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 0-8851
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)
PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
June 30, 2002
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 150
Receivables and deposits 30
Restricted escrows 126
Other assets 101
Investment property:
Land $ 366
Buildings and related personal property 5,931
6,297
Less accumulated depreciation (5,126) 1,171
$ 1,578
Liabilities and Partners' Capital (Deficit)
Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 21
Tenant security deposit liabilities 15
Accrued property taxes 23
Other liabilities 90
Mortgage note payable 2,803
Partners' Capital (Deficit)
General partner $ 193
Limited partners (8,669 units issued and
outstanding) (1,567) (1,374)
$ 1,578
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Three Months Ended Six Months Ended
June 30, June 30,
2002 2001 2002 2001
Revenues:
Rental income $ 333 $ 358 $ 659 $ 709
Other income 23 26 43 46
Total revenues 356 384 702 755
Expenses:
Operating 126 124 239 238
General and administrative 31 25 60 52
Depreciation 67 72 134 141
Interest 48 43 97 87
Property taxes 12 10 23 20
Total expenses 284 274 553 538
Net income $ 72 $ 110 $ 149 $ 217
Net income allocated to
general partner (1%) $ 1 $ 1 $ 1 $ 2
Net income allocated to
limited partners (99%) 71 109 148 215
$ 72 $ 110 $ 149 $ 217
Net income per limited
partnership unit $ 8.19 $ 12.57 $ 17.07 $ 24.80
Distributions per limited
partnership unit $ 10.84 $ 12.00 $ 10.84 $ 27.92
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
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)
Distributions to partners -- (1) (94) (95)
Net income for the six months
ended June 30, 2002 -- 1 148 149
Partners' capital (deficit)
at June 30, 2002 8,669 $ 193 $(1,567) $(1,374)
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
ANGELES PARTNERS VII
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
Six Months Ended
June 30,
2002 2001
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net income $ 149 $ 217
Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 134 141
Amortization of loan costs 2 --
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits 10 8
Other assets (22) (10)
Accounts payable 2 (32)
Tenant security deposit liabilities (2) (5)
Accrued property taxes 23 20
Other liabilities -- 41
Net cash provided by operating activities 296 380
Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements (26) (93)
Net deposits to restricted escrows (49) --
Net cash used in investing activities (75) (93)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Distributions to partners (95) (244)
Payments on mortgage note payable (84) (79)
Net cash used in financing activities (179) (323)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 42 (36)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 108 210
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 150 $ 174
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest $ 94 $ 87
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
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 and six month
periods ended June 30, 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 $35,000 and $38,000 for the six
months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively.
An affiliate of the General Partner received reimbursement of accountable
administrative expenses amounting to approximately $28,000 and $25,000 for the
six months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001, respectively.
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 June
30, 2002, the Partnership owed the General Partner approximately $14,000 for
services rendered in 2002 related to the Partnership management fees.
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 six months ended June 30, 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 held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and took
the matter under submission after further briefing, as ordered 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 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 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 six
months ended June 30, 2002 and 2001:
Average Occupancy
Property 2002 2001
Cedarwood Apartments 92% 95%
Gretna, Louisiana
The General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy at Cedarwood Apartments
to a decrease in the overall market of the area in which the property is
located.
Results of Operations
The Partnership realized net income of approximately $72,000 and $149,000,
respectively, for the three and six months ended June 30, 2002 as compared to
net income of approximately $110,000 and $217,000, respectively, for the three
and six months ended June 30, 2001. The decrease in net income for the three and
six months ended June 30, 2002 was due primarily to a decrease in total revenues
and an increase in total expenses. Total revenues decreased due to a decrease in
rental income and other income. The decrease in rental income is primarily due
to a decrease in occupancy and average rental rates at the Partnership's
investment property. The decrease in other income is due to a decrease in
interest income as a result of lower cash balances in interest bearing accounts.
Total expenses increased primarily due to an increase in interest and general
and administrative expenses. General and administrative expenses increased due
to an increase in the Partnership management fees. Interest expense increased
due to the loan assumption in the third quarter of 2001. Included in general and
administrative expense at both June 30, 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 June 30, 2002, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately
$150,000 as compared to approximately $174,000 at June 30, 2001. Cash and cash
equivalents increased approximately $42,000 since December 31, 2001 due to
approximately $296,000 of cash provided by operating activities, partially
offset by approximately $179,000 and $75,000 of cash used in financing and
investing activities, respectively. Cash used in financing activities consisted
of distributions to partners and principal payments made on the mortgage
encumbering the Registrant's property. Cash used in investing activities
consisted of property improvements and replacements and net deposits to
restricted escrows. 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 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 $26,000 of capital expenditures at Cedarwood
Apartments during the six months ended June 30, 2002, consisting primarily of
resurfacing, interior decoration, floor covering replacements, and office
computers. These improvements were funded from operations. Additional capital
improvements may be considered and will depend on the physical condition of the
property as well as the anticipated cash flow generated by the property and
replacement reserves.
Additional capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available from
operations. 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 $2,803,000 has a maturity date of July 1, 2013 at
which time the mortgage will be fully amortized.
The Partnership distributed the following amounts during the six months ended
June 30, 2002 and 2001 (in thousands, except per unit data):
Six Months Per Limited Six Months Per Limited
Ended Partnership Ended Partnership
June 30, 2002 Unit June 30, 2001 Unit
Operations $ 95 $10.84 $ 244 $27.92
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 planned capital improvement expenditures, to permit any additional
distributions to its partners during the remainder of 2002 or subsequent
periods.
Other
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 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. 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. Although the General Partner
owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General
Partner also owed fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a
result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner, to the
Partnerships and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of
the General Partner to AIMCO, as its sole stockholder.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
The 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 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 held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and took
the matter under submission after further briefing, as ordered 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 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 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 Certificate and Agreement of the Limited
Partnership of Partnership, filed as an exhibit to Form 10K
dated October 31, 1978 and is 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 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/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 VII
(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.