ITEM 1. BUSINESS - ------- --------
ORGANIZATION - ------------
McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P., (the "Partnership"), formerly known as Southmark Realty Partners II, Ltd. was organized on November 30, 1984 as a limited partnership under the provisions of the California Revised Limited Partnership Act to acquire and operate commercial and residential properties. 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 General Partner was elected at a meeting of limited partners on March 26, 1992, at which time an amended and restated partnership agreement (the "Amended Partnership Agreement") was adopted. Prior to March 26, 1992, the general partner of the Partnership was Southmark Investment Group, Inc. (the "Original General Partner"), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Southmark Corporation ("Southmark"). The principal place of business for the Partnership and the General Partner is 13760 Noel Road, Suite 600, LB70, Dallas, Texas, 75240.
On February 26, 1985, the Partnership registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") under the Securities Act of 1933 (File No. 2-94740) and commenced a public offering for sale of $55,000,000 of limited partnership units. There were two classes of limited partnership units, designated as Current Income Units and Growth/Shelter Units offered (referred to collectively as "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 December 31, 1985, with 33,333,867 Units (19,922,588 Current Income Units and 13,411,279 Growth/Shelter Units) sold at one dollar each, or gross proceeds of $33,333,867. The Partnership subsequently filed a Form 8-A Registration Statement with the SEC and registered its Units under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (File No. 0-14268). During the years 1991 through 1996, 345,750 Units were rescinded. In 1997, 173,000 Units were relinquished leaving 32,815,117 Units (19,567,088 Current Income Units and 13,248,029 Growth/Shelter Units) outstanding at December 31, 1997.
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, the General Partner nor the Original 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 Original General Partner, were 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, 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.
On March 26, 1992, the limited partners approved a restructuring proposal that provided for (i) the replacement of the Original General Partners with a new general partner, 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; (iii) the approval of an amended management agreement with McREMI, the Partnership's property manager; and (iv) the approval to change the Partnership's name to McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P. Under the Amended Partnership Agreement, the Partnership began accruing an asset management fee, retroactive to February 14, 1991, which is payable to the new General Partner. For a discussion of the methodology for calculating the asset management fee, see Item 13 - Certain Relationships and Related Transactions. The proposals approved at the March 26, 1992 meeting were implemented as of that date.
Concurrent with the approval of the restructuring, the General Partner acquired from Southmark and its affiliates, for aggregate consideration of $18,861, (i) the right to receive payment on the advances owing from the Partnership to Southmark and its affiliates in the amount of $16,397, and (ii) the general partner interest of the Original General Partner. None of the Units are owned by the General Partner or its affiliates.
Settlement Of Claims:
The Partnership filed claims with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (the "Bankruptcy Court") against Southmark for damages relating to improper overcharges, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. The Partnership settled these claims in 1991, and such settlement was approved by the Bankruptcy Court.
An Order Granting Motion to Distribute Funds to Class 8 Claimants dated April 14, 1995 was issued by the Bankruptcy Court. In accordance with the Order, in May 1995 the Partnership received in full satisfaction of its claims, $29,292 in cash, and common and preferred stock in the reorganized Southmark which amounts represent the Partnership's pro-rata share of Southmark assets available for Class 8 Claimants. The Partnership sold the Southmark common and preferred stock in May 1995 for $9,457 which, combined with the cash proceeds from Southmark, resulted in a gain on legal settlement of $38,749.
CURRENT OPERATIONS - ------------------
General:
The Partnership is engaged in real estate activities, including the ownership, operation and management of residential real estate. At December 31, 1997, the Partnership owned one income-producing property as described in Item 2
ITEM 2. PROPERTIES - ------- ----------
The following table sets forth the investment portfolio of the Partnership at December 31, 1997. The buildings and the land on which they are located are owned in fee, subject to a first lien deed of trust as set forth more fully in Item 8 - Note 5 - "Mortgage Note Payable". See also Item 8 - Note 4 - "Real Estate Investment" and Schedule III - "Real Estate Investment and Accumulated Depreciation". In the opinion of management, the property is adequately covered by insurance.
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 - ----------------------
Harbour Club III - ----------------
Harbour Club III, located in Belleville, Michigan, was built in 1972 as a part of a four-phase apartment complex. The property offers a complete package of amenities including a golf course, clubhouse, exercise room, tanning beds, tennis courts, saunas, boat docks and launch, and playgrounds. The apartments located in this phase of the complex offer lake and golf course views. The Belleville market is currently supporting an occupancy rate of 92% which is the current rate at Harbour Club III. Prior to 1997, the property had not increased
rents for six years due to restrictions imposed by the property's former mortgage holder. In 1997, a 12% rent increase was implemented. Over the past three years, approximately $1,024,000 has been invested in the property and $334,000 has been budgeted for 1998. These capital improvements include paving the parking lot, exercise equipment, hall renovations and interior upgrades. The 1998 capital expenditures will enhance the curb appeal and allow the property to compete more aggressively and increase occupancy.
ITEM 3.
ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - ------- -----------------
The Partnership is not party to, nor is the Partnership's property the subject of, any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the Partnership's business, except for the following:
1) James F. Schofield, Gerald C. Gillett, Donna S. Gillett, Jeffrey Homburger, Elizabeth Jung, Robert Lewis, and Warren Heller et al. v. McNeil Partners L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XII, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXI, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXVI, L.P., and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXVII, 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).
The action involves purported class and derivative actions brought by limited partners of each of the fourteen limited partnerships that were named as nominal defendants as listed above (the "Partnerships"). Plaintiffs allege that McNeil Investors, Inc., its affiliate McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. and three of their senior officers and/or directors (collectively, the "Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties and certain obligations under the respective Amended Partnership Agreement. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have rendered such Units highly illiquid and artificially depressed the prices that are available for Units on the resale market. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants engaged in a course of conduct to prevent the acquisition of Units by an affiliate of Carl Icahn by disseminating purportedly false, misleading and inadequate information. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants 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.
On December 16, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint. Plaintiffs are suing for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and an accounting, alleging, among other things, that the management fees paid to the McNeil affiliates over the last six years are excessive, that these fees should be reduced retroactively and that the respective Amended Partnership Agreements governing the Partnerships are invalid.
Defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated and amended complaint and a motion to strike on February 14, 1997, seeking to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint in all respects. A hearing on Defendant's demurrer and motion to strike was held on May 5, 1997. The Court granted Defendants' demurrer, dismissing the consolidated and amended complaint with leave to amend. On October 31, 1997, the Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended complaint. Defendants must move, answer or otherwise respond to the second consolidated and amended complaint by June 30, 1998.
2) HCW Pension Real Estate Fund, Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young, BDO Seidman et al. (Case #92-06560-A). This suit was filed on behalf of the Partnership and other affiliated partnerships (as defined in this Section 1, the "Affiliated Partnerships") on May 26, 1992, in the 14th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. The petition sought recovery against the Partnership's former auditors, Ernst & Young, for negligence and fraud in failing to detect and/or report overcharges of fees/expenses by Southmark, the former general partner. The former auditors initially asserted counterclaims against the Affiliated Partnerships based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made to the auditors by the former management of the Affiliated Partnerships (Southmark) in the form of client representation letters executed and delivered to the auditors by Southmark management. The counterclaims sought recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending this action. The counterclaims were later dismissed on appeal, as discussed below.
The trial court granted summary judgment against the Affiliated Partnerships based on the statute of limitations; however, on appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for trial the Affiliated Partnerships' fraud claims against Ernst & Young. The Texas Supreme Court denied Ernst & Young's application for writ of error on January 11, 1996. Shortly before trial, the district court judge once again granted summary judgment against the Affiliated Partnerships on December 2, 1996. The Partnership is continuing to pursue vigorously its claims against Ernst & Young; however, the final outcome of this litigation cannot be determined at this time.
3) Dick and Aloma Anderson v. McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P. , McNeil Partners, L.P., Wayne T. Shipp, the Wayne Shipp Agency, Inc., Southmark Investment Group, Inc. and Southmark Realty Partners, Ltd. This lawsuit was filed in November 1993, in Washington State in the Clark County Superior Court. In 1985, the plaintiffs apparently spent $22,000 to purchase limited partnership interests in Southmark Realty Partners Ltd. II , (not named by them as a defendant ) whose name is now McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P. (the "Partnership"). Plaintiffs allege that in connection with the transactions by which McNeil Partners, L.P. became general partner of the Partnership, and by which certain changes were made in the Partnership, the McNeil entities engaged in the offer and/or sale of unregistered securities in violation of Washington law. The plaintiffs have alleged that certain of the other defendants -- specifically Mr. Shipp and the Shipp Insurance Agency -- engaged in fraud in connection with the sale of limited
partnership interests in the Partnership to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not made fraud allegations against any of the McNeil or Southmark entities. The majority of plaintiffs' claims against the Partnership are based on allegations that the securities are not registered in the State of Washington. Counsel's research indicates that there are two possible exemptions to the registration of securities which apply to this matter. These statutory exceptions are under review by the plaintiffs' attorney. Counsel for the Partnership was contacted recently and asked whether the Partnership would be interested in repurchasing Plaintiffs' units at a discount. Plaintiffs will be advised of their option to abandon their units back to the Partnership for no consideration. The ultimate outcome of this proceeding cannot be determined at this time.
For a discussion of the Southmark bankruptcy, see Item 1 - Business.
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 2,284 as of January 31, 1998
(C) No distributions were made to the partners in 1997 or 1996 and none are anticipated in 1998. The General Partner will continue to monitor the cash reserves and working capital needs of the Partnership to determine when cash flows will support distributions to the partners. See Item 7 - Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations, and Item 8 - Note 1 "Organization and Summary of Significant Accounting Policies - Distributions."
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 - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
Abbey Lane Apartments and Lexington Green Apartments were conveyed via a deed in lieu of foreclosure on September 30, 1993. Wyoming Mall was sold on March 31, 1995. See Item 7
ITEM 7. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION - ------- ----------------------------------------------------------- AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS -------------------------
FINANCIAL CONDITION - -------------------
The Partnership was formed to engage in the business of acquiring and operating income-producing real properties and holding the properties for investment. Since completion of its capital formation and property acquisition phases in 1986, when it completed the purchase of five properties, the Partnership has operated its properties for production of income. Competitive and overbuilt markets, resulting in continuing cash flow problems, adversely affected the Partnership's properties. In 1988, the lender foreclosed on Southmark Tower in Houston, Texas in full settlement of the mortgage indebtedness on the property. In 1993, two of the Partnership's properties, Abbey Lane and Lexington Green, were conveyed via a deed in lieu of foreclosure in full settlement of the mortgage indebtedness on the properties. After the sale of Wyoming Mall in March 1995, the Partnership continues to operate its remaining property, Harbour Club III.
The Partnership has had little ready cash reserves since its inception, and has been largely dependent on affiliates to support its operations. Payable to affiliates for property management fees, Partnership general and administrative expenses and asset management fees totaled $1,933,837 at December 31, 1997.
Until the Partnership is able to generate cash from operations or sales, the Partnership will be dependent on its present cash reserves, operation of the property, or financial support from affiliates. Distributions will remain suspended until cash reserves are judged adequate.
RESULTS OF OPERATIONS - ---------------------
1997 compared to 1996
Revenue:
Total Partnership revenues in 1997 increased $92,592 or 4% for 1997 as compared to 1996. Rental revenue was $2,340,806 for 1997, a 4% increase from $2,251,970 for 1996. Interest income increased $3,756 or 11% for 1997 as compared to the prior year.
Expenses:
Total expenses decreased by $149,342 or 6% for the year ended December 31, 1997, as compared to 1996. This decrease is primarily due to the interest incurred as a result of the recession of limited partnership units in 1996. No such expense occurred in 1997.
General and administrative expenses increased by $18,593 or 25% for 1997 as compared to 1996. The increase is primarily due to costs incurred for investor services that were paid to an unrelated third party in 1997. During 1996, such costs were paid to an affiliate of the General Partner and were included in general and administrative - affiliates on the Statement of Operations.
1996 compared to 1995
Revenue:
Total Partnership revenues in 1996 decreased $368,709 or 14% as compared to 1995. This decrease is due to the sale of Wyoming Mall in March 1995. Also, in 1995, the Partnership recorded a $38,749 gain on legal settlement and recorded $134,434 in other income as a result of property tax refund on Harbour Club III. No such income was recorded in 1996.
Rental revenue decreased $204,338 or 8% for the year ended December 31, 1996 as compared to the same period in 1995, primarily due to the sale of Wyoming Mall.
Interest income increased $8,812 or 34% in 1996 as compared to 1995. The increase is primarily due to higher average cash balances that resulted from the sale proceeds of Wyoming Mall.
Expenses:
Total expenses decreased $456,325 or 15% for the year ended December 31, 1996 as compared to the same period of 1995.
During 1995, Wyoming Mall was sold and the effects from the sale were declines of $97,610 in interest, $74,606 in depreciation and amortization, $10,516 in property taxes, $24,740 in personnel expenses, $17,518 in property management fees - affiliates, $11,916 in repairs and maintenance and $33,819 in other property operating expenses. A $245,637 loss on the sale of Wyoming Mall was recorded in 1995.
In addition to the sale of Wyoming Mall, other factors affected the level of expenses reported by the remaining property.
Interest - affiliates decreased $18,568 for 1996 as compared to 1995. This decrease is due to the sale of Wyoming Mall, which enabled the Partnership to repay all outstanding affiliate advances, thereby eliminating affiliate interest expense.
The Partnership recorded $145,713 of interest relating to the rescission of Units in 1996. The Court entered judgment against the Partnership in October 1996 to rescind 188,000 Units with total claims of $347,809. The Plaintiffs agreed to accept $300,000 in satisfaction of the judgment and the claims for attorneys' fees pending the approval of the Court.
Depreciation expense increased by $36,042 in 1996 due to the capital improve- ments made at Harbour Club III Apartments.
Repairs and maintenance decreased by $35,528 in 1996 as compared to 1995 after the effect of the sale of Wyoming Mall, noted above. The decrease is due to reductions in grounds maintenance, courtesy patrol, and other repairs.
LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL RESOURCES - -------------------------------
The Partnership had $794,323 of cash provided by operations in 1997 as compared to $452,443 in 1996. Cash paid to suppliers decreased by $149,047 mainly due to a receipt of $83,000 for property replacements from escrow previously held by HUD, the former mortgage holder of Harbour Club III Apartments. Cash paid to affiliates increased by $52,662 due to the resumption of overhead payments to an affiliate of the General Partner for administering the Partnership's affairs in 1997. The Partnership paid $145,713 of interest relating to the rescission of limited partnership units in 1996.
The Partnership provided $452,443 of cash from operations during 1996 as compared to $448,347 in 1995. Cash received from tenants, cash paid to suppliers, cash paid to affiliates, interest paid, and property taxes paid decreased due to the sale of Wyoming Mall in March 1995. The Partnership paid $145,713 of interest relating to the rescission of limited partnership units in 1996. With the proceeds from the sale of Wyoming Mall, the Partnership was able to repay all the affiliate advances and accrued interest in 1995. Therefore, no interest was paid to affiliates in 1996. During 1995, the Partnership also received $38,749 for a legal settlement with Southmark and $134,434 as a property tax refund as a result of a successful tax appeal.
The Partnership expended $511,834, $241,207 and $270,552 for capital improvements to its properties in 1997, 1996 and 1995, respectively. The Partnership also received proceeds of $738,914 for the sale of Wyoming Mall on March 31, 1995.
Net cash used in financing activities was $90,321 for 1997 as compared to $238,521 and $876,173 in 1996 and 1995, respectively. The Partnership paid $154,287 to the Limited Partners to rescind 188,000 units in 1996. Principal payments on mortgage notes payable were $90,321, $84,234 and $91,519 in 1997, 1996 and 1995, respectively. In 1995, the Partnership repaid all outstanding advances from affiliates of the General Partner in the amount of $784,654.
The Partnership's remaining property, through improved operations as well as curtailment of expenses, has been able to provide sufficient cash flow to meet its own working capital requirements. In addition, the sale of Wyoming Mall enabled the Partnership to meet its general and administrative expenses.
Short-term liquidity
At December 31, 1997, the Partnership held cash and cash equivalents of $794,630. The General Partner considers this level of cash reserves to be adequate to meet the Partnership's operating needs. The General Partner believes that anticipated operating results for 1998 will be sufficient to fund the Partnership's budgeted capital improvements for 1998 and to repay the current portion of the Partnership's mortgage note.
Long-term liquidity
Pursuant to the Partnership's previously announced liquidation plans, the Partnership has recently retained PaineWebber, Incorporated as its exclusive financial advisor to explore alternatives to maximize the value of the Partnership. The alternatives being considered by the Partnership include, without limitation, a transaction in which limited partnership interests in the Partnership are converted into cash. The General Partner of the Partnership or entities or persons affiliated with the General Partner will not be involved as a purchaser in any of the transactions contemplated above. Any transaction will be subject to certain conditions including (i) approval by the limited partners of the Partnership, and (ii) receipt of an opinion from an independent financial advisory firm as to the fairness of the consideration received by the Partnership pursuant to such transaction. Finally, there can be no assurance that any transaction will be consummated, or as to the terms thereof.
Distributions
To maintain adequate cash balances of the Partnership, distributions to Current Income Unit holders were suspended in 1988. There have been no distributions to Growth/Shelter Units holders. Distributions to Unit holders will remain suspended for the foreseeable future. The General Partner will continue to monitor the cash reserves and working capital needs of the Partnership to determine when cash flows will support distributions to the Unit holders.
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 XXII, L.P.:
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P. (a California limited partnership) as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related statements of operations, partners' deficit and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997. 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 XXII, L.P. as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 1997, 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 20, 1998
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P.
BALANCE SHEETS
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P. STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P.
STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' DEFICIT
For the Years Ended December 31, 1997, 1996 and 1995
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P.
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
Increase (Decrease) in Cash and Cash Equivalents
See discussion of noncash investing and financing activities in Note 6.
See accompanying notes to financial statements.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P.
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 XXII, L.P.
NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
December 31, 1997
NOTE 1 - ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES - --------------------------------------------------------------------
Organization - ------------
McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P., (the "Partnership"), formerly known as Southmark Realty Partners II, Ltd. was organized on November 30, 1984 as a limited partnership under the provisions of the California Revised Limited Partnership Act to acquire and operate commercial and residential properties. 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 General Partner was elected at a meeting of limited partners on March 26, 1992, at which time an amended and restated partnership agreement (the "Amended Partnership Agreement") was adopted. The principal place of business for the Partnership and the General Partner is 13760 Noel Road, Suite 600, LB70, Dallas, Texas, 75240.
The Partnership is engaged in real estate activities, including the ownership, operation and management of residential and retail real estate and other real estate related assets. At December 31, 1997, the Partnership owned one income-producing property as described in Note 4 - Real Estate Investment.
Pursuant to the Partnership's previously announced liquidation plans, the Partnership has recently retained PaineWebber, Incorporated as its exclusive financial advisor to explore alternatives to maximize the value of the Partnership. The alternatives being considered by the Partnership include, without limitation, a transaction in which limited partnership interests in the Partnership are converted into cash. The General Partner of the Partnership or entities or persons affiliated with the General Partner will not be involved as a purchaser in any of the transactions contemplated above. Any transaction will be subject to certain conditions including (i) approval by the limited partners of the Partnership, and (ii) receipt of an opinion from an independent financial advisory firm as to the fairness of the consideration received by the Partnership pursuant to such transaction. Finally, there can be no assurance that any transaction will be consummated, or as to the terms thereof.
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 Harbour Club Associates Limited Partnership ("Harbour Club"), a single asset limited partnership formed to accommodate the refinancing of Harbour Club III Apartments. The Partnership is the general partner of Harbour Club, and holds a 99.99% interest in Harbour Club. The Partnership exercises effective control of Harbour Club. The minority interest is not presented as it is both negative and immaterial.
% of Ownership Interest Tier Partnership Partnership General Partner - --------------- ----------- ---------------
Limited Partnerships: Harbour Club Associates 99% 1%
Real Estate Investments - -----------------------
The real estate investment is generally stated at the lower of depreciated cost or fair value. The real estate investment is reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that its carrying amount may not be recoverable. When the carrying value of a property exceeds the sum of all estimated future cash flows, an impairment loss is recognized. At such time, a write-down is recorded to reduce the basis of the property to its estimated fair value.
The Partnership's method of accounting for its real estate investment is in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 121, "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed Of" ("SFAS 121"), which the Partnership adopted effective January 1, 1996. The adoption of SFAS 121 did not have a material impact on the accompanying financial statements.
Improvements and betterments are capitalized and expensed through depreciation charges. Repairs and maintenance are charged to operations as incurred.
Depreciation - ------------
Buildings and improvements are depreciated using the straight-line method over the estimated useful lives of the assets, ranging from 5 to 25 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 its mortgage indebtedness agreement. These escrow accounts are controlled by the mortgagee and are used for payment of property taxes. 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 were capitalized and are included in prepaid expenses and other assets. Amortization was recorded using a method that approximated the effective interest method over the term of the related mortgage note payable. Amortization of deferred borrowing costs is included in interest expense on the Statements of Operations.
Discount on Mortgage Note Payable - ---------------------------------
Discount on mortgage note payable is being amortized over the remaining term of the related note using the effective interest method. Amortization of discount on mortgage note payable is included in interest expense on the Statements of Operations.
Rental Revenue - --------------
The Partnership leases its residential property under short-term operating leases. Lease terms generally are less than one year in duration. Rental income is recognized as earned.
The Partnership leased its commercial property (which was sold in 1995 - see Note 6 - "Property Disposition") under non-cancelable operating leases. Certain leases provided concessions and/or periods of escalating or free rent. Rental income was recognized on a straight-line basis over the term of the related lease.
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 generally provides that net income (other than net income arising from sales or refinancing) shall be allocated one percent (1%) to the General Partner and ninety-nine percent (99%) to the limited partners equally as a group, and net loss shall be allocated one percent (1%) to the General Partner, nine percent (9%) to the limited partners owning Current Income Units and ninety percent (90%) to the limited partners owning Growth/Shelter Units.
For financial statement purposes, net income arising from sales or refinancings shall be allocated one percent (1%) to the General Partner and ninety-nine percent (99%) to the limited partners equally as a group, and net loss shall be allocated one percent (1%) to the General Partner, nine percent (9%) to the limited partners owning Current Income Units and ninety percent (90%) to the limited partners owning Growth/Shelter Units.
For tax reporting purposes, net income arising from sales or refinancing shall be allocated as follows: (a) first, amounts of such net income shall be allocated among the General Partner and limited partners in proportion to, and to the extent of, the portion of such partner's share of the net decrease in Partnership Minimum Gain determined under Treasury Regulations, (b) second, to the General Partner and limited partners in proportion to, and to the extent of, the amount by which their respective capital account balances are negative by more than their respective remaining shares of the Partnership's Minimum Gain attributable to property still owned by the Partnership and (c) third, 1% of such net income shall be allocated to the General Partner and 99% of such net income shall be allocated 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 allocation of Partnership deductions attributable to debt. The Partnership's tax allocations for 1997, 1996 and 1995 have been made in accordance with these provisions.
Distributions - -------------
At the discretion of the General Partner, distributable cash (other than cash from sales or refinancing) shall be distributed 100% to the limited partners, with such distributions first paying the Current Income Priority Return and then the Growth/Shelter Priority Return. Also at the discretion of the General Partner, the limited partners will receive 100% of distributable cash from sales or refinancings, with such distributions first paying the Current Income Priority Return, then the Growth/Shelter Priority Return, then repayment of Original Invested Capital, and of the remainder, 16.66% to limited partners owning Current Income Units and 83.34% to limited partners owning Growth/Shelter Units. The limited partners' Current Income and Growth/Shelter Priority Returns represent a 10% cumulative return on their Adjusted Invested Capital balance, as defined. No distributions of Current Income Priority Returns have been made since 1988, and no distributions of Growth/Shelter Priority Returns have been made since the Partnership began.
In connection with a Terminating Disposition, as defined, cash from sales or refinancings and any remaining reserves shall be allocated among, and distributed to, the General Partner and limited partners in proportion to, and to the extent of, their positive capital account balances after the net income has been allocated pursuant to the above.
Net Loss Per Thousand Limited Partnership Units - ------------------------------------------------
Net loss per thousand limited partnership units ("Units") is computed by dividing net loss allocated to the limited partners by the weighted average number of limited partnership Units outstanding expressed in thousands. Per thousand unit information has been computed based on 19,567, 19,713 and 19,826 weighted average Current Income Units outstanding in 1997, 1996 and 1995, respectively, and 13,248, 13,275 and 13,383 weighted average Growth/Shelter Units outstanding in 1997, 1996, and 1995, respectively.
NOTE 2 - TRANSACTIONS WITH AFFILIATES - -------------------------------------
The Partnership pays property management fees equal to 5% of the gross rental receipts for its residential property and paid 6% of gross rental receipts for its commercial property to McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. ("McREMI"), an affiliate of the General Partner, for providing property management services for the Partnership's residential and commercial properties and leasing services for its residential property.
The Partnership reimburses McREMI for its costs, including overhead, of administering the Partnership's affairs.
Under the terms of the Amended Partnership Agreement, the Partnership is paying an asset management fee, retroactive to February 14, 1991, which is payable to the new General Partner. Through 1999, the asset management fee is calculated as 1% of the Partnership's tangible asset value. Tangible asset value is determined by using the greater of (i) an amount calculated by applying a capitalization rate of 9 percent to the annualized net operating income of each property or (ii) a value of $10,000 per apartment unit for residential property and $50 per gross square foot for commercial 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. The fee percentage decreases subsequent to 1999.
Compensation and reimbursements paid to or accrued for the benefit of the General Partner or its affiliates are as follows:
Payable to affiliates - General Partner at December 31, 1997 and 1996 consisted primarily of unpaid property management fees, Partnership general and administrative expenses, and asset management fees and is due and payable from current operations.
Prior to the restructuring of the Partnership, affiliates of Southmark Investments Group, Inc. advanced funds to enable the Partnership to meet its working capital requirements. These advances were purchased by, and were repaid to, the General Partner.
The General Partner has, at its discretion, advanced funds to the Partnership to fund working capital requirements. The advances were unsecured, due on demand and accrued interest at the prime lending rate of Bank of America plus 1%. All advances to the General Partner were paid in full during 1995. The General Partner is not obligated to advance funds to the Partnership and there is no assurance that the Partnership will receive additional funds.
In April 1995, the Partnership utilized the proceeds from the sale of Wyoming Mall to repay all outstanding affiliate advances and the related accrued interest.
NOTE 3 - TAXABLE LOSS - ---------------------
McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P. 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 exceeded the net assets and liabilities for financial reporting purposes by $6,119,845 in 1997, $6,503,402 in 1996 and $6,235,169 in 1995.
NOTE 4 - REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT - --------------------------------
The basis and accumulated depreciation of the Partnership's real estate investment at December 31, 1997 and 1996, is set forth in the following tables:
NOTE 5 - MORTGAGE NOTE PAYABLE - ------------------------------
The following sets forth the mortgage note payable of the Partnership at December 31, 1997 and 1996. The mortgage note is secured by the underlying real estate investment.
(a) The debt is non-recourse to the Partnership.
(b) The discount is based on an effective interest rate of 9.09%.
Scheduled principal maturities of the mortgage note under the existing agreement, excluding the discount of $1,200,085, are as follows:
1998.................................... $ 96,851 1999.................................... 103,852 2000.................................... 111,360 2001.................................... 119,410 2002.................................... 128,042 Thereafter.............................. 6,568,591 ----------- Total $ 7,128,106 ===========
Based on borrowing rates currently available to the Partnership for a mortgage loan with similar terms and average maturities, the fair value of the mortgage note payable was approximately $6,937,000 as of December 31, 1997 and $6,262,000 as of December 31, 1996.
NOTE 6 - PROPERTY DISPOSITION - -----------------------------
On March 31, 1995, Wyoming Mall was sold to an unrelated third party for a cash price of $9,250,000. The Partnership had a 50% undivided interest in the assets, liabilities and operations of Wyoming Mall, owned jointly with McNeil Real Estate Fund XXI, L.P. Cash proceeds and the loss on the disposition is detailed below:
The selling costs above include a disposition fee at 3% of the gross sales price paid the to General Partner in the amount of $138,750.
NOTE 7 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS - --------------------------
The Partnership is not party to, nor are any of the Partnership's property the subject of, any material pending legal proceedings, other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to the Partnership, except for the following:
1) James F. Schofield, Gerald C. Gillett, Donna S. Gillett, Jeffrey Homburger, Elizabeth Jung, Robert Lewis, and Warren Heller et al. v. McNeil Partners L.P., McNeil Investors, Inc., McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc., Robert A. McNeil, Carole J. McNeil, McNeil Pacific Investors Fund 1972, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund IX, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund X, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XI, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XII, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XIV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate Fund XV, Ltd., McNeil Real Estate
Fund XX, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXI, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXIV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXV, L.P., McNeil Real Estate Fund XXVI, L.P., and McNeil Real Estate Fund XXVII, 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).
The action involves purported class and derivative actions brought by limited partners of each of the fourteen limited partnerships that were named as nominal defendants as listed above (the "Partnerships"). Plaintiffs allege that McNeil Investors, Inc., its affiliate McNeil Real Estate Management, Inc. and three of their senior officers and/or directors (collectively, the "Defendants") breached their fiduciary duties and certain obligations under the respective Amended Partnership Agreement. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants have rendered such Units highly illiquid and artificially depressed the prices that are available for Units on the resale market. Plaintiffs also allege that Defendants engaged in a course of conduct to prevent the acquisition of Units by an affiliate of Carl Icahn by disseminating purportedly false, misleading and inadequate information. Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants 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.
On December 16, 1996, the Plaintiffs filed a consolidated and amended complaint. Plaintiffs are suing for breach of fiduciary duty, breach of contract and an accounting, alleging, among other things, that the management fees paid to the McNeil affiliates over the last six years are excessive, that these fees should be reduced retroactively and that the respective Amended Partnership Agreements governing the Partnerships are invalid.
Defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated and amended complaint and a motion to strike on February 14, 1997, seeking to dismiss the consolidated and amended complaint in all respects. A hearing on Defendant's demurrer and motion to strike was held on May 5, 1997. The Court granted Defendants' demurrer, dismissing the consolidated and amended complaint with leave to amend. On October 31, 1997, the Plaintiffs filed a second consolidated and amended complaint. Defendants must move, answer or otherwise respond to the second consolidated and amended complaint by June 30, 1998.
2) HCW Pension Real Estate Fund, Ltd. et al. v. Ernst & Young, BDO Seidman et al. (Case #92-06560-A). This suit was filed on behalf of the Partnership and other affiliated partnerships (as defined in this Section 1, the "Affiliated Partnerships") on May 26, 1992, in the 14th Judicial District Court of Dallas County. The petition sought recovery against the Partnership's former auditors, Ernst & Young, for negligence and fraud in failing to detect and/or report overcharges of fees/expenses by Southmark, the former general partner. The former auditors initially asserted counterclaims against the Affiliated Partnerships based on alleged fraudulent misrepresentations made to the auditors by the former management of the Affiliated Partnerships (Southmark) in the form of client representation letters executed and delivered to the auditors by Southmark management. The counterclaims sought recovery of attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defending this action. The counterclaims were later dismissed on appeal, as discussed below.
The trial court granted summary judgment against the Affiliated Partnerships based on the statute of limitations; however, on appeal, the Dallas Court of Appeals reversed the trial court and remanded for trial the Affiliated Partnerships' fraud claims against Ernst & Young. The Texas Supreme Court denied Ernst & Young's application for writ of error on January 11, 1996. Shortly before trial, the district court judge once again granted summary judgment against the Affiliated Partnerships on December 2, 1996. The Partnership is continuing to pursue vigorously its claims against Ernst & Young; however, the final outcome of this litigation cannot be determined at this time.
3) Dick and Aloma Anderson v. McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P. , McNeil Partners, L.P., Wayne T. Shipp, the Wayne Shipp Agency, Inc., Southmark Investment Group, Inc. and Southmark Realty Partners, Ltd. This lawsuit was filed in November 1993, in Washington State in the Clark County Superior Court. In 1985, the plaintiffs apparently spent $22,000 to purchase limited partnership interests in Southmark Realty Partners Ltd. II , (not named by them as a defendant ) whose name is now McNeil Real Estate Fund XXII, L.P. (the "Partnership"). Plaintiffs allege that in connection with the transactions by which McNeil Partners, L.P. became general partner of the Partnership, and by which certain changes were made in the Partnership, the McNeil entities engaged in the offer and/or sale of unregistered securities in violation of Washington law. The plaintiffs have alleged that certain of the other defendants -- specifically Mr. Shipp and the Shipp Insurance Agency -- engaged in fraud in connection with the sale of limited partnership interests in the Partnership to plaintiffs. The plaintiffs have not made fraud allegations against any of the McNeil or Southmark entities. The majority of plaintiffs' claims against the Partnership are based on allegations that the securities are not registered in the State of Washington. Counsel's research indicates that there are two possible exemptions to the registration of securities which apply to this matter. These statutory exceptions are under review by the plaintiffs' attorney. Counsel for the Partnership was contacted recently and asked whether the Partnership would be interested in repurchasing Plaintiffs' units at a discount. Plaintiffs will be advised of their option to abandon their units back to the Partnership for no consideration. The ultimate outcome of this proceeding cannot be determined at this time.
NOTE 8 - PRO FORMA INFORMATION (UNAUDITED) - ------------------------------------------
The following unaudited pro forma information for the year ended December 31, 1995 reflects the results of operations of the Partnership as if the sale of Wyoming Mall had occurred as of January 1, 1995. The unaudited pro forma information is not necessarily indicative of the results of operations, which actually would have occurred, or those that might be expected to occur in the future.
------------- Total revenue $ 2,389,866 Net loss (57,289)
Net loss per thousand limited partnership units: Current Income Units (.26) Growth/Shelter Units (3.85)
NOTE 9 - RESCISSION OF LIMITED PARTNERSHIP UNITS - ------------------------------------------------
As discussed in Note 7, on October 22, 1996, a judgment was entered against the Partnership, which effectively rescinded 188,000 Units of the Partnership as of October 31, 1996. The judgment was for $347,809. As part of a negotiation, however, the plaintiffs agreed to accept $300,000 as full and complete settlement of all claims, including attorney fees. Accordingly, the Partnership made settlement payments to an escrow agent on behalf of the plaintiff limited partners totaling $300,000 on December 23, 1996. The payments consisted of two components. The first component of $154,287, which is recorded as a rescission of limited partnership units on the Statements of Partners' Deficit, represents the return of the limited partners' equity investments net of all distributions previously paid to them. The second component of $145,713, which is recorded as interest rescission of limited partnership units on the Statements of Operations, represents interest paid on the rescinded Units pursuant to the court judgment.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P. SCHEDULE III REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION December 31, 1997
(b) The 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.
(c) The carrying value of Harbour Club III Apartments was reduced by $4,526,936 in 1992.
See accompanying notes to Schedule III.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P. SCHEDULE III REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION December 31, 1997
(a) For Federal income tax purposes, the properties are depreciated over lives ranging from 5-27.5 years using ACRS or MACRS methods. The aggregate cost of real estate investments for Federal income tax purposes was $16,988,264 and accumulated depreciation was $10,665,201 December 31, 1997.
(c) The carrying value of Harbour Club III Apartments was reduced by $4,526,936 in 1992.
See accompanying notes to Schedule III.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P. SCHEDULE III REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION December 31, 1997
(c) The carrying value of Harbour Club III Apartments was reduced by $4,526,936 in 1992.
See accompanying notes to Schedule III.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P.
Notes to Schedule III
Real Estate Investments and Accumulated Depreciation
A summary of activity for the Partnership's real estate investments and accumulated depreciation and amortization is as follows:
ITEM 9.
ITEM 9. CHANGES IN AND DISAGREEMENTS WITH ACCOUNTANTS ON ACCOUNTING AND - ------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- FINANCIAL DISCLOSURES --------------------- 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, 1997, 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, 1997. The Partnership has no plans to pay any such remuneration to any directors or officers 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.
(B) Security ownership of management.
Neither the General Partner nor any of its officers or directors of its general partner own any limited partnership units.
(C) Change in control.
None.
ITEM 13.
ITEM 13. CERTAIN RELATIONSHIPS AND RELATED TRANSACTIONS - -------- ----------------------------------------------
The amendments to the Partnership compensation structure included in the Amended Partnership Agreement provide for an asset management fee to replace all other forms of General Partner compensation other than property management fees and reimbursements of certain costs. Through 1999, the asset management fee is calculated as 1% of the Partnership's tangible asset value. Tangible asset value is determined by using the greater of (i) an amount calculated by applying a capitalization rate of 9 percent to the annualized net operating income of each property or (ii) a value of $10,000 per apartment unit for residential property and $50 per gross square foot for commercial 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. The fee percentage decreases subsequent to 1999. For the year ended December 31, 1997, the Partnership paid or accrued $162,326 of such asset management fees. Total accrued but unpaid asset management fees of $1,297,604 were outstanding at December 31, 1997.
The Partnership pays property management fees equal to 5% of the gross receipts of the residential property and paid 6% for the commercial property to McREMI, an affiliate of the General Partner, for providing property management services. Additionally, the Partnership reimburses McREMI for its costs, including overhead of administering the Partnership's affairs. For the year ended December 31, 1997, the Partnership paid or accrued $179,939 of such property management fees and reimbursements.
PART IV
ITEM 14.
ITEM 14. EXHIBITS, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, SCHEDULES AND REPORTS ON FORM 8-K - -------- -----------------------------------------------------------------
See accompanying Index to Financial Statements at Item 8 - Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
(A) Exhibits
The following exhibits are incorporated by reference and are an integral part of this Form 10-K.
Exhibit Number Description ------- ----------- 22. Following is a list of subsidiaries of the Partnership:
The Partnership has omitted instruments with respect to long-term debt where the total amount of the securities authorized thereunder does not exceed 10% of the total assets of the Partnership. The Partnership agrees to furnish a copy of each such instrument to the Commission upon request.
(1) Incorporated by reference to the Quarterly Report of the Registrant, on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 1991, as filed on May 14, 1991.
(2) Incorporated by reference to the Annual Report of the Registrant on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 1992, as filed on March 30, 1993.
(B) Reports on Form 8-K. There were no reports on Form 8-K filed during the quarter ended December 31, 1997.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P. 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.
McNEIL REAL ESTATE FUND XXII, L.P.
By: McNeil Partners, L.P., General Partner
By: McNeil Investors, Inc., General Partner
March 30, 1998 By: /s/ Robert A. McNeil - -------------- -------------------------------------- Date Robert A. McNeil Chairman of the Board and Director Principal Executive Officer
Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.
March 30, 1998 By: /s/ Ron K. Taylor - -------------- -------------------------------------- Date Ron K. Taylor President and Director of McNeil Investors, Inc. (Principal Financial Officer)
March 30, 1998 By: /s/ Carol A. Fahs - -------------- -------------------------------------- Date Carol A. Fahs Vice President of McNeil Investors, Inc. (Principal Accounting Officer)