-----BEGIN PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE----- Proc-Type: 2001,MIC-CLEAR Originator-Name: webmaster@www.sec.gov Originator-Key-Asymmetric: MFgwCgYEVQgBAQICAf8DSgAwRwJAW2sNKK9AVtBzYZmr6aGjlWyK3XmZv3dTINen TWSM7vrzLADbmYQaionwg5sDW3P6oaM5D3tdezXMm7z1T+B+twIDAQAB MIC-Info: RSA-MD5,RSA, UaFbqWZPzj8qAh9ArBxb5k8MiCkcd7eDeI8wGQ+1ML1RAoTrQXEFNWnxaiBrshx1 qh43UMlfvDQYbifXZeQe6g== 0000711642-05-000623.txt : 20051114 0000711642-05-000623.hdr.sgml : 20051111 20051114140247 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000711642-05-000623 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 10QSB PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 1 CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 20050930 FILED AS OF DATE: 20051114 DATE AS OF CHANGE: 20051114 FILER: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: ANGELES PARTNERS IX CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000313499 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: OPERATORS OF NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS [6512] IRS NUMBER: 953417136 STATE OF INCORPORATION: CA FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: 10QSB SEC ACT: 1934 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-09704 FILM NUMBER: 051199787 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1873 SOUTH BELLAIRE STREET STREET 2: 17TH FLOOR CITY: DENVER STATE: CO ZIP: 80222 BUSINESS PHONE: 3037578101 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: 1873 SOUTH BELLAIRE STREET STREET 2: 17TH FLOOR CITY: DENVER STATE: CO ZIP: 80222 10QSB 1 ap9.txt AP9 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. -----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----