10-Q 1 doc1.txt UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q (Mark One) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended JUNE 30, 2001 ------------------ OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to . -------- Commission File No. 0-20030 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ------------------------------------------------------------- (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Massachusetts 04-3122696 (State or other jurisdiction of (IRS Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 88 Broad Street, Boston, MA 02110 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant's telephone number, including area code (617) 854-5800 ------------------- (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 X No ----- APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PRECEDING FIVE YEARS Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports required to be filed by Sections 12, 13, or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court. Yes No 1 ------ AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-Q INDEX

2 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION JUNE 30, 2001 AND DECEMBER 31, 2000 (UNAUDITED)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 3 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE THREE AND SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 AND 2000 (UNAUDITED)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 4 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' CAPITAL FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED)

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 5 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP SSTATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2001 AND 2000 (UNAUDITED)

See Note 7 to the financial statements regarding the reduction of the Partnership's carrying value of its investment securities - affiliate during the six months ended June 30, 2001. See Note 9 to the financial statements regarding the refinancing of one of the Partnership's notes payable in February 2001. The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 6 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) NOTE 1 - BASIS OF PRESENTATION ----------------------------------- The financial statements presented herein are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial reporting and the instructions for preparing Form 10-Q under Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission and are unaudited. As such, these financial statements do not include all information and footnote disclosures required under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements and, accordingly, the accompanying financial statements should be read in conjunction with the footnotes presented in the 2000 Annual Report. Except as disclosed herein, there has been no material change to the information presented in the footnotes to the 2000 Annual Report. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal and recurring adjustments) considered necessary to present fairly the financial position at June 30, 2001 and December 31, 2000 and results of operations for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 have been made and are reflected. Operating results for the six months ended June 30, 2001 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year. NOTE 2 - CASH ---------------- At June 30, 2001, American Income Fund I-D, a Massachusetts Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") had $2,384,670 invested in federal agency discount notes, repurchase agreements secured by U.S. Treasury Bills or interests in U.S. Government securities, or other highly liquid overnight investments. NOTE 3 - REVENUE RECOGNITION -------------------------------- Rents are payable to the Partnership monthly, quarterly or semi-annually and no significant amounts are calculated on factors other than the passage of time. The leases are accounted for as operating leases and are noncancellable. Rents received prior to their due dates are deferred. In certain instances, the Partnership may enter renewal or re-lease agreements which expire beyond the Partnership's anticipated dissolution date. This circumstance is not expected to prevent the orderly wind-up of the Partnership's business activities as the General Partner and Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership ("EFG") would seek to sell the then-remaining equipment assets either to the lessee or to a third party, taking into consideration the amount of future noncancellable rental payments associated with the attendant lease agreements. See also Note 10 regarding the Class Action Lawsuit. Future minimum rents of $2,902,380 are due as follows:

Future minimum rents for operating leases does not include the operating leases for which the lease payments are based on the usage of the equipment leased. 7 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (CONTINUED) JUNE 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. The Programs received an early termination fee of $840,000 and a payment of $400,000 for certain maintenance required under the existing lease agreement. The Partnership's share of the early termination fee was $216,888, which was recognized as operating lease revenue during the three months ended June 30, 2001 and its share of the maintenance payment was $103,280, which was accrued as a maintenance obligation at June 30, 2001. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years. The Programs will receive rents of $6,240,000 over the lease term, of which the Partnership's share is $1,611,168. Lease payments for the sales-type lease are due monthly and the related revenue is recognized by a method, which produces a constant periodic rate of return on the outstanding investment in the lease. Future minimum lease payments for the sales-type lease of $182,595 are due through the date of the lease expiration in January 2002. NOTE 4 - EQUIPMENT --------------------- The following is a summary of equipment owned by the Partnership at June 30, 2001. Remaining Lease Term (Months), as used below, represents the number of months remaining from June 30, 2001 under contracted lease terms and is presented as a range when more than one lease agreement is contained in the stated equipment category. A Remaining Lease Term equal to zero reflects equipment either held for sale or re-lease or being leased on a month-to-month basis. In the opinion of EFG, the acquisition cost of the equipment did not exceed its fair market value.

At June 30, 2001, the Partnership's equipment portfolio included equipment having a proportionate original cost of approximately $10,413,000, representing approximately 91% of total equipment cost. Certain of the equipment and related lease payment streams were used to secure term loans with third-party lenders. The preceding summary of equipment includes leveraged equipment having an original cost of approximately $5,522,000 and a net book value of approximately $3,556,000 at June 30, 2001 (see Note 9). The summary above includes the Partnership's interest in a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, which had been leased to Finnair OY through April 2001. Upon expiration of the lease, the aircraft was returned to the General Partner. The Partnership's interest in this aircraft had an original cost of approximately $2,014,000 and a net book value of approximately $1,007,000 at June 30, 2001. The General Partner is attempting to remarket this aircraft. 8 The Partnership accounts for impairment of long-lived assets in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 121, "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed of" which was issued in March 1995. SFAS No. 121 requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the net book value of the assets may not be recoverable from undiscounted future cash flows. During the three months ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership recorded a write-down of equipment, representing an impairment to the carrying value of the Partnership's interest in the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft discussed above. The resulting charge of $280,000 was based on a comparison of estimated fair value and carrying value of the Partnership's interest in the aircraft. NOTE 5 - INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE VENTURE ------------------------------------------------- On March 8, 2000, the Partnership and 10 affiliated partnerships (the ''Exchange Partnerships'') collectively loaned $32 million to Echelon Residential Holdings LLC (''Echelon Residential Holdings''), a newly formed real estate company. Echelon Residential Holdings is owned by several investors, including James A. Coyne, Executive Vice President of EFG. In addition, certain affiliates of the General Partner made loans to Echelon Residential Holdings in their individual capacities. The Partnership's original loan was $3,050,000. Echelon Residential Holdings, through a wholly-owned subsidiary (Echelon Residential LLC), used the loan proceeds to acquire various real estate assets from Echelon International Corporation, a Florida-based real estate company. The loan has a term of 30 months, maturing on September 8, 2002, and an annual interest rate of 14% for the first 24 months and 18% for the final six months. Interest accrues and compounds monthly and is payable at maturity. In connection with the transaction, Echelon Residential Holdings has pledged a security interest in all of its right, title and interest in and to its membership interests in Echelon Residential LLC to the Exchange Partnerships as collateral. The loan is presented, in accordance with the guidance set forth in the Third Notice to Practitioners by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants in February 1986 entitled "ADC Arrangements", as an investment in real estate venture and is presented net of the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings. The Partnership is allocated its proportionate share of the unconsolidated real estate venture's net income or loss, adjusted for interest on the ADC arrangements, based on the balance of its ADC arrangement in relation to the real estate venture's total equity and notes payable, including the ADC arrangements. For the six months ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings were $132,819 and $19,554, respectively, and are reflected on the Statement of Operations as ''Partnership's share of unconsolidated real estate venture's loss." The Partnership took into consideration the following characteristics of the loan in determining that the loan should be accounted for as an investment in a real estate venture: (i) the Exchange Partnerships who made the loans collectively have provided substantially all of the necessary funds to acquire the underlying properties without taking title to such properties, (ii) by virtue of a pledged security interest in the wholly owned subsidiary of Echelon Residential Holdings that holds title to the properties, the Partnership's loan is secured only by the underlying properties, (iii) Echelon Residential Holdings will only repay the Partnership at maturity, including all interest accrued on the loan through maturity, (iv) it is expected that Echelon Residential Holdings can only repay the loan through sales of undeveloped and developed property; and (v) the structure of the loan (i.e. no payments due until maturity) makes it unlikely that the properties will be taken in foreclosure as a result of delinquency. 9 The summarized financial information for Echelon Residential Holdings as of and for the periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively, is as follows: (Unaudited) As of and for the periods ended June 30,

NOTE 6 - NET INVESTMENT IN SALES-TYPE LEASE -------------------------------------------------- The Partnership's net investment in a sales-type lease is the result of the conditional sale of the Partnership's proportionate interest in a Boeing 737 aircraft executed in October 2000. The title to the aircraft transfers to Royal Aviation Inc., at the expiration of the lease term. The sale of the aircraft has been recorded by the Partnership as a sales-type lease, with a lease term expiring in January 2002. For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership recognized sales-type lease revenue of $4,445 and $8,890, respectively, from this lease. At June 30, 2001, the components of the net investment in the sales-type lease are as follows:

Unearned income is being amortized to revenue over the lease term, expiring in January 2002. NOTE 7 - INVESTMENT SECURITIES - AFFILIATE AND NOTE RECEIVABLE - AFFILIATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of an exchange transaction in 1997, the Partnership is the beneficial owner of 40,797 shares of Semele Group Inc. ("Semele") common stock and holds a beneficial interest in a note from Semele (the "Semele Note") of $898,405. The Semele Note matures in April 2003 and bears an annual interest rate of 10% with mandatory principal reductions prior to maturity, if and to the extent that net proceeds are received by Semele from the sale or refinancing of its principal real estate asset consisting of an undeveloped 274-acre parcel of land near Malibu, California. The Partnership recognized interest income of $44,551 related to the Semele Note during each of the six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000. 10 The exchange in 1997 involved the sale by five partnerships and certain other affiliates of their beneficial interests in three cargo vessels to Semele in exchange for cash, Semele common stock and the Semele Note. At the time of the transaction, Semele was a public company unaffiliated with the general partners and the partnerships. Subsequently, as part of the exchange transaction, Semele solicited the consent of its shareholders to, among other things, engage EFG to provide administrative services and to elect certain affiliates of EFG and the general partners as members of the board of directors. At that point, Semele became affiliated with EFG and the general partners. The maturity date of the Semele Note has been extended. Since the Semele Note was received as consideration for the sale of the cargo vessels to an unaffiliated party and the extension of the maturity of the Semele Note is documented in an amendment to the existing Semele Note and not as a new loan, the general partners of the owner partnerships do not consider the Semele Note to be within the prohibition in the Partnership Agreements against loans to or from the general partner and its affiliates. Nonetheless, the extension of the maturity date might be construed to be the making of a loan to an affiliate in violation of the Partnership Agreements and to be a violation of the court's order, in connection with the settlement of the class action lawsuit discussed in Note 10, that authorized New Investments while providing that all other provisions of the Partnership Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. In accordance with SFAS No. 115, "Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities", marketable equity securities classified as available-for-sale are carried at fair value. At March 31, 2001, the Partnership determined that the decline in the market value of its Semele common stock was other than temporary. As a result, the Partnership wrote down the cost of the Semele common stock to $3.3125 per share (the quoted price of the Semele stock on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market on the date the stock traded closest to March 31, 2001), for a total realized loss in the six months ended June 30, 2001 of $33,148. During the three months ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership decreased the carrying value of its investment in Semele common stock to $3.00 per share (the quoted price of the Semele stock on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market on the date the stock traded closest to June 30, 2001), resulting in an unrealized loss of $12,749. This loss was reported as a component of comprehensive loss included in the Statement of Changes in Partners' Capital. NOTE 8 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS ---------------------------------------- All operating expenses incurred by the Partnership are paid by EFG on behalf of the Partnership and EFG is reimbursed at its actual cost for such expenditures. Fees and other costs incurred during the six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 which were paid or accrued by the Partnership to EFG or its Affiliates, are as follows:

11 All rents and proceeds from the sale of equipment are paid directly to either EFG or to a lender. EFG temporarily deposits collected funds in a separate interest-bearing escrow account prior to remittance to the Partnership. At June 30, 2001, the Partnership was owed $232,024 by EFG for such funds and the interest thereon. These funds were remitted to the Partnership in July 2001. The discussion of the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings in Note 5 above is incorporated herein by reference. NOTE 9 - NOTES PAYABLE -------------------------- Notes payable at June 30, 2001 consisted of two installment notes totaling $2,479,590 payable to banks and institutional lenders. The installment notes bear an interest rate of either 7.65% or a fluctuating interest rate based on LIBOR (approximately 4.73% at June 30, 2001) plus a margin. Both of the installment notes are non-recourse and are collateralized by the equipment and assignment of the related lease payments. The installment notes amortize monthly and in addition, the Partnership has a balloon payment obligation at the expiration of the lease term related to one of the two aircraft leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. of $391,567 in September 2004. In February 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively "the Programs") refinanced the outstanding indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft on lease to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. In addition to refinancing the Programs' total existing indebtedness and accrued interest of $4,758,845, the Programs received additional debt proceeds of $3,400,177. The Partnership's aggregate share of the refinanced and new indebtedness was $1,174,165 including $684,845 used to repay the existing indebtedness on the refinanced aircraft. The Partnership used a portion of its share of the additional proceeds of $489,320 to repay the outstanding balance of the indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft on lease to Finnair OY of $126,782 and certain aircraft reconfiguration costs that the Partnership had accrued at December 31, 2000. In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Reno Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years. (See Note 3 - Revenue Recognition). The Reno Programs executed a debt agreement with a new lender collateralized by the aircraft and assignment of the Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. lease payments. The Reno Programs received debt proceeds of $5,316,482, of which the Partnership's share was $1,372,708. The Partnership used the new debt proceeds and a portion of certain other receipts from Reno to repay the outstanding balance of the existing indebtedness related to the aircraft of $1,437,109 and accrued interest and fees of $21,410. The new indebtedness bears a fluctuating interest rate based on LIBOR (approximately 4.73% at June 30, 2001) plus 2.3%. Management believes that the carrying amount of notes payable approximates fair value at June 30, 2001 based on its experience and understanding of the market for instruments with similar terms. The annual maturities of the note payable are as follows:

12 NOTE 10 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ------------------------------- As described more fully in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership is a Nominal Defendant in a Class Action Lawsuit, the outcome of which could significantly alter the nature of the Partnership's organization and its future business operations. On March 12, 2001, after a status conference and hearing, the Court issued an order that required the parties, no later than May 15, 2001, to advise the Court on (a) whether the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had completed its review of the solicitation statement and related materials submitted to the SEC in connection with the proposed settlement, and (b) whether the parties requested the Court to schedule a hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement or were withdrawing the proposed settlement from judicial consideration and resuming the litigation of the Plaintiffs' claims. On May 11, 2001, the general partners of the partnerships that are nominal defendants in the Class Action Lawsuit received a letter dated May 10, 2001 from the Associate Director and Chief Counsel of the Division of Investment Management of the SEC informing the general partners that the staff of the Division believes that American Income Partners V-A Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-B Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-C Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-D Limited Partnership, American Income Fund I-A, American Income Fund I-B, American Income Fund I-E and AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership (the "Designated Partnerships") are investment companies as defined in Section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"). The SEC staff noted that Section 7 of the 1940 Act makes it unlawful for an unregistered investment company to offer or sell or purchase any security or engage in any business in interstate commerce. Accordingly, Section 7 would prohibit any partnership that is an unregistered investment company from engaging in any business in interstate commerce, except transactions that are merely incidental to its dissolution. The letter also stated that the Division is considering enforcement action with respect to this matter. Noting that the parties to the Class Action Lawsuit were scheduled to appear before the court in the near future to consider a proposed settlement, and that the SEC staff's views, as expressed in the letter, are relevant to the specific matters that will be considered by the court at the hearing, the SEC staff submitted the letter to the court for its consideration. The general partners have consulted with counsel who specializes in the 1940 Act and, based on counsel's advice, do not believe that the Partnership or the other Designated Partnerships are investment companies within the meaning of the 1940 Act. Counsel has corresponded and met with the SEC staff to address the issues concerning the Designated Partnerships' status under the 1940 Act. However, their status is unresolved and there is a risk that the Division of Investment Management may commence enforcement action against the Partnership and the other Designated Partnerships with respect to this matter. Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel each filed status reports in response to the Court's order on May 15, 2001. The Court held a hearing on May 28, 2001 at which Plaintiffs' Counsel requested that the case be put back on a litigation track anticipating his filing a motion for class certification and discovery leading to the setting of a trial date. Defendants' Counsel requested that the Court address the issue of whether or not the 1940 Act applies to the Designated Partnerships and the consolidation under the proposed settlement. The Court permitted Plaintiffs' Counsel to submit a timetable for discovery and trial and at the same time encouraged the parties to continue to work together with the SEC in an effort to consummate the proposed settlement. Subsequently, the Court scheduled a status conference for February 22, 2002 and a trial date of March 4, 2002. 13 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-Q PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Results of Operations. ------------------------ Certain statements in this quarterly report of American Income Fund I-D, a Massachusetts Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") that are not historical fact constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. There are a number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made herein. These factors include, but are not limited to, the outcome of the Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the accompanying financial statements, the remarketing of the Partnership's equipment, and the performance of the Partnership's non-equipment assets. The Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") places restrictions on the capital structure and business activities of companies registered thereunder. The Partnership has active business operations in the financial services industry, including equipment leasing, the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings LLC ("Echelon Residential Holdings") and its ownership of securities of Semele Group Inc. ("Semele"). The Partnership does not intend to engage in investment activities in a manner or to an extent that would require the Partnership to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. However, it is possible that the Partnership may unintentionally engage in an activity or activities that may be construed to fall within the scope of the 1940 Act. If the Partnership were determined to be an unregistered investment company, its business would be adversely affected. The 1940 Act, among other things, prohibits an unregistered investment company from offering securities for sale or engaging in any business in interstate commerce and, consequently, leases and contracts entered into by partnerships that are unregistered investment companies may be voidable. If necessary, the Partnership intends to avoid being deemed an investment company by disposing or acquiring certain assets that it might not otherwise dispose or acquire. On May 11, 2001, the general partners of the partnerships that are nominal defendants in the Class Action Lawsuit received a letter dated May 10, 2001 from the Associate Director and Chief Counsel of the Division of Investment Management of the SEC informing the general partners that the staff of the Division believes that American Income Partners V-A Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-B Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-C Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-D Limited Partnership, American Income Fund I-A, American Income Fund I-B, American Income Fund I-E and AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership (the "Designated Partnerships") are investment companies as defined in Section 3(a)(1)(c) of the 1940 Act. The letter also stated that the Division is considering enforcement action with respect to this matter. Noting that the parties to the Class Action Lawsuit were scheduled to appear before the court in the near future to consider a proposed settlement, and that the SEC staff's views, as expressed in the letter, are relevant to the specific matters that will be considered by the court at the hearing, the SEC staff submitted the letter to the court for its consideration. The general partners have consulted with counsel who specializes in the 1940 Act and, based on counsel's advice, do not believe that the Partnership or the other Designated Partnerships are investment companies within the meaning of the 1940 Act. Counsel has corresponded and met with the SEC staff to address the issues concerning the Designated Partnerships' status under the 1940 Act. However, their status is unresolved and there is a risk that the Division of Investment Management may commence enforcement action against the Partnership and the other Designated Partnerships with respect to this matter. 14 Plaintiffs' Counsel and Defendants' Counsel each filed status reports in response to the Court's order on May 15, 2001. The Court held a hearing on May 28, 2001 at which Plaintiffs' Counsel requested that the case be put back on a litigation track anticipating his filing a motion for class certification and discovery leading to the setting of a trial date. Defendants' Counsel requested that the Court address the issue of whether or not the 1940 Act applies to the Designated Partnerships and the consolidation under the proposed settlement. The Court permitted Plaintiffs' Counsel to submit a timetable for discovery and trial and at the same time encouraged the parties to continue to work together with the SEC in an effort to consummate the proposed settlement. See Note 10 to the financial statements for additional discussion. Three and six months ended June 30, 2001 compared to the three and six months -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ended June 30, 2000: ----------------------- The Partnership was organized in 1991 as a direct-participation equipment leasing program to acquire a diversified portfolio of capital equipment subject to lease agreements with third parties. Presently, the Partnership is a Nominal Defendant in a Class Action Lawsuit, the outcome of which could significantly alter the nature of the Partnership's organization and its future business operations. (See Note 10 to the financial statements.). Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Agreement and Certificate of Limited Partnership (the "Restated Agreement, as amended,") the Partnership is scheduled to be dissolved by December 31, 2002. However, the General Partner does not expect that the Partnership will be dissolved until such time that the Class Action Lawsuit is settled or adjudicated. Results of Operations ----------------------- For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $548,705 and $927,548, respectively, compared to $373,877 and $729,727, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. The increase in operating lease revenue from 2000 to 2001 resulted from the September 2000 re-lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft and a Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft in which the Partnership holds ownership interests and lease termination proceeds, as discussed below. These increases were partially offset by the affects on operating lease revenue of the lease term expiration in April 2001 of a second McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft and sales of equipment. In the future, operating lease revenue is expected to decline due to lease term expirations and equipment sales. The lease term associated with a Boeing 737-2H4, in which the Partnership holds an ownership interest, expired in December 1999. The aircraft was re-leased in September 2000 to Air Slovakia BWJ Ltd., with a lease term expiring in September 2003. The Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $78,255 for the six month period ended June 30, 2001 related to its interest in this aircraft. The lease term associated with a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, in which the Partnership holds an ownership interest, expired in January 2000. The aircraft was re-leased in September 2000 to Aerovias de Mexico S.A. de C.V., with a lease term expiring in September 2004. The Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $142,471 and $28,190 related to this aircraft during the six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively. In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Reno Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. The Reno Programs received an early termination fee of $840,000 and a payment of $400,000 for certain maintenance required under the existing lease agreement. The Partnership's share of the early termination fee was $216,888, which was recognized as operating lease revenue during the three months ended June 30, 2001 and its share of the maintenance payment was $103,280, which was accrued as a maintenance obligation at June 30, 2001. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years. The Reno Programs will receive rents of $6,240,000 over the lease term, of which the Partnership's share is $1,611,168. 15 The General Partner is attempting to remarket the second McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, in which the Partnership holds an ownership interest. The lease term associated with this aircraft expired in April 2001 and the aircraft is currently off lease. The Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $101,800 and $153,984 related to this aircraft during the six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively. In October 2000, the Partnership and certain of its affiliates executed a conditional sales agreement with Royal Aviation Inc. for the sale of the Partnership's interest in a second Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft. This aircraft had been off lease from January 2000 through the date of the conditional sale in October 2000. The title to the aircraft transfers to Royal Aviation Inc., at the expiration of the lease term. The sale of the aircraft has been recorded by the Partnership as a sales-type lease, with a lease term expiring in January 2002. For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership recognized sales-type lease revenue of $4,445 and $8,890, respectively. The Partnership's equipment portfolio includes certain assets in which the Partnership holds a proportionate ownership interest. In such cases, the remaining interests are owned by an affiliated equipment leasing program sponsored by Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership ("EFG"). Proportionate equipment ownership enabled the Partnership to further diversify its equipment portfolio at inception by participating in the ownership of selected assets, thereby reducing the general levels of risk, which could have resulted from a concentration in any single equipment type, industry or lessee. The Partnership and each affiliate individually report, in proportion to their respective ownership interests, their respective shares of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses associated with the equipment. Interest income for the three and six month ended June 30, 2001 was $51,601 and $95,578, respectively, compared to $43,381 and $116,211, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. Interest income is typically generated from temporary investment of rental receipts and equipment sale proceeds in short-term instruments. The amount of future interest income is expected to fluctuate as a result of changing interest rates and the amount of cash available for investment, among other factors. Interest income during the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000 included $22,153 and $44,551, respectively, earned on a note receivable from Semele (see Note 7 to the financial statements herein). During the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, the Partnership sold fully-depreciated equipment to existing lessees and third parties. These sales resulted in a net gain, for financial statement purposes in 2001, of $8,346 and $10,846, respectively, compared to $7,800 and $13,800, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. It cannot be determined whether future sales of equipment will result in a net gain or a net loss to the Partnership, as such transactions will be dependent upon the condition and type of equipment being sold and its marketability at the time of sale. In addition, the amount of gain or loss reported for financial statement purposes is partly a function of the amount of accumulated depreciation associated with the equipment being sold. The ultimate realization of residual value for any type of equipment will be dependent upon many factors, including EFG's ability to sell and re-lease equipment. Changing market conditions, industry trends, technological advances, and many other events can converge to enhance or detract from asset values at any given time. EFG attempts to monitor these changes in order to identify opportunities which may be advantageous to the Partnership and which will maximize total cash returns for each asset. The total economic value realized upon final disposition of each asset is comprised of all primary lease term revenue generated from that asset, together with its residual value. The latter consists of cash proceeds realized upon the asset's sale in addition to all other cash receipts obtained from renting the asset on a re-lease, renewal or month-to-month basis. Consequently, the amount of gain or loss reported in the financial statements is not necessarily indicative of the total residual value the Partnership achieved from leasing the equipment. 16 Depreciation expense for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001 was $167,518 and $335,036, respectively, compared to $163,998 and $374,244, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. For financial reporting purposes, to the extent that an asset is held on primary lease term, the Partnership depreciates the difference between (i) the cost of the asset and (ii) the estimated residual value of the asset on a straight-line basis over such term. For purposes of this policy, estimated residual values represent estimates of equipment values at the date of the primary lease expiration. To the extent that equipment is held beyond its primary lease term, the Partnership continues to depreciate the remaining net book value of the asset on a straight-line basis over the asset's remaining economic life. During the three months ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership also recorded a write-down of equipment, representing an impairment to the carrying value of the Partnership's interest in a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft returned in April 2001 and currently being off lease. The resulting charge of $280,000 was based on a comparison of estimated fair value and carrying value of the Partnership's interest in the aircraft. The estimate of the fair value was based on (i) information provided by a third-party aircraft broker and (ii) EFG's assessment of prevailing market conditions for similar aircraft. Aircraft condition, age, passenger capacity, distance capability, fuel efficiency, and other factors influence market demand and market values for passenger jet aircraft. For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership incurred interest expense of $34,593 and $81,170, respectively, compared to $57,047 and $121,627, respectively for the same periods in 2000. In the future, interest expense will decline as the principal balance of notes payable is reduced through the application of rent receipts to outstanding debt. Management fees were $30,018 and $51,433, respectively, for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001 and $17,269 and $33,577, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. Operating expenses were $309,792 and $410,909, respectively for the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001 compared to $68,387 and $154,466, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. In 2001, operating expenses included approximately $59,000 related to the Class Lawsuit discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein. In addition, operating expenses included approximately $172,000 of re-marketing and storage costs related to the re-lease of an aircraft in June 2001 and storage of another aircraft, which was returned to the General Partner in April 2001, upon its lease term expiration. Other operating expenses include professional service costs, such as audit and legal fees, as well as printing, distribution and remarketing expenses. In certain cases, equipment storage or repairs and maintenance costs may be incurred in connection with equipment being remarketed. At March 31, 2001, the Partnership determined that the decline in the market value of its Semele common stock was other than temporary. As a result, the Partnership wrote down the cost of the Semele common stock to $3.3125 per share (the quoted price of the Semele stock on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market on the date the stock traded closest to March 31, 2001), for a total realized loss in the six months ended June 30, 2001 of $33,148. For the three and six month periods ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings were $70,221 and $132,819, respectively, compared to $16,570 and $19,554, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. The losses are reflected on the Statement of Operations as "Partnership's share of unconsolidated real estate venture's loss". Liquidity and Capital Resources and Discussion of Cash Flows -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Partnership by its nature is a limited life entity. The Partnership's principal operating activities derive from asset rental transactions. Accordingly, the Partnership's principal source of cash from operations is provided by the collection of periodic rents. These cash inflows are used to satisfy debt service obligations associated with leveraged leases, and to pay management fees and operating costs. Operating activities generated net cash inflows of $599,810 and $276,673 for the six months ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively. Future renewal, re-lease and equipment sale activities will cause a decline in the Partnership's lease revenues and corresponding sources of operating cash. Overall, expenses associated with rental activities, such as management fees, and net cash flow from operating activities will also decline as the Partnership remarkets its assets. The Partnership, however, may continue to incur significant costs to facilitate the successful remarketing of its aircraft in the future. 17 Cash realized from asset disposal transactions is reported under investing activities on the accompanying Statement of Cash Flows. During the six months ended June 30, 2001 and 2000, the Partnership realized equipment sales proceeds of $10,846 and $13,800, respectively. Future inflows of cash from asset disposals will vary in timing and amount and will be influenced by many factors including, but not limited to, the frequency and timing of lease expirations, the type of equipment being sold, its condition and age, and future market conditions. At June 30, 2001, the Partnership was due aggregate future minimum lease payments of $3,084,975 from contractual operating and sales-type lease agreements (see Note 3 to the financial statements), a portion of which will be used to amortize the principal balance of notes payable of $2,479,590 (see Note 9 to the financial statements). At the expiration of the individual lease terms underlying the Partnership's future minimum lease payments, the Partnership will sell the equipment or enter re-lease or renewal agreements when considered advantageous by the General Partner and EFG. Such future remarketing activities will result in the realization of additional cash inflows in the form of equipment sale proceeds or rents from renewals and re-leases, the timing and extent of which cannot be predicted with certainty. This is because the timing and extent of remarketing events often is dependent upon the needs and interests of the existing lessees. Some lessees may choose to renew their lease contracts, while others may elect to return the equipment. In the latter instances, the equipment could be re-leased to another lessee or sold to a third party. In connection with a preliminary settlement agreement for the Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the accompanying financial statements, the court permitted the Partnership to invest in any new investment, including but not limited to new equipment or other business activities, subject to certain limitations. On March 8, 2000, the Partnership loaned $3,050,000 to a newly formed real estate company, Echelon Residential Holdings, to finance the acquisition of real estate assets by that company. Echelon Residential Holdings, through a wholly owned subsidiary ("Echelon Residential LLC"), used the loan proceeds, along with the loan proceeds from similar loans by ten affiliated partnerships, representing $32 million in the aggregate, to acquire various real estate assets from Echelon International Corporation, an independent Florida-based real estate company. Echelon Residential Holding's interest in Echelon Residential LLC is pledged pursuant to a pledge agreement to the partnerships as collateral for the loans. The loan has a term of 30 months, maturing on September 8, 2002, and an annual interest rate of 14% for the first 24 months and 18% for the final six months. Interest accrues and compounds monthly and is payable at maturity. As discussed in Note 5 to the Partnership's financial statements, the loan is considered to be an investment in a real estate venture for accounting purposes. In accordance with the provisions of Statement of Position No. 78-9, "Accounting for Investments in Real Estate Ventures", the Partnership reports its share of income or loss of Echelon Residential Holdings under the equity method of accounting. The loan made by the Partnership to Echelon Residential Holdings is, and will continue to be, subject to various risks, including the risk of default by Echelon Residential Holdings, which could require the Partnership to foreclose under the pledge agreement on its interests in Echelon Residential LLC. The ability of Echelon Residential Holdings to make loan payments and the amount the Partnership may realize after a default would be dependent upon the risks generally associated with the real estate lending business including, without limitation, the existence of senior financing or other liens on the properties, general or local economic conditions, property values, the sale of properties, interest rates, real estate taxes, other operating expenses, the supply and demand for properties involved, zoning and environmental laws and regulations, rent control laws and other governmental rules. A default by Echelon Residential Holdings could have a material adverse effect on the future cash flow and operating results of the Partnership. The Restated Agreement, as amended, prohibits the Partnership from making loans to the General Partner or its affiliates. Since the acquisition of the several parcels of real estate from the owner had to occur prior to the admission of certain independent third parties as equity owners, Echelon Residential Holdings and its wholly owned subsidiary, Echelon Residential LLC, were formed in anticipation of their admission. The General Partner agreed to an officer of the Manager serving as the initial equity holder of Echelon Residential Holdings and as an unpaid manager of Echelon Residential Holdings. The officer made a $185,465 equity investment in Echelon Residential Holdings. His return on his equity investment is restricted to the same rate of return as the partnerships realize on their loans. There is a risk that the court may object to the general partner's action in structuring the loan in this way since the officer may be deemed an affiliate and the loans in violation of the prohibition against loans to affiliates and the court's statement in its order permitting New Investments that all 18 other provisions of the Partnership Agreements governing the investment objectives and policies of the Partnership shall remain in full force and effect. The court may require the partnerships to restructure or divest the loan. As a result of an exchange transaction in 1997, the Partnership is the beneficial owner of 40,797 shares of Semele common stock and holds a beneficial interest in a note from Semele (the "Semele Note") of $898,405. The Semele Note matures in April 2003 and bears an annual interest rate of 10% with mandatory principal reductions prior to maturity, if and to the extent that net proceeds are received by Semele from the sale or refinancing of its principal real estate asset consisting of an undeveloped 274-acre parcel of land near Malibu, California. The exchange in 1997 involved the sale by five partnerships and certain other affiliates of their beneficial interests in three cargo vessels to Semele in exchange for cash, Semele common stock and the Semele Note. At the time of the transaction, Semele was a public company unaffiliated with the general partners and the partnerships. Subsequently, as part of the exchange transaction, Semele solicited the consent of its shareholders to, among other things, engage EFG to provide administrative services and to elect certain affiliates of EFG and the general partners as members of the board of directors. At that point, Semele became affiliated with EFG and the general partners. The maturity date of the Semele Note has been extended. Since the Semele Note was received as consideration for the sale of the cargo vessels to an unaffiliated party and the extension of the maturity of the Semele Note is documented in an amendment to the existing Semele Note and not as a new loan, the general partners of the owner partnerships do not consider the Semele Note to be within the prohibition in the Partnership Agreements against loans to or from the general partner and its affiliates. Nonetheless, the extension of the maturity date might be construed to be the making of a loan to an affiliate in violation of the Partnership Agreements and to be a violation of the court's order, in connection with the settlement of the class action lawsuit discussed in Note 10, that authorized New Investments while providing that all other provisions of the Partnership Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. In accordance with SFAS No. 115, "Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities", marketable equity securities classified as available-for-sale are carried at fair value. At March 31, 2001, the Partnership determined that the decline in the market value of its Semele common stock was other than temporary. As a result, the Partnership wrote down the cost of the Semele common stock resulting in a total realized loss in the six months ended June 30, 2001 of $33,148. See Results of Operations. During the three months ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership decreased the carrying value of its investment in Semele common stock to $3.00 per share (the quoted price of the Semele stock on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market on the date the stock traded closest to June 30, 2001), resulting in an unrealized loss of $12,749. This loss was reported as a component of comprehensive loss included in the Statement of Changes in Partners' Capital. The Semele Note and the Semele common stock are subject to a number of risks including, Semele's ability to make loan payments which is dependent upon the liquidity of Semele and primarily Semele's ability to sell or refinance its principal real estate asset consisting of an undeveloped 274-acre parcel of land near Malibu, California. The market value of the Partnership's investment in Semele common stock has generally declined since the Partnership's initial investment in 1997. In 1998, the General Partner determined that the decline in the market value of the stock was other than temporary and wrote down the Partnership's investment. Again in the three months ended March 31, 2001, the General Partner made the same determination and wrote down the Partnership's investment. Subsequently, the market value of the Semele common stock has fluctuated. The market value of the stock could decline in the future. Gary D. Engle, President and Chief Executive Officer of EFG and a Director of the General Partner is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Semele and James A. Coyne, Executive Vice President of EFG is Semele's President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Engle and Mr. Coyne are both members of the Board of Directors of, and own significant stock in, Semele. 19 The Partnership obtained long-term financing in connection with certain equipment leases. The origination of such indebtedness and the subsequent repayments of principal are reported as components of financing activities on the accompanying Statement of Cash Flows. Each note payable is recourse only to the specific equipment financed and to the minimum rental payments contracted to be received during the debt amortization period (which period generally coincides with the lease rental term). As rental payments are collected, a portion or all of the rental payment is used to repay the associated indebtedness. In the future, the amount of cash used will decline as the principal balance of the notes payable is reduced through the collection and application of rents. In addition, the Partnership has a balloon payment obligation as discussed below. In February 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Programs") refinanced the outstanding indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft on lease to Aerovias de Mexico S.A. de C.V. In addition to refinancing the Programs' total existing indebtedness and accrued interest of $4,758,845, the Programs received additional debt proceeds of $3,400,177. The Partnership's aggregate share of the refinanced and new indebtedness was $1,174,165 including $684,845 used to repay the existing indebtedness on the refinanced aircraft. The Partnership used a portion of its share of the additional proceeds of $489,320 to repay the outstanding balance of the indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft then on lease to Finnair OY of $126,782 and certain aircraft reconfiguration costs that the Partnership had accrued at December 31, 2000. The new indebtedness bears a fixed interest rate of 7.65%, principal is amortized monthly and the Partnership has a balloon payment obligation at the expiration of the lease term of $391,567 in September 2004. In the six months ended June 30, 2000, the Partnership refinanced the indebtedness associated with the same aircraft and in addition to refinancing the existing indebtedness, received additional proceeds of $194,987. In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Reno Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years (see Results of Operations). The Reno Programs executed a debt agreement with a new lender collateralized by the aircraft and assignment of the Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. lease payments. The Reno Programs received debt proceeds of $5,316,482, of which the Partnership's share was $1,372,708. The Partnership used the new debt proceeds and a portion of certain other receipts from Reno to repay the outstanding balance of the existing indebtedness related to the aircraft of $1,437,109 and accrued interest and fees of $21,410. The new indebtedness bears a fluctuating interest rate based on LIBOR (approximately 4.73% at June 30, 2001) plus 2.3% and principal is amortized monthly. There are no formal restrictions under the Restated Agreement, as amended, that materially limit the Partnership's ability to pay cash distributions, except that the General Partner may suspend or limit cash distributions to ensure that the Partnership maintains sufficient working capital reserves to cover, among other things, operating costs and potential expenditures, such as refurbishment costs to remarket equipment upon lease expiration. In addition to the need for funds in connection with the Class Action Lawsuit, liquidity is especially important as the Partnership matures and sells equipment, because the remaining equipment base consists of fewer revenue-producing assets that are available to cover prospective cash disbursements. Insufficient liquidity could inhibit the Partnership's ability to sustain its operations or maximize the realization of proceeds from remarketing its remaining assets. In particular, the Partnership must contemplate the potential liquidity risks associated with its investment in commercial jet aircraft. The management and remarketing of aircraft can involve, among other things, significant costs and lengthy remarketing initiatives. Although the Partnership's lessees are required to maintain the aircraft during the period of lease contract, repair, maintenance, and/or refurbishment costs at lease expiration can be substantial. For example, an aircraft that is returned to the Partnership meeting minimum airworthiness standards, such as flight hours or engine cycles, nonetheless may require heavy maintenance in order to bring its engines, airframe and other hardware up to standards that will permit its prospective use in commercial air transportation. 20 At June 30, 2001, the Partnership's equipment portfolio included ownership interests in four commercial jet aircraft, one of which is a Boeing 737 aircraft. The Boeing 737 aircraft is a Stage 2 aircraft, meaning that it is prohibited from operating in the United States unless it is retro-fitted with hush-kits to meet Stage 3 noise regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration. During 2000, this aircraft was re-leased to Air Slovakia BWJ, Ltd. through September 2003. The remaining three aircraft in the Partnership's portfolio already are Stage 3 compliant. Two of these aircraft have lease terms expiring in September 2004 and June 2005, respectively, and the third aircraft was returned to the General Partner upon its lease expiration in April 2001. The General Partner is attempting to remarket this aircraft. Recent changes in economic condition of the airline industry have adversely affected the demand for and market values for commercial jet aircraft. These changes could adversely affect the operations of the Partnership and the residual value of the commercial jet aircraft. Currently, all of commercial jet aircraft in which the Partnership has a proportionate ownership interest are subject to contracted lease agreements except one McDonnell Douglas MD-82, which was returned to the General Partner upon its lease expiration in April 2001. The General Partner is attempting to remarket this aircraft. Cash distributions to the General and Limited Partners had been declared and generally paid within fifteen days following the end of each calendar quarter. The payment of such distributions is reported under financing activities on the accompanying Statement of Cash Flows. No cash distributions were declared for either of the six month periods ended June 30, 2001 or 2000. In any given year, it is possible that Limited Partners will be allocated taxable income in excess of distributed cash. This discrepancy between tax obligations and cash distributions may or may not continue in the future, and cash may or may not be available for distribution to the Limited Partners adequate to cover any tax obligation. Cash distributions when paid to the Limited Partners generally consist of both a return of and a return on capital. Cash distributions do not represent and are not indicative of yield on investment. Actual yield on investment cannot be determined with any certainty until conclusion of the Partnership and will be dependent upon the collection of all future contracted rents, the generation of renewal and/or re-lease rents, the residual value realized for each asset at its disposal date and the performance of the Partnership's non-equipment assets. The Partnership's capital account balances for federal income tax and for financial reporting purposes are different primarily due to differing treatments of income and expense items for income tax purposes in comparison to financial reporting purposes (generally referred to as permanent or timing differences; see Note 9 to the financial statements presented in the Partnership's 2000 Annual Report). For instance, selling commissions and organization and offering costs pertaining to syndication of the Partnership's limited partnership units are not deductible for federal income tax purposes, but are recorded as a reduction of partners' capital for financial reporting purposes. Therefore, such differences are permanent differences between capital accounts for financial reporting and federal income tax purposes. Other differences between the bases of capital accounts for federal income tax and financial reporting purposes occur due to timing differences. Such items consist of the cumulative difference between income or loss for tax purposes and financial statement income or loss and the treatment of unrealized gains or losses on investment securities for book and tax purposes. The principal components of the cumulative difference between financial statement income or loss and tax income or loss result from different depreciation policies for book and tax purposes and the different treatment for book and tax purposes related to the real estate venture. For financial reporting purposes, the General Partner has accumulated a capital deficit at June 30, 2001. This is the result of aggregate cash distributions to the General Partner being in excess of its capital contribution of $1,000 and its allocation of financial statement net income or loss. Ultimately, the existence of a capital deficit for the General Partner for financial reporting purposes is not indicative of any further capital obligations to the Partnership by the General Partner. The Restated Agreement, as amended, requires that upon the dissolution of the Partnership, the General Partner will be required to contribute to the Partnership an amount equal to any negative balance which may exist in the General Partner's tax capital account. At December 31, 2000, the General Partner had a positive tax capital account balance. 21 The outcome of the Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the accompanying financial statements, will be the principal factor in determining the future of the Partnership's operations. The settlement or adjudication of that lawsuit may materially change the future organizational structure and business interests of the Partnership, as well as its cash distribution policies. In addition, commencing with the first quarter of 2000, the General Partner suspended the payment of quarterly cash distributions pending final resolution of the Class Action Lawsuit. Accordingly, future cash distributions are not expected to be paid until the Class Action Lawsuit is settled or adjudicated. Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Partnership's financial statements include financial instruments that are exposed to interest rate risks. The Partnership's exposure to market risk for changes in interest rates at June 30, 2001, related primarily to one note payable for which the interest rates are based on the London Interbank Offering Rate. An annual increase of a 100 basis points in the interest rate on this note payable would not have a material effect on the Partnership's financial statements. The Partnership's acquisition, development and construction loan to Echelon Residential Holdings matures on September 8, 2002 and earns interest at a fixed annual rate of 14% for the first 24 months and a fixed annual rate of 18% for the last 6 months of the loan. Investments earning a fixed rate of interest may have their fair market value adversely impacted due to a rise in interest rates. The effect of interest rate fluctuations on the Partnership for the six months ended June 30, 2001 was not material. 22 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-Q PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

23 SIGNATURE PAGE Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized. AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D, a Massachusetts Limited Partnership By: AFG Leasing VI Incorporated, a Massachusetts corporation and the General Partner of the Registrant. By: /s/ Michael J. Butterfield ----------------------------- Michael J. Butterfield Treasurer of AFG Leasing VI Incorporated (Duly Authorized Officer and Principal Financial and Accounting Officer) Date: August 14, 2001 ----------------- 24

AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-D LTD PARTNERSHIP 10-Q