UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
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 September 30, 2005
[ ] TRANSITION REPORT UNDER SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT
For the transition period from _________to _________
Commission file number 0-9704
ANGELES PARTNERS IX
(Exact name of small business issuer as specified in its charter)
California 95-3417137
(State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) Identification No.)
55 Beattie Place, P.O. Box 1089
Greenville, South Carolina 29602
(Address of principal executive offices)
(864) 239-1000
(Issuer's telephone number)
Check whether the issuer (1) 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 ___
Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in
Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act) Yes __ No X_
PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION
ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
ANGELES PARTNERS IX
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
September 30, 2005
Assets
Cash and cash equivalents $ 132
Receivables 5
137
Liabilities
Other liabilities 42
Estimated costs during the period of liquidation 50
92
Net assets in liquidation $ 45
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES PARTNERS IX
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CHANGES IN NET ASSETS IN LIQUIDATION
(Unaudited)
(in thousands)
For The Nine
Months Ended
September 30,
2005 2004
Net assets in liquidation at beginning of period $ 83 $ 2,878
Changes in net assets in liquidation attributed to:
Decrease in cash and cash equivalents (50) (2,083)
Increase (decrease) in receivables and deposits 5 (247)
Decrease in due from affiliates -- (656)
Decrease in accounts payable -- 27
Decrease in other liabilities 17 163
(Increase) decrease in estimated costs during the
period of liquidation (10) 17
Net assets in liquidation at end of period $ 45 $ 99
See Accompanying Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
ANGELES PARTNERS IX
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
(Unaudited)
Note A - Basis of Presentation
As of December 31, 2003, Angeles Partners IX (the "Partnership" or "Registrant")
adopted the liquidation basis of accounting due to the sales of its two
remaining investment properties.
As a result of the decision to liquidate the Partnership, the Partnership
changed its basis of accounting for its consolidated financial statements at
December 31, 2003 to the liquidation basis of accounting. Consequently, assets
have been valued at estimated net realizable value and liabilities are presented
at their estimated settlement amounts, including estimated costs associated with
carrying out the liquidation of the Partnership. The valuation of assets and
liabilities necessarily requires many estimates and assumptions and there are
substantial uncertainties in carrying out the liquidation. The actual
realization of assets and settlement of liabilities could be higher or lower
than amounts indicated and is based upon the General Partner's best estimates as
of the date of the consolidated financial statements.
The general partner of the partnership, Angeles Realty Corporation (the "General
Partner" or "ARC") a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company
("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust, estimates that the
liquidation process will be completed by December 31, 2006. Because the success
in realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities, including
liabilities related to the legal cases disclosed in "Note C - Contingencies", is
based on the General Partner's best estimates, the liquidation period may be
shorter than projected or it may be extended beyond the projected date of
liquidation.
Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties
The Partnership has no employees and depends on the General Partner and its
affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities.
The Partnership Agreement provides for certain payments to affiliates for
services and reimbursement of certain expenses incurred by affiliates on behalf
of the Partnership.
Affiliates of the General Partner charged the Partnership for reimbursement of
accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $14,000 for the
nine months ended September 30, 2004. No such reimbursements were charged by
affiliates of the General Partner for the nine months ended September 30, 2005.
In connection with the sales of Rosemont Crossing Apartments and Panorama
Terrace Apartments during 2001, the General Partner earned commissions of 3% of
the selling price, or approximately $154,000 and $217,000, respectively. In
connection with the sale of The Pines of Northwest Crossing Apartments in July
2000, the General Partner earned a commission of 3% of the selling price or
$285,000. These fees are subordinate to the limited partners receiving a
preferred return, as specified in the Partnership Agreement. During the year
ended December 31, 2001, the Partnership paid all of these fees. The limited
partners will not receive their preferred return when the Partnership
terminates. As a result, the General Partner returned these amounts to the
Partnership during the nine months ended September 30, 2004.
Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner is entitled to a fee
for executive and administrative management services equal to 5% of "net cash
from operations". During the year ended December 31, 2004, the Partnership paid
approximately $7,000 to the General Partner for executive and administrative
services which were owed at December 31, 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 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.
On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the
trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for
cause on October 17, 2005. On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion
to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take
discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives
and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.
On October 27, 2005, the Court denied Objector's peremptory challenge and struck
Objector's motion to disqualify for cause. No hearing has been set on Objector's
remaining motions. On November 3, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a writ of
mandate to the Court of Appeals challenging the court's October 27, 2005 order.
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.
AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the 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, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 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. In June 2005 the Court
conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime
issues, which allows the 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,
and AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHPMN will have the opportunity to move to
decertify the collective action. Because the court denied plaintiffs' motion to
certify state subclasses, on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class
action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra
Costa County). 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 General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will
have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's consolidated financial
condition.
The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation
matters involving it that are not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary
course of business.
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
General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material
adverse effect on the Partnership's consolidated financial condition.
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; 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.
As of December 31, 2003, the Partnership adopted the liquidation basis of
accounting, due to the sales of its two remaining investment properties.
As a result of the decision to liquidate the Partnership, the Partnership
changed its basis of accounting for its consolidated financial statements at
December 31, 2003 to the liquidation basis of accounting. Consequently, assets
have been valued at estimated net realizable value and liabilities are presented
at their estimated settlement amounts, including estimated costs associated with
carrying out the liquidation of the Partnership. The valuation of assets and
liabilities necessarily requires many estimates and assumptions and there are
substantial uncertainties in carrying out the liquidation. The actual
realization of assets and settlement of liabilities could be higher or lower
than amounts indicated and is based upon estimates of the General Partner as of
the date of the consolidated financial statements.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2005 net assets in liquidation
decreased by approximately $38,000. The decrease in net assets in liquidation is
primarily due to a decrease in cash and cash equivalents and an increase in
estimated costs during the period of liquidation, partially offset by a decrease
in other liabilities and an increase in receivables and deposits. The decreases
in other liabilities and cash and cash equivalents are both due primarily to the
payment of the Partnership's annual audit and tax invoices. The increase in
estimated costs during the period of liquidation is the result of a longer
liquidation period as of September 30, 2005 as compared to December 31, 2004.
The increase in receivables and deposits is due to the payment of nonresident
withholding taxes on behalf of the limited partners.
During the nine months ended September 30, 2004, net assets in liquidation
decreased by approximately $2,779,000. The decrease in net assets in liquidation
is primarily due to decreases in cash and cash equivalents, due from affiliates,
and receivables and deposits, partially offset by a decrease in other
liabilities. The decreases in cash and cash equivalents and due from affiliates
are primarily the result of distributions of approximately $2,858,000 made to
the partners from proceeds from the sales of Forest River Apartments and Village
Green Apartments and sale commissions previously paid which were returned to the
Partnership. The decrease in receivables and deposits is primarily due to the
recoupment of nonresident withholding previously paid on behalf of the limited
partners. The decrease in other liabilities is primarily due to a decrease in
the estimate established for liabilities related to the sales of Village Green
Apartments and Forest River Apartments.
The statement of net assets in liquidation as of September 30, 2005 includes
approximately $50,000 of costs that the General Partner estimates will be
incurred during the period of liquidation, based on the assumption that the
liquidation process will be completed by December 31, 2006. Because the success
in realization of assets and the settlement of liabilities, including
liabilities related to the legal cases discussed in "Item 1. Financial
Statements - Note C - Contingencies" to the consolidated financial statements,
is based on the General Partner's best estimates, the liquidation period may be
shorter than projected or extended beyond December 31, 2006, the projected date
of liquidation.
The Partnership distributed the following amounts during the nine months ended
September 30, 2005 and 2004 (in thousands, except per unit data):
Nine Months Per Nine Months Per
Ended Limited Ended Limited
September 30, Partnership September 30, Partnership
2005 Unit 2004 Unit
Sale proceeds (1) $ -- $ -- $2,842 $140.83
Other (2) -- -- 16 --
Total $ -- $ -- $2,858 $140.83
(1) From the sale of Forest River Apartments in December 2003, the sale of
Village Green Apartments in November 2003, and sale commissions previously
paid (as discussed in "Item 1. Financial Statements - Note B -
Transactions with Affiliated Parties") which were returned to the
Partnership.
(2) Distribution to the General Partner of the majority-owned sub-tier limited
partnership in connection with the transfer of funds from the
majority-owned sub-tier limited Partnership to the Partnership.
Other
In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the
Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 13,501 limited partnership units
(the "Units") in the Partnership representing 67.59% of the outstanding Units at
September 30, 2005. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender
offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. 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 67.59% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO
and its affiliates are in a position to control all voting decisions with
respect to the Partnership. Although the General Partner owes fiduciary duties
to the limited partners of the Partnership, the General Partner also owes
fiduciary duties to AIMCO as its sole stockholder. As a result, the duties of
the General Partner, as general partner, to the Partnership and its limited
partners may come into conflict with the duties of the General Partner to AIMCO
as its sole stockholder.
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 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.
On August 18, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a motion to disqualify the
trial court based on a peremptory challenge and filed a motion to disqualify for
cause on October 17, 2005. On or about October 13, 2005 Objector filed a motion
to intervene and on or about October 19, 2005 filed both a motion to take
discovery relating to the adequacy of plaintiffs as derivative representatives
and a motion to dissolve the anti-suit injunction in connection with settlement.
On October 27, 2005, the Court denied Objector's peremptory challenge and struck
Objector's motion to disqualify for cause. No hearing has been set on Objector's
remaining motions. On November 3, 2005, Objector and his counsel filed a writ of
mandate to the Court of Appeals challenging the court's October 27, 2005 order.
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.
AIMCO Properties L.P. and NHP Management Company, both affiliates of the 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, filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia, 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. In June 2005 the Court
conditionally certified the collective action on both the on-call and overtime
issues, which allows the 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,
and AIMCO Properties, L.P. and NHPMN will have the opportunity to move to
decertify the collective action. Because the court denied plaintiffs' motion to
certify state subclasses, on September 26, 2005, the plaintiffs filed a class
action with the same allegations in the Superior Court of California (Contra
Costa County). 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 General Partner does not believe that the ultimate outcome will
have a material adverse effect on the Partnership's consolidated financial
condition.
ITEM 5. OTHER INFORMATION
None.
ITEM 6. EXHIBITS
See Exhibit Index.
SIGNATURES
In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Act, the Registrant caused
this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly
authorized.
ANGELES PARTNERS IX
By: Angeles Realty Corporation
General Partner
By: /s/Martha L. Long
Martha L. Long
Senior Vice President
By: /s/Stephen B. Waters
Stephen B. Waters
Vice President
Date: November 14, 2005
ANGELES PARTNERS IX
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit Number Description of Exhibit
3.1 Amended Certificate and Agreement of the Limited Partnership
filed in Form S-11 dated December 24, 1984 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
IX;
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: November 14, 2005
/s/Martha L. Long
Martha L. Long
Senior Vice President of Angeles Realty
Corporation, 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
IX;
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: November 14, 2005
/s/Stephen B. Waters
Stephen B. Waters
Vice President of Angeles Realty
Corporation, 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 IX
(the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended September 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: November 14, 2005
/s/Stephen B. Waters
Name: Stephen B. Waters
Date: November 14, 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.