-----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, RHX3WUik/95H2Gn6GSVMOXsd/fxlgS68oagoNAUSp4tRXJxruwI4/AryxTc5BHLe xeBZC+DWyTY/i3tpvE90kw== 0000948524-99-000099.txt : 19991117 0000948524-99-000099.hdr.sgml : 19991117 ACCESSION NUMBER: 0000948524-99-000099 CONFORMED SUBMISSION TYPE: 10-Q PUBLIC DOCUMENT COUNT: 2 CONFORMED PERIOD OF REPORT: 19990930 FILED AS OF DATE: 19991115 FILER: COMPANY DATA: COMPANY CONFORMED NAME: METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS LP CENTRAL INDEX KEY: 0000800730 STANDARD INDUSTRIAL CLASSIFICATION: HOTELS & MOTELS [7011] IRS NUMBER: 943050708 STATE OF INCORPORATION: CA FISCAL YEAR END: 1231 FILING VALUES: FORM TYPE: 10-Q SEC ACT: SEC FILE NUMBER: 000-17660 FILM NUMBER: 99754383 BUSINESS ADDRESS: STREET 1: ONE CALIFORNIA ST STREET 2: SUITE 1400 CITY: SAN FRANCISCO STATE: CA ZIP: 94111-5415 BUSINESS PHONE: 4156782000 MAIL ADDRESS: STREET 1: ONE CALIFORNIA ST STREET 2: SUITE 1400 CITY: SAN FRANCISCO STATE: CA ZIP: 94111-5415 FORMER COMPANY: FORMER CONFORMED NAME: FOX GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS DATE OF NAME CHANGE: 19880412 FORMER COMPANY: FORMER CONFORMED NAME: MRI BUSINESS PROPERTIES FUND LTD IV DATE OF NAME CHANGE: 19871104 10-Q 1 SEPTEMBER 30, 1999 10-Q - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q (Mark One) X QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES - ----- EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended September 30, 1999 OR 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 0-17660 METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) CALIFORNIA 94-3050708 - ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ (State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) incorporation or organization) One California Street San Francisco, California 94111-5415 - ---------------------------------------- ------------------------------------ (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (415) 678-2000 (800) 347-6707 in all states Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all the reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 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 --- --- - -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 1 PART 1 FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 1. Financial Statements (Unaudited). METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership BALANCE SHEETS (UNAUDITED) September 30, December 31, 1999 1998 ------------- ------------ ASSETS Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 1,881,000 $ 7,485,000 Restricted Cash 5,000,000 5,353,000 Accounts Receivable 844,000 672,000 Prepaid Expenses and Other Assets -- 126,000 Asset to be Disposed of -- 8,185,000 Deferred Franchise Fees -- 24,000 ----------- ----------- TOTAL ASSETS $ 7,725,000 $21,845,000 =========== =========== LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS' EQUITY Accounts Payable $ -- $ 655,000 Accrued Property Taxes -- 114,000 Accrued Interest 229,000 333,000 Other Liabilities 1,975,000 751,000 Note Payable -- 8,292,000 ----------- ----------- TOTAL LIABILITIES 2,204,000 10,145,000 ----------- ----------- PARTNERS' EQUITY General Partners (914,000) -- Limited Partners (59,932 Units Outstanding) 6,435,000 11,700,000 ----------- ----------- TOTAL PARTNERS' EQUITY 5,521,000 11,700,000 ----------- ----------- TOTAL LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS' EQUITY $ 7,725,000 $21,845,000 =========== =========== See notes to financial statements (unaudited). Page 2 METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) For the Nine Months Ended September 30, -------------------------- 1999 1998 ----------- ------------ REVENUES: Hotel Operations $ 2,016,000 $ 3,335,000 Interest and Other 431,000 553,000 ----------- ----------- Total Revenues 2,447,000 3,888,000 ----------- ----------- EXPENSES: Hotel Operations Rooms 463,000 689,000 Administrative 315,000 448,000 Marketing 200,000 349,000 Energy 101,000 170,000 Repair and Maintenance 99,000 169,000 Management Fees 63,000 119,000 Property Taxes 60,000 79,000 Other 107,000 194,000 ----------- ----------- Total Hotel Operations 1,408,000 2,217,000 Depreciation and Other Amortization -- 398,000 Interest 223,000 646,000 General and Administrative 337,000 703,000 ----------- ----------- Total Expenses 1,968,000 3,964,000 ----------- ----------- INCOME (LOSS) BEFORE LOSS ON FORECLOSURE OF PROPERTY 479,000 (76,000) Loss on Foreclosure of Property (1,460,000) -- ----------- ----------- NET LOSS $ (981,000) $ (76,000) =========== =========== NET LOSS PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ASSIGNEE UNIT: Income (loss) before loss on foreclosure of property $ 8 $ (1) Loss on foreclosure of property (11) -- ----------- ----------- NET LOSS $ (3) $ (1) =========== =========== CASH DISTRIBUTIONS PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ASSIGNEE UNIT $ 85 $ 288 =========== =========== See notes to financial statements (unaudited). Page 3 METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) For the Three Months Ended September 30, -------------------------- 1999 1998 ------------ ----------- REVENUES: Hotel Operations $ -- $ 1,133,000 Interest and Other 138,000 183,000 ----------- ----------- Total Revenues 138,000 1,316,000 ----------- ----------- EXPENSES: Hotel Operations Rooms -- 246,000 Administrative -- 159,000 Marketing -- 116,000 Energy -- 67,000 Repair and Maintenance -- 59,000 Management Fees -- 39,000 Property Taxes -- 29,000 Other -- 63,000 ----------- ----------- Total Hotel Operations -- 778,000 Depreciation and Other Amortization -- 135,000 Interest -- 212,000 General and Administrative 131,000 207,000 ----------- ----------- Total Expenses 131,000 1,332,000 ----------- ----------- NET INCOME (LOSS) $ 7,000 $ (16,000) =========== =========== NET INCOME (LOSS) PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ASSIGNEE UNIT: $ -- $ -- =========== =========== CASH DISTRIBUTIONS PER LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ASSIGNEE UNIT $ 85 $ -- =========== =========== See notes to financial statements (unaudited). Page 4 METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' EQUITY (UNAUDITED) For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 1999 and 1998 General Limited Partners Partners Total ------------ ------------ ------------- Balance, January 1, 1999 $ -- $ 11,700,000 $ 11,700,000 Income before Loss on Foreclosure of Property -- 479,000 479,000 Loss on Foreclosure of Property (810,000) (650,000) (1,460,000) Cash Distributions (104,000) (5,094,000) (5,198,000) ------------ ------------ ------------ Balance, September 30, 1999 $ (914,000) $ 6,435,000 $ 5,521,000 ============ ============ ============ Balance, January 1, 1998 $ 348,000 $ 29,115,000 $ 29,463,000 Net Income (Loss) 5,000 (81,000) (76,000) Cash Distributions (353,000) (17,287,000) (17,640,000) ------------ ------------ ------------ Balance, September 30, 1998 $ -- $ 11,747,000 $ 11,747,000 ============ ============ ============ See notes to financial statements (unaudited). Page 5 METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS (UNAUDITED) For the Nine Months Ended September 30, --------------------------- 1999 1998 ----------- ------------ OPERATING ACTIVITIES Net Loss $ (981,000) $ (76,000) Adjustments to Reconcile Net Loss to Net Cash Used by Operating Activities: Loss on Foreclosure of Property 1,460,000 Depreciation and Amortization -- 398,000 Changes in Operating Assets and Liabilities: Accounts Receivable (162,000) 105,000 Prepaid Expenses and Other Assets 109,000 31,000 Accounts Payable, Accrued Expenses, and Other Liabilities (1,083,000) (922,000) ------------ ------------ Net Cash Used by Operating Activities (657,000) (464,000) ------------ ------------ INVESTING ACTIVITIES Cash in Escrow -- 19,214,000 Proceeds from Sale of Cash Investment -- 3,888,000 Capital Improvements (26,000) (165,000) Restricted Cash - Increase 353,000 (5,013,000) Costs Paid on Foreclosure of Property (8,000) -- ------------ ------------ Net Cash Provided by Investing Activities 319,000 17,924,000 ------------ ------------ FINANCING ACTIVITIES Notes Payable Principal Payments (68,000) (18,678,000) Cash Distribution to Partners (5,198,000) (17,640,000) Prepayment Penalties Paid -- (438,000) ------------ ------------ Cash Used by Financing Activities (5,266,000) (36,756,000) ------------ ------------ DECREASE IN CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS (5,604,000) (19,296,000) Cash and Cash Equivalents at Beginning of Period 7,485,000 27,051,000 ------------ ------------ CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS AT END OF PERIOD $ 1,881,000 $ 7,755,000 ============ ============ SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF CASH FLOW INFORMATION Interest Paid in Cash During the Period $ 327,000 $ 765,000 ============ ============ SUPPLEMENTAL DISCLOSURE OF NONCASH INVESTING AND FINANCING ACTIVITES Foreclosure of property - see Note 6. See notes to financial statements (unaudited). Page 6 METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (UNAUDITED) 1. Reference to the 1998 Audited Financial Statements These unaudited financial statements should be read in conjunction with the Notes to Financial Statements included in the 1998 audited financial statements. The financial information contained herein reflects all normal and recurring adjustments that are, in the opinion of management, necessary for a fair presentation. 2. Transactions with the Managing General Partner and Affiliates In accordance with the Partnership Agreement, the Partnership is charged by the Managing General Partner and Affiliates for services provided to the Partnership. The amounts are as follows For the Nine Months Ended September 30, ------------------------- 1999 1998 --------- -------- Partnership management fees $ -- $ 72,000 Reimbursement of administrative expense 100,000 158,000 ======== ======== Total $100,000 $230,000 ======== ======== As discussed in Note 2 to the 1998 audited financial statements, pursuant to the Partnership Agreement, immediately prior to liquidation and if certain distribution levels to the limited partners are not met, the general partners may be obligated to return all or a portion of the cumulative amounts received in distributions. At September 30, 1999 such amount is approximately $914,000. The Partnership believes circumstances will be such that the general partners will be required to re-contribute this amount. 3. Net Income (Loss) Per Limited Partnership Assignee Unit The net income (loss) per limited partnership assignee Unit is computed by dividing the net income (loss) allocated to the limited partners by 59,932 assignee Units outstanding. 4. Restricted Cash The balance includes $5,000,000, which (as discussed in Part II, Item 1) the Court enjoined the Partnership from conveying, transferring, or otherwise disposing of. The remaining $353,000 balance at December 31, 1998 represents an amount related to the sale of the Residence Inn - Atlanta (Perimeter West) which had been deposited in an escrow account. (See Note 7 to the 1998 audited financial statements). In March 1999, the escrow account was closed and the total amount in the account was transferred to the Partnership. 5. Legal Proceedings The Partnership is a plaintiff and counterclaim defendant in legal proceedings relating to the management agreement at the Residence Inn - Ontario, a defendant in legal proceedings seeking damages for alleged failure to consummate a settlement of the Residence Inn - Ontario case, and a plaintiff and defendant in other legal proceedings; see Part II, Item 1, Legal Proceedings, for a detailed description of these matters. 6. Foreclosure of Property On June 18, 1999, the improvements of the Residence Inn - Nashville (the "Hotel") owned by the Partnership and the land on which it is located, which was under lease to the Partnership, were sold through foreclosure for $9,050,000, with net proceeds of approximately $450,000 after deduction of the outstanding principal and other costs. The purchaser was the holder of the mortgage note payable encumbering the Hotel (the "Lender"). As previously disclosed, the Partnership had been in default under the mortgage note payable since April 1998 when it did not pay the balloon mortgage payment then due. In the foreclosure sale, the lessor on the Page 7 ground lease also bid for the property. The lessor has since filed suit against the foreclosure trustee, asserting that the trustee denied him his alleged right to redeem the property by paying the balance due through the foreclosure. Subsequent to the foreclosure, Marriott issued a notice requiring the Partnership to pay a $1,415,000 termination fee, computed as per the management agreement, plus certain employee costs not yet specified in amount. The Partnership has accrued the $1,415,000 fee as a cost of sale. However, the Partnership believes that payment of such termination fee and employee costs is dependent on the outcome of negotiations currently underway between the Lender and Marriott regarding a management agreement for Marriott's continued management of the property. It is the Partnership's understanding that Marriott is currently managing the property for the Lender on an interim basis. The ultimate outcome of payment of the termination fee plus other employee costs cannot be determined at this time. In the foreclosure sale the allocation of the $9,050,000 price was not specified. The Partnership claims its right to a portion of the net proceeds from the sale because of its ownership of the personal property sold, which portion it has estimated to be no more than $50,000 based upon the information available to it. The estimated net cost of foreclosure to the Partnership (including the $1,415,000 accrued termination fee and other accrued costs) is $1,432,000. The carrying value of the Hotel at the time of sale was $8,235,000 (net of the $195,000 impairment of value provision recognized in 1998) and the estimated note payable balance, adjusted for amounts in the impound account, was $8,207,000, resulting in a $1,460,000 loss on foreclosure of property recognized in the second quarter of 1999. With respect to the ground lease, on May 20, 1999, the lessor issued a letter notifying the Partnership that it had terminated the ground lease as the Partnership had defaulted under the terms of the mortgage note for the Hotel, thereby violating a term of the ground lease agreement. However, the Lender has taken the position that the ground lease was not terminated until June 18, 1999, when it was terminated as a result of the foreclosure. Therefore, the date on which the ground lease was terminated has not been determined. The accompanying financial statements reflect ground lease expenses accrued to the date of the foreclosure. Current ground lease expenses (exclusive of deferred amounts) have been paid through April 1999. The Partnership believes that it was relieved of future payments as of the date of foreclosure, if not as of May 20, 1999, the date the lessor claims to be the lease termination date. The Partnership is, however, still liable for approximately $655,000 in deferred ground rents and interest accrued thereon. This liability is reflected in the financial statements. At this time it is unclear which party is entitled to this amount or when payment will be made. Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations. This Item should be read in conjunction with Financial Statements and other Items contained elsewhere in this Report. Year 2000 Readiness Disclosure With the change to the year 2000, computer programs or hardware utilizing two digits rather than four to define the applicable year may recognize a date using "00" as the year 1900 rather than the year 2000. This could result in a system failure or miscalculations causing disruptions of operations, including, among other things, a temporary inability to conduct normal business activities. In anticipation of the year 2000, in late 1996 the Managing General Partner conducted a thorough inventory of all software programs it had in use and identified programs that would require modification to correct date handling methodology. Furthermore, the Managing General Partner initiated a policy requiring that all future software purchases be year-2000 compliant. With the exception of the Managing General Partner's financial accounting system, the majority of the hardware and software in use was determined to be year-2000 compliant or it was determined that compliance could be achieved with minor modifications. These modifications were 100% completed by year-end 1998. With respect to the financial accounting system, the Managing General Partner has implemented and tested a year 2000-compliant software product replacing its prior system. All necessary changes have been and will continue to be undertaken at no cost to the Partnership. In addition to internal systems, the Managing General Partner surveyed third parties that provide essential business services to determine their state of year-2000 readiness. The Partnership's Servicing and Transfer Agent, Gemisys, utilizes a platform programmed to correctly interpret the change to the new century. Page 8 The Managing General Partner anticipates there to be no material exposure to year-2000 issues. However, should the Partnership encounter problems arising from the date change, the Managing General Partner's contingency plan would be to process necessary transactions utilizing non-date sensitive software. Results of Operations During the nine and three months ended September 30, 1999, the Partnership had net loss of $981,000 and net income of $7,000, respectively, compared to net loss of $76,000 and $16,000 for the nine and three months ended September 30, 1998, respectively. The changes are primarily due to foreclosure of the last property in June 1999 resulting in a loss of $1,460,000, including accrued costs of sale of $1,415,000 for a termination fee potentially due in accordance with the Marriott management contract, which was terminated upon foreclosure of the Residence Inn - Nashville (see Note 6 to the financial statements). Operating revenues and expenses as well as depreciation, amortization and interest expense decreased in the nine and three months ended September 30, 1999 compared to the same periods in 1998 as a result of the foreclosure on the Partnership's last property in June 1999. Interest income decreased for both the nine and three months ended September 30, 1999 compared to the same periods in 1998 due to lower average cash balances. The Partnership's general and administrative costs decreased in the nine and three months ended September 30, 1999 compared to 1998, primarily due to a decrease in legal costs, Partnership management fees and administrative costs. Partnership Liquidity and Capital Resources Third Quarter of 1999 As presented in the Statement of Cash Flows, cash was used by operating activities. Cash was provided by investing activities from receipt by the Partnership of the balance of an escrow account (the "Shortfall Guaranty Account") that had been established at the time of sale of the Residence Inn - Atlanta in October 1995. The conditions for payment from the Shortfall Guaranty Account to the buyer of the hotel were not met and, pursuant to the escrow agreement, the full amount, including any interest earned, was returned to the Partnership on March 31, 1999. Cash was used by financing activities for distributions to partners and principal payments on notes payable. In January 1998, the Partnership made two distributions to its general and limited partners, one totaling $16,818,000, representing a portion of the net sales proceeds, and another one totaling $612,000 representing a distribution from 1997 operations. Additionally, in April 1998 the Partnership made a distribution totaling $211,000 in order to comply with certain states' tax withholding requirements. In September 1999, the Partnership made distributions to the general and limited partners totaling $5,198,000, representing a portion of the net sales proceeds from the sale in December 1997 of eight properties. Future distributions will be dependent primarily upon the level of general and administrative expenses and interest income as well as the outcome of legal proceedings related to the Residence Inn - Nashville, as described further in Part II, Item 1, and the potential payment of a substantial termination fee and other amounts to Marriott. On April 1, 1998, the balloon mortgage payment for the Residence Inn - Nashville, totaling approximately $8.5 million, became due and payable (see Note 6 to the financial statements). In exchange for a six-month forbearance agreement, during which time the Partnership pursued the potential sale of the property, the lender accepted a principal reduction payment of $100,000, reimbursement of $20,000 of its costs, and regular monthly debt service payments through November 1, 1998. The Partnership subsequently determined that a sale of the property was not feasible, and the forbearance agreement expired. The Partnership attempted to negotiate with the lender to accept a deed in lieu of foreclosure and to assume the Marriott management contract, but was unsuccessful. A deed in lieu of foreclosure would have relieved the Partnership of substantial contract termination fees that it may have to pay as a result of the foreclosure sale. In this regard, the Partnership made regular monthly debt service payments due on the first day of the month of December 1998, January, February, March and April 1999. On June 18, 1999 the Residence Inn - Nashville, its contents and the land on which it is located, which was under lease to the Partnership, was sold through foreclosure. See Note 6 to the accompanying financial statements. While the Partnership believes that the ground lease associated with the property was terminated on or before the foreclosure date, the Partnership will be obligated to pay deferred rent under the lease. Internal Revenue Service regulations provide that, should 5% or more of the outstanding assignee limited partnership units of a limited partnership be traded via non-exempt transactions within a calendar year, the limited partnership could be classified as a publicly-traded partnership for federal tax Page 9 purposes, and could therefore be taxed as a corporation. Transfers that are exempt from the above restrictions include transfers at death; transfers between siblings, spouses, ancestors, or lineal descendants; and distributions from qualified retirement plans. In 1996, 1997, and again in 1998, the Managing General Partner suspended the processing of most types of resale transactions, as the level of such resale transactions reached 4.9% of the total number of outstanding Units for each of those years. This action was taken to ensure that resale transactions did not result in the termination of the Partnership for tax purposes, or cause the Partnership to be classified as a publicly traded partnership or to be taxed as a corporation. On June 25, 1999, Gemisys, the Partnership's Servicing and Transfer Agent notified the Managing General Partner that non-exempt trading representing approximately 4.9% of the outstanding Units of GSI had been reached, at which time the Managing General Partner again suspended processing of resale transactions for the remainder of the calendar year. Unit holders were advised of that suspension in accordance with Section 12.1 of the Partnership Agreement, via a special communication dated June 25, 1999. All resale transaction paperwork submitted subsequent to that date has been returned to the originator. Gemisys will again begin processing resale transactions on January 3, 2000. Conclusion In view of (i) the foreclosure of the Residence Inn - Nashville; (ii) the Partnership's potential liability of $1,415,000 in contract termination fees plus other costs arising from the disposal of the hotel; (iii) distributions the General Partners will be obligated to return to the Partnership prior to its liquidation; and (iv) uncertainties related to the litigation relating to the Residence Inn - Nashville, the Partnership no longer provides an estimated net asset value per Unit. However, the Partnership is aware that some resale transactions of Units have taken place in the informal secondary market. In this informal market, transactions may or may not take place in any given time period and occur at a price negotiated between the buyer and seller. The Partnership has no knowledge concerning how a particular price may be determined. A total of 131 resale transactions have been recorded on the books of the Partnership's transfer agent between January 1, 1999 and June 25, 1999 (the date of the suspension of trading), reflecting prices ranging from $75 to $415 per Unit, with a simple average price of $109.50. The Partnership's knowledge of these transactions is based solely on the books and records of its Transfer Agent. Cash distributions from Partnership operations to investors throughout 1997 were made at an annualized rate of 4%, including the distribution made on January 29, 1998 from fourth quarter 1997 operations. On January 13, 1998 the Partnership distributed $275 per Unit from the proceeds of the sale of eight hotels in December 1997. On April 9, 1998 the Partnership made a distribution of $3.45 per Unit in order to satisfy nonresident state withholding requirements for the states of California, North Carolina, and Indiana. On September 7, 1999 the Partnership made a distribution of $85.00 per Unit representing an additional distribution from the proceeds of the December 1997 sale of eight of the Partnership's hotels. Future distributions will be dependent on general and administrative expenses and interest income and fees and expenses the Partnership may be liable for resulting from the foreclosure, as well as the outcome of legal proceedings relating to the Residence Inn - Nashville and potential payment of the $1,415,000 termination fee to Marriott. As discussed in Part II, Item 1, there is substantial doubt regarding the Partnership's ability to continue as a going concern. PART II OTHER INFORMATION Item 1. Legal Proceedings. Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors, L.P. vs. Kenneth E. Nelson, The Nelson Group, et al., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. 928065 (the "SF Lawsuit"). [The lawsuits described below are related. Terms defined in the description of one case may be used in the description of the other cases.] This lawsuit relates to disputes in connection with management of the Partnership's Residence Inn - Ontario by an entity controlled by Kenneth E. Nelson ("Nelson") from April 1988 to February 1991. In March 1993, the Partnership and Nelson verbally agreed to settle the SF Lawsuit at a settlement conference (the "SF Settlement"), whereby the Partnership would purchase at a discount the land (the "Land") underlying the Partnership's Residence Inn - Nashville (the "Hotel") then leased by the Partnership from Nashville Lodging Company ("NLC"), an entity controlled by Nelson. Various disagreements between Page 10 the Partnership and Nelson regarding the SF Settlement arose after March 1993 and documents to effectuate the SF Settlement were never executed. Nashville Lodging Company vs. Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors, L.P. et al., Circuit Court, State of Wisconsin, Case No. 94CV001212. In February 1994, NLC served this lawsuit on the Partnership. NLC alleges fraud, breach of settlement contract and breach of good faith and fair dealing and seeks compensatory, punitive and exemplary damages in an unspecified amount for the Partnership's failure to consummate the SF Settlement. In February 1994, the Partnership filed an answer and requested that the Court stay the action pending resolution of the SF Lawsuit including all appeals. The Court refused to stay the action and discovery commenced. In February 1995, the Court determined that the Partnership could be sued in Wisconsin but stayed the case until the settlement of the SF Lawsuit has been finalized. Orlando Residence Ltd. vs. 2300 Elm Hill Pike, Inc. and Nashville Lodging Company vs. Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors, L.P., Chancery Court for Davidson County, in Nashville, Tennessee, Case No. 94-1911-I ("Nashville Case I"). Orlando filed this action against 2300 and NLC in the Davidson County Chancery Court to attempt to execute on its judgment against Nelson, NLC and 2300 in another action in the Chancery Court by subjecting the Land to sale. In May 1995, 2300 and NLC ("TP Plaintiffs") filed a third-party complaint against the Partnership, alleging it had refused to purchase the Land as required by the SF Settlement. TP Plaintiffs demanded payment by the Partnership of TP Plaintiffs' costs of defending Nashville Case I and indemnification for any loss resulting from the claims of Orlando, among other claims of damage. In February 1996, the Court granted a motion filed by TP Plaintiffs for partial summary judgment, ruling that the Partnership had breached the SF Settlement. The action will continue to determine damages and other issues. The Partnership does not believe it breached the SF Settlement and will appeal this ruling at an appropriate time. However, no assurance can be given that its appeal will be successful. In late October 1997, TP Plaintiffs filed a motion for an injunction to prohibit GSI from distributing proceeds from the sale of the Residence Inns owned by GSI, pending a final judgment in this case. A hearing on this motion was held in February 1998 and the Court enjoined the Partnership from conveying, transferring, distributing or otherwise disposing of its cash to any extent which would leave less than $5 million available for payment of any judgment obtained by TP Plaintiffs. TP Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against the Partnership in April 1998, asserting, among other things, a bad faith breach of contract by the Partnership. In May 1998, the Court granted a motion by the Partnership to dismiss these bad faith allegations and to dismiss certain claims for specific damages made by TP Plaintiffs, including attorneys' fees and the value of Nelson's time relating to efforts to enforce the SF Settlement. In late October 1998, TP Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint, asserting that a certain 1989 three-party agreement among NLC, the Partnership and the holder of a mortgage on the Hotel and the Land entitles TP Plaintiffs to obtain judgment for, among other things, the cost, including attorney's fees, of this action and of Nelson's time and efforts on behalf of NLC in this action. In November 1998, the Court granted a motion filed by the Partnership, dismissing the claim of TP Plaintiffs to recover for the value of Nelson's time and efforts on behalf of NLC in this and related litigation. In December 1998, the Court granted a motion for partial summary judgment filed by the Partnership, dismissing most of the remaining damage claims of TP Plaintiffs, including claims for indemnification for any loss resulting from the claims of Orlando. After these claims were dismissed, TP Plaintiffs amended their damage claim to seek to recover the alleged differential between the price that the Partnership agreed to pay for the Land and its alleged fair market value. The amount of this claim is approximately $1.6 million. In addition, TP Plaintiffs seek to recover attorneys' fees to enforce the SF Settlement. The amount of this claim is approximately $500,000 In April 1999, the Partnership filed a motion to strike the new damage claim. At a hearing held on May 7, 1999, the Court denied the motion. On November 10, 1999, the Partnership filed a motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of TP Plaintiffs' remaining claim for attorneys' fees. This motion is scheduled to be heard on December 17, 1999. The trial of the case, which had previously been set for February 9, 1998 and continued to March 15, 1999, has been further continued to February 7, 2000 to permit limited discovery related to this new claim. Page 11 Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors, L.P., vs. Nashville Lodging Co., 2300 Elm Hill Pike, Inc., Orlando Residence Ltd., and LaSalle National Bank, as trustee under that certain pooling and servicing agreement, dated July 11, 1995 for the holders of the WHP Commercial Mortgage Pass Through Certificates, Series 1995C1 and Robert Holland, Trustee, Chancery Court for Davidson County, in Nashville, Tennessee, Case No. 96-1405-III ("Nashville Case II"). GSI filed this action on May 3, 1996 to obtain, among other things, a judicial determination of the rights and obligations of GSI and NLC under the senior mortgage on the Hotel ("Senior Mortgage"), a note held by NLC "wrapped around" the Senior Mortgage (the "Wrap Note") and the Lease as a consequence of GSI's cure of certain defaults by NLC under the Senior Mortgage. GSI believed that as a result of such a cure, it became the direct obligor to the lender under the Senior Mortgage and that the Wrap Note had been satisfied and the payments due under the Lease reduced by $50,000 per year. NLC and 2300 filed an answer in June, together with a counterclaim against the Partnership. NLC and 2300 claimed damages from the Partnership and asked the Court to permit acceleration of the Wrap Note and termination of the Lease. In July 1996, the Partnership filed a motion for summary judgment in this case, asking that the Court award the relief sought by it and that the Court dismiss the counterclaim of NLC and 2300. At a hearing on this motion held in August 1996 the Court granted the Partnership's motion. The defendants appealed all judgments for the Partnership in this case. The Partnership and the defendants agreed on an attorneys' fee award to the Partnership of $60,000, but no payment was expected until the defendants' appeal is resolved. Oral arguments regarding this appeal were held in July 1998, and in September 1998 the appellate court affirmed the judgments for the Partnership. Defendants moved for rehearing, which was denied in early October 1998. Defendants then filed an application with the Tennessee Supreme Court for permission to appeal the appellate court decision. This application was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court in early March 1999. Subsequently, Defendants petitioned the Tennessee Supreme Court to reconsider its denial. This petition was denied by the Tennessee Supreme Court on May 10, 1999. The Partnership's $60,000 attorneys' fee award is now due and owing by the defendants. Kenneth E. Nelson and Nashville Lodging Co. vs. Metric Realty et al., Chancery Court for Davidson County in Nashville, Tennessee, Case No. 97-2189-III (the "Inducement Action"). In the second quarter of 1997, Nelson alleged that Metric Realty and GHI Associates II, L.P., the Managing and Associate General Partners, respectively, of the Partnership, and certain of Metric Realty's affiliates (the "Affiliates") and certain former and current employees of Metric Realty or its affiliates (the "Employees") had improperly induced the Partnership to breach the SF Settlement. In June 1997, Nelson and NLC filed the Inducement Action in the Chancery Court for Davidson County in Nashville, Tennessee (the "Chancery Court") against Metric Realty, GHI Associates II, L.P., the Affiliates and certain of the Employees (the "Inducement Action Defendants"), seeking unspecified compensatory, treble and punitive damages for the alleged improper inducement of breach of contract. In the Inducement Action, Defendants in June 1998 filed a motion to dismiss the complaint against the Employees and one of the Affiliates named in the action based on lack of jurisdiction and against the remaining Affiliates based on failure to state a claim. The Chancery Court in September 1998 dismissed the complaint against all Affiliates but one and denied the remaining requests for dismissal. A motion for summary judgment to dismiss the action on the basis of the statute of limitations was filed in January 1999 by the Inducement Action Defendants and was argued at a hearing held in February 1999. In April 1999, the Court denied the motion. Discovery is ongoing and the case has not been set for trial. The legal and other expenses of the Inducement Action Defendants in the Inducement Action arising as a result of the allegations made by Nelson are being paid by the Partnership pursuant to the indemnification provisions of the Partnership's limited partnership agreement and subject to the conditions set forth in those provisions. Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors, L.P. vs. James Reuben et al., San Francisco County Superior Court, Case No. 998214. On September 30, 1998, the Partnership filed this lawsuit against James Reuben and several law corporations of which he is or has been a member (the "Reuben Defendants"), alleging breach of their professional obligations and fiduciary duty as attorneys for the Partnership to adequately and competently represent and advise the Partnership in connection with the SF Settlement. The Partnership seeks unspecified damages from the Reuben Defendants arising from such breach. The Reuben Defendants answered the complaint in January 1999. Discovery has yet to commence and no trial date for this action has been set. Page 12 Samuel A. Hardage and Samantha Hotels, LLC vs. Robert M. Holland, Jr., Trustee, and WBL II Real Estate Limited Partnership vs. Metric Partners Growth Suite Investors, L. P. and Nashville Lodging Company, Chancery Court for Davidson County, in Nashville, Tennessee, Case No. 99-1749-I.. On June 21, 1999, Samuel A. Hardage and Samantha Hotels, LLC ("Hardage") filed this action against Robert M. Holland (the "Trustee") and WBL Real Estate Limited Partnership (the "Lender") claiming in general that the Trustee improperly conducted the foreclosure sale of the Hotel and the Land (the "Collateral") by failing to (i) permit Hardage to redeem the Collateral for the amount of the outstanding debt that was being foreclosed and (ii) disqualify the Lender when it did not close its purchase of the Collateral by noon on June 18, 1999. Among other remedies, Hardage asks that the foreclosure sale be reconvened with the Lender disqualified as a bidder and for a declaration that he retains a right to redeem the Collateral in excess of the outstanding debt. On July 19, 1999, the Trustee and the Lender responded to the complaint, made certain counterclaims and made a third-party complaint against the Partnership and NLC. In general, the third-party complaint alleges that in the foreclosure sale the Lender paid $450,000 (the "Surplus Funds") in excess of the debt, costs and attorney's fees recoverable in connection with the debt and a $50,000 reserve for litigation costs related to the sale. As a result, the Trustee and Lender ask the Court for an order interpleading the Surplus Funds and joining all parties, including the Partnership and NLC, who claim an interest in the Surplus Funds. On July 20, 1999, the Partnership filed an answer, counterclaim and crossclaim, claiming an interest in the Surplus Funds related to the personal property sold in the foreclosure sale. Hardage filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to reconvene the foreclosure sale with the Lender disqualified as a bidder. The motion was denied by the Court at a hearing on August 9, 1999. On August 5, 1999, the Lender filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings, claiming that the Hardage complaint failed to allege that Hardage tendered the amount of the outstanding debt, and that Hardage failed to pay into Court the amount of the outstanding debt. The Lender alleged that these steps were necessary under Tennessee law for Hardage to pursue his claim that he was denied the right to redeem the Collateral. The motion was heard on August 19, 1999. The Court denied the motion but ordered Hardage to pay into Court the amount of the outstanding debt within thirty (30) days to proceed with his challenge that he was denied the right to redeem the Collateral. Hardage did not pay the debt into Court. Therefore, he can now proceed on his clam that the foreclosure was improper only because the Lender failed to close its purchase in the Collateral within the requested time. On August 23, 1999, Hardage filed an answer and counterclaim to the Partnership's claim to the Surplus Proceeds. Among other things, Hardage claims (1) that the Partnership is not entitled to any portion of the Surplus Funds because the personal property owned by the Partnership was not sold at the foreclosure; and (2) that the Partnership owes Hardage accrued but unpaid rent in an amount exceeding $500,000. On September 22, 1999, the Partnership answered Hardage's counterclaim, admitting that it owes accrued but unpaid rent either to Hardage or the Lender, and asking for a declaration as to whom the accrued but unpaid rent is owed. If Hardage were to succeed ultimately in getting the foreclosure set aside and reconvened, then there would be no Surplus Funds in which the Partnership could claim an interest. Moreover, if Hardage were to acquire the Hotel and discontinue the management of the Hotel by Marriott (which the Partnership believes would happen), the claim by Marriott to contract termination fees of $1,415,000 and other employee-related costs related to the foreclosure (see Part I, Item 1, Note 6 to Financial Statements above) would be strengthened. If Hardage were to succeed on his claim that the personal property was not sold at the foreclosure sale, then the Partnership would still own the personal property, and would likely negotiate a sale to the Lender. On September 23, 1999, the Lender filed a motion to compel non-binding mediation of the case. The motion was not opposed. The parties are attempting to schedule the mediation within the next sixty (60) days. Potential Impact of Foreclosure and Litigation The foreclosure of the Residence Inn - Nashville and subsequent claims made by Marriott in connection with the foreclosure (see Part I, Item 2, "Partnership Liquidity and Capital Resources"), as well as (i) the substantial legal fees and costs that have been and are expected to be incurred by the Partnership in connection with the existing lawsuits and (ii) the usual uncertainty of litigation create substantial doubt about the Partnership's ability to continue as a going concern. The accompanying financial statements do not include any adjustments that might result from these uncertainties. Page 13 Item 6. Exhibits and Reports on Form 8-K (a) No reports on Form 8-K were required to be filed during the period covered by this Report other than the Report filed on July 2, 1999, reporting on the foreclosure of the Residence Inn - Nashville, and the report filed on September 7, 1999 including a letter dated September 7, 1999 from Registrant to its investors. Page 14 SIGNATURE --------- Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this Report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized. METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P., a California Limited Partnership By: Metric Realty an Illinois general partnership its Managing General Partner By: SSR Realty Advisors, Inc., a Delaware corporation its Managing General Partner By: /s/ William A. Finelli ---------------------- William A. Finelli Managing Director, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of SSR Realty Advisors, Inc. Date: November 15, 1999 ----------------- Page 15 EX-27 2
5 0000800730 METRIC PARTNERS GROWTH SUITE INVESTORS, L.P. 9-MOS DEC-31-1999 JAN-01-1999 SEP-30-1999 6,881,000 0 844,000 0 0 7,725,000 0 0 7,725,000 2,204,000 0 0 0 0 5,521,000 7,725,000 0 2,016,000 0 1,408,000 0 0 223,000 479,000 0 0 (1,460,000) 0 0 (981,000) (5) 0
-----END PRIVACY-ENHANCED MESSAGE-----