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 0-16010
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS
(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)
California 94-3004963
(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
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS
BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
March 31, 2003
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 113
Receivables and deposits 3
Other assets 149
Investment property:
Land $ 213
Buildings and related personal property 4,946
5,159
Less accumulated depreciation (3,762) 1,397
$ 1,662
Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Accounts payable $ 6
Tenant security deposit liabilities 45
Due to affiliates 38
Accrued property taxes 18
Other liabilities 148
Mortgage note payable 3,725
Partners' Deficit
General partner $ (270)
Corporate limited partner on behalf of the
Unitholders (128,810 units issued and
outstanding) (2,048) (2,318)
$ 1,662
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except per unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Revenues:
Rental income $ 274 $ 282
Other income 36 20
Total revenues 310 302
Expenses:
Operating 126 93
General and administrative 42 50
Depreciation 69 66
Interest 73 74
Property taxes 18 19
Total expenses 328 302
Net loss $ (18) $ --
Net loss allocated to general partner (1%) $ -- $ --
Net loss allocated to limited partners (99%) (18) --
$ (18) $ --
Net loss per Unit of Depositary Receipt $(0.14) $ --
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS
STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Unitholders
Units of
Units of Depositary
Depositary General Receipt
Receipt Partner (Note A) Total
Original capital contributions 129,266 $ 1 $32,317 $32,318
Partners' deficit at
December 31, 2002 128,810 $ (270) $(2,030) $(2,300)
Net loss for the three months
ended March 31, 2003 -- -- (18) (18)
Partners' deficit at
March 31, 2003 128,810 $ (270) $(2,048) $(2,318)
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss $ (18) $ --
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 69 66
Amortization of loan costs 3 3
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits 8 3
Other assets 6 (17)
Accounts payable (41) 6
Due to affiliates 38 --
Tenant security deposit liabilities 1 1
Accrued property taxes 18 15
Other liabilities 29 2
Net cash provided by operating activities 113 79
Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements (11) (16)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage note payable (24) (22)
Advance from affiliate 18 --
Payments on advance from affiliate (18) --
Net cash used in financing activities (24) (22)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 78 41
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 35 117
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 113 $ 158
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest $ 70 $ 71
See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Johnstown/Consolidated Income
Partners (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.
The Partnership's general partner is ConCap Equities, Inc. (the "General
Partner"). In the opinion of the 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
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 a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company
("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust.
Units of Depositary Receipt
Johnstown/Consolidated Depositary Corporation (the "Corporate Limited Partner"),
an affiliate of the General Partner, serves as a depositary of certain units of
depositary receipt ("Units"). The Units represent economic rights attributable
to the limited partnership interests in the Partnership and entitle the
unitholders thereof ("Unitholders") to certain economic benefits, allocations
and distributions of the Partnership. For this reason, partners' deficit is
herein represented as an interest of the Unitholders.
Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties
The Partnership has no employees and is dependent on the General Partner and its
affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities,
as provided for in the Partnership Agreement. 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.
The Partnership Agreement provides that the Partnership shall pay in monthly
installments to the General Partner, or an affiliate, a yearly asset management
fee equal to: (i) 3/8 of 1% of the original principal balance of mortgage loans
outstanding at the end of the month preceding the installment payment; (ii) 1/8
of 1% of the market value of guaranteed mortgage-backed securities as of the end
of the Partnership quarter immediately preceding the installment payment; and
(iii) 5/8 of 1% of the purchase price of the properties plus improvements for
managing the Partnership's assets. In the event the property was not owned at
the beginning or end of the year, such fee shall be pro-rated for the short-year
period of ownership. Under this provision, fees of approximately $8,000 were
incurred to the General Partner and its affiliates for each of the three months
ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, which are included in general and administrative
expenses and due to affiliates.
During the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, affiliates of the General
Partner were entitled to receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership's
investment property for providing property management services. The Partnership
paid to such affiliates approximately $16,000 and $15,000 for the three months
ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. These amounts are included in
operating expenses.
Affiliates of the General Partner were entitled to receive reimbursement of
accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $23,000 and
$26,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.
Included in these amounts are fees related to construction management services
provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $1,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2003. The construction management service fees are
calculated based on a percentage of current additions to investment property.
There were no such construction management service fees incurred during the
three months ended March 31, 2002. These reimbursements of accountable
administrative expenses are included in general and administrative expenses,
investment property, and due to affiliates.
In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner loaned the
Partnership approximately $18,000 to fund a real estate tax bill at Cedar Brook
Apartments. Interest accrued at the prime rate plus 2% (6.25% at March 31,
2003). Interest expense was less than $1,000 for the three months ended March
31, 2003. During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership repaid
the loan plus the related accrued interest with cash from operations. There were
no loans made by the General Partner to the Partnership during the three months
ended March 31, 2002.
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 cost for insurance coverage and
fees associated with policy claims administration provided by AIMCO and its
affiliates will be approximately $14,000 and $17,000, 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. The
following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for each of the
three month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002.
Average Occupancy
Property 2003 2002
Cedar Brooke Apartments 97% 97%
Independence, Missouri
Results of Operations
The Partnership's net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003 was
approximately $18,000, compared to zero net income for the three months ended
March 31, 2002. The increase in net loss is due to an increase in total
expenses, partially offset by an increase in total revenues. Total expenses
increased due to an increase in operating expenses, partially offset by a
decrease in general and administrative expenses. Interest, depreciation and
property tax expenses remained relatively constant for the comparable periods.
Operating expenses increased primarily due to increases in maintenance expense,
as a result of a decrease in the capitalization of certain direct and indirect
project costs, primarily payroll related costs at Cedar Brooke Apartments,
insurance expense, payroll related expenses, and advertising expense at the
property. General and administrative expenses decreased primarily due to a
decrease in the management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed
under the Partnership Agreement. Included in general and administrative expenses
for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 are asset management fees
earned by the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Also
included in general and administrative expenses 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 due to an increase in other income, partially offset by
a decrease in rental income. Other income increased due to increases in utility
reimbursements and lease cancellation fees at the Partnership's investment
property. Rental income decreased due to an increase in bad debt expense,
partially offset by an increase in the average rental rates at Cedar Brooke
Apartments.
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 $113,000, compared to approximately $158,000 at March 31, 2002.
The increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $78,000, from the
Partnership's fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, is due to approximately
$113,000 of cash provided by operating activities, partially offset by
approximately $24,000 of cash used in financing activities and approximately
$11,000 of cash used in investing activities. Cash used in financing activities
consisted of payments of principal made on the mortgage encumbering the
Partnership's investment property and the repayment of an advance from an
affiliate of the General Partner, partially offset by an advance from an
affiliate of the General Partner. Cash used in investing activities consisted of
property improvements and replacements. The Partnership invests its working
capital reserves in interest bearing accounts.
The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital
expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital
expenditures required at the investment property to adequately maintain the
physical assets and other operating needs of the 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 $11,000 of capital improvements at Cedar Brooke Apartments,
consisting primarily of appliance and floor covering replacements. These
improvements were funded from operations. The Partnership evaluates the capital
improvement needs of the property during the year and currently expects to
complete an additional $53,000 in capital improvements during the remainder of
2003. The additional capital improvements will consist primarily of roofing
upgrades, structural improvements, and appliance and floor covering
replacements. Additional capital improvements may be considered and will depend
on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow
generated by the property.
The additional capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available
from operations or from Partnership reserves. To the extent that such budgeted
capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow,
if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term.
The Partnership's assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term needs,
exclusive of capital improvements, of the Partnership. The mortgage indebtedness
on Cedar Brooke Apartments of $3,725,000, which carries a stated interest rate
of 7.44%, requires monthly payments of principal and interest until the loan
matures on July 1, 2021, at which time the loan will be fully amortized.
Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the term of the Partnership is scheduled
to expire on December 31, 2017. Accordingly, prior to such date the Partnership
will need to either sell its investment property or extend the term of the
Partnership.
There were no distributions to the partners 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, refinancing
and/or property sale. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is
reviewed on a monthly basis. There can be no assurance, however, that the
Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after required
capital expenditures, to permit any 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 70,199 limited partnership units
(the "Units") in the Partnership representing 54.50% 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 54.50% 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 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
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 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 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, as amended to date,
incorporated herein by reference to the Partnership's
Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December
31, 1991.
3.2 Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement dated July
16, 1986 is incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to
the Prospectus of the Registration dated June 20, 1986
as filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b)
under the Act.
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.
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS
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 15, 2003
CERTIFICATION
I, Patrick J. Foye, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners;
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 15, 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
Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners;
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 15, 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 Johnstown/Consolidated
Income Partners (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 15, 2003
/s/Paul J. McAuliffe
Name: Paul J. McAuliffe
Date: May 15, 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.