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 0-16116
ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.
(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)
California 95-4052473
(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 12 months (or for such shorter period
that the registrant 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 OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
March 31, 2002
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 541
Receivables and deposits 19
Restricted escrows 40
Other assets 321
Investment properties:
Land $ 1,013
Buildings and related personal property 8,244
9,257
Less accumulated depreciation (3,309) 5,948
$ 6,869
Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 51
Tenant security deposit liabilities 24
Accrued property taxes 68
Other liabilities 162
Mortgage notes payable 6,892
Partners' Deficit:
General partner $ (153)
Limited partners (12,425 units issued and
outstanding) (175) (328)
$ 6,869
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
b)
ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2002 2001
Revenues:
Rental income $ 601 $ 625
Other income 44 39
Total revenues 645 664
Expenses:
Operating 231 245
General and administrative 42 41
Depreciation 88 87
Interest 130 109
Property taxes 70 65
Total expenses 561 547
Net income $ 84 $ 117
Net income allocated to general partner (1%) $ 1 $ 1
Net income allocated to limited partners (99%) 83 116
$ 84 $ 117
Net income per limited partnership unit $ 6.68 $ 9.34
Distributions per limited partnership unit $ -- $28.09
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
c)
ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Limited
Partnership General Limited
Units Partner Partners Total
Original capital contributions 12,425 $ 1 $12,425 $12,426
Partners' deficit at
December 31, 2001 12,425 $ (154) $ (258) $ (412)
Net income for the three months
ended March 31, 2002 -- 1 83 84
Partners' deficit at
March 31, 2002 12,425 $ (153) $ (175) $ (328)
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
d)
ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2002 2001
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income $ 84 $ 117
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 88 87
Amortization of loan costs and discount 5 8
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits 155 180
Other assets (72) (26)
Accounts payable 8 (47)
Accrued property taxes (17) (192)
Other liabilities 100 11
Net cash provided by operating activities 351 138
Cash flows from investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements (36) (48)
Net withdrawals from restricted escrows -- 39
Net cash used in investing activities (36) (9)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage notes payable (28) (7)
Distributions to partners -- (353)
Net cash used in financing activities (28) (360)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 287 (231)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 254 393
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 541 $ 162
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest $ 94 $ 101
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
e)
ANGELES OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Angeles
Opportunity Properties, Ltd. (the "Partnership" or the "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 II (the
"General Partner" and a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management
Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust), 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 fiscal year ending December 31, 2002. For further
information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and footnotes
thereto included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2001.
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 certain payments to affiliates for
services and 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 both of the Partnership's properties as compensation for providing property
management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately
$32,000 and $34,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001,
respectively, which is included in operating expenses.
An affiliate of the General Partner received reimbursements of accountable
administrative expense amounting to approximately $25,000 and $22,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively, which is included in
general and administrative expenses.
Beginning in 2001, the Partnership began insuring its properties 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 properties 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 $32,000 and $24,000, 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 OPERATIONS
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 Partnership from time to time.
The discussions of the Partnership'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 Partnership'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 properties consist of two apartment complexes. The
following table sets forth the average occupancy for each of the properties for
the three months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001:
Average Occupancy
Property 2002 2001
Lake Meadows Apartments (1) 86% 97%
Garland, Texas
Lakewood Apartments (2) 92% 95%
Tomball, Texas
(1) Occupancy at Lake Meadows Apartments decreased primarily due to the
economy and lower home mortgage rates.
(2) Occupancy at Lakewood Apartments decreased primarily due to a large
employer lay-off in the area.
Results from Operations
The Partnership reported net income of approximately $84,000 and $117,000 for
the three months ended March 31, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The decrease in
net income is attributable to a decrease in total revenues and an increase in
total expenses. The decrease in total revenues is due to a decrease in rental
income. Rental income decreased due to a decrease in occupancy, as discussed
above, partially offset by an increase in rental rates at both of the
Partnership's investment properties.
Total expenses increased due to an increase in interest expense partially offset
by a decrease in operating expense. Interest expense increased due to the
refinancing of Lakewood Apartments in December 2001 which resulted in a higher
debt balance. The decrease in operating expense is primarily due to a decrease
in property expense. The decrease in property expense is primarily due to a
decrease in overall utility costs at Lakewood Apartments. General and
administrative, depreciation and property tax expenses remained relatively
consistent. Included in general and administrative expense for the three months
ended March 31, 2002 and 2001 are management reimbursements to the General
Partner as 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 in general and administrative expenses.
As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the General Partner
monitors the rental market environment of its investment properties to assess
the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels
and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan,
the General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership 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 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 $541,000 compared to approximately $162,000 at March 31, 2001.
Cash and cash equivalents increased approximately $287,000 from December 31,
2001 due to approximately $351,000 of cash provided by operating activities,
offset by approximately $28,000 and $36,000 of cash used in financing and
investing activities, respectively. Cash used in financing activities consisted
of principal payments made on the mortgages encumbering Lake Meadows Apartments
and Lakewood Apartments. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property
improvements and replacements. 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 properties to adequately maintain the physical
assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal,
state, and local legal and regulatory requirements. Capital improvements for
each of the Partnership's properties are detailed below.
Lake Meadows Apartments
Approximately $34,000 has been budgeted for capital improvements for the year
2002 at Lake Meadows Apartments consisting primarily of floor covering and
appliance replacements. During the three months ended March 31, 2002, the
Partnership completed approximately $11,000 of capital improvements at Lake
Meadows Apartments consisting primarily of floor covering replacements. These
improvements were funded from operating cash flow. Additional improvements may
be considered and will depend on the physical condition of the property and
anticipated cash flow generated by the property.
Lakewood Apartments
Approximately $89,000 has been budgeted for capital improvements for the year
2002 at Lakewood Apartments for parking area improvements, air conditioning unit
replacements and floor covering and appliance replacements. During the three
months ended March 31, 2002, the Partnership completed approximately $25,000 of
capital improvements at the property, consisting primarily of floor covering
replacements, appliance replacements, and structural upgrades. These
improvements were funded from operating cash flow. Additional improvements may
be considered and will depend on the physical condition of the property and
anticipated cash flow generated by the property.
Additional capital expenditures will be incurred only to the extent of cash
available from operations, capital reserves, and from the Partnership's
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 Partnership's current assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term
needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage
indebtedness is approximately $6,892,000, net of discount. Lake Meadows
Apartments' mortgage is being amortized over 343 months with balloon payments
due at the maturity date of October 2003. Lakewood Apartments' indebtedness is
being amortized over 240 months with a maturity date of January 1, 2022 at which
time it will be fully amortized. The General Partner will attempt to refinance
such indebtedness and/or sell the properties prior to such maturity dates. If
the properties cannot be refinanced or sold for a sufficient amount, the
Partnership will risk losing such properties through foreclosure.
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 $ -- $ -- $ 353 $28.09
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 debt
maturities, refinancings, and/or property sales. There can be no assurance that
the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations after required
capital expenditures to permit distributions to its partners for 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 5,813 limited partnership units (the
"Units") in the Partnership representing 46.79% 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 46.79% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO is in a position to
influence 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
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 OPPORTUNITY PROPERTIES, LTD.
By: Angeles Realty Corporation II
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: