UNITED STATES SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-QSB (Mark One) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 [ ] TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT For the transition period from _________to _________ Commission file number 0-11766 ANGELES PARTNERS XI (Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter) California 95-3788040 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089 Greenville, South Carolina 29602 (Address of principal executive offices) (864) 239-1000 (Issuer's telephone number) Check whether the issuer (i) filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act during the past 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No ___ PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 1. Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data) June 30, 2005 Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 285 Receivables and deposits 403 Restricted escrows 625 Other assets 682 Investment property: Land $ 3,998 Buildings and related personal property 35,204 39,202 Less accumulated depreciation (29,559) 9,643 $ 11,638 Liabilities and Partners' Deficit Liabilities Accounts payable $ 210 Tenant security deposit liabilities 264 Due to affiliates (Note B) 617 Other liabilities 269 Mortgage note payable 31,733 Partners' Deficit General partners $ (532) Limited partners (39,627 units issued and outstanding) (20,923) (21,455) $ 11,638 See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) (in thousands, except per unit data) Three Months Ended Six Months Ended June 30, June 30, 2005 2004 2005 2004 Revenues: Rental income $ 1,935 $ 1,901 $ 3,873 $ 3,807 Other income 241 269 469 511 Total revenues 2,176 2,170 4,342 4,318 Expenses: Operating 647 655 1,430 1,322 General and administrative 104 120 201 234 Depreciation 381 349 755 694 Interest 549 558 1,098 1,122 Property taxes 143 276 451 552 Total expenses 1,824 1,958 3,935 3,924 Net income $ 352 $ 212 $ 407 $ 394 Net income allocated to general partners (1%) $ 4 $ 2 $ 4 $ 4 Net income allocated to limited partners (99%) 348 210 403 390 $ 352 $ 212 $ 407 $ 394 Net income per limited partnership unit $ 8.78 $ 5.30 $ 10.17 $ 9.84 See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data) Limited Partnership General Limited Units Partners Partners Total Original capital contributions 40,000 $ 30 $ 40,000 $ 40,030 Partners' deficit at December 31, 2004 39,627 $ (536) $(21,326) $(21,862) Net income for the six months ended June 30, 2005 -- 4 403 407 Partners' deficit at June 30, 2005 39,627 $ (532) $(20,923) $(21,455) See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (in thousands) Six Months Ended June 30, 2005 2004 Cash flows from operating activities: Net income $ 407 $ 394 Adjustments to reconcile net income to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation 755 694 Amortization of loan costs 8 8 Change in accounts: Receivables and deposits (4) 37 Other assets (152) (205) Accounts payable (22) (26) Tenant security deposit liabilities (9) (32) Due to affiliates 71 (22) Other liabilities (136) (96) Net cash provided by operating activities 918 752 Cash flows used in investing activities: Property improvements and replacements (932) (235) Cash flows from financing activities: Advances from affiliates 523 -- Payments on mortgage note payable (515) (482) Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities 8 (482) Net (decrease) increase in cash and cash equivalents (6) 35 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 291 386 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 285 $ 421 Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information: Cash paid for interest $ 1,083 $ 1,117 Supplemental disclosure of non-cash activity: Property improvements and replacements included in accounts payable $ 199 $ 52 Included in property improvements and replacements for the six months ended June 30, 2005 are approximately $36,000 of improvements which were included in accounts payable at December 31, 2004. See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements ANGELES PARTNERS XI NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) Note A - Basis of Presentation The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of Angeles Partners XI (the "Partnership" or "Registrant") have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-QSB and Item 310(b) of Regulation S-B. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of Angeles Realty Corporation II (the "Managing General Partner"), all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2005, are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2005. 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, 2004. The Managing General Partner is an affiliate of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. Certain reclassifications have been made to the 2004 balances to conform to the 2005 presentation. Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties The Partnership has no employees and depends on the Managing General Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities. The Partnership Agreement provides for (i) certain payments to affiliates for services and (ii) reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf of the Partnership. Affiliates of the Managing General Partner receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership's property as compensation for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $219,000 and $208,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, which is included in operating expenses. Affiliates of the Managing General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $146,000 and $89,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, respectively, which are included in general and administrative expenses and investment property. Approximately $65,000 of these expenses were payable to the Managing General Partner at June 30, 2005 and are included in due to affiliates. The portion of these reimbursements included in investment property for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 are fees related to construction management services provided by an affiliate of the Managing General Partner of approximately $77,000 and $7,000, respectively. The construction management service fees are calculated based on a percentage of additions to investment property. The Partnership Agreement provides for a fee equal to 7.5% of "net cash flow from operations", as defined in the Partnership Agreement, to be paid to the Managing General Partner for executive and administrative management services. One half of this fee is to be accrued and not paid unless the limited partners have received distributions equal to a 5% cumulative annual return on their adjusted capital investment as defined in the Partnership Agreement. This return criteria has not been met. During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004 no fees were earned or paid. At June 30, 2005, the Partnership has accrued approximately $21,000 of Partnership management fees, representing one half of the fees earned in 2000, 2001 and 2002 which are included in due to affiliates. This amount will remain accrued until the criteria for payment has been met. During the six months ended June 30, 2005, the Managing General Partner advanced the Partnership approximately $523,000 to cover capital improvements and operations at the Partnership's property. Interest was charged at prime plus 2% (8.25% at June 30, 2005) and was approximately $8,000 for the six months ended June 30, 2005. Total advances and accrued interest of approximately $531,000 remain unpaid at June 30, 2005 and are included in due to affiliates. There were no advances from the Managing General Partner or associated interest expense during the six months ended June 30, 2004. The Partnership insures its property up to certain limits through coverage provided by AIMCO which is generally self-insured for a portion of losses and liabilities related to workers compensation, property casualty, general liability and vehicle liability. The Partnership insures its property above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the Managing General Partner. During the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004, the Partnership was charged by AIMCO and its affiliates approximately $100,000 and $97,000, respectively, for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration. 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. 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 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. 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 (the "Appeal") seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees. On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review". With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April 26, 2005, the Court of Appeals lifted the stay of a pending appeal related to the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the complaint. On April 28, 2005, the Objector filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and remanding for further findings. On June 10, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied Objector's Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. The parties intend to ask the trial court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the Court of Appeal's remand order. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the first amended complaint. 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. As previously disclosed, AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the Managing General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they 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. The complaint attempts to bring 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. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call". Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. On June 23, 2005 the Court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues. The Court ruling allows plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the present. Those employees will have the opportunity to opt-in to the collective action. Defendants have asked the Court to reconsider its ruling or in the alternative certify the ruling for appeal on that issue. After the notice goes out, defendants will have the opportunity to move to decertify the collective action. The Court further denied plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of the state subclass. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the Managing 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. 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. Environmental Various Federal, state and local laws subject property owners or operators to liability for management, and the costs of removal or remediation, of certain hazardous substances present on a property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release or presence of the hazardous substances. The presence of, or the failure to manage or remedy properly, hazardous substances may adversely affect occupancy at affected apartment communities and the ability to sell or finance affected properties. In addition to the costs associated with investigation and remediation actions brought by government agencies, and potential fines or penalties imposed by such agencies in connection therewith, the presence of hazardous substances on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also impose liability for the cost of removal, remediation or disposal of hazardous substances through a licensed disposal or treatment facility. Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous substances is potentially liable under such laws. These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of its property, the Partnership could potentially be liable for environmental liabilities or costs associated with its property. Mold The Partnership is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Partnership has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure. Affiliates of the Managing General Partner have implemented a national policy and procedures to prevent or eliminate mold from its properties and the Managing General Partner believes that these measures will minimize the effects that mold could have on residents. To date, the Partnership has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions. Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change the Managing General Partner can make no assurance that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's consolidated financial condition or results of operations. SEC Investigation The Central Regional Office of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") continues its formal investigation relating to certain matters. Although the staff of the SEC is not limited in the areas that it may investigate, AIMCO believes the areas of investigation have included AIMCO's miscalculated monthly net rental income figures in third quarter 2003, forecasted guidance, accounts payable, rent concessions, vendor rebates, capitalization of payroll and certain other costs, tax credit transactions, and tender offers for limited partnership interests. AIMCO is cooperating fully. AIMCO is not able to predict when the investigation will be resolved. AIMCO does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the Managing 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. 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 the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004: Average Occupancy Property 2005 2004 Fox Run Apartments (1) 91% 88% Plainsboro, New Jersey (1) The Managing General Partner attributes the increase in occupancy at Fox Run Apartments to increased marketing efforts. The Partnership's financial results depend upon a number of factors including the ability to attract and maintain tenants at the 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 Managing General Partner monitors the rental market environment of its investment property to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the Managing General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership from the burden of inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a high overall occupancy level. However, the Managing General Partner may use rental concessions and rental rate reductions to offset softening market conditions, accordingly, there is no guarantee that the Managing General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Further, a number of factors that are outside the control of the Partnership such as the local economic climate and weather can adversely or positively affect the Partnership's financial results. Results of Operations The Partnership recognized net income for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 of approximately $352,000 and $407,000, respectively, compared to net income of approximately $212,000 and $394,000 for the three and six months ended June 30, 2004, respectively. Net income increased for the three months ended June 30, 2005 due to an increase in total revenues and a decrease in total expenses. Net income increased for the six months ended June 30, 2005 due to an increase in total revenues partially offset by an increase in total expenses. Total revenues increased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 due to an increase in rental income partially offset by a decrease in other income. Rental income increased due to an increase in occupancy partially offset by a decrease in average rental rates and an increase in bad debt expense at the Partnership's property. Other income decreased primarily due to decreases in recreational facility fees, late charges, and lease cancellation fees at the Partnership's investment property. Total expenses decreased for the three months ended June 30, 2005 due to decreases in property tax, interest and general and administrative expenses, partially offset by an increase in depreciation expenses. Total expenses increased for the six months ended June 30, 2005 due to increases in depreciation and operating expenses partially offset by decreases in property tax, interest and general and administrative expenses. Operating expense for the three months ended June 30, 2005 remained relatively constant. Operating expense increased for the six months ended June 30, 2005 due to an increase in property expense. Property expense increased primarily due to an increase in salaries and related benefits and amortization of commissions and referral fees at the Partnership's property. Depreciation expense increased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 due to property improvements and replacements completed during the past twelve months. Property tax expense decreased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 due to a decrease in the property tax rate in Plainsboro, New Jersey. Interest expense decreased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 due to regularly scheduled mortgage payments which reduced the principal balance of the mortgage debt encumbering the Partnership's property. General and administrative expenses decreased for the three and six months ended June 30, 2005 due to a decrease in New Jersey partnership tax due to a reduction in the number of limited partners on which the tax is based and a reduction in the cost of services included in management reimbursements to the Managing General Partner allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Also included in general and administrative expenses are costs associated with the quarterly and annual communications with investors and regulatory agencies and the annual audit required by the Partnership Agreement. Liquidity and Capital Resources At June 30, 2005 the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $285,000 compared to approximately $421,000 at June 30, 2004. Cash and cash equivalents decreased approximately $6,000 since December 31, 2004 due to approximately $932,000 of cash used in investing activities, partially offset by approximately $8,000 and $918,000 of cash provided by financing and operating activities, respectively. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. Cash provided by financing activities consisted of advances from affiliates partially offset by principal payments on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership's property. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest-bearing accounts. The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital expenditures required at the property to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state, and local legal and regulatory requirements. The Managing General Partner monitors developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance. For example, 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. During the six months ended June 30, 2005, the Partnership completed approximately $1,095,000 of capital improvements at Fox Run Apartments, primarily consisting of water heater and floor covering replacements, security equipment, furniture and fixtures, vehicles, water and sewer upgrades, interior decoration and the installation of washers and dryers in the apartment units. These improvements were funded from operating cash flow and advances from the Managing General Partner. The Partnership regularly evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property. While the Partnership has no material commitments for property improvements and replacements, certain routine capital expenditures are anticipated during 2005. Such capital expenditures will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property. To the extent that capital improvements are completed, the Partnership's distributable cash flow, if any, may be adversely affected at least in the short term. The Partnership's assets are thought to be sufficient for any near-term needs (exclusive of capital improvements) of the Partnership. The mortgage indebtedness encumbering Fox Run Apartments of approximately $31,733,000 is being amortized over 20 years and matures in December 2021, at which time it is expected to be fully amortized. The Partnership had no distributions for the six months ended June 30, 2005 and 2004. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations, sale of the property and/or refinancing. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. There can be no assurance that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after required capital improvement expenditures, to permit distributions to its partners in 2005 or subsequent periods. Other In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 28,311 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 71.44% of the outstanding Units at June 30, 2005. 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 Managing General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 71.44% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO and its affiliates are in a position to control all voting decisions with respect to the Partnership. Although the Managing General Partner owes fiduciary duties to the limited partners of the Partnership, the Managing General Partner also owes fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of the Managing General Partner, as managing general partner, to the Partnership and its limited partners may come into conflict with the duties of the Managing General Partner to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates The consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States, which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets The investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless considered impaired. If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the property may be impaired, the Partnership will make an assessment of its recoverability by estimating the undiscounted future cash flows, excluding interest charges, of the property. If the carrying amount exceeds the aggregate future cash flows, the Partnership would recognize an impairment loss to the extent the carrying amount exceeds the fair value of the property. Real property investments are subject to varying degrees of risk. Several factors may adversely affect the economic performance and value of the Partnership's investment property. These factors include, but are not limited to, changes in national, regional and local economic climate; local conditions, such as an oversupply of multifamily properties; competition from other available multifamily property owners and changes in market rental rates. Any adverse changes in these factors could cause impairment of the Partnership's asset. Revenue Recognition The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less. The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area. Rental income attributable to leases, net of any concessions, is recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the lease. 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. 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 Managing 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 captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action. 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 28, 2002, the trial court granted defendants motion to strike the complaint. Plaintiffs took an appeal from this order. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action. 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 (the "Appeal") seeking to vacate and/or reverse the order approving the settlement and entering judgment thereto. On May 4, 2004, the Objector filed a second appeal challenging the court's use of a referee and its order requiring Objector to pay those fees. On March 21, 2005, the Court of Appeals issued opinions in both pending appeals. With regard to the settlement and judgment entered thereto, the Court of Appeals vacated the trial court's order and remanded to the trial court for further findings on the basis that the "state of the record is insufficient to permit meaningful appellate review". With regard to the second appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the order requiring the Objector to pay referee fees. On April 26, 2005, the Court of Appeals lifted the stay of a pending appeal related to the Heller action and the trial court's order striking the complaint. On April 28, 2005, the Objector filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court in connection with the opinion vacating the order approving settlement and remanding for further findings. On June 10, 2005, the California Supreme Court denied Objector's Petition for Review and the Court of Appeals sent the matter back to the trial court on June 21, 2005. The parties intend to ask the trial court to make further findings in connection with settlement consistent with the Court of Appeal's remand order. With respect to the related Heller appeal, on July 28, 2005, the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's order striking the first amended complaint. 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. As previously disclosed, AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the Managing General Partner, are defendants in a lawsuit alleging that they 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. The complaint attempts to bring 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. and NHP Management Company failed to compensate maintenance workers for time that they were required to be "on-call". Additionally, the complaint alleges AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company failed to comply with the FLSA in compensating maintenance workers for time that they worked in excess of 40 hours in a week. On June 23, 2005 the Court conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime issues. The Court ruling allows plaintiffs to provide notice of the collective action to all non-exempt maintenance workers from August 7, 2000 through the present. Those employees will have the opportunity to opt-in to the collective action. Defendants have asked the Court to reconsider its ruling or in the alternative certify the ruling for appeal on that issue. After the notice goes out, defendants will have the opportunity to move to decertify the collective action. The Court further denied plaintiffs' Motion for Certification of the state subclass. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, AIMCO Properties, L.P. does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial condition or results of operations. Similarly, the Managing 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. Item 5. Other Information None. Item 6. Exhibits See Exhibit Index Attached. SIGNATURES In accordance with Section 13 or 15(d) of the Exchange Act, the Registrant has caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. ANGELES PARTNERS XI (A California Limited Partnership) (Registrant) By: Angeles Realty Corporation II Managing General Partner By: /s/Martha L. Long Martha L. Long Senior Vice President By: /s/Stephen B. Waters Stephen B. Waters Vice President Date: August 15, 2005 ANGELES PARTNERS XI EXHIBIT INDEX Exhibit Number Description of Exhibit 3.1 Amended Agreement of Limited Partnership dated February 26, 1982, filed in Form 10-K dated November 30, 1983, incorporated herein by reference. 10.13 Promissory Note between New York Life Insurance, a New York mutual insurance company and Fox Run AP XI, LP., a South Carolina limited partnership dated December 5, 2001, filed as exhibit 10.13 to the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB dated March 25, 2002, incorporated herein by reference. 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. 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. 32.1 Certification of the equivalent of the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION I, Martha L. Long, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners XI; 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 15, 2005 /s/Martha L. Long Martha L. Long Senior Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation II, equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION I, Stephen B. Waters, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Angeles Partners XI; 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The small business issuer'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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer'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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting. Date: August 15, 2005 /s/Stephen B. Waters Stephen B. Waters Vice President of Angeles Realty Corporation II, 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 Angeles Partners XI (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2005 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 Stephen B. Waters, 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: August 15, 2005 /s/Stephen B. Waters Name: Stephen B. Waters Date: August 15, 2005 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.