-----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, HUaJfFRizyokb0gLXZnCSSQhC+R8tIJ9LJUGYK30pQUvQay6z8ciE+tD5jTw87cv /AE90HQBcwxaWzbklkAKDg== 0000711642-03-000213.txt : 20030515 0000711642-03-000213.hdr.sgml : 20030515 20030515095649 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000711642-03-000213 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 10QSB PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 1 CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 20030331 FILED AS OF DATE: 20030515 FILER: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: JOHNSTOWN CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000787621 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: REAL ESTATE [6500] IRS NUMBER: 943004963 STATE OF INCORPORATION: CA FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: 10QSB SEC ACT: 1934 Act SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-16010 FILM NUMBER: 03701361 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: 55 BEATTIE PLACE STREET 2: POST OFFICE BOX 1089 CITY: GREENVILLE STATE: SC ZIP: 29602 BUSINESS PHONE: 8642391000 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: 55 BEATTIE PLACE STREET 2: POST OFFICE BOX 1089 CITY: GREENVILLE STATE: SC ZIP: 29602 FORMER COMPANY: FORMER CONFORMED NAME: CONSOLIDATED CAPITAL INCOME GROWTH PARTNERS DATE OF NAME CHANGE: 19860401 10QSB 1 jcip.txt JCIP UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 Form 10-QSB (Mark One) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _________to _________ Commission file number 0-16010 JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter) California 94-3004963 (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 55 Beattie Place, PO Box 1089 Greenville, South Carolina 29602 (Address of principal executive offices) (864) 239-1000 (Issuer's telephone number) PART I - FINANCIAL INFORMATION ITEM 1. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS BALANCE SHEET (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data) March 31, 2003
Assets Cash and cash equivalents $ 113 Receivables and deposits 3 Other assets 149 Investment property: Land $ 213 Buildings and related personal property 4,946 5,159 Less accumulated depreciation (3,762) 1,397 $ 1,662 Liabilities and Partners' Deficit Accounts payable $ 6 Tenant security deposit liabilities 45 Due to affiliates 38 Accrued property taxes 18 Other liabilities 148 Mortgage note payable 3,725 Partners' Deficit General partner $ (270) Corporate limited partner on behalf of the Unitholders (128,810 units issued and outstanding) (2,048) (2,318) $ 1,662 See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) (in thousands, except per unit data)
Three Months Ended March 31, 2003 2002 Revenues: Rental income $ 274 $ 282 Other income 36 20 Total revenues 310 302 Expenses: Operating 126 93 General and administrative 42 50 Depreciation 69 66 Interest 73 74 Property taxes 18 19 Total expenses 328 302 Net loss $ (18) $ -- Net loss allocated to general partner (1%) $ -- $ -- Net loss allocated to limited partners (99%) (18) -- $ (18) $ -- Net loss per Unit of Depositary Receipt $(0.14) $ -- See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' DEFICIT (Unaudited) (in thousands, except unit data)
Unitholders Units of Units of Depositary Depositary General Receipt Receipt Partner (Note A) Total Original capital contributions 129,266 $ 1 $32,317 $32,318 Partners' deficit at December 31, 2002 128,810 $ (270) $(2,030) $(2,300) Net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003 -- -- (18) (18) Partners' deficit at March 31, 2003 128,810 $ (270) $(2,048) $(2,318) See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (Unaudited) (in thousands)
Three Months Ended March 31, 2003 2002 Cash flows from operating activities: Net loss $ (18) $ -- Adjustments to reconcile net loss to net cash provided by operating activities: Depreciation 69 66 Amortization of loan costs 3 3 Change in accounts: Receivables and deposits 8 3 Other assets 6 (17) Accounts payable (41) 6 Due to affiliates 38 -- Tenant security deposit liabilities 1 1 Accrued property taxes 18 15 Other liabilities 29 2 Net cash provided by operating activities 113 79 Cash flows used in investing activities: Property improvements and replacements (11) (16) Cash flows from financing activities: Payments on mortgage note payable (24) (22) Advance from affiliate 18 -- Payments on advance from affiliate (18) -- Net cash used in financing activities (24) (22) Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 78 41 Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period 35 117 Cash and cash equivalents at end of period $ 113 $ 158 Supplemental disclosure of cash flow information: Cash paid for interest $ 70 $ 71 See Accompanying Notes to Financial Statements
JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Unaudited) Note A - Basis of Presentation The accompanying unaudited financial statements of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners (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. The Partnership's general partner is ConCap Equities, Inc. (the "General Partner"). In the opinion of the General Partner, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three month period ended March 31, 2003 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2003. For further information, refer to the financial statements and footnotes thereto included in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002. The General Partner is a subsidiary of Apartment Investment and Management Company ("AIMCO"), a publicly traded real estate investment trust. Units of Depositary Receipt Johnstown/Consolidated Depositary Corporation (the "Corporate Limited Partner"), an affiliate of the General Partner, serves as a depositary of certain units of depositary receipt ("Units"). The Units represent economic rights attributable to the limited partnership interests in the Partnership and entitle the unitholders thereof ("Unitholders") to certain economic benefits, allocations and distributions of the Partnership. For this reason, partners' deficit is herein represented as an interest of the Unitholders. Note B - Transactions with Affiliated Parties The Partnership has no employees and is dependent on the General Partner and its affiliates for the management and administration of all Partnership activities, as provided for in the Partnership Agreement. 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. The Partnership Agreement provides that the Partnership shall pay in monthly installments to the General Partner, or an affiliate, a yearly asset management fee equal to: (i) 3/8 of 1% of the original principal balance of mortgage loans outstanding at the end of the month preceding the installment payment; (ii) 1/8 of 1% of the market value of guaranteed mortgage-backed securities as of the end of the Partnership quarter immediately preceding the installment payment; and (iii) 5/8 of 1% of the purchase price of the properties plus improvements for managing the Partnership's assets. In the event the property was not owned at the beginning or end of the year, such fee shall be pro-rated for the short-year period of ownership. Under this provision, fees of approximately $8,000 were incurred to the General Partner and its affiliates for each of the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, which are included in general and administrative expenses and due to affiliates. During the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, affiliates of the General Partner were entitled to receive 5% of gross receipts from the Partnership's investment property for providing property management services. The Partnership paid to such affiliates approximately $16,000 and $15,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. These amounts are included in operating expenses. Affiliates of the General Partner were entitled to receive reimbursement of accountable administrative expenses amounting to approximately $23,000 and $26,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively. Included in these amounts are fees related to construction management services provided by an affiliate of the General Partner of approximately $1,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003. The construction management service fees are calculated based on a percentage of current additions to investment property. There were no such construction management service fees incurred during the three months ended March 31, 2002. These reimbursements of accountable administrative expenses are included in general and administrative expenses, investment property, and due to affiliates. In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, the General Partner loaned the Partnership approximately $18,000 to fund a real estate tax bill at Cedar Brook Apartments. Interest accrued at the prime rate plus 2% (6.25% at March 31, 2003). Interest expense was less than $1,000 for the three months ended March 31, 2003. During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership repaid the loan plus the related accrued interest with cash from operations. There were no loans made by the General Partner to the Partnership during the three months ended March 31, 2002. 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 and vehicle liability. The Partnership insures its property above the AIMCO limits through insurance policies obtained by AIMCO from insurers unaffiliated with the General Partner. During 2003 and 2002, the Partnership's cost for insurance coverage and fees associated with policy claims administration provided by AIMCO and its affiliates will be approximately $14,000 and $17,000, respectively. Note C - Legal Proceedings In March 1998, several putative unit holders of limited partnership units of the Partnership commenced an action entitled Rosalie Nuanes, et al. v. Insignia Financial Group, Inc., et al. (the "Nuanes action") in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San Mateo. The plaintiffs named as defendants, among others, the Partnership, its General Partner and several of their affiliated partnerships and corporate entities. The action purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) which are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities which were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. On June 25, 1998, the General Partner filed a motion seeking dismissal of the action. In lieu of responding to the motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The General Partner filed demurrers to the amended complaint which were heard February 1999. Pending the ruling on such demurrers, settlement negotiations commenced. On November 2, 1999, the parties executed and filed a Stipulation of Settlement, settling claims, subject to court approval, on behalf of the Partnership and all limited partners who owned units as of November 3, 1999. Preliminary approval of the settlement was obtained on November 3, 1999 from the Court, at which time the Court set a final approval hearing for December 10, 1999. Prior to the December 10, 1999 hearing, the Court received various objections to the settlement, including a challenge to the Court's preliminary approval based upon the alleged lack of authority of prior lead counsel to enter the settlement. On December 14, 1999, the General Partner and its affiliates terminated the proposed settlement. In February 2000, counsel for some of the named plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff's lead and liaison counsel who negotiated the settlement. On June 27, 2000, the Court entered an order disqualifying them from the case and an appeal was taken from the order on October 5, 2000. On December 4, 2000, the Court appointed the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP as new lead counsel for plaintiffs and the putative class. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 19, 2001. On March 2, 2001, the General Partner and its affiliates filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint. On May 14, 2001, the Court heard the demurrer to the third amended complaint. On July 10, 2001, the Court issued an order sustaining defendants' demurrer on certain grounds. On July 20, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part and denying in part defendants' demurrer. On September 7, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended class and derivative action complaint. On September 12, 2001, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On October 5, 2001, the General Partner and affiliated defendants filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint, which was heard on December 11, 2001. On February 2, 2002, the Court served its order granting in part the demurrer. The Court has dismissed without leave to amend certain of the plaintiffs' claims. On February 11, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a putative class comprised of all non-affiliated persons who own or have owned units in the partnerships. The General Partner and affiliated defendants oppose the motion. On April 29, 2002, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and took the matter under submission after further briefing, as ordered by the court, was submitted by the parties. On July 10, 2002, the Court entered an order vacating the trial date of January 13, 2003 (as well as the pre-trial and discovery cut-off dates) and stayed the case in its entirety through November 7, 2002 so that the parties could have an opportunity to discuss settlement. On October 30, 2002, the court entered an order extending the stay in effect through January 10, 2003. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action described below. On April 4, 2003, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing on final approval for June 2, 2003. In general terms, the proposed settlement provides for certification for settlement purposes of a settlement class consisting of all limited partners in this Partnership and others (the "Partnerships") as of December 20, 2002, the dismissal with prejudice and release of claims in the Nuanes and Heller litigation, payment by AIMCO of $9.9 million (which shall be distributed to settlement class members after deduction of attorney fees and costs of class counsel and certain costs of settlement) and up to $1 million toward the cost of independent appraisals of the Partnerships' properties by a Court appointed appraiser. An affiliate of the General Partner has also agreed to make a tender offer to purchase all of the partnership interests in the Partnerships within one year of final approval, if it is granted, and to provide partners with the independent appraisals at the time of these tenders. The proposed settlement also provides for the limitation of the allowable costs which the General Partner or its affiliates will charge the Partnerships in connection with this litigation and imposes limits on the class counsel fees and costs in this litigation. On April 11, 2003, notice was distributed to limited partners providing the details of the proposed settlement. During the third quarter of 2001, a complaint (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action, captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint in the Heller action is brought as a purported derivative action, and asserts claims for among other things breach of fiduciary duty; unfair competition; conversion, unjust enrichment; and judicial dissolution. Plaintiffs in the Nuanes action filed a motion to consolidate the Heller action with the Nuanes action and stated that the Heller action was filed in order to preserve the derivative claims that were dismissed without leave to amend in the Nuanes action by the Court order dated July 10, 2001. On October 5, 2001, the General Partner and affiliated defendants moved to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety for violating the Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part and denying in part defendants' demurrer in the Nuanes action, or alternatively, to strike certain portions of the complaint based on the statute of limitations. Other defendants in the action demurred to the fourth amended complaint, and, alternatively, moved to strike the complaint. On December 11, 2001, the court heard argument on the motions and took the matters under submission. On February 4, 2002, the Court served notice of its order granting defendants' motion to strike the Heller complaint as a violation of its July 10, 2001 order in the Nuanes action. On March 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the order striking the complaint. Before completing briefing on the appeal, the parties stayed further proceedings in the appeal pending the Court's review of the terms of the proposed settlement described above. The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership's overall operations. The Partnership is unaware of any other pending or outstanding litigation that is not of a routine nature arising in the ordinary course of business. ITEM 2. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATIONS The matters discussed in this report contain certain forward-looking statements, including, without limitation, statements regarding future financial performance and the effect of government regulations. The discussions of the Registrant's business and results of operations, including forward-looking statements pertaining to such matters, do not take into account the effects of any changes to the Registrant's business and results of operations. Actual results may differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements and will be affected by a variety of risks and factors including, without limitation: national and local economic conditions; the terms of governmental regulations that affect the Registrant and interpretations of those regulations; the competitive environment in which the Registrant operates; financing risks, including the risk that cash flows from operations may be insufficient to meet required payments of principal and interest; real estate risks, including variations of real estate values and the general economic climate in local markets and competition for tenants in such markets; and possible environmental liabilities. Readers should carefully review the Registrant's financial statements and the notes thereto, as well as the risk factors described in the documents the Registrant files from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Partnership's investment property consists of one apartment complex. The following table sets forth the average occupancy of the property for each of the three month periods ended March 31, 2003 and 2002. Average Occupancy Property 2003 2002 Cedar Brooke Apartments 97% 97% Independence, Missouri Results of Operations The Partnership's net loss for the three months ended March 31, 2003 was approximately $18,000, compared to zero net income for the three months ended March 31, 2002. The increase in net loss is due to an increase in total expenses, partially offset by an increase in total revenues. Total expenses increased due to an increase in operating expenses, partially offset by a decrease in general and administrative expenses. Interest, depreciation and property tax expenses remained relatively constant for the comparable periods. Operating expenses increased primarily due to increases in maintenance expense, as a result of a decrease in the capitalization of certain direct and indirect project costs, primarily payroll related costs at Cedar Brooke Apartments, insurance expense, payroll related expenses, and advertising expense at the property. General and administrative expenses decreased primarily due to a decrease in the management reimbursements to the General Partner as allowed under the Partnership Agreement. Included in general and administrative expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 are asset management fees earned by the General Partner as 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. Total revenues increased due to an increase in other income, partially offset by a decrease in rental income. Other income increased due to increases in utility reimbursements and lease cancellation fees at the Partnership's investment property. Rental income decreased due to an increase in bad debt expense, partially offset by an increase in the average rental rates at Cedar Brooke Apartments. As part of the ongoing business plan of the Partnership, the General Partner monitors the rental market environment of its investment property to assess the feasibility of increasing rents, maintaining or increasing occupancy levels and protecting the Partnership from increases in expenses. As part of this plan, the General Partner attempts to protect the Partnership from the burden of inflation-related increases in expenses by increasing rents and maintaining a high overall occupancy level. However, due to changing market conditions, which can result in the use of rental concessions and rental reductions to offset softening market conditions, there is no guarantee that the General Partner will be able to sustain such a plan. Liquidity and Capital Resources At March 31, 2003, the Partnership had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $113,000, compared to approximately $158,000 at March 31, 2002. The increase in cash and cash equivalents of approximately $78,000, from the Partnership's fiscal year ended December 31, 2002, is due to approximately $113,000 of cash provided by operating activities, partially offset by approximately $24,000 of cash used in financing activities and approximately $11,000 of cash used in investing activities. Cash used in financing activities consisted of payments of principal made on the mortgage encumbering the Partnership's investment property and the repayment of an advance from an affiliate of the General Partner, partially offset by an advance from an affiliate of the General Partner. Cash used in investing activities consisted of property improvements and replacements. The Partnership invests its working capital reserves in interest bearing accounts. The sufficiency of existing liquid assets to meet future liquidity and capital expenditure requirements is directly related to the level of capital expenditures required at the investment property to adequately maintain the physical assets and other operating needs of the Partnership and to comply with Federal, state and local legal and regulatory requirements. The General Partner monitors developments in the area of legal and regulatory compliance and is studying new federal laws, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 mandates or suggests additional compliance measures with regard to governance, disclosure, audit and other areas. In light of these changes, the Partnership expects that it will incur higher expenses related to compliance, including increased legal and audit fees. Capital improvements planned for the Partnership's property are discussed below. During the three months ended March 31, 2003, the Partnership completed approximately $11,000 of capital improvements at Cedar Brooke Apartments, consisting primarily of appliance and floor covering replacements. These improvements were funded from operations. The Partnership evaluates the capital improvement needs of the property during the year and currently expects to complete an additional $53,000 in capital improvements during the remainder of 2003. The additional capital improvements will consist primarily of roofing upgrades, structural improvements, and appliance and floor covering replacements. Additional capital improvements may be considered and will depend on the physical condition of the property as well as anticipated cash flow generated by the property. The additional capital expenditures will be incurred only if cash is available from operations or from Partnership reserves. To the extent that such budgeted capital improvements are completed, the 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 on Cedar Brooke Apartments of $3,725,000, which carries a stated interest rate of 7.44%, requires monthly payments of principal and interest until the loan matures on July 1, 2021, at which time the loan will be fully amortized. Pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, the term of the Partnership is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2017. Accordingly, prior to such date the Partnership will need to either sell its investment property or extend the term of the Partnership. There were no distributions to the partners during the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002. Future cash distributions will depend on the levels of net cash generated from operations, the availability of cash reserves, refinancing and/or property sale. The Partnership's cash available for distribution is reviewed on a monthly basis. There can be no assurance, however, that the Partnership will generate sufficient funds from operations, after required capital expenditures, to permit any distributions to its partners during the remainder of 2003 or subsequent periods. Other In addition to its indirect ownership of the general partner interests in the Partnership, AIMCO and its affiliates owned 70,199 limited partnership units (the "Units") in the Partnership representing 54.50% of the outstanding Units at March 31, 2003. A number of these Units were acquired pursuant to tender offers made by AIMCO or its affiliates. It is possible that AIMCO or its affiliates will acquire additional units of limited partnership interest in the Partnership in exchange for cash or a combination of cash and units in the operating partnership of AIMCO either through private purchases or tender offers. Under the Partnership Agreement, unitholders holding a majority of the Units are entitled to take action with respect to a variety of matters which would include voting on certain amendments to the Partnership Agreement and voting to remove the General Partner. As a result of its ownership of 54.50% of the outstanding Units, AIMCO is 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. Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates The financial statements are prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States which require the Partnership to make estimates and assumptions. The Partnership believes that of its significant accounting policies, the following may involve a higher degree of judgment and complexity. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets Investment property is recorded at cost, less accumulated depreciation, unless considered impaired. If events or circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of 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 changes in the national, regional and local economic climate; local conditions, such as an oversupply of multifamily properties; competition from other available multifamily property owners and changes in market rental rates. Any adverse changes in these factors could cause an impairment in the Partnership's assets. Revenue Recognition The Partnership generally leases apartment units for twelve-month terms or less. Rental income attributable to leases is recognized monthly as it is earned and the Partnership fully reserves all balances outstanding over thirty days. The Partnership will offer rental concessions during particularly slow months or in response to heavy competition from other similar complexes in the area. Concessions are charged to income as incurred. Item 3. Controls and Procedures The principal executive officer and principal financial officer of the General Partner, who are the equivalent of the Partnership's principal executive officer and principal financial officer, respectively, have, within 90 days of the filing date of this quarterly report, evaluated the effectiveness of the Partnership's disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14(c) and 15d-14(c)) and have determined that such disclosure controls and procedures are adequate. There have been no significant changes in the Partnership's internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect the Partnership's internal controls since the date of evaluation. The Partnership does not believe any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses exist in the Partnership's internal controls. Accordingly, no corrective actions have been taken. PART II - OTHER INFORMATION ITEM 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 purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of limited partners and derivatively on behalf of a number of limited partnerships (including the Partnership) which are named as nominal defendants, challenging, among other things, the acquisition of interests in certain General Partner entities by Insignia Financial Group, Inc. ("Insignia") and entities which were, at one time, affiliates of Insignia; past tender offers by the Insignia affiliates to acquire limited partnership units; management of the partnerships by the Insignia affiliates; and the series of transactions which closed on October 1, 1998 and February 26, 1999 whereby Insignia and Insignia Properties Trust, respectively, were merged into AIMCO. The plaintiffs seek monetary damages and equitable relief, including judicial dissolution of the Partnership. On June 25, 1998, the General Partner filed a motion seeking dismissal of the action. In lieu of responding to the motion, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The General Partner filed demurrers to the amended complaint which were heard February 1999. Pending the ruling on such demurrers, settlement negotiations commenced. On November 2, 1999, the parties executed and filed a Stipulation of Settlement, settling claims, subject to court approval, on behalf of the Partnership and all limited partners who owned units as of November 3, 1999. Preliminary approval of the settlement was obtained on November 3, 1999 from the Court, at which time the Court set a final approval hearing for December 10, 1999. Prior to the December 10, 1999 hearing, the Court received various objections to the settlement, including a challenge to the Court's preliminary approval based upon the alleged lack of authority of prior lead counsel to enter the settlement. On December 14, 1999, the General Partner and its affiliates terminated the proposed settlement. In February 2000, counsel for some of the named plaintiffs filed a motion to disqualify plaintiff's lead and liaison counsel who negotiated the settlement. On June 27, 2000, the Court entered an order disqualifying them from the case and an appeal was taken from the order on October 5, 2000. On December 4, 2000, the Court appointed the law firm of Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP as new lead counsel for plaintiffs and the putative class. Plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on January 19, 2001. On March 2, 2001, the General Partner and its affiliates filed a demurrer to the third amended complaint. On May 14, 2001, the Court heard the demurrer to the third amended complaint. On July 10, 2001, the Court issued an order sustaining defendants' demurrer on certain grounds. On July 20, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration of the Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part and denying in part defendants' demurrer. On September 7, 2001, Plaintiffs filed a fourth amended class and derivative action complaint. On September 12, 2001, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. On October 5, 2001, the General Partner and affiliated defendants filed a demurrer to the fourth amended complaint, which was heard on December 11, 2001. On February 2, 2002, the Court served its order granting in part the demurrer. The Court has dismissed without leave to amend certain of the plaintiffs' claims. On February 11, 2002, plaintiffs filed a motion seeking to certify a putative class comprised of all non-affiliated persons who own or have owned units in the partnerships. The General Partner and affiliated defendants oppose the motion. On April 29, 2002, the Court held a hearing on plaintiffs' motion for class certification and took the matter under submission after further briefing, as ordered by the court, was submitted by the parties. On July 10, 2002, the Court entered an order vacating the trial date of January 13, 2003 (as well as the pre-trial and discovery cut-off dates) and stayed the case in its entirety through November 7, 2002 so that the parties could have an opportunity to discuss settlement. On October 30, 2002, the court entered an order extending the stay in effect through January 10, 2003. On January 8, 2003, the parties filed a Stipulation of Settlement in proposed settlement of the Nuanes action and the Heller action described below. On April 4, 2003, the Court preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a hearing on final approval for June 2, 2003. In general terms, the proposed settlement provides for certification for settlement purposes of a settlement class consisting of all limited partners in this Partnership and others (the "Partnerships") as of December 20, 2002, the dismissal with prejudice and release of claims in the Nuanes and Heller litigation, payment by AIMCO of $9.9 million (which shall be distributed to settlement class members after deduction of attorney fees and costs of class counsel and certain costs of settlement) and up to $1 million toward the cost of independent appraisals of the Partnerships' properties by a Court appointed appraiser. An affiliate of the General Partner has also agreed to make a tender offer to purchase all of the partnership interests in the Partnerships within one year of final approval, if it is granted, and to provide partners with the independent appraisals at the time of these tenders. The proposed settlement also provides for the limitation of the allowable costs which the General Partner or its affiliates will charge the Partnerships in connection with this litigation and imposes limits on the class counsel fees and costs in this litigation. On April 11, 2003, notice was distributed to limited partners providing the details of the proposed settlement. During the third quarter of 2001, a complaint (the "Heller action") was filed against the same defendants that are named in the Nuanes action, captioned Heller v. Insignia Financial Group. On or about August 6, 2001, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint. The first amended complaint in the Heller action is brought as a purported derivative action, and asserts claims for among other things breach of fiduciary duty; unfair competition; conversion, unjust enrichment; and judicial dissolution. Plaintiffs in the Nuanes action filed a motion to consolidate the Heller action with the Nuanes action and stated that the Heller action was filed in order to preserve the derivative claims that were dismissed without leave to amend in the Nuanes action by the Court order dated July 10, 2001. On October 5, 2001, the General Partner and affiliated defendants moved to strike the first amended complaint in its entirety for violating the Court's July 10, 2001 order granting in part and denying in part defendants' demurrer in the Nuanes action, or alternatively, to strike certain portions of the complaint based on the statute of limitations. Other defendants in the action demurred to the fourth amended complaint, and, alternatively, moved to strike the complaint. On December 11, 2001, the court heard argument on the motions and took the matters under submission. On February 4, 2002, the Court served notice of its order granting defendants' motion to strike the Heller complaint as a violation of its July 10, 2001 order in the Nuanes action. On March 27, 2002, the plaintiffs filed a notice appealing the order striking the complaint. Before completing briefing on the appeal, the parties stayed further proceedings in the appeal pending the Court's review of the terms of the proposed settlement described above. The General Partner does not anticipate that any costs to the Partnership, whether legal or settlement costs, associated with these cases will be material to the Partnership's overall operations. ITEM 6. EXHIBITS AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K a) Exhibits: 3.1 Certificate of Limited Partnership, as amended to date, incorporated herein by reference to the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 1991. 3.2 Amended and Restated Partnership Agreement dated July 16, 1986 is incorporated by reference to Exhibit A to the Prospectus of the Registration dated June 20, 1986 as filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 424(b) under the Act. 99 Certification Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. b) Reports on Form 8-K: None filed during the quarter ended March 31, 2003. 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. JOHNSTOWN/CONSOLIDATED INCOME PARTNERS By: CONCAP EQUITIES, INC. General Partner By: /s/Patrick J. Foye Patrick J. Foye Executive Vice President By: /s/Thomas C. Novosel Thomas C. Novosel Senior Vice President and Chief Accounting Officer Date: May 15, 2003 CERTIFICATION I, Patrick J. Foye, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: May 15, 2003 /s/Patrick J. Foye Patrick J. Foye Executive Vice President of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership CERTIFICATION I, Paul J. McAuliffe, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners; 2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report; 4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and c) Presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and 6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses. Date: May 15, 2003 /s/Paul J. McAuliffe Paul J. McAuliffe Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of ConCap Equities, Inc., equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership Exhibit 99 Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Johnstown/Consolidated Income Partners (the "Partnership"), for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Patrick J. Foye, as the equivalent of the chief executive officer of the Partnership, and Paul J. McAuliffe, as the equivalent of the chief financial officer of the Partnership, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge: (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. /s/Patrick J. Foye Name: Patrick J. Foye Date: May 15, 2003 /s/Paul J. McAuliffe Name: Paul J. McAuliffe Date: May 15, 2003 This certification accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Partnership for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. -----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----