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 0-13192
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
California 95-3903984
(State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) Identification No.)
55 Beattie Place, P.O. 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 INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
March 31, 2003
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 61
Receivables and deposits 3
Other assets 7
Investment property:
Land $ 657
Buildings and related personal property 4,442
5,099
Less accumulated depreciation (3,902) 1,197
$ 1,268
Liabilities and Partners' (Deficit) Capital
Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 7
Tenant security deposit liabilities 15
Accrued property taxes 16
Due to affiliates (Note B) 21
Other liabilities 70
Partners' (Deficit) Capital
General partners $ (19)
Limited partners (86,738 units issued and
outstanding) 1,158 1,139
$ 1,268
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except per unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Revenues:
Rental income $ 145 $ 201
Other income 7 12
Total revenues 152 213
Expenses:
Operating 92 76
General and administrative 26 23
Depreciation 56 59
Property taxes 16 14
Total expenses 190 172
Net (loss) income $ (38) $ 41
Net (loss) income allocated to general partners (1%) $ -- $ --
Net (loss) income allocated to limited partners (99%) (38) 41
Net (loss) income $ (38) $ 41
Net (loss) income per limited partnership unit $ (.44) $ 0.47
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' (DEFICIT) CAPITAL
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Limited
Partnership General Limited
Units Partners Partners Total
Original capital contributions 86,920 $ 1 $43,460 $43,461
Partners' (deficit) capital at
December 31, 2002 86,738 $ (19) $ 1,196 $ 1,177
Net loss for the three months
ended March 31, 2003 -- -- (38) (38)
Partners' (deficit) capital at
March 31, 2003 86,738 $ (19) $ 1,158 $ 1,139
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net (loss) income $ (38) $ 41
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 56 59
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits 5 --
Other assets -- (12)
Accounts payable 3 --
Tenant security deposit liabilities -- 1
Accrued property taxes (52) (27)
Due to affiliates 10 (29)
Other liabilities 23 1
Net cash provided by operating activities 7 34
Cash used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements (4) (14)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 3 20
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 58 135
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 61 $ 155
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Angeles Income
Properties, Ltd. III (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 year ended December 31, 2002. The Managing General
Partner is a wholly owned subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management
Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust.
Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties
The Partnership has no employees and is dependent on the Managing General
Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all
Partnership activities. The Partnership Agreement provides (i) for certain
payments to affiliates for services and (ii) reimbursement of certain expenses
incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership.
Affiliates of the Managing General Partner are entitled to receive 5% of gross
receipts from the Partnership's property as compensation for providing property
management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately
$7,000 and $11,000 of management fees for the three months ended March 31, 2003
and 2002, respectively, which is included in operating expenses.
The Partnership Agreement provides for a fee equal to 10% of the "net cash from
operations", as defined in the Partnership Agreement to be paid to the Managing
General Partner for executive and administrative management services. This fee
is calculated and accrued quarterly. A fee of approximately $21,000 was earned
for the twelve months ended December 31, 2002 and is included in Due to
affiliates at March 31, 2003. No fee was earned or accrued for the three months
ended March 31, 2003 because there was no net cash from operations for the
period.
An affiliate of the Managing General Partner received reimbursement of
accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $15,000 and
$8,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, which
is included in general and administrative expenses.
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 insurance
coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration owed to AIMCO and
its affiliates will be approximately $11,000 and $14,000, 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 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
Managing 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
Lake Forest Apartments 76% 88%
Brandon, Mississippi
The Managing General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy to the
unfavorable economic conditions in the local market area.
Results from Operations
The Partnership recognized a net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003
of approximately $38,000 as compared to net income of approximately $41,000 for
the three months ended March 31, 2002. The decrease in net income is
attributable to a decrease in total revenues and an increase in total expenses.
The decrease in total revenues is primarily attributable to a decrease in rental
income. The decrease in rental income is due to a decrease in occupancy, as
mentioned above, and an increase in concessions offered to tenants at Lake
Forest Apartments.
The increase in total expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2003 is
primarily the result of an increase in operating expenses. Operating expenses
increased due to an increase in maintenance expenses. Maintenance expenses
increased primarily due to an increase in contract services, payroll and related
expenses and a decrease in the capitalization of certain direct and indirect
project costs, primarily payroll related costs, at the property. General and
administrative, depreciation and property tax expenses remained relatively
constant for the comparable periods.
Included in general and administrative expenses during the three months ended
March 31, 2003 and 2002 are management reimbursements to the Managing General
Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. In addition, costs
associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and
regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement
are also included in general and administrative expenses.
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 Registrant had cash and cash equivalents of approximately
$61,000 compared to approximately $155,000 at March 31, 2002. The net increase
in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $3,000 since December 31, 2002 is
due to approximately $7,000 of cash provided by operating activities partially
offset by approximately $4,000 of cash used in investing activities. Cash used
in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. The
Registrant invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.
The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital
expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital
expenditures required at the Partnership's property to adequately maintain the
physical assets and other operating needs of the Registrant and to comply with
Federal, state, and local legal and regulatory requirements. 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. Capital
improvements planned for the Partnership's property are detailed below.
During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership completed
approximately $4,000 of capital improvements at Lake Forest Apartments,
consisting primarily of floor covering replacements. 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 $84,000 in capital improvements during the remainder of
2003. The additional capital improvements will consist primarily of floor
covering replacements, asphalt and structural improvements. 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.
The additional capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available
from operations or Partnership reserves. 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 Registrant's assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term needs
(exclusive of capital improvements) of the Registrant.
There were no distributions by the Partnership 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, mortgage
financing, and/or the sale of the property. The Partnership's distribution
policy 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 45,112 limited partnership units
(the "Units") in the Partnership representing 52.01% 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 52.01% of the
outstanding Units, AIMCO is in a position to control all voting decisions with
respect to the Registrant. Although the Managing General Partner owes fiduciary
duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the Managing General Partner
also 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 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 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
Managing 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 Certificate and Agreement of the Limited
Partnership filed in Form S-11 dated June 2, 1983, which is
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 the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized.
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. III
By: Angeles Realty Corporation II
Managing General Partner
By: /s/Patrick J. Foye
Patrick J. Foye
Executive Vice President
By: /s/Thomas C. Novosel
Thomas C. Novosel
Senior Vice President
and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: May 14, 2003
CERTIFICATION
I, Patrick J. Foye, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Income
Properties, Ltd. III;
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 Income
Properties, Ltd. III;
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 Income
Properties, Ltd. III (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.