UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 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 0-11766 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) March 31, 2003 Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 475 Receivables and deposits 248 Restricted escrows 625 Other assets 351 Investment property: Land $ 3,998 Buildings and related personal property 32,548 36,546 Less accumulated depreciation (26,177) 10,369 $ 12,068 Liabilities and Partners' Deficit Liabilities Accounts payable $ 518 Tenant security deposit liabilities 385 Other liabilities 212 Mortgage note payable 33,921 Partners' Deficit General partners $ (547) Limited partners (39,627 units issued and outstanding) (22,421) (22,968) $ 12,068 See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) (in thousands, except per unit data) Three Months Ended March 31, 2003 2002 Revenues: Rental income $1,873 $2,074 Other income 84 169 Casualty gain 4 -- Total revenues 1,961 2,243 Expenses: Operating 640 657 General and administrative 185 73 Depreciation 542 523 Interest 580 595 Property taxes 265 264 Total expenses 2,212 2,112 Net (loss) income $ (251) $ 131 Net (loss) income allocated to general partners (1%) $ (3) $ 1 Net (loss) income allocated to limited partners (99%) (248) 130 $ (251) $ 131 Net (loss) income per limited partnership unit $(6.26) $ 3.28 Distributions per limited partnership unit $ 3.36 $ -- 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, 2002 39,627 $ (543) $ (22,040) $(22,583) Distributions to partners (1) (133) (134) Net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003 -- (3) (248) (251) Partners' deficit at March 31, 2003 39,627 $ (547) $ (22,421) $(22,968) See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (in thousands) Three Months Ended March 31, 2003 2002 Cash flows from operating activities: Net (loss) income $ (251) $ 131 Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation 542 523 Amortization of loan costs 4 4 Casualty gain (4) -- Change in accounts: Receivables and deposits 61 369 Other assets 92 (218) Accounts payable 46 9 Tenant security deposit liabilities -- (31) Other liabilities (131) (144) Net cash provided by operating activities 359 643 Cash flows from investing activities: Property improvements and replacements (283) (681) Insurance proceeds received 4 -- Net cash used in investing activities (279) (681) Cash flows from financing activities: Payments on mortgage note payable (148) (209) Distributions to partners (134) -- Net cash used in financing activities (282) (209) Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents (202) (247) Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 677 460 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 475 $ 213 Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information: Cash paid for interest $ 446 $ 590 Supplemental disclosure of non-cash information: Property improvements and replacements included in accounts payable $ 365 $ 110 Included in property improvements and replacements for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, are approximately $161,000 and $259,000, respectively, of improvements which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2002 and 2001, 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 month period 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 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. In exchange for property management services, affiliates of the Managing General Partner are entitled to receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership's property. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $100,000 and $113,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, which is included in operating expenses. Affiliates of the Managing General Partner received reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $66,000 and $122,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, 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 $22,000 and $66,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. The construction management service fees are calculated based on a percentage of current additions to investment property. 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 Managing General Partner for executive and administrative management services. One half of this fee is to be accrued and not paid unless the limited partners have received distributions equal to a 5% cumulative annual return on their adjusted capital investment as defined in the Partnership Agreement. This return criteria has not been met. During the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 no fees were earned or paid. At March 31, 2003, the Partnership has accrued approximately $43,000 of Partnership management fees which is included in other liabilities on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet. Of this amount $25,000 will remain accrued until criteria for payment has been met. 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 Managing General Partner. During 2003 and 2002, the Partnership's cost for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration provided by AIMCO and its affiliates will be approximately $103,000 and $124,000, respectively. Note C - Casualties During the year ended December 31, 2002, a casualty gain of approximately $17,000 was recorded at Fox Run Apartments. The casualty gain related to a fire that occurred in June 2002. The gain was a result of the receipt of insurance proceeds of approximately $18,000 offset by the write-off of the net book value of the destroyed assets totaling approximately $1,000. During the three months ended March 31, 2003, additional insurance proceeds of approximately $4,000 were received and recorded as additional casualty gain. Note D - 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 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 Managing 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 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. 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 Managing 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 Operation 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. The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002: Average Occupancy Property 2003 2002 Fox Run Apartments 89% 95% Plainsboro, New Jersey The Managing General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy to a weak economy and lay offs in the local area. Results of Operations The Partnership's net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003 was approximately $251,000 compared to net income of approximately $131,000 for the corresponding period in 2002. The decrease in net income for the three months ended March 31, 2003 compared to the corresponding period in 2002 is due to a decrease in total revenue and an increase in total expenses. Total revenues decreased for the three months ended March 31, 2003, primarily due to decreases in rental revenue and other income. Rental revenue decreased due to a decrease in rental rates and a decrease in occupancy at the Partnership's investment property. Other income decreased due to a decrease in recreational facility fees and lease cancellation fees. Total expenses increased for the three months ended March 31, 2003 primarily due to an increase in general and administrative expenses and depreciation expense, partially offset by a decrease in operating expense and interest expense. Property tax expense remained constant for the comparable periods. Depreciation expense increased due to property improvements and replacements during the past twelve months, which are now being depreciated. General and administrative expenses increased for the three months ended March 31, 2003 primarily due to a new partnership level tax based on the number of partners in the partnership implemented by the state of New Jersey in July 2002. Also included in general and administrative expenses are the cost of services included as management reimbursements to the Managing General Partner allowed under the Partnership Agreement, costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement. Operating expenses decreased due to decreases in administrative expense and property management fees, partially offset by increased maintenance and insurance expense. The decrease in administrative expense is due to the timing of the receipt of the ad valorem tax bill. The decrease in property management fees is due to a decrease in rental income. Maintenance expense increased due to an increase in snow removal and repairs at Fox Run Apartments. Insurance expense increased due to an increase in hazard insurance premiums. Interest expense decreased due to principle payments made on the mortgage debt encumbering the Partnership's property. During the year ended December 31, 2002, a casualty gain of approximately $17,000 was recorded at Fox Run Apartments. The casualty gain related to a fire that occurred in June 2002. The gain was a result of the receipt of insurance proceeds of approximately $18,000 offset by the write-off of the net book value of the destroyed assets totaling approximately $1,000. During the three months ended March 31, 2003, additional insurance proceeds of approximately $4,000 were received and recorded as additional casualty gain. 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 March 31, 2003, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $475,000 compared to approximately $213,000 at March 31, 2002. Cash and cash equivalents decreased approximately $202,000 since December 31, 2002 due to approximately $282,000 and $279,000 of cash used in financing and investing activities respectively, partially offset by approximately $359,000 of cash provided by operating activities. Cash used in financing activities consisted of distributions to partners and principal payments made on the mortgage encumbering Fox Run Apartments. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements expenditures partially offset by the receipt of insurance proceeds. 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 Managing 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. During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership completed approximately $487,000 of capital improvements at Fox Run Apartments, primarily consisting of a water submetering project, water heater and floor covering replacement, and structural improvements. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property and currently expects to complete an additional $64,000 in capital improvements during the remainder of 2003. The additional capital improvements will consist primarily of floor covering replacements, appliance replacements, HVAC upgrades, fencing, pool enhancements, exterior building improvements and major landscaping. 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. 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. 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 $33,921,000 encumbering Fox Run Apartments is being amortized over 20 years and matures in December 2021 at which time it is expected to be fully amortized. The Partnership distributed the following amounts during the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 (in thousands, except per unit data): For the three Per For the three Per Months Ended Limited Months Ended Limited March 31, Partnership March 31, Partnership 2003 Unit 2002 Unit Refinancing (1) $ 134 $ 3.36 $ -- $ -- (1) Refinancing proceeds are from the December 2001 refinancing of Fox Run Apartments. Approximately $554,000 remains to be distributed at March 31, 2003. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations, the availability of cash reserves, the timing of the debt maturity and 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 in 2003 or subsequent periods. Other In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 24,944 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 62.95% 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 Managing General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 62.95% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO is in a position to control all voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the Managing General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the Managing General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the Managing General Partner, as managing general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the Managing 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 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 impairment of 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 balances outstanding 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 Managing 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 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 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 Managing 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 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. 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 Managing 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: 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 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 Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the Registrant has caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. ANGELES PARTNERS XI (A California Limited Partnership) (Registrant) By: Angeles Realty Corporation II Managing General Partner By: /s/Patrick J. Foye Patrick J. Foye Executive Vice President By: /s/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 Angeles Partners XI; 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 Angeles Realty Corporation II, 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 Angeles Partners XI; 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 Angeles Realty Corporation II, 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 Angeles Partners XI (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.