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 0-11767
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
California 95-3793526
(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 INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
March 31, 2003
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 810
Receivables and deposits 266
Restricted escrows 104
Other assets 518
Investment properties:
Land $ 1,984
Buildings and related personal property 33,528
35,512
Less accumulated depreciation (28,501) 7,011
$ 8,709
Liabilities and Partners' Deficit
Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 91
Tenant security deposit liabilities 254
Accrued property taxes 230
Other liabilities 379
Due to affiliates 140
Mortgage notes payable 24,331
Partners' Deficit
General partners $ (605)
Limited partners (99,784 units issued and
outstanding) (16,111) (16,716)
$ 8,709
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except per unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Revenues:
Rental income $1,504 $1,692
Other income 97 154
Total revenues 1,601 1,846
Expenses:
Operating 597 540
General and administrative 93 113
Depreciation 476 484
Interest 474 487
Property taxes 185 167
Total expenses 1,825 1,791
Net (loss) income $ (224) $ 55
Net (loss) income allocated to general partners $ (2) $ 1
Net (loss) income allocated to limited partners (222) 54
$ (224) $ 55
Net (loss) income per limited partnership unit $(2.22) $ 0.54
Distributions per limited partnership unit $ 2.06 $ --
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Limited
Partnership General Limited
Units Partners Partners Total
Original capital contributions 100,000 $ 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,001
Partners' deficit at
December 31, 2002 99,784 $ (601) $(15,683) $(16,284)
Distributions to partners -- (2) (206) (208)
Net loss for the three months
ended March 31, 2003 -- (2) (222) (224)
Partners' deficit at
March 31, 2003 99,784 $ (605) $(16,111) $(16,716)
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2003 2002
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net (loss) income $ (224) $ 55
Adjustments to reconcile net (loss) income to net cash
provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 476 484
Amortization of mortgage discounts and loan costs 17 19
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits 43 97
Other assets (23) (132)
Accounts payable 38 (19)
Tenant security deposit liabilities 18 (8)
Accrued property taxes 87 69
Due to affiliates 35 33
Other liabilities 115 111
Net cash provided by operating activities 582 709
Cash flows from investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements (142) (262)
Net withdrawals from restricted escrows 44 34
Net cash used in investing activities (98) (228)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage notes payable (135) (125)
Repayment of advances from affiliates -- (47)
Distributions to partners (208) (9)
Net cash used in financing activities (343) (181)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 141 300
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 669 150
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 810 $ 450
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest $ 375 $ 467
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES INCOME PROPERTIES, LTD. II
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Angeles Income
Properties, Ltd. II (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"), which is wholly-owned by Apartment Investment and
Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust,
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.
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 certain payments
to affiliates for services and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by
affiliates on behalf of the Partnership.
During the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, affiliates of the
Managing General Partner were entitled to receive 5% of gross receipts from all
of the Registrant's residential properties for providing property management
services. The Registrant paid to such affiliates approximately $81,000 and
$92,000 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 $47,000 and $66,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, which is included in
general and administrative expenses.
The Partnership Agreement provides for a fee equal to 10% 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. Fees of
approximately $35,000 were earned by the Managing General Partner for both the
three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002. At March 31, 2003 the balance due to
the Managing General Partner for these fees is approximately $140,000 which is
included in "Due to affiliates" on the accompanying consolidated balance sheet.
In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, during 2001 the Managing General
Partner loaned the Partnership funds for operating expenses at Landmark
Apartments. During the three months ended March 31, 2002 this loan was repaid in
full by the Partnership. Interest was charged at the prime rate plus 2%.
Interest expense was approximately $1,000 for the three months ended March 31,
2002. There were no loans from the Managing General Partner or associated
interest expense during the three months ended March 31, 2003.
Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the Managing General Partner is entitled
to receive a distribution equal to 3% of the aggregate disposition price of sold
properties. The Partnership paid a distribution of approximately $86,000 to the
Managing General Partner related to the sale of Atlanta Crossing Shopping Center
in March 2000. This amount is subordinate to the limited partners receiving
their original capital contributions plus a cumulative preferred return of 6%
per annum of their adjusted capital investment, as defined in the Partnership
Agreement. If the limited partners have not received these returns when the
Partnership terminates, the Managing General Partner will return this amount to
the Partnership.
The Partnership insures its properties 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 properties 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 $86,000 and $104,000,
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 properties consist of three apartment complexes.
The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the properties for both
of the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002:
Average Occupancy
Property 2003 2002
Deer Creek Apartments 93% 93%
Plainsboro, New Jersey
Georgetown Apartments 94% 95%
South Bend, Indiana
Landmark Apartments 82% 92%
Raleigh, North Carolina
The Managing General Partner attributes the decrease in occupancy at Landmark
Apartments to increased layoffs, lower mortgage rates, and a slow rental market.
Results of Operations
The Partnership's net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003, was
approximately $224,000 compared to a net income of approximately $55,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2002. The decrease in net income for the three
months ended March 31, 2003 was due to a decrease in total revenues and an
increase in total expenses.
Total revenues decreased for the three months ended March 31, 2003 due to a
decrease in rental income and other income. Rental income decreased due to a
decrease in average rental rates at all of the Partnership's properties, a
decrease in occupancy primarily at Landmark Apartments, and increased
concessions and bad debt expenses at Landmark and Deer Creek Apartments. Other
income decreased primarily due to decreases in utility reimbursements and lease
cancellation fees at Deer Creek Apartments.
Total expenses increased for the three months ended March 31, 2003 primarily due
to increases in operating and property tax expenses partially offset by a
decrease in general and administrative expenses. Operating expenses increased
primarily due to an increase in maintenance expense partially offset by a
decrease in administrative expense. Maintenance expense increased primarily due
to an increase in snow removal costs at Deer Creek Apartments and a decrease in
capitalization of certain direct and indirect project costs, primarily payroll
related costs at all of the Partnership's properties. Administrative expense
decreased primarily due to a decrease in ad valorem tax service expense at Deer
Creek Apartments. Property tax expenses increased at Georgetown Apartments which
is located in Indiana. During 2003, Indiana is adjusting its methodology for
assessing property taxable values and tax rates, which is expected to result in
a significant increase in property tax expense. General and administrative
expenses decreased primarily due to reduced costs of services included in the
management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the
Partnership Agreement and a decrease in professional fees associated with the
administration of the Partnership. Also included in general and administrative
expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 are costs associated
with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory
agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement.
As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the Managing General
Partner monitors the rental market environment of each of its investment
properties to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or
increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in
expense. 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 $810,000 compared to approximately $450,000 at March 31, 2002. The
increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $141,000 since December
31, 2002 is due to approximately $582,000 of cash provided by operating
activities partially offset by approximately $343,000 of cash used in financing
activities and approximately $98,000 of cash used in investing activities. Cash
used in financing activities consisted of distributions to the partners and
payments of principal made on the mortgages encumbering the Partnership's
properties. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements
and replacements partially offset by net withdrawals from restricted escrow
accounts maintained by the mortgage lenders. 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 various properties 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. Capital
improvements planned for each of the Partnership's properties are detailed
below.
Georgetown Apartments
During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership completed
approximately $5,000 of capital improvements at Georgetown Apartments,
consisting primarily of floor covering and window replacements. These
improvements were funded from the property's operating cash flow. The
Partnership evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property during the
year and currently expects to complete an additional $79,000 in capital
improvements during the remainder of 2003. The additional capital improvements
will consist primarily of appliance and floor covering replacement, parking lot
upgrades and other building 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.
Deer Creek Apartments
During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership completed
approximately $92,000 of capital improvements at Deer Creek Apartments,
consisting primarily of floor covering replacements, water heater upgrades and
structural improvements. These improvements were funded from the property's
operating cash flow. The Partnership evaluates the capital improvement needs of
the property during the year and currently expects to complete an additional
$134,000 in capital improvements during the remainder of 2003. The additional
capital improvements will consist primarily of appliance and floor covering
replacement, air conditioning upgrades, roofing replacements, swimming pool
improvements 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.
Landmark Apartments
During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership completed
approximately $45,000 of capital improvements at Landmark Apartments, consisting
primarily of floor covering and wall covering replacements and plumbing
upgrades. These improvements were funded from the property's operating cash flow
and replacement reserves. The Partnership evaluates the capital improvement
needs of the property during the year and currently expects to complete an
additional $131,000 in capital improvements during the remainder of 2003. The
additional capital improvements will consist primarily of floor covering, HVAC
and roofing replacements, exterior painting, and other building 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 and replacement reserves.
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 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 encumbering Deer Creek Apartments of approximately $13,219,000 is
amortized over 20 years and matures on July 1, 2021 at which time it is
scheduled to be fully amortized. The mortgage indebtedness encumbering
Georgetown and Landmark Apartments of approximately $11,112,000, net of
discount, is amortized over periods ranging from 29 to 30 years with balloon
payments of approximately $11,033,000 due in October and November 2003. The
Managing General Partner intends to refinance the mortgages encumbering
Georgetown and Landmark Apartments and/or sell the properties prior to such
maturity date. If the properties cannot be refinanced or sold for a sufficient
amount, the Partnership may risk losing such properties through foreclosure.
The Partnership distributed the following amounts during the three months ended
March 31, 2003 and 2002 (in thousands, except per unit data):
Three Months Per Limited Three Months Per Limited
Ended Partnership Ended Partnership
March 31, 2003 Unit March 31, 2002 Unit
Operations $ 208 $ 2.06 $ -- $ --
Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of cash generated from
operations, the availability of cash reserves and the timing of debt maturities,
refinancings and/or property sales. 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 additional distributions to its partners
during the remainder of 2003 or subsequent periods.
Other
In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the
Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 61,754 limited partnership units
(the "Units") in the Partnership representing 61.89% 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 61.89% 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
Investment properties are recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation,
unless considered impaired. If events or circumstances indicate that the
carrying amount of a property may be impaired, the Partnership will make an
assessment of its recoverability by estimating the undiscounted future cash
flows, excluding interest charges, of the property. If the carrying amount
exceeds the aggregate future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an
impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the
property.
Real property investments are subject to varying degrees of risk. Several
factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the
Partnership's investment properties. 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 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 4. 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 5. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K
a) Exhibits:
Exhibit 3.1, Amendment Agreement of Limited Partnership of the
Partnership dated October 12, 1982 filed on Form 10K 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 filed during the quarter ended March 31,
2003:
None.
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. II
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 15, 2003
CERTIFICATION
I, Patrick J. Foye, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Income
Properties Ltd. II;
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 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. II;
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 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. II (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.