UNITED STATES
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, 2003
[ ] 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 0-14099
CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
California 94-2940204
(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
CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
March 31, 2003
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 165
Receivables and deposits 29
Other assets 114
Investment property:
Land $ 916
Buildings and related personal property 10,408
11,324
Less accumulated depreciation (5,772) 5,552
$ 5,860
Liabilities and Partners' (Deficit) Capital
Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 45
Tenant security deposit liabilities 104
Accrued property taxes 81
Other liabilities 114
Due to affiliates 12
Mortgage note payable 5,156
Partners' (Deficit) Capital
General partner $ (2)
Special limited partners (73)
Limited partners (181,300 units issued and
outstanding) 423 348
$ 5,860
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except per unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Revenues:
Rental income $ 412 $ 424
Other income 60 45
Total revenues 472 469
Expenses:
Operating 205 174
General and administrative 26 43
Depreciation 119 111
Interest 103 107
Property taxes 39 30
Total expenses 492 465
Net (loss) income $ (20) $ 4
Net (loss) income allocated to general partner (0.2%) $ -- $ --
Net (loss) income allocated to limited partners (99.8%) (20) 4
$ (20) $ 4
Net (loss) income per limited partnership unit $ (.11) $ .02
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' (DEFICIT) CAPITAL
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Limited Special
Partnership General Limited Limited
Units Partner Partners Partners Total
Original capital contributions 181,808 $ 1 $ -- $45,452 $45,453
Partners' (deficit) capital
at December 31, 2002 181,300 $ (2) $ (73) $ 443 $ 368
Net loss for the three
months ended March 31, 2003 -- -- -- (20) (20)
Partners' (deficit) capital
at March 31, 2003 181,300 $ (2) $ (73) $ 423 $ 348
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net (loss) income $ (20) $ 4
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net
cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 119 111
Amortization of loan costs 2 2
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits (4) 42
Other assets (1) (28)
Accounts payable 6 46
Tenant security deposit liabilities 6 (1)
Accrued property taxes (31) (35)
Other liabilities 4 2
Due to affiliates 12 --
Net cash provided by operating activities 93 143
Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements (68) (164)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage note payable (38) (35)
Payments on advances from affiliates -- (53)
Net cash used in financing activities (38) (88)
Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents (13) (109)
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 178 240
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 165 $ 131
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest $ 101 $ 106
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Consolidated
Capital Properties VI (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 ConCap Equities, Inc. ("CEI" or the
"General Partner"), all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals)
considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating
results for the three months ended March 31, 2003, are not necessarily
indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2003. 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, 2002. The General Partner is
an affiliate of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a
publicly traded real estate investment trust.
Note B - Related Party Transactions
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 payments to affiliates for services and
the 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 Partnership's property as compensation for providing property
management services. The Partnership paid such affiliates approximately $24,000
and $30,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively,
which is included in operating expenses.
An affiliate of the General Partner earned reimbursement of accountable
administrative expenses amounting to approximately $11,000 and $26,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, which is included in
general and administrative expenses. The fees for 2003 remained unpaid as of
March 31, 2003.
The Partnership Agreement also provides for a special management fee equal to 9%
of the total distributions made from operations to the Limited Partners to be
paid to the General Partner for executive and administrative management
services. No such fee was earned for the three months ended March 31, 2003 or
2002.
The Partnership had advances from an affiliate of the General Partner of
approximately $139,000 as of December 31, 2001. During the three months ended
March 31, 2002, the Partnership repaid approximately $55,000 of this advance
including approximately $2,000 in accrued interest. The balance of this advance
was repaid during the remainder of 2002. Interest was charged at the prime rate
plus 2% and amounted to approximately $2,000 for the three months ended March
31, 2002. There were no loans from the General Partner or associated interest
expense during the three months ended March 31, 2003.
The Partnership insures 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 2003 and 2002, the Partnership's insurance coverage and fees
associated with policy claims administration owed to AIMCO and its affiliates
will be approximately $21,000 and $25,000, respectively.
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 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 could have an opportunity to discuss settlement. On October 30,
2002, the court entered an order extending the stay in effect through January
10, 2003.
On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed
settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action described below. On April
4, 2003, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing
on final approval for June 2, 2003.
In general terms, the proposed settlement provides for certification for
settlement purposes of a settlement class consisting of all limited partners in
this Partnership and others (the "Partnerships") as of December 20, 2002, the
dismissal with prejudice and release of claims in the Nuanes and Heller
litigation, payment by AIMCO of $9.9 million (which shall be distributed to
settlement class members after deduction of attorney fees and costs of class
counsel and certain costs of settlement) and up to $ 1 million toward the cost
of independent appraisals of the Partnerships' properties by a Court appointed
appraiser. An affiliate of the General Partner has also agreed to make a tender
offer to purchase all of the partnership interests in the Partnerships within
one year of final approval, if it is granted, and to provide partners with the
independent appraisals at the time of these tenders. The proposed settlement
also provides for the limitation of the allowable costs which the General
Partner or its affiliates will charge the Partnerships in connection with this
litigation and imposes limits on the class counsel fees and costs in this
litigation. On April 11, 2003, notice was distributed to limited partners
providing the details of the proposed 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. Before completing briefing on the appeal, the parties stayed further
proceedings in the appeal pending the Court's review of the terms of the
proposed settlement described above.
The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership,
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 report contain certain forward-looking statements,
including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance
and the effect of government regulations. The discussions of the Registrant's
business and results of operations, including forward-looking statements
pertaining to such matters, do not take into account the effects of any changes
to the Registrant's business and results of operations. Actual results may
differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and
will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without
limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental
regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations;
the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks,
including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet
required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including
variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local
markets and competition for tenants in such markets; and possible environmental
liabilities. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial
statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the
documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.
The Partnership's investment property consists of one apartment complex, Colony
of Springdale Apartments, located in Springdale, Ohio. The average occupancy for
the three month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, was 89% and 94%,
respectively. The decrease in occupancy at The Colony of Springdale Apartments
is due to a decline in market conditions and an increase in home purchases by
tenants.
Results of Operations
The Partnership's net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003 was
approximately $20,000 compared to net income of approximately $4,000 for the
corresponding period in 2002. Net income decreased for the three months ended
March 31, 2003 as compared to the same period in 2002 as a result of an increase
in total expenses offset by a slight increase in total revenues. Total expenses
increased for the three months ended March 31, 2003 primarily due to an increase
in operating expenses and property tax expenses partially offset by a decrease
in general and administrative expenses. Depreciation and interest expense
remained relatively constant for the comparable periods. Operating expense
increased due to an increase in maintenance and property expenses. Maintenance
expenses increased primarily due to an increase in contract services and snow
removal expenses at the Partnership's property. Property expenses increased
primarily due to an increase in utility expenses. Property tax expense increased
due to an increase in the assessed value of the Partnership's property.
General and administrative expenses decreased for the three months ended March
31, 2003 due to a decrease in the cost of services included in the management
reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership
Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expenses at March 31,
2003 are costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with
investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the
Partnership Agreement.
Total revenues increased primarily due to an increase in other income, largely
offset by a decrease in rental income. Other income increased due to an increase
in utility reimbursements and late fees. Rental revenue decreased primarily due
to a decrease in occupancy and an increase in bad debt expense at Colony of
Springdale Apartments, partially offset by an increase in average rental rates.
As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, 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 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, 2003, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of
approximately $165,000 compared to approximately $131,000 at March 31, 2002.
Cash and cash equivalents decreased by approximately $13,000 since December 31,
2002 due to approximately $68,000 and $38,000 of cash used in investing and
financing activities, respectively, partially offset by approximately $93,000 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 the
Partnership's property. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in
interest bearing accounts.
The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital
expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital
expenditures required at the 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 General Partner monitors
developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance and is studying new
federal laws, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002 mandates or suggests additional compliance measures with regard to
governance, disclosure, audit and other areas. In light of these changes, the
Partnership expects that it will incur higher expenses related to compliance,
including increased legal and audit fees. Capital improvements planned for the
Partnership's property are discussed below.
During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership completed
approximately $68,000 of capital improvements at the property, consisting
primarily of structural improvements, gutters, parking area improvements, roof
replacements, floor covering replacements and heating upgrades. These
improvements were funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership evaluates the
capital improvement needs of the property during the year and currently expects
to complete an additional $43,000 in capital improvements during the remainder
of 2003. The additional capital improvements will consist primarily of roof
replacement, floor covering, HVAC and appliance replacements and concrete work.
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 Partnership reserves.
The Partnership's assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term needs
(exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage
indebtedness of approximately $5,156,000 matures December 1, 2019 at which time
the mortgage is scheduled to be fully amortized.
The Partnership did not make any distributions during the three months ended
March 31, 2003 and 2002. 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 property sale. 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 expenditures, to permit distributions to its partners
during the remainder of 2003 or subsequent periods.
Other
In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the
Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 91,747 limited partnership units
(the "Units") in the Partnership representing 50.61% of the outstanding Units at
March 31, 2003. 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. 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 50.61% of the outstanding
Units, AIMCO is in a position to control all voting decisions with respect to
the Partnership. Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the
limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary
duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General
Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership 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 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 a 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 and
the Partnership fully reserves all outstanding balances over thirty days. 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.
ITEM 3. Controls and Procedures
The principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General
Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership's principal executive officer
and principal financial officer, respectively, have, within 90 days of the
filing date of this quarterly report, evaluated the effectiveness of the
Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-14(c) and 15d-14(c)) and have determined that such disclosure controls
and procedures are adequate. There have been no significant changes in the
Partnership's internal controls or in other factors that could significantly
affect the Partnership's internal controls since the date of evaluation. The
Partnership does not believe any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses
exist in the Partnership's internal controls. Accordingly, no corrective actions
have been taken.
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 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 could have an opportunity to discuss settlement. On October 30,
2002, the court entered an order extending the stay in effect through January
10, 2003.
On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed
settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action described below. On April
4, 2003, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing
on final approval for June 2, 2003.
In general terms, the proposed settlement provides for certification for
settlement purposes of a settlement class consisting of all limited partners in
this Partnership and others (the "Partnerships") as of December 20, 2002, the
dismissal with prejudice and release of claims in the Nuanes and Heller
litigation, payment by AIMCO of $9.9 million (which shall be distributed to
settlement class members after deduction of attorney fees and costs of class
counsel and certain costs of settlement) and up to $ 1 million toward the cost
of independent appraisals of the Partnerships' properties by a Court appointed
appraiser. An affiliate of the General Partner has also agreed to make a tender
offer to purchase all of the partnership interests in the Partnerships within
one year of final approval, if it is granted, and to provide partners with the
independent appraisals at the time of these tenders. The proposed settlement
also provides for the limitation of the allowable costs which the General
Partner or its affiliates will charge the Partnerships in connection with this
litigation and imposes limits on the class counsel fees and costs in this
litigation. On April 11, 2003, notice was distributed to limited partners
providing the details of the proposed 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. Before completing briefing on the appeal, the parties stayed further
proceedings in the appeal pending the Court's review of the terms of the
proposed settlement described above.
The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership,
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:
3.1 Certificate of Limited Partnership, incorporated by reference
to the Registration Statement of Registrant filed October 22,
1984, as amended to date.
3.2 Agreement of Limited Partnership, incorporated by reference to
the Registration Statement of Registrant filed October 22,
1984, as amended to date.
99 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted
Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
b) Reports on Form 8-K:
None filed during the quarter ended March 31, 2003.
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.
CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL PROPERTIES VI
By: CONCAP EQUITIES, INC.
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: May 14, 2003
CERTIFICATION
I, Patrick J. Foye, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Capital
Properties VI;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: May 14, 2003
/s/Patrick J. Foye
Patrick J. Foye
Executive Vice President of ConCap Equities,
Inc., equivalent of the chief executive
officer of the Partnership
CERTIFICATION
I, Paul J. McAuliffe, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Consolidated Capital
Properties VI;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make
the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:
a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is
being prepared;
b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;
5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the
registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and
b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
controls; and
6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal
controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls
subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective
actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.
Date: May 14, 2003
/s/Paul J. McAuliffe
Paul J. McAuliffe
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent
of the chief financial officer of the
Partnership
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 Consolidated Capital
Properties VI (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003
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: May 14, 2003
/s/Paul J. McAuliffe
Name: Paul J. McAuliffe
Date: May 14, 2003
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.