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, 2004
[ ] 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 0-16684
MULTI-BENEFIT REALTY FUND '87-1
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
California 94-3026785
(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
MULTI-BENEFIT REALTY FUND '87-1
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
March 31, 2004
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 320
Receivables and deposits 134
Other assets 158
Investment property:
Land $ 485
Buildings and related personal property 7,545
8,030
Less accumulated depreciation (5,727) 2,303
$ 2,915
Liabilities and Partners' (Deficiency) Capital
Liabilities
Accounts payable $ 94
Tenant security deposit liabilities 37
Accrued property taxes 199
Other liabilities 204
Mortgage note payable 3,582
Partners' (Deficiency) Capital
General Partner $ (76)
Limited Partner "A" Unit holders -
96,284 units issued and outstanding (8,227)
Limited Partner "B" Unit holders -
75,152 units issued and outstanding 7,102 (1,201)
$ 2,915
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
MULTI-BENEFIT REALTY FUND '87-1
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except per unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2004 2003
(Restated)
Revenues:
Rental income $ 309 $ 313
Other income 54 45
Total revenues 363 358
Expenses:
Operating 205 207
General and administrative 28 46
Depreciation 97 98
Interest 75 77
Property taxes 39 58
Total expenses 444 486
Loss from continuing operations (81) (128)
Income from discontinued operations -- 24
Net loss $ (81) $ (104)
Net loss allocated to general partner (1%) $ (1) $ (1)
Net loss allocated to limited partners (99%) (80) (103)
$ (81) $ (104)
Per limited partnership unit:
Loss from continuing operations $(0.47) $(0.74)
Income from discontinued operations -- 0.14
Net loss per limited partnership "A" and "B" units $(0.47) $(0.60)
Distributions per limited partnership "A" units $ -- $ 1.12
Distributions per limited partnership "B" units $ -- $ --
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
MULTI-BENEFIT REALTY FUND '87-1
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' (DEFICIENCY) CAPITAL
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Total
Partners'
General Limited Partners (Deficiency)
Partner "A" Units "B" Units Capital
Original capital contributions $ 1 $ 9,706 $ 7,538 $ 17,245
Limited partnership units at
December 31, 2003 and
March 31, 2004 -- 96,284 75,152 171,436
Partners' (deficiency) capital
at December 31, 2003 $ (75) $(8,182) $ 7,137 $ (1,120)
Net loss for the three months
ended March 31, 2004 (1) (45) (35) (81)
Partners' (deficiency) capital
at March 31, 2004 $ (76) $(8,227) $ 7,102 $ (1,201)
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
MULTI-BENEFIT REALTY FUND '87-1
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
(Unaudited)
(in thousands, except unit data)
Three Months Ended
March 31,
2004 2003
Cash flows from operating activities:
Net loss $ (81) $ (104)
Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided
by operating activities:
Depreciation 97 213
Amortization of loan costs 3 6
Change in accounts:
Receivables and deposits (71) 36
Other assets (13) (30)
Accounts payable 54 (3)
Tenant security deposit liabilities (5) 9
Accrued property taxes 41 84
Other liabilities 26 96
Net cash provided by operating activities 51 307
Cash flows used in investing activities:
Property improvements and replacements (8) (56)
Cash flows from financing activities:
Payments on mortgage notes payable (26) (79)
Distributions to partners -- (109)
Net cash used in financing activities (26) (188)
Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 17 63
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 303 219
Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 320 $ 282
Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information:
Cash paid for interest $ 72 $ 225
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
MULTI-BENEFIT REALTY FUND '87-1
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Multi-Benefit
Realty Fund '87-1 (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") have been prepared in
accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial
information and with the instructions to Form 10-QSB and Item 310(b) of
Regulation S-B. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and
footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete
financial statements. In the opinion of ConCap Equities, Inc. (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, 2004, are not necessarily indicative of the
results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2004. 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, 2003. The General Partner is an affiliate of
Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real
estate investment trust.
The accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2003 has been restated as of January 1, 2003 to reflect the operations
of Shadow Brook Apartments which was sold October 28, 2003, as income from
discontinued operations, in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived
Assets".
Limited Partnership Units
The Partnership has issued two classes of Units of Depositary Receipts
("Units"), "A" Units and "B" Units. The two classes of Units are entitled to
different rights and priorities as to cash distributions and Partnership
allocations. The Units represent economic rights attributable to the limited
partnership interests in the Partnership and entitle the holders thereof ("Unit
holders") to participate in certain allocations and distributions of the
Partnership.
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.
The Partnership Agreement provides for (i) payments to affiliates for services
and (ii) reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of
the Partnership.
Affiliates of the General Partner are entitled to receive 5% of gross receipts
from both of the Partnership's properties as compensation for providing property
management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately
$18,000 and $43,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003,
respectively, which is included in operating expenses and income from
discontinued operations.
An affiliate of the General Partner received reimbursements of accountable
administrative expenses amounting to approximately $15,000 and $25,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003, respectively, which is included in
general and administrative expenses.
The Partnership Agreement provides for a fee equal to 9% of distributable cash
from operations (as defined in the Partnership Agreement) received by the
limited partners to be paid to the General Partner for executive and
administrative management services. Fees of approximately $10,000 were paid for
the three months ended March 31, 2003 in association with operating
distributions and are included in general and administrative expenses. There
were no such fees paid during the three months ended March 31, 2004.
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 General
Partner. During 2004, the Partnership anticipates its cost for insurance
coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration provided by AIMCO
and its affiliates will be approximately $12,000. The Partnership was charged
approximately $42,000 for 2003.
Note C - Contingencies
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 purported to
assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on
behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that 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 that 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 sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial
dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, 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 Heller
action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for,
among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution.
On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed
settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action.
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 at least
one round of tender offers 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 provided 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.
On June 13, 2003, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered
judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector
("Objector") filed an appeal seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order
approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On November 24, 2003,
the Objector filed an application requesting the Court order AIMCO to withdraw
settlement tender offers it had commenced, refrain from making further offers
pending the appeal and auction any units tendered to third parties, contending
that the offers did not conform with the terms of the Settlement. Counsel for
the Objector (on behalf of another investor) had alternatively requested the
Court take certain action purportedly to enforce the terms of the settlement
agreement. On December 18, 2003, the Court heard oral argument on the motions
and denied them both in their entirety. On January 28, 2004, Objector filed his
opening brief in his pending appeal. On April 23, 2004, the General Partner and
its affiliates filed a response brief in support of the settlement and the
judgment thereto. Plaintiffs have also filed a brief in support of the
settlement. Objector is scheduled to file a reply brief no later than May 13,
2004.
On August 8, 2003 AIMCO Properties L.P., an affiliate of the General Partner,
was served with a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of
Columbia alleging that AIMCO Properties L.P. willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all
hours worked in excess of forty per week. On March 5, 2004 Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint also naming NHP Management Company, which is also an affiliate
of the General Partner. The Complaint is styled as a Collective Action under the
FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the
District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties
L.P. failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required
to be "on-call". Additionally, the Complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P.
failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that
they worked in responding to a call while "on-call". The Defendants have filed
an answer to the Amended Complaint denying the substantive allegations.
Discovery is currently underway.
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
matters involving it or its investment property that are not of a routine nature
arising in the ordinary course of business.
Pursuant to a formal order of investigation received by AIMCO on March 29, 2004,
the Central Regional Office of the United States Securities and Exchange
Commission is conducting an investigation relating to certain matters. AIMCO
believes the areas of investigation include AIMCO's miscalculated monthly net
rental income figures in third quarter 2003, forecasted guidance, accounts
payable, rent concessions, vendor rebates, and capitalization of expenses and
payroll. AIMCO is cooperating fully. AIMCO does not believe that the ultimate
outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial
condition or results of operations taken as a whole. Similarly, the General
Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse
effect on the Partnership's consolidated financial condition or results of
operations taken as a whole.
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. 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; litigation, including costs associated with prosecuting and
defending claims and any adverse outcomes, 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 months ended March 31, 2004 and 2003:
Average Occupancy
Property 2004 2003
Hunt Club Apartments 92% 91%
Indianapolis, Indiana
The Partnership's financial results are dependent upon a number of factors
including the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the Partnership's
remaining investment property, interest rates on mortgage loans, costs incurred
to operate the investment property, general economic conditions and weather. 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, the General Partner may use rental
concessions and rental rate reductions to offset softening market conditions,
accordingly, there is no guarantee that the General Partner will be able to
sustain such a plan. Further, a number of factors which are outside the control
of the Partnership such as the local economic climate and weather can adversely
or positively impact the Partnership's financial results.
Results of Operations
The Partnership had a net loss of approximately $81,000 for the three months
ended March 31, 2004 as compared to a net loss of approximately $104,000 for the
three months ended March 31, 2003. The decrease in net loss is due to a decrease
in total expenses partially offset by a decrease in income from discontinued
operations. Total revenues remained relatively constant for the comparable
periods.
The accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2003 has been restated as of January 1, 2003 to reflect the operations
of Shadow Brook Apartments which was sold October 28, 2003, as income from
discontinued operations, in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting
Standards No. 144, "Accounting for the Impairment or Disposal of Long-Lived
Assets". The results of the property's operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2003 are included in income from discontinued operations of
approximately $24,000 which includes revenues of approximately $512,000.
The Partnership's loss from continuing operations for the three months ended
March 31, 2004 was approximately $81,000, as compared to a loss from continuing
operations of approximately $128,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003.
The decrease in loss from continuing operations is due to a decrease in total
expenses. Total revenues remained relatively constant for the comparable
periods.
Total expenses from continuing operations for the three months ended March 31,
2004 decreased primarily due to decreases in general and administrative and
property tax expenses. Depreciation, operating and interest expenses remained
relatively constant for the comparable periods. Property tax expense decreased
due to the Partnership's appeal of the reassessed value of Hunt Club Apartments
by the taxing authorities. During 2003, the state of Indiana implemented a
reassessment of property tax values. The Partnership is currently appealing the
reassessed property tax value of Hunt Club Apartments. In the state of Indiana
property tax bills are paid one year in arrears. Thus, the 2003 property tax
bills are received and paid in 2004. Due to the Partnership's appeal of the
reassessed property value, the property tax accrual for 2004 and, in certain
situations, the remaining liability for the 2002 and 2003 property tax bills is
based on the property tax value as estimated by a third party property tax
specialist. If the Partnership is unsuccessful in its appeal, it could
potentially be liable for up to approximately $74,000 of additional property
taxes related to the 2002, 2003 and the first quarter of 2004 tax years. The
Partnership believes that the recorded liability is its best estimate of the
amounts ultimately to be paid for Indiana property taxes.
General and administrative expenses decreased for the three months ended March
31, 2004 primarily due to reduced costs of services included in the management
reimbursements paid to an affiliate of the General Partner as allowed under the
Partnership Agreement and decreased fees paid to the General Partner in
connection with distributions made from operations. 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.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
At March 31, 2004, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of
approximately $320,000 as compared to approximately $282,000 at March 31, 2003.
Cash and cash equivalents increased approximately $17,000 from December 31, 2003
due to approximately $51,000 of cash provided by operating activities partially
offset by approximately $26,000 and $8,000 of cash used in financing and
investing activities, respectively. Cash used in financing activities consisted
of principal payments made on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership's
property. 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 Partnership's remaining 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 remaining property are detailed
below.
Hunt Club
During the three months ended March 31, 2004, the Partnership completed
approximately $8,000 of capital improvements at Hunt Club Apartments, consisting
primarily of floor covering replacements and structural improvements. These
improvements were funded from operating cash flow. The Partnership evaluates the
capital improvement needs of the property during the year and currently expects
to complete an additional $102,000 in capital improvements during the remainder
of 2004. Additional capital improvements may be considered and will depend on
the physical condition of the property as well as the anticipated cash flow
generated by the property.
The Partnership's assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term needs
(exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage
indebtedness encumbering Hunt Club Apartments of approximately $3,582,000 is
amortized over 20 years and matures September 1, 2020 at which time the loan is
scheduled to be fully amortized.
The Partnership distributed the following amounts during the three months ended
March 31, 2004 and 2003 (in thousands, except per unit data):
Three Months Per Limited Three Months Per Limited
Ended Partnership Ended Partnership
March 31, 2004 Unit March 31, 2003 Unit
Operations $ -- $ -- $ 109 $ 1.12
Upon distribution of sale proceeds from the sale of Carlin Manor during the year
ended December 31, 2000, the "A" Unit holders did not receive the correct
priority return. As a result, as of December 31, 2002, the "B" Unit holders had
received excess distributions of approximately $1,328,000 (approximately $17.67
per "B" Unit). Approximately $1,303,000 of this amount was due to the "A" Unit
holders (approximately $13.53 per "A" Unit) and approximately $25,000 was due to
the General Partner. All future distributions payable to the "B" Unit holders
were to be paid to the "A" Unit holders until the "A" Unit holders received the
correct priority return. Accordingly, the limited partner portion of the
distribution during the three months ended March 31, 2003 was approximately
$108,000 to the "A" unit holders or $1.12 per limited partnership unit and zero
to "B" unit holders. During the year ended December 31, 2003, the Partnership
distributed approximately $5,884,000 of sale proceeds from the sale of Shadow
Brook Apartments and approximately $339,000 from operations. Due to the prior
overpayment to "B" unit holders, the "A" unit holders received approximately
$1,303,000 and the General Partner received approximately $25,000 of funds that
otherwise would have been paid to the "B" unit holders during 2003. There were
no distributions made during the three months ended March 31, 2004.
Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from
operations, the availability of cash reserves, and the timing of the debt
maturity, refinancing, and/or property sale. The Partnership's cash available
for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. There can be no assurance,
however, that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations
after required capital expenditures to permit distributions to its partners in
2004 or subsequent periods.
Other
In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interest in the
Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 63,163 "A" and 40,101 "B" Units of
Depository Receipts ("Units") in the Partnership representing 65.60% and 53.36%
of the outstanding "A" and "B" Units, respectively, at March 31, 2004. 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 in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in AIMCO
Properties, L.P., the operating partnership of AIMCO, either through private
purchases or tender offers. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, unitholders
holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a
variety of matters that include, but are not limited to, voting on certain
amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General
Partner. As a result of its ownership of 65.60% and 53.36% of the outstanding
"A" and "B" Units, respectively, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to
control all such voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the
General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the
Partnership, the General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole
stockholder. As a result, the duties of the General Partner, as general partner,
to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the
duties of the General Partner to AIMCO, as its sole stockholder.
Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates
The consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting
principles generally accepted in the United States which require the Partnership
to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its
significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of
judgment and complexity.
Impairment of Long-Lived Assets
Investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless
considered impaired. If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying
amount of a property may be impaired, the Partnership will make an assessment of
its recoverability by estimating the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding
interest charges, of the property. If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate
future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the
extent the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the property.
Real property investments are subject to varying degrees of risk. Several
factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the
Partnership's investment property. These factors include, but are not limited
to, 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 of the
Partnership's asset.
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. The
Partnership evaluates all accounts receivable from residents and establishes an
allowance, after the application of security deposits, for accounts greater than
30 days past due on current tenants and all receivables due from former tenants.
The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or
in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area. Any
concessions given at the inception of the lease are amortized over the life of
the lease.
ITEM 3. CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES
(a) Disclosure Controls and Procedures. The Partnership's management, with the
participation of 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, has evaluated
the effectiveness of the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures (as
such term is defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act")) as of the end of the
period covered by this report. Based on such evaluation, 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 concluded that, as of the end of such
period, the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures are effective.
(b) Internal Control Over Financial Reporting. There have not been any changes
in the Partnership's internal control over financial reporting (as such term is
defined in Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f) under the Exchange Act) during the
fiscal quarter to which this report relates that have materially affected, or
are reasonably likely to materially affect, the Partnership's internal control
over financial reporting.
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 purported to
assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on
behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) that 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 that 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 sought monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial
dissolution of the Partnership. In addition, 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 Heller
action was brought as a purported derivative action, and asserted claims for,
among other things, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair competition, conversion,
unjust enrichment, and judicial dissolution.
On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed
settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action.
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 at least
one round of tender offers 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 provided 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.
On June 13, 2003, the Court granted final approval of the settlement and entered
judgment in both the Nuanes and Heller actions. On August 12, 2003, an objector
("Objector") filed an appeal seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order
approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On November 24, 2003,
the Objector filed an application requesting the Court order AIMCO to withdraw
settlement tender offers it had commenced, refrain from making further offers
pending the appeal and auction any units tendered to third parties, contending
that the offers did not conform with the terms of the Settlement. Counsel for
the Objector (on behalf of another investor) had alternatively requested the
Court take certain action purportedly to enforce the terms of the settlement
agreement. On December 18, 2003, the Court heard oral argument on the motions
and denied them both in their entirety. On January 28, 2004, Objector filed his
opening brief in his pending appeal. On April 23, 2004, the General Partner and
its affiliates filed a response brief in support of the settlement and the
judgment thereto. Plaintiffs have also filed a brief in support of the
settlement. Objector is scheduled to file a reply brief no later than May 13,
2004.
On August 8, 2003 AIMCO Properties L.P., an affiliate of the General Partner,
was served with a Complaint in the United States District Court, District of
Columbia alleging that AIMCO Properties L.P. willfully violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA) by failing to pay maintenance workers overtime for all
hours worked in excess of forty per week. On March 5, 2004 Plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint also naming NHP Management Company, which is also an affiliate
of the General Partner. The Complaint is styled as a Collective Action under the
FLSA and seeks to certify state subclasses in California, Maryland, and the
District of Columbia. Specifically, the plaintiffs contend that AIMCO Properties
L.P. failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required
to be "on-call". Additionally, the Complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P.
failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that
they worked in responding to a call while "on-call". The Defendants have filed
an answer to the Amended Complaint denying the substantive allegations.
Discovery is currently underway.
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:
Exhibit 3.1, Agreement of Limited Partnership, incorporated by
reference to Exhibit A-5 to the Prospectus of the Registrant
dated December 10, 1986 as filed with the Commission pursuant
to Rule 424(b) under the Act.
Exhibit 3.2, Certificate of Limited Partnership (incorporated
by reference to Registration Statement of Registrant (File No.
3-38908) filed December 10, 1986, as amended to date).
Exhibit 31.1, Certification of equivalent of Chief Executive
Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 31.2, Certification of equivalent of Chief Financial
Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rules
13a-14(a)/15d-14(a), as Adopted Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
Exhibit 32.1, 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,
2004:
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.
MULTI-BENEFIT REALTY FUND '87-1
By: CONCAP EQUITIES, INC.
General Partner
By: /s/Martha L. Long
Martha L. Long
Senior Vice President
By: /s/Thomas M. Herzog
Thomas M. Herzog
Senior Vice President
and Chief Accounting Officer
Date: May 13, 2004
Exhibit 31.1
CERTIFICATION
I, Martha L. Long, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Multi-Benefit
Realty Fund '87-1;
2. Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2004
/s/Martha L. Long
Martha L. Long
Senior Vice President of ConCap
Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief
executive officer of the Partnership
Exhibit 31.2
CERTIFICATION
I, Thomas M. Herzog, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Multi-Benefit
Realty Fund '87-1;
2. Based on my knowledge, this 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
report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this 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 report;
4. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant
and have:
(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, 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 report is being prepared;
(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about
the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered by this report based on such
evaluation; and
(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
control over financial reporting that occurred during the
registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth
fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and
5. The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design
or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting.
Date: May 13, 2004
/s/Thomas M. Herzog
Thomas M. Herzog
Senior Vice President and Chief
Accounting Officer of ConCap Equities,
Inc., equivalent of the chief financial
officer of the Partnership
Exhibit 32.1
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 Multi-Benefit Realty
Fund '87-1 (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), Martha L. Long, as the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer of
the Partnership, and Thomas M. Herzog, 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/Martha L. Long
Name: Martha L. Long
Date: May 13, 2004
/s/Thomas M. Herzog
Name: Thomas M. Herzog
Date: May 13, 2004
This certification is furnished with this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Partnership for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.