UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-QSB (Mark One) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 [] TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _________to _________ Commission file number 0-11766 ANGELES PARTNERS XI (Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter) California 95-3788040 (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) PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data) June 30, 2002 Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 225 Receivables and deposits 433 Restricted escrows 625 Other assets 523 Investment property: Land $ 3,998 Buildings and related personal property 31,692 35,690 Less accumulated depreciation (24,597) 11,093 $ 12,899 Liabilities and Partners' Deficit Liabilities Accounts payable $ 166 Tenant security deposits 413 Other liabilities 103 Mortgage notes payable 34,579 Partners' Deficit General partners $ (540) Limited partners (39,627 units issued and outstanding) (21,822) (22,362) $ 12,899 See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) (in thousands, except per unit data) Three Months Ended Six Months Ended June 30, June 30, 2002 2001 2002 2001 Revenues: Rental income $ 2,027 $ 2,165 $ 4,101 $ 4,248 Other income 129 108 298 226 Total revenues 2,156 2,273 4,399 4,474 Expenses: Operating 580 701 1,237 1,367 General and administrative 55 61 128 124 Depreciation 536 453 1,059 890 Interest 591 677 1,186 1,359 Property taxes 265 269 529 749 Total expenses 2,027 2,161 4,139 4,489 Net income (loss) $ 129 $ 112 $ 260 $ (15) Net income allocated to general partners (1%) $ 1 $ 1 $ 3 $ -- Net income (loss) allocated to limited partners (99%) 128 111 257 (15) $ 129 $ 112 $ 260 $ (15) Net income (loss) per limited partnership unit $ 3.23 $ 2.80 $ 6.49 $ (.38) See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data) Limited Partnership General Limited Units Partners Partners Total Original capital contributions 40,000 $ 30 $ 40,000 $ 40,030 Partners' deficit at December 31, 2001 39,627 $ (543) $ (22,079) $(22,622) Net income for the six months ended June 30, 2002 -- 3 257 260 Partners' deficit at June 30, 2002 39,627 $ (540) $ (21,822) $(22,362) See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (in thousands) Six Months Ended June 30, 2002 2001 Cash flows from operating activities: Net income (loss) $ 260 $ (15) Adjustments to reconcile net income (loss) to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation 1,059 890 Amortization of loan costs 8 56 Change in accounts: Receivables and deposits 399 26 Other assets (151) (44) Accounts payable (8) 20 Tenant security deposit liabilities (64) (20) Accrued property taxes -- 336 Other liabilities (262) 177 Net cash provided by operating activities 1,241 1,426 Cash flows used in investing activities: Property improvements and replacements (1,055) (1,201) Cash flows used in financing activities: Payments on mortgage notes payable (421) (204) Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents (235) 21 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 460 432 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 225 $ 453 Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information: Cash paid for interest $ 1,177 $ 1,084 Supplemental disclosure of non-cash flow information: Property improvements and replacements included in accounts payable $ 127 $ -- Included in property improvements and replacements for the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, are approximately $259,000 and $306,000, respectively, of improvements which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2001 and 2000, respectively. See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) Note A - Basis of Presentation The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Angeles Partners XI (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 II (the "Managing General Partner"), all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 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. The Managing General Partner is an affiliate 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 Managing 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 Managing General Partner are entitled to receive 5% of gross receipts from the Registrant's property for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $222,000 and $224,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively, which is included in operating expenses. Affiliates of the Managing General Partner received reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $207,000 and $112,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively, which are included in general and administrative expenses and investment property. Included in these amounts are fees related to construction management services provided by an affiliate of the Managing General Partner of approximately $107,000 and $22,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively. The construction management service fees are calculated based on a percentage of current additions to investment property. 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 Managing General Partner. During the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, the Partnership paid AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $102,000 and $86,000, 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing General Partner filed a motion seeking dismissal of the action. In lieu of responding to the motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and took the matter under submission after further briefing, as order by the court, was submitted by the parties. On July 10, 2002, the Court entered an order vacating the current trial date of January 13, 2003 (as well as the pre-trial and discovery cut-off dates) and stayed the case in its entirety through November 7, 2002 so that the parties can have an opportunity to discuss settlement. 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 Managing 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 parties are currently in the midst of briefing that appeal. The Managing 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 this 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 disclosure 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 operations. 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 six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001: Average Occupancy Property 2002 2001 Fox Run Apartments 95% 95% Plainsboro, New Jersey Results from Operations The Partnership's net income for the six months ended June 30, 2002 was approximately $260,000 compared to a net loss of approximately $15,000 for the corresponding period in 2001. Net income for the three months ended June 30, 2002 was approximately $129,000 compared to net income of $112,000 for the corresponding period in 2001. The increase in net income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2002 compared to the same periods in 2001 is primarily due to a decrease in total expenses partially offset by a decrease in total revenues. Total expenses for the three and six months ended June 30, 2002 decreased due to decreases in interest, property tax, and operating expenses partially offset by an increase in depreciation expense. Interest expense decreased due to the refinancing of the mortgages encumbering Fox Run Apartments in December 2001 at a lower interest rate and due to a decrease in the amortization of loan costs as a result of the new loan having less loan costs amortized over a longer period. The decrease in property tax expense is due to additional taxes billed and paid in 2001 for the increased assessed value of the property for 2000. Operating expense decreased due to a decrease in natural gas expense and salaries and related benefits partially offset by increased insurance expense at Fox Run Apartments. Depreciation expense increased due to property improvements and replacements during the past twelve months which are now being depreciated. Included in general and administrative expenses are the cost of services included in management reimbursements to the Managing 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. The decrease in total revenues for the three and six months ended June 30, 2002 was due to a decrease in rental income partially offset by an increase in other income. Rental income decreased primarily due to a decrease in average rental rates and an increase in bad debt expense. Other income increased primarily due to an increase in laundry income, recreation facility fees and tenant charges. As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the Managing 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 Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the Managing 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 Managing General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Liquidity and Capital Resources At June 30, 2002, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $225,000 compared to approximately $453,000 at June 30, 2001. Cash and cash equivalents decreased approximately $235,000 since December 31, 2001 due to approximately $1,055,000 and $421,000 of cash used in investing and financing activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $1,241,000 of cash provided by operating activities. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. Cash used in financing activities consisted of principal payments made on the mortgage encumbering Fox Run Apartments. The Registrant 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 property 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. The Partnership has budgeted approximately $1,051,000 for capital improvements for the property during 2002 consisting primarily of appliance and floor covering replacements, perimeter fencing, cabinet replacements, parking lot resurfacing and water and gas submetering. During the six months ended June 30, 2002, the Partnership spent approximately $923,000 on capital improvements at Fox Run Apartments, primarily consisting of clubhouse renovations, water submetering, floor covering, cabinet and roof replacements, structural improvements, swimming pool improvements and water heaters. The additional improvements planned for 2002 at the Partnership's property will be incurred only if cash is available from operations. To the extent that such budgeted capital improvements are completed, the Registrant's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term. On December 5, 2001, the Partnership refinanced the mortgage notes payable encumbering Fox Run Apartments. The refinancing replaced first and second mortgages of approximately $29,125,000 with a new mortgage in the amount of $35,000,000. The new mortgage carries a stated interest rate of 6.76%. The interest rates on the old first and second mortgages were 8.32% and 15.29%, respectively. Principal and interest payments on the mortgage loan are due monthly until the loan matures in December 2021 at which time the loan is scheduled to be fully amortized. Total capitalized loan costs were approximately $337,000. 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 $34,579,000 encumbering Fox Run Apartments is being amortized over 20 years and matures in December 2021, at which time the mortgage is scheduled to be fully amortized. There were no cash distributions during the six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001. Subsequent to June 30, 2002, the Partnership declared and paid a distribution from refinancing proceeds of approximately $223,000 (approximately $221,000 to the limited partners or $5.58 per limited partnership unit). 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 sale of the property. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. There can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after required capital improvement expenditures, to permit further distributions to its partners during the remainder of 2002 or subsequent periods. Other In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 24,896 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 62.83% of the outstanding Units at June 30, 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 acquire additional units of limited partnership interest in the Partnership in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in the operating partnership of AIMCO either through private purchases or tender offers. In this regard, on June 25, 2002, a tender offer by AIMCO Properties, L.P., to acquire any and all of the units not owned by affiliates of AIMCO for a purchase price of $229.00 per unit expired. Pursuant to this offer, AIMCO acquired 487 units during the quarter ended June 30, 2002. 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 Managing General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 62.83% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO is in a position to control all voting decisions with respect to the Registrant. Although the Managing General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the Managing General Partner also owed fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole Stockholder. As a result, the duties of the Managing General Partner, as managing general partner, to the Partnerships and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the Managing General Partner to AIMCO, as it sole stockholder. Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates The consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets The investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless considered impaired. If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the property may be impaired, the Partnership will make an assessment of its recoverability by estimating the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding interest charges, of the property. If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the property. Real property investments are subject to varying degrees of risk. Several factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the Partnership's investment property. These factors include changes in the national, regional and local economic climate; local conditions, such as an oversupply of multifamily properties; competition from other available multifamily property owners and changes in market rental rates. Any adverse changes in these factors could cause an impairment in the Partnership's assets. Revenue Recognition The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less. Rental income attributable to leases is recognized monthly as it is earned. The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area. Concessions are charged to income as incurred. 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing General Partner filed a motion seeking dismissal of the action. In lieu of responding to the motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and took the matter under submission after further briefing, as order by the court, was submitted by the parties. On July 10, 2002, the Court entered an order vacating the current trial date of January 13, 2003 (as well as the pre-trial and discovery cut-off dates) and stayed the case in its entirety through November 7, 2002 so that the parties can have an opportunity to discuss settlement. 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 Managing 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 parties are currently in the midst of briefing that appeal. The Managing 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: Exhibit 3.1, Amended Agreement of Limited Partnership dated February 26, 1982, filed in Form 10-K dated November 30, 1983, incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit 99, Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer b) Reports on Form 8-K: None filed during the quarter ended June 30, 2002. SIGNATURES In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. ANGELES PARTNERS XI By: Angeles Realty Corporation II Managing General Partner By: /s/Patrick J. Foye Patrick J. Foye Executive Vice President By: /s/ Thomas C. Novosel Thomas C. Novosel Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer Date: August 14, 2002 Exhibit 99 Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners XI (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Patrick J. Foye, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of the Partnership, and Paul J. McAuliffe, as the equivalent of the Chief Financial Officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. /s/Patrick J. Foye Name: Patrick J. Foye Date: August 14, 2002 /s/Paul J. McAuliffe Name: Paul J. McAuliffe Date: August 14, 2002 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.