ITEM 1. BUSINESS - ------- --------
ORGANIZATION - ------------
McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd. (the "Partnership") was organized June 2, 1980 as a limited partnership under the provisions of the California Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The general partner of the Partnership is McNeil Partners, L.P. (the "General Partner"), a Delaware limited partnership, an affiliate of Robert A. McNeil ("McNeil"). The Partnership is governed by an amended and restated partnership agreement of limited partnership dated August 6, 1991, as amended (the "Amended Partnership Agreement"). Prior to August 6, 1991, Pacific Investors Corporation (the prior "Corporate General Partner"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southmark Corporation ("Southmark"), and McNeil were the general partners of the Partnership, which was governed by an agreement of limited partnership dated June 2, 1980 (the "Original Partnership Agreement") as amended August 29, 1980. The principal place of business for the Partnership and for the General Partner is 13760 Noel Road, Suite 700, LB70, Dallas, Texas, 75240.
On September 18, 1980, a Registration Statement on Form S-11 was declared effective by the Securities and Exchange Commission whereby the Partnership offered for sale $80,000,000 of limited partnership units ("Units"). The Units represent equity interests in the Partnership and entitle the holders thereof to participate in certain allocations and distributions of the Partnership. The sale of Units closed on June 1, 1981, with 160,000 Units sold at $500 each, or gross proceeds of $80,000,000 to the Partnership. In addition, the original general partners purchased a total of 140 Units for $70,000. In 1993, 61 Units were relinquished. An additional 162 and 104 Units were relinquished in 1994 and 1995, respectively, leaving 159,813 Units outstanding as of December 31, 1995.
SOUTHMARK BANKRUPTCY AND CHANGE IN GENERAL PARTNER - --------------------------------------------------
On July 14, 1989, Southmark filed a voluntary petition for reorganization under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code. Neither the Partnership, McNeil nor the Corporate General Partner were included in the filing. Southmark's reorganization plan became effective August 10, 1990. Under the plan, most of Southmark's assets, which included Southmark's interests in the Corporate General Partner, are being sold or liquidated for the benefit of creditors.
In accordance with Southmark's reorganization plan, Southmark, McNeil and various of their affiliates entered into an asset purchase agreement on October 12, 1990, providing for, among other things, the transfer of control to McNeil or his affiliates of 34 limited partnerships (including the Partnership) in the Southmark portfolio.
On February 14, 1991, pursuant to the asset purchase agreement as amended on that date: (a) an affiliate of McNeil purchased the Corporate General Partner's economic interest in the Partnership; (b) McNeil became the managing general partner of the Partnership pursuant to an agreement with the Corporate General Partner that delegated management authority to McNeil; (c) McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. ("McREMI"), an affiliate of McNeil, acquired the assets relating to the property management and partnership administrative business of Southmark and its affiliates and commenced management of the Partnership's properties pursuant to an assignment of the existing property management agreements from the Southmark affiliates; and (d) the General Partner purchased the short-term, unsecured loan owing from the Partnership to a Southmark affiliate in the amount of $2,645,950. The unsecured loan has now been settled in full.
On August 6, 1991, the limited partners approved a restructuring proposal providing for (i) the replacement of the Corporate General Partner and McNeil with the General Partner; (ii) the adoption of the Amended Partnership Agreement, which substantially alters the provisions of the Original Partnership Agreement relating to, among other things, compensation, reimbursement of expenses, and voting rights; and (iii) the approval of a new property management agreement with McREMI, the Partnership's property manager.
The Amended Partnership Agreement provides for a Management Incentive Distribution ("MID") to replace all other forms of general partner compensation, other than property management fees and reimbursements of certain costs. Additional Units may be issued in connection with the payment of the MID pursuant to the Amended Partnership Agreement. See Item 8 - Note 2 - "Transactions with Affiliates." For a discussion of the methodology for calculating and distributing the MID, see Item 13 - Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.
Settlement of Claims:
During 1990, the Partnership filed claims in the Southmark bankruptcy in the amount of $1,180,040. McNeil also filed claims on behalf of the Partnership in an indeterminate amount, some of which overlapped in whole or in part with claims filed by the Partnership. No claims were filed by McNeil or the Partnership on behalf of individual limited partners.
In July 1991, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, approved an agreement whereby the Partnership settled its claims against Southmark. Under the settlement agreement, an affiliate of McNeil agreed to waive on a dollar-for-dollar basis an amount equal to the settled claims against affiliate advances owed by the Partnership, which at June 30, 1991, were in excess of the amount of the claim. The reduction of affiliate advances resulted in an extraordinary gain on extinguishment of debt of $1,180,040 in 1991.
CURRENT OPERATIONS - ------------------
General:
The Partnership is engaged in real estate activities, including the ownership, operation and management of residential real estate and other real estate related assets. At December 31, 1995, the Partnership owned eight income-producing properties as described in Item 2
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES - ------- ----------
The following table sets forth the real estate investment portfolio of the Partnership at December 31, 1995. The buildings and the land on which they are located are owned by the Partnership in fee, subject in each case to a first lien deed of trust as set forth more fully in Item 8 - Note 5 - "Mortgage Notes Payable". See also Item 8 - Note 4 - "Real Estate Investments" and Schedule III - - "Real Estate Investments and Accumulated Depreciation." In the opinion of management, the properties are adequately covered by insurance.
- ----------------------------------------- Total: Apartments - 2,511 units
(1) Acacia Lakes Apartments is owned by Acacia Lakes Fund XI Limited Partnership which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.
(2) Gentle Gale Apartments is owned by Gentle Gale Fund XI Limited Partnership which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.
(3) Knollwood Apartments is owned by Knollwood Fund XI Associates which is wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.
(4) The Park Apartments is owned by The Park Fund XI Associates which is wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.
(5) Sun Valley Apartments is owned by Sun Valley Fund XI Associates which is wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.
(6) Villa Del Rio Apartments is owned by Villa Del Rio Fund XI Limited Partnership which is wholly-owned by the Partnership.
(7) The Village Apartments is owned by Village Fund XI Associates which is wholly-owned by the Partnership and the General Partner.
The following table sets forth the properties' occupancy rate and rent per square foot for each of the last five years:
Occupancy rate represents all units leased divided by the total number of units of the property as of December 31 of the given year. Rent per square foot represents all revenue, except interest, derived from the property's operations divided by the leasable square footage of the property.
Competitive Conditions at Properties - ------------------------------------
Due to a substantial investment of capital since 1992, Acacia Lakes has increased its rent per square foot by 44% over the last four years. Additionally, the property has maintained higher occupancy rates than the average market rate of 93%. Rental rates at Acacia Lakes are averaging $.62 per square foot, while many competitors are averaging $.66 per square foot.
Gentle Gale is located in Galveston, Texas, where the local economy is dependent upon the University of Texas Medical Branch and tourism. Over the last few years the economy has been sluggish and this has been reflected in the drop in the occupancy rates at the property. Gentle Gale is currently mirroring an average market rate of 88%. Gentle Gale competes with properties that are newer and offer better amenity packages. The property has been upgrading the units and offering rental discounts to remain competitive in the market.
Knollwood finished 1995 just above the average market rate of 95%. The current rental rates per square foot are between $.52 and $.55 for Knollwood's townhouses and one and two bedroom apartments, while the market rate per square foot is between $.52 and $.54. Capital improvements are planned to improve the curb appeal and upgrade the apartments to take advantage of the strong market conditions.
The Park is the largest apartment community in Joplin, Missouri where the market's average occupancy rate is 90%. The local economy is expected to remain stable; however, during 1995, an additional 160 units were built which saturated the apartment market. The new units are entering the marketplace at $.44 per square foot while The Park is averaging $.52 per square foot. To remain competitive in the market, The Park has discounted rents.
Rock Creek is located in a strong rental market where the average occupancy rate is 95% and the rent per square foot averages $.72. Over the past few years the property has been upgrading the interiors of the units as well as improving the outside appearance with landscaping and a renovation of the clubhouse and office. These enhancements allowed the property to remain competitive with rental rates per square foot averaging $.66. An additional 3,300 units are scheduled to be built in the market during 1996. With the growth in employment, the market should absorb these additional units without any adverse effect to the property.
Strong market conditions are beginning to stimulate new developments in the area surrounding Sun Valley. Currently, an additional 3,950 units are under construction with numerous other projects in the planning stages. These new units will have no adverse effect on the property. With the capital improvements made at the property over the last few years, the property has been able to stay competitive with the newer properties. Sun Valley finished 1995 above the market average occupancy rate of 96%.
Villa Del Rio's occupancy rate has increased by 13% since 1991 and finished 1995 above the market average of 94%. The overall occupancy rate for Jacksonville has remained strong. The city experienced its highest level of new construction of apartment communities since 1986. Currently, 3,000 units are under construction with several other apartment communities in the planning stages. These new units will have no adverse effect on the property. Villa Del Rio's advantage over its competitors is design and layout of the property. All units are single story apartments and the property is spread over 25 acres.
The Village finished the year fully leased for the second year in a row. The area economy remains strong; and occupancy rates were at their highest in 5 years. The market rental rate per square foot and the rental rate at The Village is $.66. As a result of the strong economy, 5,500 units were absorbed during 1995. The Village should remain competitive in the marketplace.
ITEM 3.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - ------- -----------------
1) High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., Robert A. McNeil and Carole J. McNeil (L95012) - High River ("HR") filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc. and Mr. and Mrs. McNeil (as defined in this Section 1, collectively, the "Defendants") requesting, among other things, names and addresses of the limited partners in the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 1, the "Partnerships"). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the Partnerships requiring them to commence mailing materials relating to the HR tender offer on August 14, 1995.
On August 18, 1995, the Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The Counterclaim principally asserts (1) the HR tender offers have been undertaken in violation of the federal securities laws, on the basis of material, non-public, and confidential information, and (2) that the HR offer documents omit and/or misrepresent certain material information about the HR tender offers. The Counterclaim seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against the continuation of the HR tender offers and, alternatively, ordering corrective disclosure with respect to allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the tender offer documents.
This action was dismissed without prejudice in November 1995.
2) High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., Robert A. McNeil and Carole J. McNeil - United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (Case No. 95 Civ. 9488) (Second Action).
On November 7, 1995, High River filed a second complaint with the District Court which alleges, inter alia, that McNeil Partners, L.P.'s (the "General Partner") Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the High River tender offers was materially false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(d) and (e), and the SEC Regulations promulgated thereunder; and that High River further alleges that the General Partner has wrongfully refused to admit High River as a limited partner to the ten partnerships referenced above. Additionally, High River purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI,
Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, asserting that the General Partner has charged these partnerships excessive fees. High River's complaint seeks, inter alia, preliminary injunctive relief requiring the General Partner to admit High River as a limited partner in each of the ten partnerships referenced above and to transfer the tendered units of interest in the partnerships to High River; an unspecified award of damages payable to High River and an additional unspecified award of damages payable to certain of the partnerships; an order that defendants must discharge their fiduciary duties and must account for all fees they have received from certain of the partnerships; and attorneys' fees.
On January 31, 1996, this action was dismissed without prejudice.
3) Robert Lewis v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil et al - In the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, A-14th Judicial District, Cause No. 95-08535 (Class Action) - Plaintiff, Robert Lewis, is a limited partner with McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.
Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and as a class action on behalf of the class of all limited partners of McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, Ltd. (as defined in this Section 3, the "Partnerships") as of August 4, 1995.
Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in this Section 3, collectively, the "Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, (1) failing to attempt to sell the properties owned by the Partnerships (as defined in this Section 3, the "Properties") and extending the lives of the Partnerships indefinitely, contrary to the Partnerships' business plans, (2) paying distributions to themselves and generating fees for their affiliates, (3) refusing to make significant distributions to the class members, despite the fact that the Partnerships have positive cash flows and substantial cash balances, and (4) failing to take steps to create an auction market for equity interests of the Partnerships, despite the fact that a third party bidder filed tender offers for approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the outstanding units of each of the Partnerships. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants have breached the partnership agreements of the Partnerships by failing to take steps to liquidate the Properties and by their alteration of the Partnerships' primary purposes, their acts in contravention of these agreements, and their use of the assets of the Partnerships for their own benefit instead of for the benefit of the Partnerships.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend this action.
4) James F. Schofield, Gerald C. Gillett and Donna S. Gillett v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. et al - Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133799 (Class and Derivative Action Complaint) and United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 95CIV.6711 (Class and Derivative Action Complaint)
These are corporate/securities class and derivative actions brought in state and federal court by limited partners of each of the nine (9) limited partnerships that are named as nominal defendants as listed above (as defined in this Section 4, the "Partnerships"). Plaintiffs allege that McNeil Investors, Inc., its affiliate McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. and four (4) of their senior officers and/or directors (as defined in this Section 4, collectively, the "Defendants") have breached their fiduciary duties. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have caused the Partnerships to enter into several wasteful transactions that have no business purpose or benefit to the Partnerships and which have rendered such units highly illiquid and artificially depressed the prices that are available for units on the limited resale market. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have engaged in a course of conduct to prevent the acquisition of units by Carl Icahn by disseminating false, misleading and inadequate information. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants have acted to advance their own personal interests at the expense of the Partnerships' public unit holders by failing to sell Partnership properties and failing to make distributions to unitholders and, thereby, have breached the partnership agreements.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend these actions.
5) Alfred Napoletano v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. - Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133849 (Class Action Complaint)
Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 5, the "Partnerships"). Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in this Section 5, collectively, the "Defendants") have breached their fiduciary duties to the class members by, among other things, (1) taking steps to prevent the consummation of the High River tender offers, (2) failing to take steps to maximize unitholders' or limited partners' values, including failure to liquidate the properties owned by the Partnerships, (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend indefinitely the present fee arrangements, and (4) paying itself and entities owned and controlled by the general partner excessive fees and reimbursements of general and administrative expenses.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend this action.
6) Warren Heller v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. - Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133957 (Class Action Complaint)
Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 6, the "Partnerships"). Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in this Section 6, collectively, the "Defendants") have breached their fiduciary duties to the class members by, among other things, (1) taking steps to prevent the consummation of the High River tender offers, (2) failing to take steps to maximize unitholders' or limited partners' values, including failure to liquidate the properties owned by the Partnerships, (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend indefinitely the present fee arrangements, and (4) paying itself and entities owned and controlled by the general partner excessive fees and reimbursements of general and administrative expenses.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend this action.
For a discussion of the Southmark bankruptcy, See Item 1 - Business - "Southmark Bankruptcy and Change in General Partner."
ITEM 4.
ITEM 4. SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS - ------- ---------------------------------------------------
None.
PART II
ITEM 5.
ITEM 5. MARKET FOR THE REGISTRANT'S UNITS OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AND - ------- ------------------------------------------------------------ RELATED SECURITY HOLDER MATTERS -------------------------------
(A) There is no established public trading market for limited partnership units, nor is one expected to develop.
(B) Title of Class Number of Record Unit Holders -------------- -----------------------------
Limited partnership units 8,674 as of February 16, 1996
(C) No distributions were made to the limited partners during 1995 or 1994, and none are anticipated for 1996. The Partnership accrued distributions of $871,503 and $769,448 for the benefit of the General Partner for the years ended December 31, 1995 and 1994, respectively. Total distributions of $2,449,555 remain unpaid at December 31, 1995. These distributions relate to the contingent portion of the MID pursuant to the Amended Partnership Agreement. See Item 8 - Note 2 - "Transactions with Affiliates." See Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations for a discussion of distributions and the likelihood that they will be resumed to the limited partners.
ITEM 6.
ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA - ------- -----------------------
The following table sets forth a summary of certain financial data for the Partnership. This summary should be read in conjunction with the Partnership's financial statements and notes thereto appearing in Item 8.
See Item 7
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION - ------- ----------------------------------------------------------- AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS -------------------------
FINANCIAL CONDITION - -------------------
The Partnership was formed to acquire, operate and ultimately dispose of a portfolio of income-producing real properties. As of December 31, 1995, the Partnership owned eight apartment properties. All of the Partnership's properties are subject to mortgage notes.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS - ---------------------
1995 compared to 1994
Revenue:
Total Partnership revenues for 1995 increased by $1,026,400 or 8% as compared to 1994. Rental revenue and interest income increased $990,964 or 7% and $63,545 or 75%, respectively. In 1994, the Partnership recognized a gain on involuntary conversion of $28,109 as a result of a fire at Sun Valley in 1993.
Rental revenue for 1995 was $14,304,055 as compared to $13,313,091 for 1994. This increase of $990,964 is due to an increase in the rental rates at seven of the Partnership's eight properties and increases in the occupancy rates at three of the Partnership's properties. Of the three properties that experienced an increase in their occupancy rate, Rock Creek showed the largest increase of 5% from 94% at December 31, 1994 to 99% at December 31, 1995. This increase can be attributed to the capital improvements made at the property over the last two years.
Expenses:
Total Partnership expenses increased by $525,335 or 4% for the year ended December 31, 1995 as compared to 1994.
Depreciation expense increased $142,940 or 6% in 1995 as compared to 1994. This increase is due to capital improvements made at the properties. During 1995, the Partnership made $1,820,043 in capital improvements.
Property taxes decreased $98,679 or 11% in 1995 as compared to 1994. This is due to an decrease in the estimated tax liability at Gentle Gale, Knollwood, Rock Creek, Sun Valley and The Park.
Repairs and maintenance increased by $128,072 or 8% in 1995 as compared to 1994. This increase can be attributed to increases in ground maintenance, exterminating, carpet cleaning and sheet rock repairs. Additionally, carpet replacements, which met the Partnership's criteria for capitalization based on the magnitude of replacements in 1994, were in part expensed for 1995.
General and administrative increased $242,009 or 160% in 1995 as compared to 1994. This increase was due to costs incurred by the Partnership in the third quarter of 1995 to evaluate and disseminate information regarding an unsolicited tender offer. See Item 8
ITEM 8. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY DATA - ------- -------------------------------------------
All other schedules are omitted because they are not applicable or the required information is shown in the financial statements or notes thereto.
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS
To the Partners of McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd.:
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd. (a California limited partnership) as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the related statements of operations, partners' deficit and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1995. These financial statements and the schedule referred to below are the responsibility of the Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements and the schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.
In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd. as of December 31, 1995 and 1994, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1995, in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
Our audits were made for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The schedule listed in the index to financial statements is presented for purposes of complying with the Securities and Exchange Commission's rules and is not part of the basic financial statements. This schedule has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audits of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, fairly states in all material respects the financial data required to be set forth therein in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
/s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
Dallas, Texas March 13, 1996
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD.
BALANCE SHEETS
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD.
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD.
STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' DEFICIT
For the Years Ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
See discussion of noncash investing and financing activities in Notes 6 and 7.
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Reconciliation of Net Income (Loss) to Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 1995
NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - --------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization - ------------
McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd. (the "Partnership") was organized June 2, 1980 as a limited partnership under the provisions of the California Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The general partner of the Partnership is McNeil Partners, L.P. (the "General Partner"), a Delaware limited partnership, an affiliate of Robert A. McNeil. The Partnership is governed by an amended and restated partnership agreement of limited partnership dated August 6, 1991, as amended (the "Amended Partnership Agreement"). The principal place of business for the Partnership and for the General Partner is 13760 Noel Road, Suite 700, LB70, Dallas, Texas, 75240.
The Partnership is engaged in real estate activities, including the ownership, operation and management of residential real estate and other real estate related assets. At December 31, 1995, the Partnership owned eight income-producing properties as described in Note 4 - Real Estate Investments.
Basis of Presentation - ---------------------
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles ("GAAP"). The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results could differ from those estimates.
The Partnership's financial statements include the accounts of the following listed tier partnerships for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993. These single asset tier partnerships were formed to accommodate the refinancing of the respective property. The Partnership's and the General Partner's ownership interest in each tier partnership is detailed below. The Partnership retains effective control of each tier partnership. The General Partner's minority interest is not presented as it is either negative or immaterial.
* The general partner of these partnerships is a corporation whose stock is 100% owned by the Partnership.
Real Estate Investments - -----------------------
Real estate investments are generally stated at the lower of cost or net realizable value. Real estate investments are monitored on an ongoing basis to determine if the property has sustained a permanent impairment in value. At such time, a write-down is recorded to reduce the basis of the property to its net realizable value. A permanent impairment is determined to have occurred when a decline in property value is considered to be other than temporary based upon management's expectations with respect to projected cash flows and prevailing economic conditions.
Improvements and betterments are capitalized and expensed through depreciation charges. Repairs and maintenance are charged to operations as incurred.
In March 1995, the Financial Accounting Standards Board issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 121, "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed Of." This statement requires that long-lived assets and certain identifiable intangibles to be held and used by an entity be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of an asset may not be recoverable. This statement is effective for financial statements for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 1995. The Partnership has not adopted the principles of this statement within the accompanying financial statements; however, it is not anticipated that adoption will have a material effect on the carrying value of the Partnership's long-lived assets.
Depreciation - ------------
Buildings and improvements are depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, ranging from 3 to 40 years.
Cash and Cash Equivalents - -------------------------
Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand and cash on deposit with financial institutions with original maturities of three months or less. Carrying amounts for cash and cash equivalents approximate fair value.
Escrow Deposits - ---------------
The Partnership is required to maintain escrow accounts in accordance with the terms of various mortgage indebtedness agreements. These escrow accounts are controlled by the mortgagee and are used for payment of property taxes, hazard insurance, capital improvements and/or property replacements. Carrying amounts for escrow deposits approximate fair value.
Deferred Borrowing Costs - ------------------------
Loan fees and other related costs incurred to obtain long-term financing on real property are capitalized and amortized using a method that approximates the effective interest method over the terms of the related mortgage notes payable. Amortization of deferred borrowing costs is included in interest expense on the Statements of Operations.
Discounts on Mortgage Notes Payable - -----------------------------------
Discounts on mortgage notes payable are being amortized over the remaining terms of the related mortgage notes using the effective interest method. Amortization of discounts on the mortgage notes payable is included in interest expense on the Statements of Operations.
Rental Revenue - --------------
The Partnership leases its residential properties under short-term operating leases. Lease terms generally are less than one year in duration. Rental revenue is recognized as earned.
Income Taxes - ------------
No provision for Federal income taxes is necessary in the financial statements of the Partnership because, as a partnership, it is not subject to Federal income tax, and the tax effect of its activities accrues to the partners.
Allocation of Net Income and Net Loss - -------------------------------------
The Amended Partnership Agreement provides for net income of the Partnership for both financial statement and income tax reporting purposes to be allocated as indicated below. For allocation purposes, net income and net loss of the Partnership are determined prior to deductions for depreciation:
a) first, deductions for depreciation shall be allocated 5% to the General Partner and 95% to the limited partners;
b) then, net income in an amount equal to the cumulative amount paid to the General Partner for the contingent portion of the Management Incentive Distribution ("MID"), for which no previous income allocations have been made, shall be allocated to the General Partner; provided, however, that if all or a portion of such payment consists of limited partnership units ("Units"), the amount of net income allocated shall be equal to the amount of cash the General Partner would have otherwise received; and
c) then, any remaining net income shall be allocated to achieve the allocation of 5% to the General Partner and 95% to the limited partners.
The Amended Partnership Agreement provides that net losses, other than that arising from a sale or refinancing, shall be allocated 5% to the General Partner and 95% to the limited partners.
Net losses arising from a sale or refinancing shall be allocated 1% to the General Partner and 99% to the limited partners.
Federal income tax law provides that the allocation of loss to a partner will not be recognized unless the allocation is in accordance with a partner's interest in the partnership or the allocation has substantial economic effect. Internal Revenue Code Section 704(b) and accompanying Treasury Regulations establish criteria for allocations of Partnership deductions attributable to debt. The Partnership's tax allocations for 1995, 1994, and 1993 have been made in accordance with these provisions.
Distributions - -------------
Pursuant to the Amended Partnership Agreement and at the discretion of the General Partner, distributions during each taxable year shall be made as follows:
(a) first, to the General Partner, in an amount equal to the contingent portion of the MID; and
(b) any remaining distributable cash, as defined, shall be distributed 100% to the limited partners.
No distributions were made to the limited partners in 1995, 1994 or 1993. The Partnership accrued distributions of $871,503, $769,448 and $625,529 for the benefit of the General Partner for the years ended December 31, 1995, 1994 and 1993, respectively. These distributions are the contingent MID pursuant to the Amended Partnership Agreement.
Net Income (Loss) Per Limited Partnership Unit - ----------------------------------------------
Net income (loss) per Unit is computed by dividing net income (loss) allocated to the limited partners by the number of Units outstanding. Per Unit information has been computed based on 159,813, 159,917 and 160,079 Units outstanding in 1995, 1994 and 1993, respectively.
NOTE 2 - TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES - -------------------------------------
The Partnership pays property management fees equal to 5% of the gross rental receipts of the Partnership's properties to McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. ("McREMI"), an affiliate of the General Partner, for providing property management and leasing services.
The Partnership reimburses McREMI for its costs, including overhead, of administering the Partnership's affairs.
Under terms of the Amended Partnership Agreement, the Partnership is paying the MID to the General Partner. The maximum MID is calculated as 1% of the tangible asset value of the Partnership. The maximum MID percentage decreases subsequent to 1999. Tangible asset value is determined by using the greater of (i) an amount calculated by applying a capitalization rate of 9% to the annualized net operating income of each property or (ii) a value of $10,000 per apartment unit for residential property to arrive at the property tangible asset value. The property tangible asset value is then added to the book value of all other assets excluding intangible items. Prior to July 1, 1993, the MID consisted of two components: (i) the fixed portion which was payable without respect to the net income of the Partnership and was equal to 25% of the maximum MID (the "Fixed MID") and (ii) a contingent portion which was payable only to the extent of the lesser of the Partnership's excess cash flow, as defined, or net operating income (the "Entitlement Amount") and was equal to up to 75% of the maximum MID (the "Contingent MID").
Effective July 1, 1993, the General Partner amended the Amended Partnership Agreement as a settlement to a class action complaint. This amendment eliminates the Fixed MID and makes the entire MID payable to the extent of the Entitlement Amount. In all other respects the calculation and payment of the MID remain the same.
Fixed MID was payable in Units unless the Entitlement Amount exceeded the amount necessary to pay the Contingent MID, in which case, at the General Partner's option, the Fixed MID was paid in cash to the extent of such excess.
Contingent MID will be paid to the extent of the Entitlement Amount, and may be paid (i) in cash, unless there is insufficient cash to pay the distribution in which event any unpaid portion not taken in Units will be deferred and is payable, without interest, from the first available cash and/or (ii) in Units. A maximum of 50% of the MID may be paid in Units. The number of Units issued in payment of the MID is based on the greater of $50 per Unit or the net tangible asset value per Unit, as defined. No Units were issued in payment of the MID in 1995, 1994 or 1993.
During 1991, the Partnership amended its capitalization policy and began capitalizing certain costs of improvements and betterments which under policies of prior management had been expensed when incurred. The purpose of the amendment was to more properly recognize items which were capital in nature. The effect of the amendment standing alone was evaluated at the time the change was made and determined not to be material to the financial statements of the Partnership in 1991, nor was it expected to be material in any future year. However, the amendment can have a material effect on the calculation of the Entitlement Amount which determines the amount of Contingent MID earned and the amount of Fixed MID payable in cash. Capital improvements are excluded from cash flow, as defined. The majority of base period cash flow was measured under the previous capitalization policy, while incentive period cash flow is determined using the amended policy. Under the amended policy, more items are capitalized, and cash flow increases. The amendment of the capitalization policy did not materially affect the MID for 1995, 1994 or 1993 because the Entitlement Amount was sufficient to pay Contingent MID notwithstanding the amendment to the capitalization policy.
Any amount of the MID that is paid to the General Partner in Units will be treated as if cash is distributed to the General Partner and is then contributed to the Partnership by the General Partner. The Fixed MID was treated as a fee payable to the General Partner by the Partnership for services rendered. The Contingent MID represents a return of equity to the General Partner for increasing cash flow, as defined, and accordingly is treated as a distribution.
Compensation and reimbursements paid or accrued for the benefit of the General Partner or its affiliates are as follows:
Payable to affiliates - General Partner at December 31, 1995 and 1994 consists primarily of reimbursable costs, unpaid property management fees and accrued but unpaid Contingent MID. These payables are due and payable from current operations.
NOTE 3 - TAXABLE INCOME (LOSS) - ------------------------------
McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd. is a partnership and is not subject to Federal and state income taxes. Accordingly, no recognition has been given to income taxes in the accompanying financial statements of the Partnership since the income or loss of the Partnership is to be included in the tax returns of the individual partners. The tax returns of the Partnership are subject to examination by Federal and state taxing authorities. If such examinations result in adjustments to distributive shares of taxable income or loss, the tax liability of the partners could be adjusted accordingly.
The Partnership's net assets and liabilities for tax purposes were less than the net assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes by $62,005 in 1995, $415,728 in 1994, and $371,525 in 1993.
NOTE 4 - REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS - --------------------------------
The basis and accumulated depreciation of the Partnership's real estate investments at December 31, 1995 and 1994 are set forth in the following tables:
The Partnership's real estate properties are encumbered by mortgage indebtedness as discussed in Note 5.
NOTE 5 - MORTGAGE NOTES PAYABLE - -------------------------------
The following table sets forth the mortgage notes payable of the Partnership at December 31, 1995 and 1994. All mortgage notes are secured by real estate investments.
(a) The debt is non-recourse to the Partnership.
(b) Discounts are based on an effective interest rate of 8.62%.
(c) Balloon payments on the mortgage notes are due as follows:
Scheduled principal maturities of the mortgage notes, before consideration of discounts of $203,606, are as follows:
Based on borrowing rates currently available to the Partnership for mortgage loans with similar terms and average maturities, the fair value of notes payable was approximately $40,765,000 as of December 31, 1995.
NOTE 6 - GAIN ON INVOLUNTARY CONVERSION - ---------------------------------------
On March 15, 1993, 8 units at Sun Valley were destroyed by fire causing $317,100 in damages. The Partnership received $277,145 in insurance reimbursements as of December 31, 1993, to cover the cost to repair Sun Valley. The property received an additional $28,109 in insurance reimbursements in 1994. Insurance reimbursements received in excess of the basis of the property damaged were recorded as a gain on involuntary conversion. The Partnership recorded a gain of $28,109 and $178,460 in 1994 and 1993, respectively.
NOTE 7 - REFINANCING OF MORTGAGE NOTES PAYABLE - ----------------------------------------------
On November 23, 1993, the Partnership refinanced the mortgage note payable on Acacia Lakes. A summary of the proceeds from refinancing is as follows:
The Partnership deposited $183,751 into property taxes, insurance and replacement escrows and incurred loan costs of $376,292 relating to the refinancing. The Partnership also recognized an extraordinary loss on early extinguishment of debt on Acacia Lakes in the amount of $285,501, which is attributable to the unamortized discount on the retired mortgage.
On June 24, 1993, the General Partner refinanced a portfolio of properties via a Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit ("REMIC"). This REMIC consists of a pool of properties from various partnerships affiliated with McNeil. Gentle Gale and Villa Del Rio were included in the REMIC. The properties in the REMIC are not collateralized across the partnerships, but are cross-collateralized within the same partnership. The new mortgage loans bear an interest rate of 8.15%, which have been discounted to an effective rate of 8.62%, and mature in July 2003. Following is a summary of the cash proceeds relating to the refinancings:
The Partnership deposited $328,157 into separate escrow accounts for property taxes, insurance and replacement reserves and incurred loan costs of $487,233 relating to the refinancings. The Partnership recognized an extraordinary loss on early extinguishment of debt on Gentle Gale in the amount of $179,408, which is attributable to the unamortized discount and prepayment penalty relating to the retired mortgage. The Partnership also recognized an extraordinary loss on early extinguishment of debt on Villa Del Rio in the amount of $56,471, which is attributable to the prepayment penalty relating to the retired mortgage.
NOTE 8 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - --------------------------
1) High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., Robert A. McNeil and Carole J. McNeil (L95012) - High River ("HR") filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc. and Mr. and Mrs. McNeil (as defined in this Section 1, collectively, the "Defendants") requesting, among other things, names and addresses of the limited partners in the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 1, the "Partnerships"). The District Court issued a preliminary injunction against the Partnerships requiring them to commence mailing materials relating to the HR tender offer on August 14, 1995.
On August 18, 1995, the Defendants filed an Answer and Counterclaim. The Counterclaim principally asserts (1) the HR tender offers have been undertaken in violation of the federal securities laws, on the basis of material, non-public, and confidential information, and (2) that the HR offer documents omit and/or misrepresent certain material information about the HR tender offers. The Counterclaim seeks a preliminary and permanent injunction against the continuation of the HR tender offers and, alternatively, ordering corrective disclosure with respect to allegedly false and misleading statements contained in the tender offer documents.
This action was dismissed without prejudice in November 1995.
2) High River Limited Partnership v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Pacific Investors 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., Robert A. McNeil and Carole J. McNeil - United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, (Case No. 95 Civ. 9488) (Second Action).
On November 7, 1995, High River filed a second complaint with the District Court which alleges, inter alia, that McNeil Partners, L.P.'s (the "General Partner") Schedule 14D-9 filed in connection with the High River tender offers was materially false and misleading, in violation of Sections 14(d) and 14(e) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Section 78n(d) and (e), and the SEC Regulations promulgated thereunder; and that High River further alleges that the General Partner has wrongfully refused to admit High River as a limited partner to the ten partnerships referenced
above. Additionally, High River purports to assert claims derivatively on behalf of McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty, asserting that the General Partner has charged these partnerships excessive fees. High River's complaint seeks, inter alia, preliminary injunctive relief requiring the General Partner to admit High River as a limited partner in each of the ten partnerships referenced above and to transfer the tendered units of interest in the partnerships to High River; an unspecified award of damages payable to High River and an additional unspecified award of damages payable to certain of the partnerships; an order that defendants must discharge their fiduciary duties and must account for all fees they have received from certain of the partnerships; and attorneys' fees.
On January 31, 1996, this action was dismissed without prejudice.
3) Robert Lewis v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil et al - In the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, A-14th Judicial District, Cause No. 95-08535 (Class Action) - Plaintiff, Robert Lewis, is a limited partner with McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd.
Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf and as a class action on behalf of the class of all limited partners of McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P. and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, Ltd. (as defined in this Section 3, the "Partnerships") as of August 4, 1995.
Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in this Section 3, collectively, the "Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties by, among other things, (1) failing to attempt to sell the properties owned by the Partnerships (as defined in this Section 3, the "Properties") and extending the lives of the Partnerships indefinitely, contrary to the Partnerships' business plans, (2) paying distributions to themselves and generating fees for their affiliates, (3) refusing to make significant distributions to the class members, despite the fact that the Partnerships have positive cash flows and substantial cash balances, and (4) failing to take steps to create an auction market for equity interests of the Partnerships, despite the fact that a third party bidder filed tender offers for approximately forty-five percent (45%) of the outstanding units of each of the Partnerships. Plaintiff also claims that Defendants have breached the partnership agreements of the Partnerships by failing to take steps to liquidate the Properties and by their alteration of the Partnerships' primary purposes, their acts in contravention of these agreements, and their use of the assets of the Partnerships for their own benefit instead of for the benefit of the Partnerships.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend this action.
4) James F. Schofield, Gerald C. Gillett and Donna S. Gillett v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. et al - Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133799 (Class and Derivative Action Complaint) and United States District Court, Southern District of New York, Case No. 95CIV.6711 (Class and Derivative Action Complaint)
These are corporate/securities class and derivative actions brought in state and federal court by limited partners of each of the nine (9) limited partnerships that are named as nominal defendants as listed above (as defined in this Section 4, the "Partnerships"). Plaintiffs allege that McNeil Investors, Inc., its affiliate McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. and four (4) of their senior officers and/or directors (as defined in this Section 4, collectively, the "Defendants") have breached their fiduciary duties. Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have caused the Partnerships to enter into several wasteful transactions that have no business purpose or benefit to the Partnerships and which have rendered such units highly illiquid and artificially depressed the prices that are available for units on the limited resale market. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants have engaged in a course of conduct to prevent the acquisition of units by Carl Icahn by disseminating false, misleading and inadequate information. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants have acted to advance their own personal interests at the expense of the Partnerships' public unit holders by failing to sell Partnership properties and failing to make distributions to unitholders and, thereby, have breached the partnership agreements.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend these actions.
5) Alfred Napoletano v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. - Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133849 (Class Action Complaint)
Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 5, the "Partnerships"). Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in this Section 5, collectively, the "Defendants") have breached their fiduciary duties to the class members by, among other things, (1) taking
steps to prevent the consummation of the High River tender offers, (2) failing to take steps to maximize unit holders' or limited partners' values, including failure to liquidate the properties owned by the Partnerships, (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend indefinitely the present fee arrangements, and (4) paying itself and entities owned and controlled by the general partner excessive fees and reimbursements of general and administrative expenses.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend this action.
6) Warren Heller v. McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund V, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P. - Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles, Case No. BC133957 (Class Action Complaint)
Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of a class of all persons and entities who are current owners of units and/or are limited partners in one or more of the partnerships referenced above (as defined in this Section 6, the "Partnerships"). Plaintiff alleges that McNeil Partners, L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., Robert A. McNeil and other senior officers (as defined in this Section 6, collectively, the "Defendants") have breached their fiduciary duties to the class members by, among other things, (1) taking steps to prevent the consummation of the High River tender offers, (2) failing to take steps to maximize unitholders' or limited partners' values, including failure to liquidate the properties owned by the Partnerships, (3) managing the Partnerships so as to extend indefinitely the present fee arrangements, and (4) paying itself and entities owned and controlled by the general partner excessive fees and reimbursements of general and administrative expenses.
The Defendants deny that there is any merit to Plaintiff's allegations and intend to vigorously defend this action.
NOTE 9 - SUBSEQUENT EVENT - -------------------------
On January 8, 1996, 23 units and a laundry facility, totaling 23,347 square feet at Knollwood Apartments were destroyed by fire causing approximately $865,000 in damages. Management believes the insurance reimbursements to cover the cost of repair will exceed the basis of the property damaged by approximately $705,000.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD. SCHEDULE III REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION December 31, 1995
(b) The initial cost and encumbrances reflect the present value of future loan payments discounted, if appropriate, at a rate estimated to be the prevailing interest rate at the date of acquisition or refinancing.
See accompanying notes to Schedule III.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD. SCHEDULE III REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION December 31, 1995
(a) For Federal income tax purposes, the properties are depreciated over lives ranging from 15-25 years using ACRS or MACRS methods. The aggregate cost of real estate investments for Federal income tax purposes was approximately $72,720,420 and accumulated depreciation was $58,365,830 December 31, 1995.
See accompanying notes to Schedule III.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD. SCHEDULE III REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION December 31, 1995
See accompanying notes to Schedule III.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD.
Notes to Schedule III
Real Estate Investments and Accumulated Depreciation
A summary of activity for the real estate investments and accumulated depreciation is as follows:
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING - ------- ----------------------------------------------------------- AND FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE ------------------------
None.
PART III
ITEM 10.
ITEM 10. DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE REGISTRANT - -------- --------------------------------------------------
Neither the Partnership nor the General Partner has any directors or executive officers. The names and ages of, as well as the positions held by, the officers and directors of McNeil Investors, Inc., the general partner of the General Partner, are as follows:
Each director shall serve until his successor shall have been duly elected and qualified.
ITEM 11.
ITEM 11. EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION - -------- ----------------------
No direct compensation was paid or payable by the Partnership to directors or officers (since it does not have any directors or officers) for the year ended December 31, 1995, nor was any direct compensation paid or payable by the Partnership to directors or officers of the general partner of the General Partner for the year ended December 31, 1995. The Partnership has no plans to pay any such remuneration to any directors or officers of the general partner of the General Partner in the future.
See Item 13 - Certain Relationships and Related Transactions for amounts of compensation and reimbursements paid by the Partnership to the General Partner and its affiliates.
ITEM 12.
ITEM 12. SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS AND MANAGEMENT - -------- --------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Security ownership of certain beneficial owners.
No individual or group, as defined by Section 13(d)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, known to the Partnership is the beneficial owner of more than 5 percent of the Partnership's Units, other than High River Limited Partnership, which owns 9,460 Units (approximately 5.9% of the outstanding Units) as of February 29, 1996. The business address for High River Limited Partnership is 100 South Bedford Road, Mount Kisco, New York 10549.
(B) Security ownership of management.
The General Partner and the officers and directors of its general partner, collectively, own 313 Units which represent less than 1% of the outstanding Units.
(C) Change in control.
None.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS - -------- ----------------------------------------------
Under the terms of the Amended Partnership Agreement, the Partnership is paying the MID to the General Partner. The maximum MID is calculated as 1% of the tangible asset value of the Partnership. The maximum MID percentage decreases subsequent to 1999. Tangible asset value is determined by using the greater of (i) an amount calculated by applying a capitalization rate of 9% to the annualized net operating income of each property or (ii) a value of $10,000 per apartment unit for residential property to arrive at the property tangible asset value. The property tangible asset value is then added to the book value of all other assets excluding intangible items. Prior to July 1, 1993, the MID consisted of two components: (i) the fixed portion which was payable without respect to the net income of the Partnership and was equal to 25% of the maximum MID (the "Fixed MID") and (ii) a contingent portion which was payable only to the extent of the lesser of the Partnership's excess cash flow, as defined, or net operating income (the "Entitlement Amount") and was equal to up to 75% of the maximum MID (the "Contingent MID").
Effective July 1, 1993, the General Partner amended the Amended Partnership Agreement as a settlement to a class action complaint. This amendment eliminates the Fixed MID portion and makes the entire MID payable to the extent of the Entitlement Amount. In all other respects, the calculation and payment of the MID remain the same.
Contingent MID will be paid to the extent of the Entitlement Amount, and may be paid (i) in cash, unless there is insufficient cash to pay the distribution in which event any unpaid portion not taken in Units will be deferred and is payable, without interest, from the first available cash and/or (ii) in Units. A maximum of 50% of the MID may be paid in Units. The number of Units issued in payment of the MID is based on the greater of $50 per Unit or the net tangible asset value, as defined. For the year ended December 31, 1995, the Partnership accrued for the General Partner Contingent MID in the amount of $871,053.
Any amount of the MID which is paid to the General Partner in Units will be treated as if cash is distributed to the General Partner and is then contributed to the Partnership by the General Partner. The Fixed MID was treated as a fee payable to the General Partner by the Partnership for services rendered. The Contingent MID represents a return of equity to the General Partner for increasing cash flow, as defined, and accordingly is treated as a distribution.
The Partnership pays property management fees equal to 5% of the gross rental receipts of the Partnership's properties to McREMI for providing property management and leasing services. Effective February 14, 1991, the Partnership began reimbursing McREMI for its costs, including overhead, of administering the Partnership's affairs. For the year ended December 31, 1995, the Partnership paid or accrued for McREMI $1,176,453 in property management fees and reimbursements.
See Item 1 - Business, Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Item 8 - Note 2 - "Transactions with Affiliates."
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K - -------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
See accompanying index to financial statements at Item 8.
(B) Reports on Form 8-K. There were no reports on Form 8-K filed during the quarter ended December 31, 1995.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XI, LTD. A Limited Partnership
SIGNATURE PAGE
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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.