Nuanes action. On
March 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the order striking the
complaint.
The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs, whether legal or
settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the
Partnership's overall operations.
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
a) Exhibits:
None.
b) Reports on Form 8-K:
None filed during the quarter ended March 31, 2002.
SIGNATURES
In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized.
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
By: Angeles Realty Corporation
General Partner
By: /s/Patrick J. Foye
Patrick J. Foye
Executive Vice President
By: /s/Martha L. Long
Martha L. Long
Senior Vice President and
Controller
Date: