Back to GetFilings.com

Use these links to rapidly review the document
APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY FORM 10-Q INDEX

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

(Mark One)

FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED MARCH 31, 2003

OR

FOR THE TRANSITION PERIOD FROM                          TO                         

Commission File Number 1-13232

Apartment Investment and Management Company
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(303) 757-8101
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

Not Applicable
(Former name, former address, and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports) and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes ý    No o

        Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes ý    No o

        The number of shares of Class A Common Stock outstanding as of April 30, 2003: 93,830,509

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY

FORM 10-Q

INDEX

1

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS

(In Thousands, Except Share Data)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

2

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF INCOME

(In Thousands, Except Per Share Data)
(Unaudited)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

3

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY

CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS

(In Thousands)
(Unaudited)

See notes to consolidated financial statements.

4

APARTMENT INVESTMENT AND MANAGEMENT COMPANY

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

March 31, 2003

(Unaudited)

NOTE 1—Organization

        Apartment Investment and Management Company ("Aimco"), a Maryland corporation incorporated on January 10, 1994, owns a majority of the ownership interests in AIMCO Properties, L.P. (the "Aimco Operating Partnership") through its wholly owned subsidiaries, AIMCO-GP, Inc. and AIMCO-LP, Inc. Aimco held approximately an 89% interest in the Aimco Operating Partnership as of March 31, 2003. AIMCO-GP, Inc. is the sole general partner of the Aimco Operating Partnership. Except where the context otherwise requires, "Company" refers to Aimco, the Aimco Operating Partnership and Aimco's consolidated corporate subsidiaries and consolidated real estate partnerships.

        As of March 31, 2003, the Company:

•

owned a controlling equity interest in 186,791 units in 727 apartment properties (individually a "property" and collectively the "properties") (which the Company refers to as "consolidated");



•

owned a non-controlling equity interest in 74,444 units in 513 properties (which the Company refers to as "unconsolidated"), of which 65,565 units were also managed by the Company; and



•

provided services or managed, for third party owners, 51,292 units in 516 properties, primarily pursuant to long term agreements (including 40,112 units in 418 properties that are asset managed only, and not property managed).

        At March 31, 2003, 93,815,375 shares of Aimco's Class A Common Stock ("Common Stock") were outstanding. Interests in the Aimco Operating Partnership that are held by limited partners other than the Company are referred to as "OP Units." Holders of common OP Units may redeem such units for cash or, at the Company's option, Common Stock. At March 31, 2003, the Aimco Operating Partnership had 11,998,364 common OP Units and equivalents outstanding. At March 31, 2003, a combined total of 105,813,739 shares of Common Stock and common OP Units and equivalents were outstanding.

NOTE 2—Basis of Presentation

        The accompanying unaudited consolidated financial statements of the Company have been prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal recurring accruals) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three months ended March 31, 2003 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2003.

        The balance sheet at December 31, 2002 has been derived from the audited financial statements at that date but does not include all of the information and footnotes required by generally accepted accounting principles for complete financial statements.

        For further information, refer to the statements and notes thereto included in Aimco's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002. Certain 2002 financial statement amounts have been reclassified to conform to the 2003 presentation, including certain intercompany eliminations, as well as the treatment of discontinued operations.

5

        The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Aimco, the Aimco Operating Partnership, majority owned corporate subsidiaries and consolidated real estate partnerships. As used herein, and except where the context otherwise requires, "partnership" refers to a limited partnership or a limited liability company and "partner" refers to a limited partner in a limited partnership or a member in a limited liability company. All significant intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated in consolidation. The assets of consolidated real estate partnerships owned or controlled by Aimco or the Aimco Operating Partnership generally are not available to pay creditors of Aimco or the Aimco Operating Partnership, with the exception of the credit facility.

        Interests held in consolidated real estate partnerships by limited partners other than the Company are reflected as minority interest in consolidated real estate partnerships. Minority interest in consolidated real estate partnerships represents the minority partners' share of the underlying net assets of the Company's consolidated real estate partnerships. When these consolidated real estate partnerships make cash distributions in excess of net income, the Company, as the majority partner, records a charge equal to the minority partners' excess of distributions over net income, even though the Company does not suffer any economic effect, cost or risk. This charge is classified in the consolidated statements of income as distributions to minority partners in excess of income and for the three months ended March 31, 2003, this was $5.5 million, compared to a recovery of $1.6 million in the three months ended March 31, 2002. Losses are allocated to minority partners until such time as such losses exceed the minority partners' basis, in which case, the Company recognizes 100% of the losses in operating earnings when the partnership is in a deficit equity position, even though the Company does not suffer any economic effect, cost or risk. With regard to such consolidated real estate partnerships, approximately $1.2 million and $0.7 million in depreciation related losses for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively, were charged to minority interest in consolidated real estate partnerships.

NOTE 3—Notes Receivable Primarily From Unconsolidated Real Estate Partnerships

        The following table summarizes the Company's notes receivable primarily from unconsolidated real estate partnerships at March 31, 2003 and 2002 (in thousands):

        The Company recognizes interest income earned from its investments in notes receivable when the collectibility of such amounts is both probable and estimable. The notes receivable were either extended by the Company and are carried at the face amount plus accrued interest ("par value notes") or were made by predecessors whose positions have been acquired at a discount ("discounted notes").

        As of March 31, 2003 and 2002, the Company held, primarily through its consolidated corporate subsidiaries, $81.9 million and $145.2 million, respectively, of par value notes receivable from unconsolidated real estate partnerships, including accrued interest, for which the Company believes the collectibility of such amounts is both probable and estimable. As such, interest income from par value notes for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, totaled $4.8 million and $8.1 million, respectively.

6

        As of March 31, 2003 and 2002, the Company held discounted notes, including accrued interest, with a carrying value of $81.6 million and $103.9 million, respectively. The total face value plus accrued interest of these notes was $159.9 million and $278.2 million at March 31, 2003 and 2002, respectively.

        The discounted notes are accounted for under the cost recovery method, which results in the discounted notes being carried at the acquisition amount, less subsequent cash collections, until such time as collectibility of principal and interest is probable and the timing and amounts are estimable. Based upon closed or pending transactions (which include sales, refinancings, foreclosures and rights offerings), the Company has determined that certain notes are collectible for amounts greater than their carrying value. Accordingly, the Company is recognizing accretion income, on a prospective basis over the estimated remaining life of the loans, equal to the difference between the carrying value of the discounted notes and the estimated collectible value. For the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, the Company recognized accretion income of approximately $1.1 million ($0.01 per basic and diluted share) and $4.4 million ($0.05 per basic share and diluted share), respectively. These amounts are net of allocated expenses for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 of none and $0.4 million, respectively. The notes receivable generally are realizable through collection of cash or obtaining ownership of the property or of an additional equity interest in the partnership owning the property.

        The activity in the allowance for loan losses in total for both par value and discounted notes for the three months ended March 31, 2003, is as follows (in thousands):

        The Company will continue to monitor the collectibility or impairment of each note on a periodic basis, and changes in the required allowances may occur in the future due to changes in the market environment that affect operating cash flows.

        Included in the above notes receivable balances, as of March 31, 2003 and 2002, the Company had $52.5 million and $58.9 million, respectively, that were secured by interests in real estate or interests in real estate partnerships. The Company earns interest on these notes receivable at various interest rates ranging between 6.0% and 12.0% and averaging 9.7%.

NOTE 4—Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments

        In connection with the March 2002 acquisition of Casden Properties Inc. ("Casden") which included the merger of Casden into Aimco, and the merger of a subsidiary of Aimco into another REIT affiliated with Casden (collectively, the "Casden Merger") the Company has the following commitments:

•

purchase two properties currently under development upon satisfactory completion and attainment of 60% occupancy as follows:



•

Park La Brea



•

Phase 2—comprised of a total of 521 units for a minimum consideration of approximately $163 million, expected to close in late 2003 or early 2004;



•

Phase 3—comprised of a total of 610 units for a minimum consideration of approximately $199 million, expected to close in late 2004 or early 2005; and

7

•

Westwood—comprised of a total of 350 units for a minimum consideration of approximately $201 million, for which construction has not yet commenced.



•

provide a stand-by facility of $70 million in debt financing associated with the development of Park La Brea and Westwood (as of March 31, 2003, no funds have been drawn on this stand-by facility);



•

invest up to $50 million for a 20% limited liability company interest in Casden Properties, LLC. As of March 31, 2003, the Company had invested $19.3 million. Casden Properties, LLC acts as general contractor for the entity that is developing Park La Brea and Westwood. In addition, Casden Properties, LLC intends to pursue new development opportunities in Southern California and other markets. Aimco will have an option, but not an obligation to purchase, at completion, all multifamily rental projects developed by Casden Properties, LLC; and



•

pay $2.5 million per quarter for five years up to an aggregate amount of $50.0 million to Casden Development Company, LLC as a retainer on account for redevelopment services (as of March 31, 2003, $10.0 million has been paid).

Legal

        In addition to the matters described below, the Company is a party to various legal actions and administrative proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business, some of which are covered by liability insurance, and none of which are expected to have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole.

Limited Partnerships

        In connection with the Company's acquisitions of interests in real estate partnerships, it is sometimes subject to legal actions, including allegations that such activities may involve breaches of fiduciary duties to the limited partners of such real estate partnerships or violations of the relevant partnership agreements.

        The Company may incur costs in connection with the defense or settlement of such litigation. The Company believes it complies with its fiduciary obligations and relevant partnership agreements. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, the Company does not expect any such legal actions to have a material adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole.

Environmental

        Various Federal, state and local laws subject property owners or operators to liability for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous substances present on a property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the release of the hazardous substances. The presence of, or the failure to properly remedy, hazardous substances may adversely affect occupancy at affected apartment communities and the ability to sell or finance affected properties. In addition to the costs associated with investigation and remediation actions brought by governmental agencies, the presence of hazardous wastes on a property could result in claims by private plaintiffs for personal injury, disease, disability or other infirmities. Various laws also impose liability for the cost of removal or remediation of hazardous substances at the disposal or treatment facility. Anyone who arranges for the disposal or treatment of hazardous or toxic substances is potentially liable under such laws. These laws often impose liability whether or not the person arranging for the disposal ever owned or operated the disposal facility. In connection with the ownership, operation and management of properties, the Company could potentially be liable for

8

environmental liabilities or costs associated with its properties or properties it acquires or manages in the future.

        As previously disclosed, the Company has been named as a defendant in lawsuits that have alleged personal injury as a result of the presence of mold. In addition, the Company is aware of lawsuits against owners and managers of multifamily properties asserting claims of personal injury and property damage caused by the presence of mold, some of which have resulted in substantial monetary judgments or settlements. The Company has only limited insurance coverage for property damage loss claims arising from the presence of mold and for personal injury claims related to mold exposure.

        The Company has implemented protocols and procedures to prevent or eliminate mold from its properties and believes that its measures will eliminate, or at least minimize, the effects that mold could have on its residents. To date, the Company has not incurred any material costs or liabilities relating to claims of mold exposure or to abate mold conditions. Because the law regarding mold is unsettled and subject to change, however, the Company can make no assurance that liabilities resulting from the presence of or exposure to mold will not have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole.

Other Legal Matters

        As previously disclosed, Aimco and four of its affiliated partnerships are defendants in a lawsuit brought by the City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco ("CCSF") alleging violations of residential housing codes, unlawful business practices and unfair competition. The City Attorney asserts civil penalties from $500 to $1,000 per day for each affected unit, as well as other statutory and equitable relief. The Company has filed a cross-complaint against CCSF, its Department of Building Inspections and certain of its employees, alleging constitutional violations arising out of its arbitrary and discriminatory application of its codes, and other tortious conduct. As a result of CCSF's improper removal of the case to Federal court and the subsequent remand to state court, the trial date previously scheduled for July 7, 2003 in state court is doubtful. The Company has engaged in preliminary discussions with the City Attorney to resolve the lawsuit. In the event it is unable to resolve the lawsuit, the Company believes it has meritorious defenses to assert and it will vigorously defend itself against CCSF's claims, and vigorously prosecute its own claims. Although the outcome of any litigation is uncertain, the Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole.

        As previously disclosed, National Program Services, Inc. and Vito Gruppuso (collectively "NPS") are insurance agents who in 2000 sold to the Company property insurance issued by National Union Fire Insurance Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania ("National Union"). The financial failure of NPS resulted in defaults in June 2002 under two agreements by which NPS indemnified the Company from losses relating to the matters described below. As a result of such defaults, the Company faces the risk of impairment of a $16.7 million insurance-related receivable as well as certain contingent liabilities as more fully described below. The Company holds two $5 million surety bonds issued by Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Company ("Lumbermens") to secure the NPS indemnities and has litigation pending against Lumbermens to recover on the surety bonds. Lumbermens has separate litigation seeking declarations of the invalidity of the surety bonds and damages. The Company and Lumbermens have engaged in settlement negotiations to resolve the litigation between them. In addition, the Company has pending litigation against National Union, First Capital Group, a New York based insurance wholesaler, NPS and other agents of National Union, for a refund of at least $10 million of the prepaid premium plus other damages resulting from the cancellation of the coverage.

        With respect to the contingent liabilities arising from the NPS defaults, in November 2002, Cananwill, Inc., a premium funding company, commenced litigation against the Company and others, alleging a balance due of $5.7 million, plus interest and attorney's fees, on a premium finance

9

agreement that funded premium payments made to National Union. The Company denies liability to Cananwill, believes it has meritorious defenses to assert, and it will vigorously defend itself. In the event of litigation and an adverse determination, the Company will seek reimbursement of any loss from the bonds securing the NPS indemnification agreements as well as from all third parties responsible for the misapplication of its payments. In April 2003, the Company filed suit against Cananwill and Combined Specialty Insurance Company, formerly known as Virginia Surety Company, Inc., in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado as a result of Cananwill's conversion of $1.6 million of unearned premium belonging to the Company and misapplication of such funds to the alleged debt asserted in the first Cananwill lawsuit. Finally, WestRM—West Risk Markets, Ltd. has sued XL Reinsurance American, Inc. ("XL"), Greenwich Insurance Company ("Greenwich") and Lumbermens to collect on surety bonds issued by the three allegedly to secure payment obligations due on a premium funding made by WestRM. XL and Greenwich have made the Company a third party defendant in this action, asserting that if they have any liability to WestRM, then the Company is liable to XL and Greenwich pursuant to an alleged indemnification agreement. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses to assert and will vigorously defend itself against these claims, and vigorously prosecute its own claims. Although the outcome of any claim or matter in litigation is uncertain, the Company does not believe that it will incur any material loss in connection with the insurance-related receivable or that the ultimate outcome of these separate but related matters will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial condition or results of operations taken as a whole.

        As previously disclosed, in 1998 and 1999, prior to the Casden Merger in which the Company acquired NAPICO, which closed in March 2002, investors holding limited partnership units in various limited partnerships of which NAPICO is the corporate general partner, commenced an action against NAPICO and certain other defendants. The claims related to activities that pre-dated the Casden Merger and included, but were not limited to, claims for breaches of fiduciary duty to the limited partners of certain NAPICO-managed partnerships and violations of securities laws by making materially false and misleading statements in the consent solicitation statements sent to the limited partners of such partnerships. On April 29, 2003, the judge entered judgment against NAPICO and certain other defendants in the amount of approximately $25.2 million for violations of securities laws and against NAPICO for approximately $67.3 million for breaches of fiduciary duty, both amounts plus interest of approximately $25.6 million, and for punitive damages against NAPICO in the amount of $2.6 million. Since the amount of the judgment substantially exceeds NAPICO's net worth, NAPICO cannot post a bond for the full amount of the judgment. While the case is expected to be appealed, the matter is the responsibility of the former shareholders of Casden pursuant to documents related to the Casden Merger. The Company does not believe that the ultimate outcome will have a material adverse effect on the Company's consolidated financial position or results of operations taken as a whole.

NOTE 5—Stockholders' Equity

Common Stock

        During the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002, approximately 75,000 and 10,000 shares of Common Stock, respectively, were issued in exchange for common OP Units tendered for redemption.

NOTE 6—Stock-Based Compensation

        Effective January 1, 2003, the Company adopted the accounting provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" ("SFAS 123"), as amended by Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation-Transition and Disclosure-an amendment of FASB Statement No. 123" ("SFAS 148"), and applied the prospective method set forth in SFAS 148 with respect to the transition. Under this

10

method, the Company now applies the fair value recognition provisions of SFAS 123 to all employee awards granted, modified, or settled on or after January 1, 2003, which has resulted in compensation expense being recorded based on the fair value of the stock options.

        For purposes of the pro forma disclosures below, the estimated fair values for all awards made prior to January 1, 2003 are amortized over the respective vesting period for each such option and are shown as expense as if SFAS 123 had been applied to all such awards. The Company's pro forma information and actual compensation expense attributable to stock options for the three months ended March 31, 2003 and 2002 was as follows (in thousands, except per share data):