10-K/A 1 doc1.txt UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10- K/A Amendment No. 2 to Form 10-K (Mark One) [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2000 ----------------- OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 [NO FEE REQUIRED] For the transition period from to Commission file number 0-19137 ------- AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership -------------------------------------------- (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Massachusetts 04-3057290 (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 -------------- Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act NONE ---- Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: 2,714,647 Units Representing Limited Partnership Interest --------------------------------------------------------- (Title of class) 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 - Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained herein, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definite proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ ] State the aggregate market value of the voting stock held by nonaffiliates of the registrant. Not applicable. Securities are nonvoting for this purpose. Refer to Item 12 for further information. EXPLANATORY NOTE After AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership ("the Partnership") filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K (the "2000 10-K") for the year ended December 31, 2000 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Partnership determined that the accounting treatment for the loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings LLC ("Echelon Residential Holdings") required revision, as explained below. As reported in the 2000 10-K, on March 8, 2000, the Partnership and 10 affiliated partnerships (the ''Exchange Partnerships'') collectively loaned $32 million to Echelon Residential Holdings, a newly formed real estate company. The Partnership's loan to Echelon Residential Holdings is $3,640,000. 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, an unrelated 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 receivable was previously accounted for and reported in accordance with the guidance for Acquisition, Development and Construction Arrangements ("ADC arrangements") in the Partnership's financial statements as of and for the year December 31, 2000. The loan was presented as an investment in a real estate venture and was presented net of the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings. The Partnership was allocated its proportionate share of the unconsolidated real estate venture's net loss, excluding the interest expense on the loan, based on the balance of its loan receivable in relation to the real estate venture's total equity and notes payable, including the ADC arrangements. For the period ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings was $276,289 and was reflected on the Statement of Operations as ''Partnership's share of unconsolidated real estate venture's loss''. Subsequent to the issuance of the Partnership's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership determined that the loan receivable should be accounted for consistent with its legal form and the Partnership should recognize the interest income, as calculated per the contractual terms of the loan agreement to the extent such interest income was evaluated as likely to be collected. The loan receivable and related interest should be evaluated for impairment under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 114 "Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan". Accordingly, the Partnership reversed the proportionate share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings of $276,289 previously recorded and recognized interest income of $446,086, resulting in a decrease in the net loss for the year ended December 31, 2000 of $722,375, or $0.25 per limited partnership unit. As a result, the accompanying financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000 have been restated from the amounts previously reported. In addition, during the second quarter of 2001 the General Partner determined that recoverability of the loan receivable had been impaired and at June 30, 2001 recorded an impairment of $318,500, reflecting the General Partner's current assessment of the amount of loss that is likely to be incurred by the Partnership. In addition to the write-down recorded at June 30, 2001, the Partnership reserved all accrued interest of $590,772 recorded on the loan receivable through March 31, 2001 and has ceased accruing interest on its loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, effective April 1, 2001. A summary of the significant effects of the restatement is as follows: As of and for the Year Ended December 31, 2000:

AIRFUND II INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10- K/A TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I Item 1. Business. ------------------- (a) General Development of Business AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") was organized as a limited partnership under the Massachusetts Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the "Uniform Act") on July 20, 1989 for the purpose of acquiring and leasing to third parties a specified portfolio of used commercial aircraft. Partners' capital initially consisted of contributions of $1,000 from the General Partner (AFG Aircraft Management Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation) and $100 from the Initial Limited Partner (AFG Assignor Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation). The Partnership issued 2,714,647 units, representing assignments of limited partnership interests (the "Units"), to 4,192 investors. Unitholders and Limited Partners (other than the Initial Limited Partner) are collectively referred to as Recognized Owners. The General Partner is an affiliate of Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership (formerly known as American Finance Group), a Massachusetts limited partnership ("EFG"). The common stock of the General Partner is owned by EFG. The General Partner is not required to make any other capital contributions to the Partnership except as may be required under the Uniform Act and Section 6.1(b) of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Certificate of Limited Partnership (the "Restated Agreement, as amended", or the "Partnership Agreement"). (b) Financial Information About Industry Segments The Partnership is engaged in only one operating industry segment: financial services. Historically, the Partnership has acquired used commercial aircraft and leased the aircraft to creditworthy lessees on a full-payout or operating lease basis. Full-payout leases are those in which aggregate undiscounted noncancellable rents equal or exceed the acquisition cost of the leased equipment. Operating leases are those in which the aggregate undiscounted noncancellable rental payments are less than the acquisition cost of the leased equipment. In the year ended December 31,2000, the Partnership also entered into a sales-type lease, described in Note 3 to the financial statements included in Item 8 herein. Industry segment data is not applicable. See "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" included in Item 7 herein. In connection with a preliminary settlement agreement for a Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the financial statements, included in Item 8 herein, 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 $3,640,000 to a newly formed real estate company, Echelon Residential Holdings LLC ("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 unrelated Florida-based real estate company. Echelon Residential Holding's interest in Echelon Residential is pledged pursuant to a pledge agreement to the partnerships as collateral for the loans. (c) Narrative Description of Business The Partnership was organized to acquire a specified portfolio of used commercial jet aircraft subject to various full-payout and operating leases and to lease the aircraft to third parties as income-producing investments. More specifically, the Partnership's primary investment objectives were to acquire and lease aircraft that would: 1. Generate quarterly cash distributions; 2. Preserve and protect invested capital; and 3. Maintain substantial residual value for ultimate sale of the aircraft. The Partnership has the additional objective of providing certain federal income tax benefits. The initial Interim Closing date of the Offering of Units of the Partnership was May 17, 1990. The initial purchase of aircraft and the associated lease commitments occurred on May 18, 1990. Additional purchases of aircraft (or proportionate interests in aircraft) occurred at each of five subsequent Interim Closings, the last of which occurred on June 28, 1991, the Final Closing. The Partnership's aircraft and the associated leases are described in Note 4 to the financial statements included in Item 8, herein. The Restated Agreement, as amended, provides that the Partnership will terminate no later than December 31, 2005. However, 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. The Partnership has no employees; however, it is managed pursuant to a Management Agreement with EFG or one of its affiliates (the "Manager"). The Manager's role, among other things, is to (i) evaluate, select, negotiate, and consummate the acquisition of aircraft, (ii) manage the leasing, re-leasing, financing, and refinancing of aircraft, and (iii) arrange the resale of aircraft. The Manager is compensated for such services as provided for in the Restated Agreement, as amended, described in Item 13, herein and Note 7 to the financial statements included in Item 8, herein. The Partnership's investment in commercial aircraft is, and will continue to be, subject to various risks, including physical deterioration, technological obsolescence, and credit quality and defaults by lessees. A principal business risk of owning and leasing aircraft is the possibility that aggregate lease revenues and aircraft sale proceeds will be insufficient to provide an acceptable rate of return on invested capital after payment of all operating expenses. Another risk is that the credit quality of the lease may deteriorate after a lease is made. In addition, the leasing industry is very competitive. The Partnership is subject to considerable competition when the aircraft are re-leased or sold at the expiration of current lease terms. The Partnership must compete with lease programs offered directly by manufacturers and other equipment leasing companies, many of which have greater resources, including lease programs organized and managed similarly to the Partnership, and including other EFG-sponsored partnerships and trusts, which may seek to re-lease or sell aircraft within their own portfolios to the same customers as the Partnership. The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 and the commencement of hostilities thereafter may adversely affect the Partnership's ability to re-lease or sell equipment. In addition, default by a lessee under a lease may cause aircraft to be returned to the Partnership at a time when the General Partner or the Manager is unable to arrange for the re-lease or sale of such aircraft. This could result in the loss of a material portion of anticipated revenues. Aircraft condition, age, passenger capacity, distance capability, fuel efficiency, and other factors influence market demand and market values for passenger jet aircraft. All of the Partnership's aircraft currently operate in international markets. All rents due under the leases of these aircraft are denominated in U.S. dollars. However, the operation of the aircraft in international markets exposes the Partnership to certain political, credit and economic risks. Regulatory requirements of other countries governing aircraft registration, maintenance, liability of lessors and other matters may apply. Political instability, changes in national policy, competitive pressures, fuel shortages, recessions and other political and economic events adversely affecting world or regional trading markets or a particular foreign lessee could also create the risk that a foreign lessee would be unable to perform its obligations to the Partnership. The recognition in foreign courts of judgments obtained in United States courts may be difficult or impossible to obtain and foreign procedural rules may otherwise delay such recognition. It may be difficult for the Partnership to obtain possession of aircraft used outside the United States in the event of default by the lessee or to enforce its rights under the related lease. Moreover, foreign jurisdictions may confiscate or expropriate aircraft without paying adequate compensation. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the ultimate realization of residual value for any aircraft is dependent upon many factors, including EFG's ability to sell and re-lease the aircraft. Changes in market conditions, industry trends, technological advances, and other events could converge to enhance or detract from asset values at any given time. Accordingly, EFG will attempt to monitor changes in the airline industry in order to identify opportunities which may be advantageous to the Partnership and which will maximize total cash returns for each aircraft. The General Partner will determine when each aircraft should be sold and the terms of such sale based upon numerous factors with a view toward achieving the investment objectives of the Partnership. The General Partner is authorized to sell the aircraft prior to the expiration of the initial lease terms and intends to monitor and evaluate the market for resale of the aircraft to determine whether an aircraft should remain in the Partnership's portfolio or be sold. As an alternative to sale, the Partnership may enter re-lease agreements when considered advantageous by the General Partner and the Manager. 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 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. 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 and the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings. 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. The General Partner is engaged in discussions with the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") regarding whether or not the Partnership may be an inadvertent investment company as a consequence of the above-referenced loan. 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. The General Partner has consulted counsel and believes that the Partnership is not an investment company. The General Partner has determined to take action to resolve the Partnership's status under the 1940 Act by means that may include 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 SEC staff noted that Section 7 of the 1940 Act makes it unlawful for an unregistered investment company, among other things, to offer, sell, purchase or acquire 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 SEC staff asked that the general partners advise them within the next 30 days as to what steps the Designated Partnerships will take to address their status under the 1940 Act. The SEC staff asserts that the notes evidencing the loans to Echelon Residential Holdings are investment securities and the ownership of the notes by said partnerships cause them to be investment companies and that, in the case of American Income Partners V-A Limited Partnership and V-B Limited Partnership, they may have become investment companies when they received the Semele Group Inc. ("Semele") securities as part of the compensation for the sale of a vessel to Semele in 1997. The general partners have consulted with counsel who specializes in the 1940 Act and, based on counsel's advice, do not believe that the Designated Partnerships are investment companies. The letter also stated that the Division is considering whether to commence an 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 believed that its views, as expressed in the letter, would be 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. On May 15, 2001, Defendants' Counsel filed with the court Defendants' Status Report pursuant to the court's March 12, 2001 Order. Defendants reported that, notwithstanding the parties' best efforts, the staff of the SEC has not completed its review of the solicitation statement in connection with the proposed settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit. Nonetheless, the Defendants stated their belief that the parties should continue to pursue the court's final approval of the proposed settlement. In this regard, the Defendants also have maintained, on the advice of special 1940 Act counsel that, even if the 1940 Act applies to the Designated Partnerships, the 1940 Act does not prohibit going forward with the proposed settlement, as that transaction is merely incidental to a dissolution of the Partnerships and therefore is not subject to the prohibitions of Section 7 of the 1940 Act. The Defendants also referred to the SEC staff's letter of May 10, 2001 asserting that certain of the partnerships are investment companies and to special 1940 Act counsel's submissions to the SEC staff setting forth the reasons why the 1940 Act does not apply to the Designated Partnerships, noting that counsel had informed the staff of the Division of Investment Management that, based upon counsel's understanding of the surrounding circumstances and after an in-depth analysis of the applicable law, if asked, counsel would be willing to issue an opinion of the firm that none of the partnerships is an investment company under the 1940 Act. The Defendants stated their belief that the proposed settlement is still viable and in the best interests of the parties and that final approval should be pursued. The Defendants advised the court that they believe that if the court were to address the issue of whether or not the 1940 Act applies to the partnerships and the proposed consolidation, it could remove the major obstacle to the settlement being finally consummated. The Defendants also requested that the court schedule a hearing to address on a preliminary basis the objection to the proposed settlement raised in the SEC staff's May 10, 2001 letter. Plaintiffs' Counsel also submitted a Plaintiffs' Status Report to the court on May 15, 2001 in which they reported that the SEC review has not been concluded and that they notified the Defendants that they would not agree to continue to stay the further prosecution of the litigation in favor of the settlement and that they intend to seek court approval to immediately resume active prosecution of the claims of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' Counsel stated in the Report that the "[p]laintiffs continue to believe that the settlement is in the best interests of the Operating Partnership Sub-class. However, since the SEC has yet to complete its review of the proxy, the Plaintiffs do not believe that the litigation should continue to be stayed so that the SEC may continue its regulatory review for an indefinite period of time." Plaintiffs requested a pre-trial conference to schedule filing of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before May 29, 2001 and resumption of merits discovery and discovery related to the class certification motion. Subsequently, after the May 31, 2001 status conference, on June 4, 2001 the court ordered a March 4, 2002 trial date and referred the case to mediation and to discovery before a magistrate judge. Subsequently, after the May 31, 2001 status conference, on June 4, 2001 the court ordered a March 4, 2002 trial date and referred the case to mediation and to discovery before a magistrate judge. The Defendants and Plaintiffs' Counsel have continued to negotiate toward a settlement and have reached agreement as to its principal business terms. As part of the settlement terms, EFG has agreed to buy the loans made by the Partnerships to Echelon Residential Holdings for an aggregate $32 million plus interest at 7.5% per annum, if they are not repaid prior to or at their maturity date. Upon completion of a stipulation of settlement, the parties will submit the settlement to the court for approval. Revenue from major individual lessees which accounted for 10% or more of lease revenue during the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998 is incorporated by reference to Note 3 to the financial statements included in Item 8. Refer to Item 14(a)(3) for lease agreements filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. EFG is a Massachusetts limited partnership formerly known as American Finance Group ("AFG"). AFG was established in 1988 as a Massachusetts general partnership and succeeded American Finance Group, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation organized in 1980. EFG and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") are engaged in various aspects of the equipment leasing business, including EFG's role as Manager or Advisor to the Partnership and several other direct-participation equipment leasing programs sponsored or co-sponsored by EFG (the "Other Investment Programs"). The Company arranges to broker or originate equipment leases, acts as remarketing agent and asset manager, and provides leasing support services, such as billing, collecting, and asset tracking. The general partner of EFG, with a 1% controlling interest, is Equis Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation owned and controlled entirely by Gary D. Engle, its President, Chief Executive Officer and sole Director. Equis Corporation also owns a controlling 1% general partner interest in EFG's 99% limited partner, GDE Acquisition Limited Partnership ("GDE LP"). Mr. Engle established Equis Corporation and GDE LP in December 1994 for the sole purpose of acquiring the business of AFG. In January 1996, the Company sold certain assets of AFG relating primarily to the business of originating new leases, and the name "American Finance Group," and its acronym, to a third party. AFG changed its name to Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership after the sale was concluded. Pursuant to terms of the sale agreements, EFG specifically reserved the rights to continue using the name American Finance Group and its acronym in connection with the Partnership and the Other Investment Programs and to continue managing all assets owned by the Partnership and the Other Investment Programs. (d) Financial Information About Foreign and Domestic Operations and Export Sales Not applicable. Item 2. Properties. --------------------- Incorporated herein by reference to Note 4 to the financial statements in Item 8. Item 3. Legal Proceedings. ----------------------------- Incorporated herein by reference to Note 10 to the financial statements in Item 8. Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- None. PART II Item 5. Market for the Partnership's Securities and Related Security Holder -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matters. -------- (a) Market Information There is no public market for the resale of the Units and it is not anticipated that a public market for resale of the Units will develop. (b) Approximate Number of Security Holders At December 31, 2000, there were 3,923 record holders of Units in the Partnership. (c) Dividend History and Restrictions Historically, the amount of cash distributions to be paid to the Partners has been determined on a quarterly basis (see detail below). The Partnership did not declare distributions in any of the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998. The Partnership is a Nominal Defendant in a Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the financial statements included in Item 8, herein. The General Partner has continued to suspend 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. In any given year, it is possible that Recognized Owners 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 Recognized Owners adequate to cover any tax obligation. 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 aircraft 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 aircraft, because the remaining aircraft portfolio 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 aircraft. 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. At December 31, 2000, the Partnership's equipment portfolio included ownership interests in three 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, the aircraft was re-leased to Air Slovakia BWJ, Ltd. through September 2003.The remaining two aircraft in the Partnership's portfolio already are Stage 3 compliant. These aircraft have lease terms expiring in April 2001 and September 2004, respectively. Cash distributions consist of Distributable Cash From Operations and Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings. "Distributable Cash From Operations" means the net cash provided by the Partnership's normal operations after general expenses and current liabilities of the Partnership are paid, reduced by any reserves for working capital and contingent liabilities to be funded from such cash, to the extent deemed reasonable by the General Partner, and increased by any portion of such reserves deemed by the General Partner not to be required for Partnership operations and reduced by all accrued and unpaid Equipment Management Fees and, after Payout, further reduced by all accrued and unpaid Subordinated Remarketing Fees. Distributable Cash From Operations does not include any Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings. "Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings" means Cash From Sales or Refinancings as reduced by (i) (a) for a period of two years from Final Closing, Cash From Sales or Refinancings, which the General Partner at its sole discretion reinvests in additional aircraft, provided, however, that Cash From Sales or Refinancings will be reinvested in additional aircraft only if Partnership revenues are sufficient to make distributions to the Recognized Owners in the amount of the income tax, if any, due from a Recognized Owner in the 33% combined federal and state income tax bracket as a result of such sale or refinancing of aircraft, and (b) amounts realized from any loss or destruction of any aircraft which the General Partner reinvests in replacement aircraft to be leased under the original lease of the lost or destroyed aircraft, and (ii) any accrued and unpaid Equipment Management Fees and, after Payout, any accrued and unpaid Subordinated Remarketing Fees. "Cash From Sales or Refinancings" means cash received by the Partnership from Sale or Refinancing transactions, as (i) reduced by (a) all debts and liabilities of the Partnership required to be paid as a result of Sale or Refinancing transactions, whether or not then due and payable (including any liabilities on aircraft sold which are not assumed by the buyer and any remarketing fees required to be paid to persons not affiliated with the General Partner, but not including any Subordinated Remarketing Fees required to be paid) and (b) any reserves for working capital and contingent liabilities funded from such cash to the extent deemed reasonable by the General Partner and (ii) increased by any portion of such reserves deemed by the General Partner not to be required for Partnership operations. In the event the Partnership accepts a note in connection with any Sale or Refinancing transaction, all payments subsequently received in cash by the Partnership with respect to such note shall be included in Cash From Sales or Refinancings, regardless of the treatment of such payments by the Partnership for tax or accounting purposes. If the Partnership receives purchase money obligations in payment for aircraft sold, which are secured by liens on such aircraft, the amount of such obligations shall not be included in Cash From Sales or Refinancings until the obligations are fully satisfied. Each distribution of Distributable Cash From Operations and Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings of the Partnership shall be made as follows: Prior to Payout, (i) Distributable Cash From Operations will be distributed 95% to the Recognized Owners and 5% to the General Partner and (ii) Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings shall be distributed 99% to the Recognized Owners and 1% to the General Partner. After Payout, (i) all Distributions will be distributed 99% to the General Partner and 1% to the Recognized Owners until the General Partner has received an amount equal to 5% of all Distributions made by the Partnership and (ii) thereafter, all Distributions will be made 90% to the Recognized Owners and 10% to the General Partner. "Payout" is defined as the first time when the aggregate amount of all distributions to the Recognized Owners of Distributable Cash From Operations and Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings equals the aggregate amount of the Recognized Owners' original capital contributions plus a cumulative annual return of 10% (compounded quarterly and calculated beginning with the last day of the month of the Partnership's Closing Date) on their aggregate unreturned capital contributions. For purposes of this definition, capital contributions shall be deemed to have been returned only to the extent that distributions of cash to the Recognized Owners exceed the amount required to satisfy the cumulative annual return of 10% (compounded quarterly) on the Recognized Owners' aggregate unreturned capital contributions, such calculation to be based on the aggregate unreturned capital contributions outstanding on the first day of each fiscal quarter. ------ Item 6. Selected Financial Data. ------------------------------------ The following data should be read in conjunction with Item 7 "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" and the financial statements included in Item 8 herein. For each of the years in the five year period ended December 31, 2000:

(1) See Note 1 to the financial statements, included in Item 8 herein, regarding the restatement of the Partnership's 2000 financial statements. Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of Operations. --------------- Year ended December 31, 2000 compared to the year ended December 31, 1999 and the year ended December 31, 1999 compared to the year ended December 31, 1998 Subsequent to the issuance of the Partnership's financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership revised its method of accounting for the loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings. As a result, the financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2000 have been restated from amounts previously reported. The effects of the restatement are presented in Note 1 to the financial statements, included in Item 8 and have been reflected herein. The following should be read in conjunction with the restated Financial Statements, including notes thereto. The following discussion compares the restated financial condition and results of operations for the year ended December 31, 2000 to the year ended December 31, 1999 and the year ended December 31, 1999 to the year ended December 31, 1998. Certain statements in this Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2 of 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 financial statements included in Item 8 herein, the remarketing of the Partnership's equipment, and the performance of the Partnership's non-equipment assets. Overview -------- As an equipment leasing partnership, the Partnership was organized to acquire and lease a portfolio of commercial jet aircraft subject to lease agreements with third parties. During 1990 and 1991, the Partnership purchased four commercial jet aircraft and a proportionate interest in two additional aircraft, which were leased by major carriers, engaged in passenger transportation. Initially, each aircraft generated rental revenue pursuant to primary-term lease agreements. Currently, all of the aircraft in the Partnership's original portfolio have been re-leased, renewed, exchanged for other aircraft, or sold. At December 31, 2000, the Partnership's equipment portfolio included proportionate ownership interests in three aircraft and two aircraft engines. In addition, in 2000 the Partnership entered into a conditional sales agreement related to its interest in an aircraft. 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 included in Item 8 herein. Pursuant to the Restated Agreement, as amended, the Partnership is scheduled to be dissolved by December 31, 2005. 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 and the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings. 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. The General Partner is engaged in discussions with the staff of the SEC regarding whether or not the Partnership may be an inadvertent investment company as a consequence of the above-referenced loan. 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. The General Partner has consulted counsel and believes that the Partnership is not an investment company. The General Partner has determined to take action to resolve the Partnership's status under the 1940 Act by means that may include 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 SEC staff noted that Section 7 of the 1940 Act makes it unlawful for an unregistered investment company, among other things, to offer, sell, purchase or acquire 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 SEC staff asked that the general partners advise them within the next 30 days as to what steps the Designated Partnerships will take to address their status under the 1940 Act. The SEC staff asserts that the notes evidencing the loans to Echelon Residential Holdings are investment securities and the ownership of the notes by said partnerships cause them to be investment companies and that, in the case of American Income Partners V-A Limited Partnership and V-B Limited Partnership, they may have become investment companies when they received the Semele Group Inc. ("Semele") securities as part of the compensation for the sale of a vessel to Semele in 1997. The general partners have consulted with counsel who specializes in the 1940 Act and, based on counsel's advice, do not believe that the Designated Partnerships are investment companies. The letter also stated that the Division is considering whether to commence an 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 believed that its views, as expressed in the letter, would be 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. On May 15, 2001, Defendants' Counsel filed with the court Defendants' Status Report pursuant to the court's March 12, 2001 Order. Defendants reported that, notwithstanding the parties' best efforts, the staff of the SEC has not completed its review of the solicitation statement in connection with the proposed settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit. Nonetheless, the Defendants stated their belief that the parties should continue to pursue the court's final approval of the proposed settlement. In this regard, the Defendants also have maintained, on the advice of special 1940 Act counsel that, even if the 1940 Act applies to Designated Partnerships, the 1940 Act does not prohibit going forward with the proposed settlement, as that transaction is merely incidental to a dissolution of the Partnerships and therefore is not subject to the prohibitions of Section 7 of the 1940 Act. The Defendants also referred to the SEC staff's letter of May 10, 2001 asserting that certain of the partnerships are investment companies and to special 1940 Act counsel's submissions to the SEC staff setting forth the reasons why the 1940 Act does not apply to the Designated Partnerships, noting that counsel had informed the staff of the Division of Investment Management that, based upon counsel's understanding of the surrounding circumstances and after an in-depth analysis of the applicable law, if asked, counsel would be willing to issue an opinion of the firm that none of the partnerships is an investment company under the 1940 Act. The Defendants stated their belief that the proposed settlement is still viable and in the best interests of the parties and that final approval should be pursued. The Defendants advised the court that they believe that if the court were to address the issue of whether or not the 1940 Act applies to the partnerships and the proposed consolidation, it could remove the major obstacle to the settlement being finally consummated. The Defendants also requested that the court schedule a hearing to address on a preliminary basis the objection to the proposed settlement raised in the SEC staff's May 10, 2001 letter. Plaintiffs' Counsel also submitted a Plaintiffs' Status Report to the court on May 15, 2001 in which they reported that the SEC review has not been concluded and that they notified the Defendants that they would not agree to continue to stay the further prosecution of the litigation in favor of the settlement and that they intend to seek court approval to immediately resume active prosecution of the claims of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' Counsel stated in the Report that the "[p]laintiffs continue to believe that the settlement is in the best interests of the Operating Partnership Sub-class. However, since the SEC has yet to complete its review of the proxy, the Plaintiffs do not believe that the litigation should continue to be stayed so that the SEC may continue its regulatory review for an indefinite period of time." Plaintiffs requested a pre-trial conference to schedule filing of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before May 29, 2001 and resumption of merits discovery and discovery related to the class certification motion. Subsequently, after the May 31, 2001 status conference, on June 4, 2001 the court ordered a March 4, 2002 trial date and referred the case to mediation and to discovery before a magistrate judge. The Defendants and Plaintiffs' Counsel have continued to negotiate toward a settlement and have reached agreement as to its principal business terms. As part of the settlement terms, EFG has agreed to buy the loans made by the Partnerships to Echelon Residential Holdings for an aggregate $32 million plus interest at 7.5% per annum, if they are not repaid prior to or at their maturity date. Upon completion of a stipulation of settlement, the parties will submit the settlement to the court for approval. Results of Operations ----------------------- For the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $554,415 compared to $1,841,170 and $3,130,704 for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, respectively. The decrease in lease revenue from 1999 to 2000 resulted primarily from the expiration of lease terms related to the Partnership's interest in three Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft and a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, as discussed below, and the sales of the Partnership's Boeing 727-208 ADV aircraft and its Boeing 727-251 ADV aircraft in April 1999 and May 2000, respectively. The decrease in lease revenue from 1998 to 1999 resulted primarily to the non-payment of rents by the lessee of the Partnership's Lockheed L-1011-100 aircraft and the lessee's subsequent liquidation (see below), the non-payment of rents by the lessee of the Partnership's Boeing 727-251 ADV aircraft (see below) and the sale of the Boeing 727-208 ADV aircraft and the Partnership's interest in a Lockheed L-1011-50 aircraft in April 1998. The amount of operating lease revenues in the near term will increase due to the re-lease of both the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft and one of the Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft in September 2000. Subsequently, operating lease revenue is expected to decline due to lease term expiration and aircraft sales. See discussion below related to the Partnership's sales-type lease revenue for the year ended December 31, 2000. The Partnership's equipment portfolio included assets in which the Partnership holds a proportionate ownership interest. The remaining interests are owned by an affiliated equipment leasing program sponsored by Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership ("EFG"). 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. The lease terms related to the three Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft, in which the Partnership held a proportionate interest, expired on December 31, 1999 and the aircraft were stored pending their remarketing. In July 2000, one of the Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft was sold, resulting in $255,645 of proceeds and a net gain, for financial statement purposes, of $43,102. In September 2000, a second Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft was re-leased, with a lease term expiring in September 2003. Under the terms of this re-lease agreement, the Partnership will receive rents of approximately $350,000 over the term of the lease. The Partnership entered into a conditional sales agreement to sell its interest in the remaining Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft as described below. 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. Under the terms of this re-lease agreement, the Partnership will receive rents of approximately $1,176,358 over the term of the lease. The remaining McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, in which the Partnership owns an ownership interest, is currently on lease to Finnair OY through April 2001. Interest income for the year ended December 31, 2000 was $649,016 compared to $267,788 and $158,844 for the years ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, respectively. Interest income is typically generated from temporary investments of rental receipts, equipment sale proceeds in short-term instruments and interest earned on the loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings. The amount of future interest income from the short-term instruments is expected to fluctuate as a result of changing interest rates and the amount of cash available for investment, among other factors. Interest income also included $446,086 for the year ended December 31, 2000 earned on the loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings. On March 8, 2000, the Partnership utilized $3,640,000 of available cash for the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings. The entire principal and all accrued interest on the loan is due at the loan's maturity on September 8, 2002. (See further discussion included in Note 5 to the financial statements included in Item 8 herein). The loan receivable was previously accounted for and reported in accordance with the guidance for Acquisition, Development and Construction Arrangements ("ADC arrangements") in the Partnership's financial statements as of and for the year December 31, 2000. The loan was presented as an investment in a real estate venture and was presented net of the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings. The Partnership was allocated its proportionate share of the unconsolidated real estate venture's net loss, excluding the interest expense on the loan, based on the balance of its loan receivable in relation to the real estate venture's total equity and notes payable, including the ADC arrangements. For the period ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings was $163,952 and was reflected on the Statement of Operations as ''Partnership's share of unconsolidated real estate venture's loss''. Subsequent to the issuance of the Partnership's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership determined that the loan receivable should be accounted for consistent with its legal form and the Partnership should recognize the interest income, as calculated per the contractual terms of the loan agreement to the extent such interest income was evaluated as likely to be collected. The loan receivable and related interest income should be evaluated for impairment under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 114 "Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan". Accordingly, the Partnership reversed the proportionate share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings of $163,952 previously recorded and recognized interest income of $264,711, resulting in a decrease in the net loss for the year ended December 31, 2000 of $428,663, or $0.30 per limited partnership unit. As a result, the accompanying financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000 have been restated from the amounts previously reported. In addition, during the second quarter of 2001 the General Partner determined that recoverability of the loan receivable had been impaired and at June 30, 2001 recorded an impairment of $189,000, reflecting the General Partner's current assessment of the amount of loss that is likely to be incurred by the Partnership. In addition to the write-down recorded at June 30, 2001, the Partnership reserved all accrued interest of $350,569 recorded on the loan receivable through March 31, 2001 and has ceased accruing interest on its loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, effective April 1, 2001. Other income for the year ended December 31, 2000 reflects the receipt of $245,977 of unused aircraft maintenance reserves related to a sold aircraft and $55,000 for the sale of certain aircraft records. 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 Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft. 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 year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership recorded a net gain on sale of equipment, for financial statement purposes, of $91,471 for the Partnership's proportional interest in the aircraft and recognized sales-type lease revenue of $2,491. The Partnership's Boeing 727-251 ADV aircraft was damaged in an on-ground accident in October 1998 while being leased on a month-to-month basis by Transmeridian Airlines, Inc. ("Transmeridian"). In September 1999, Transmeridian ceased paying rent with respect to this aircraft. See Note 10 to the accompanying financial statements for details regarding legal action undertaken by the Partnership related to this situation. In May 2000, the Partnership sold the Boeing 727-251 ADV aircraft to a third party for proceeds of $750,000. This aircraft was fully depreciated at the time of sale resulting in a net gain, for financial statement purposes, of $750,000 for the year ended December 31, 2000. The Partnership recognized lease revenue of $70,000, $560,000, and $876,667 related to this aircraft during the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively. In April 1999, the Partnership sold its Boeing 727-208 ADV aircraft, previously leased to American Trans Air, Inc. ("ATA"), to the lessee for net proceeds of $3,109,500. The aircraft was fully depreciated at the time of sale, resulting in a net gain, for financial statement purposes, of $3,109,500. The Partnership recognized lease revenue of approximately $246,000 and $762,000 related to this aircraft for the year ended December 31, 1999 and 1998, respectively. In August 1998, Classic Airways Limited ("Classic") ceased paying rent with respect to the Partnership's Lockheed L-1011-100 jet aircraft. In October 1998, Classic filed for receivership in the United Kingdom ("UK") and was placed in liquidation (see further discussion below). The Partnership earned lease revenue in the amount of approximately $320,000 related to this aircraft during the year ended December 31, 1998. On April 29, 1998, at the expiration of the aircraft's lease term, the Partnership sold its proportional interest in a Lockheed L-1011-50 aircraft to the lessee for net proceeds of $553,699. The Partnership's interest in the aircraft had a net book value of $426,434 at the time of sale, resulting in the recognition of a net gain on sale, for financial statement purposes, of $127,265. It cannot be determined whether future sales of aircraft 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 aircraft being sold and their 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 aircraft will be dependent upon many factors, including EFG's ability to sell and re-lease the aircraft. Changes in market conditions, industry trends, technological advances, and other events could converge to enhance or detract from asset values at any given time. EFG attempts to monitor these changes and the airline industry in order to identify opportunities which may be advantageous to the Partnership and which will maximize total cash returns for each aircraft. The total economic value realized for each aircraft is comprised of all primary lease term revenue generated from that aircraft, together with its residual value. The latter consists of cash proceeds realized upon the aircraft's sale in addition to all other cash receipts obtained from renting the aircraft 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 aircraft. Interest expense was $103,919, $120,701 and $200,679 for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively. Interest expense in near term will increase as a result of the Partnership's debt refinancing in February 2001. (See Note 12 to the financial statements included in Item 8.) Subsequently, interest expense will decline as the principal balance of notes payable is reduced through the application of rent receipts to outstanding debt. See additional discussion below regarding the refinancing of the debt in 2001. Management fees of $29,913, 92,059, and 156,535 for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively. Management fees are based on 5% of gross lease revenue generated by operating leases and 2% of gross lease revenue generated by full payout leases. Operating expenses were $1,061,428, $2,059,346 and $1,815,947 for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, respectively. In 2000 and 1999, the Partnership accrued approximately $149,000 and $201,000, respectively, for the reconfiguration costs and completion of a D-Check incurred to facilitate the remarketing of the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft released in September 2000. In 2000, the Partnership also accrued approximately $201,000 for a required D-check for a second McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft. In addition, the Partnership incurred legal fees in connection with the lease-related litigation described in Note 10 to the financial statements included in Item 8. Operating expenses in the year ended December 31, 1999 include engine leasing costs of $984,000 incurred related to the aircraft leased to Transmeridian and legal costs related to the Partnership's ongoing litigation. In addition, the operating expenses in 1998 also included legal costs incurred in connection with legal proceedings related to Northwest Airlines, Inc. and Classic. Operating expenses in 2000, 1999 and 1998 also included approximately $41,000, $50,000 and $332,000, respectively, related to the Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the financial statements included in Item 8. Other operating expenses consist principally of professional service costs, such as audit and legal fees, as well as insurance, printing, distribution and other remarketing expenses. Depreciation expense was $297,611, $1,054,343, and $2,451,737 for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999, and 1998, respectively. 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 aircraft rental transactions. Accordingly, the Partnership's principal source of cash from operations is 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 a net cash outflow of $182,996 in 2000 and net cash inflows of $99,270 and $1,550,424 in 1999 and 1998, respectively. Overall, expenses associated with rental activities, such as management fees, and net cash flow from operating activities will decline as the Partnership remarket its aircraft. The Partnership, however, may continue to incur significant costs to facilitate the successful remarketing of its aircraft in the future. Ultimately, the Partnership will dispose of all aircraft under lease. This will occur principally through sale transactions whereby each aircraft will be sold to the existing lessee or to a third party. Generally, this will occur upon expiration of each aircraft's primary or renewal/re-lease term. The amount of future cash from interest income is expected to fluctuate as a result of changing interest rates and the level of cash available for investment, among other factors. The loan to Echelon Residential Holdings and accrued interest thereon is due in full at maturity on September 8, 2002. Cash realized from aircraft disposal transactions is reported under investing activities on the accompanying Statement of Cash Flows. For the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership realized net cash proceeds of $1,005,645 related to its Boeing 737-2H4 and 727-251 ADV aircraft. In 1999, the Partnership received sales proceeds of $3,109,500 related to its Boeing 727-208 ADV aircraft formerly leased to ATA. During the year ended December 31, 1998, the Partnership sold its interest in a Lockheed L-1011-50 aircraft and realized net cash proceeds of $553,699. Future inflows of cash from aircraft 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 aircraft being sold, their condition and age, and future market conditions. At December 31, 2000, the Partnership was due aggregate future minimum lease payments of $1,727,838 from contractual operating and sales-type lease agreements (see Notes 2 and 5 to the financial statements included in Item 8), a portion of which will be used to amortize the principal balance of notes payable of $906,869 (see Note 8 to the financial statements included in Item 8). At the expiration of the individual lease terms underlying the Partnership's future minimum lease payments, the Partnership will sell its aircraft 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 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 aircraft. In the latter instances, the aircraft could be re-leased to another lessee or sold to a third party. In August 1998, a lessee of the Partnership, Classic, ceased paying rent to the Partnership with respect to a Lockheed L-1011-100 Aircraft (the "Aircraft") and the Partnership terminated the lease. Classic then filed for receivership in the United Kingdom ("UK") and was placed in liquidation. Prior to its liquidation, Classic had incurred and failed to pay significant airport ground fees to BAA plc, Eurocontrol, and CAA (collectively, the "Airport Authorities"). Classic's failure to pay such charges resulted in detention of the Aircraft by BAA plc. The total of ground fees and expenses asserted by the Airport Authorities, which continued to accrue after the detention began, exceeded $1,500,000 at November 30, 1999. Prior to that date, the General Partner had attempted to reach a negotiated settlement with the Airport Authorities so that the Aircraft could be returned to the Partnership. Those negotiations were unsuccessful and the General Partner determined that the amount of fees owed to the Airport Authorities was in excess of the Aircraft's value and, therefore, it would not be in the Partnership's best interests to pay these fees. BAA plc obtained a judgment from a UK Court entitling it to sell the aircraft to satisfy the unpaid charges and, on December 8, 1999, the Aircraft was sold at auction. It is believed that the sale price was insufficient to satisfy the aggregate fees owed to the Airport Authorities. Accordingly, the Partnership will not realize any portion of the sale proceeds obtained by BAA plc nor any future residual value from the Aircraft. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Partnership held the Aircraft's records, which were sold for $55,000 in 2000. In addition, the Partnership retains two engines that had been removed from the Aircraft for maintenance prior to Classic's liquidation. The General Partner is attempting to remarket these engines. At the date of Classic's liquidation, the Partnership had accrued $160,000 of rental income which had not been collected from Classic and all of which was written off as uncollectible in the third quarter of 1998. The Aircraft, including the two engines that were removed for maintenance, had been fully depreciated prior to the auction by BAA plc. Subsequent to the auction, the Aircraft (except for the two engines) was written off by the Partnership. In connection with a preliminary settlement agreement for a Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the financial statements included in Item 8, 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 $3,640,000 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 unrelated 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. 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 Partnership periodically evaluates the collectibility of the loan's contractual principal and interest and the existence of loan impairment indicators. 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 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. The Partnership obtained long-term financing in connection with certain aircraft. The origination of such indebtedness and the subsequent repayments of principal are reported as components of financing activities in the Partnership's Statement of Cash Flows. The corresponding note agreements are recourse only to the specific equipment financed and to the minimum rental payments contracted to be received during the debt amortization periods (which generally coincides with the lease terms). As rental payments are collected, a portion of all of the rental payments is used to repay associated indebtedness. In the near term, the amount of cash used to repay debt obligations will increase due to the refinancing discussed below. Subsequently the amount of cash used will decline as the principal balance of notes payable is reduced through the collection and application of rents. In February 2000, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the ''Programs'') refinanced the indebtedness, which matured in January 2000 associated with a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft re-leased in September 2000. In addition to refinancing the existing indebtedness of $3,370,000, the Programs received additional debt proceeds of $1,350,000 required to perform a D-Check on the aircraft. The Partnership received $201,247 from such proceeds. The note had a fluctuating interest rate based on LIBOR plus a margin with interest payments due monthly. The Partnership's aggregate share of the refinanced and new indebtedness was $701,062, which matured in August 2000. The Partnership paid interest-only on the debt throughout 2000. In February 2001, the Programs refinanced the outstanding indebtedness and accrued interest related to this aircraft. 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 $1,211,860 including $706,831 used to repay the existing indebtedness on the refinanced aircraft. The Partnership used a portion of its share of the additional proceeds of $505,028 to repay the outstanding balance of the indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft on lease to Finnair OY of $130,852 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 $404,138 in September 2004. 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 aircraft 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 aircraft, because the remaining aircraft portfolio 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 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. At December 31, 2000, the Partnership's equipment portfolio included ownership interests in three 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, the aircraft was re-leased to Air Slovakia BWJ, Ltd. through September 2003.The remaining two aircraft in the Partnership's portfolio already are Stage 3 compliant. These aircraft have lease terms expiring in April 2001 and September 2004, respectively. 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 included in Item 8). 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 consisting of the cumulative difference between income or loss for tax purposes and financial statement income or loss. 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. For financial reporting purposes, the General Partner has accumulated a capital deficit at December 31, 2000. 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. In any given year, it is possible that Recognized Owners 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 Recognized Owners adequate to cover any tax obligation. The outcome of the Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the financial statements included in Item 8 herein will be the principal factor in determining the future of the Partnership's operations. In addition, the General Partner will continue to suspend 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 adjudicated. Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risks. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 December 31, 2000 related primarily to the Partnership's note payable for which the interest rate is based on the London Interbank Offering Rate ("LIBOR"). However, subsequent to December 31, 2000, the Partnership refinanced its variable rate note payable with instruments bearing a fixed rate of interest. The fair market value of fixed interest rate debt may be adversely impacted due to a decrease in interest rates. The effect of a 100 bases point increase in the interest rate on this note payable would not have a material effect on the Partnership's financial statements. The Partnership's 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, with interest due at maturity. 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 in 2000 was not material. Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. ---------------------------------------------------------- Financial Statements (Restated):

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS ------------------------------ To the Partners of AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership: We have audited the accompanying statements of financial position of AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership, as of December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related statements of operations, changes in partners' capital, and cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2000. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Partnership's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits. We conducted our audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States. 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 AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership at December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2000, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States. The accompanying financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000 have been restated as discussed in Note 1. /S/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP Tampa, Florida March 30, 2001, except for Note 1 and the last 7 paragraphs of Note 12, as to which the date is November 7, 2001 AIRFUND II INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION DECEMBER 31, 2000 AND 1999

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. AIRFUND II INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000, 1999 AND 1998

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. AIRFUND II INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN PARTNERS' CAPITAL FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000, 1999 AND 1998

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. AIRFUND II INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000, 1999 AND 1998

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 46 AIRFUND II INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DECEMBER 31, 2000 NOTE 1 - RESTATEMENT OF FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -------------------------------------------------- After AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership ("the Partnership") filed its Annual Report on Form 10-K/A Amendment No. 1 to Form 10-K (the "2000 10-K") for the year ended December 31, 2000 with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), the Partnership determined that the accounting treatment for the loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings LLC ("Echelon Residential Holdings") required revision, as explained below. On March 8, 2000, the Partnership and 10 affiliated partnerships (the ''Exchange Partnerships'') collectively loaned $32 million to Echelon Residential Holdings, a newly formed real estate company. The Partnership's loan to Echelon Residential Holdings is $3,640,000. 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 Partnerships as collateral. The loan receivable was previously accounted for and reported in accordance with the guidance for Acquisition, Development and Construction Arrangements ("ADC arrangements") in the Partnership's financial statements as of and for the year December 31, 2000. The loan was presented as an investment in a real estate venture and was presented net of the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings. The Partnership was allocated its proportionate share of the unconsolidated real estate venture's net loss, excluding the interest expense on the loan, based on the balance of its loan receivable in relation to the real estate venture's total equity and notes payable, including the ADC arrangements. For the period ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership's share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings was $276,289 and was reflected on the Statement of Operations as ''Partnership's share of unconsolidated real estate venture's loss''. Subsequent to the issuance of the Partnership's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership determined that the loan receivable and related interest should be accounted for consistent with its legal form and the Partnership should recognize the interest income, as calculated per the contractual terms of the loan agreement to the extent such interest income was evaluated as likely to be collected. The loan receivable and related interest should be evaluated for impairment under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 114 "Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan". Accordingly, the Partnership reversed the proportionate share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings of $276,289 previously recorded and recognized interest income of $446,086, resulting in a decrease in the net loss for the year ended December 31, 2000 of $722,375, or $0.25 per limited partnership unit. As a result, the accompanying financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000 have been restated from the amounts previously reported. In addition, during the second quarter of 2001 the General Partner determined that recoverability of the loan receivable had been impaired and at June 30, 2001 recorded an impairment of $318,500, reflecting the General Partner's current assessment of the amount of loss that is likely to be incurred by the Partnership. In addition to the write-down recorded at June 30, 2001, the Partnership reserved all accrued interest of $590,772 recorded on the loan receivable through March 31, 2001 and has ceased accruing interest on its loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, effective April 1, 2001. NOTE 2 - ORGANIZATION AND PARTNERSHIP MATTERS --------------------------------------------------- The Partnership was organized as a limited partnership under the Massachusetts Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the "Uniform Act") on July 20, 1989 for the purpose of acquiring and leasing to third parties a specified portfolio of used commercial aircraft. Partners' capital initially consisted of contributions of $1,000 from the General Partner (AFG Aircraft Management Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation) and $100 from the Initial Limited Partner (AFG Assignor Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation). The Partnership issued 2,714,647 units, representing assignments of limited partnership interests (the "Units"), to 4,192 investors. Unitholders and Limited Partners (other than the Initial Limited Partner) are collectively referred to as Recognized Owners. The General Partner is an affiliate of Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership (formerly known as American Finance Group), a Massachusetts limited partnership ("EFG"). The common stock of the General Partner is owned by EFG. The General Partner is not required to make any other capital contributions to the Partnership except as may be required under the Uniform Act and Section 6.1(b) of the Amended and Restated Agreement and Certificate of Limited Partnership (the "Restated Agreement, as amended"). EFG is a Massachusetts partnership formerly known as American Finance Group ("AFG"). AFG was established in 1988 as a Massachusetts general partnership and succeeded American Finance Group, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation organized in 1980. EFG and its subsidiaries (collectively, the "Company") are engaged in various aspects of the equipment leasing business, including EFG's role as Equipment Manager or Advisor to the Partnership and several other direct-participation equipment leasing programs sponsored or co-sponsored by EFG (the "Other Investment Programs"). The Company arranges to broker or originate equipment leases, acts as remarketing agent and asset manager, and provides leasing support services, such as billing, collecting, and asset tracking. The general partner of EFG, with a 1% controlling interest, is Equis Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation owned and controlled entirely by Gary D. Engle, its President, Chief Executive Officer and sole Director. Equis Corporation also owns a controlling 1% general partner interest in EFG's 99% limited partner, GDE Acquisition Limited Partnership ("GDE LP"). Equis Corporation and GDE LP were established in December 1994 by Mr. Engle for the sole purpose of acquiring the business of AFG. In January 1996, the Company sold certain assets of AFG relating primarily to the business of originating new leases, and the name "American Finance Group," and its acronym, to a third party. AFG changed its name to Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership after the sale was concluded. Pursuant to terms of the sale agreements, EFG specifically reserved the rights to continue using the name American Finance Group and its acronym in connection with the Partnership and the Other Investment Programs and to continue managing all assets owned by the Partnership and the Other Investment Programs. In 1990, EFG assigned its Equipment Management Agreement with the Partnership to AF/AIP Programs Limited Partnership, and AF/AIP Programs Limited Partnership entered into an identical management agreement with EFG. On June 28, 1991, the Offering of Units of the Partnership was concluded. The Partnership issued an aggregate of 2,714,647 Units in six Interim Closings during the period May 17, 1990 through June 28, 1991. The initial purchase of the aircraft and the associated lease commitments occurred on May 18, 1990. Additional purchases of aircraft (or proportionate interests in aircraft) occurred subsequent to each Closing. The six Interim Closings which occurred in 1990 and 1991 and the associated Units issued, purchase price and number of investors who became Recognized Owners of the Partnership are summarized below.

Pursuant to the Restated Agreement, as amended, distributions of Distributable Cash From Operations and Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings of the Partnership shall be made as follows: Prior to Payout, (i) Distributable Cash From Operations will be distributed 95% to the Recognized Owners and 5% to the General Partner and (ii) Distributable Cash From Sales or Refinancings shall be distributed 99% to the Recognized Owners and 1% to the General Partner. After Payout, (i) all Distributions will be distributed 99% to the General Partner and 1% to the Recognized Owners until the General Partner has received an amount equal to 5% of all Distributions made by the Partnership and (ii) thereafter, all Distributions will be made 90% to the Recognized Owners and 10% to the General Partner. Under the terms of a Management Agreement between the Partnership and EFG, management services are provided by EFG to the Partnership at fees which the General Partner believes to be competitive for similar services (see Note 7). NOTE 3 - SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES ---------------------------------------------------------- Cash ---- The Partnership considers liquid investment instruments purchased with a maturity of three months or less to be cash equivalents. From time to time, the Partnership invests excess cash with large institutional banks in federal agency discount notes and in repurchase agreements with overnight maturities. Under the terms of the agreements, title to the underlying securities passes to the Partnership. The securities underlying the agreements are book entry securities. At December 31, 2000, the Partnership had $2,710,280 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. Revenue Recognition -------------------- Effective January 1, 2000, the Partnership adopted the provisions of Securities Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin No. 101, "Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements" ("SAB No. 101"). SAB No. 101 provides guidance for the recognition, presentation and disclosure of revenue in financial statements. The adoption of SAB No. 101 had no impact on the Partnership's financial statements. 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 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 are $1,472,431 are due as follows:

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 $255,407 are due in the year ending December 31, 2001. Revenue from major individual lessees which accounted for 10% or more of lease revenue during the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998 is as follows:

Use of Estimates ------------------ The preparation of the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires the use of estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Equipment on Lease -------------------- All aircraft were acquired from EFG or one of its Affiliates. Equipment Cost means the actual cost paid by the Partnership to acquire the aircraft, including acquisition fees. Equipment cost reflects the actual price paid for the aircraft by EFG or the Affiliate plus all actual costs incurred by EFG or the Affiliate while carrying the aircraft less the amount of all rents received by EFG or the Affiliate prior to selling the aircraft. Depreciation ------------ The Partnership's depreciation policy is intended to allocate the cost of aircraft over the period during which they produce economic benefit. The principal period of economic benefit is considered to correspond to each aircraft's primary lease term, which term generally represents the period of greatest revenue potential for each aircraft. Accordingly, to the extent that an aircraft is held on primary lease term, the Partnership depreciates the difference between (i) the cost of the aircraft and (ii) the estimated residual value of the aircraft on a straight-line basis over such term. For purposes of this policy, estimated residual values represent estimates of aircraft values at the date of primary lease expiration. To the extent that an aircraft is held beyond its primary lease term, the Partnership continues to depreciate the remaining net book value of the aircraft on a straight-line basis over the aircraft's remaining economic life. Periodically, the General Partner evaluates the net carrying value of equipment to determine whether it exceeds estimated net realizable value. Adjustments to reduce the net carrying value of equipment are recorded in those instances where estimated net realizable value is considered to be less than net carrying value. The ultimate realization of residual value for any type of aircraft is dependent upon many factors, including EFG's ability to sell and re-lease aircraft. Changing market conditions, industry trends, technological advances, and many other events can converge to enhance or detract from asset values at any given time. Remarketing and Maintenance Expenses --------------------------------------- The Partnership expenses storage and remarketing costs associated with aircraft and other equipment under lease as incurred. Generally, the costs of scheduled inspections and repairs and routine maintenance for aircraft and other equipment under lease are the responsibility of the lessee. For aircraft under lease, scheduled airframe inspections and repairs, such as "D checks", are generally the responsibility of the lessee. In certain situations, the Partnership may be responsible for reimbursing the lessee for a portion of such costs paid by the lessee prior to the redelivery date (i.e., the expiration of the lease term) or may be entitled to receive additional payments from the lessee based on the terms and conditions set forth in the lease arrangement which considers, among other things, the amount of time remaining until the next scheduled maintenance event. The Partnership records the amount payable or receivable, with a corresponding charge or credit to operations. Allowance for Loan Losses ---------------------------- In accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 114, "Accounting by Creditors for Impairment of a Loan" ("SFAS No. 114"), the Partnership periodically evaluates the collectibility of its loan's contractual principal and interest and the existence of loan impairment indicators, including contemporaneous economic conditions, situations which could affect the borrower's ability to repay its obligation, the estimated value of the underlying collateral, and other relevant factors. Real estate values are discounted using a present value methodology over the period between the financial reporting date and the estimated disposition date of each property. A loan is considered to be impaired when, based on current information and events, it is probable that the Partnership will be unable to collect all amounts due according to the contractual terms of the loan agreement, which includes both principal and interest. A provision for loan losses is charged to earnings based on the judgment of the Partnership's management of the amount necessary to maintain the allowance for loan losses at a level adequate to absorb probable losses. Net Investment in Sales-Type Lease -------------------------------------- For leases that qualify as sales-type leases, the Partnership recognizes profit or loss at lease inception to the extent the fair value of the property leased differs from the carrying value. For balance sheet purposes, the aggregate lease payments receivable are recorded on the balance sheet net of unearned income as net investment in sales-type lease. Unearned income is recognized as sales-type lease revenue over the lease term using the interest method. Impairment of Long-Lived Assets ---------------------------------- The carrying value of long-lived assets, including equipment and the real estate loan, will be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the recorded value cannot be recovered from undiscounted future cash flows. Accrued Liabilities - Affiliate ---------------------------------- Unpaid operating expenses paid by EFG on behalf of the Partnership and accrued but unpaid administrative charges and management fees are reported as Accrued Liabilities - Affiliate (see Note 7). Contingencies ------------- It is the Partnership's policy to recognize a liability for goods and services during the period when the goods or services are received. To the extent that the Partnership has a contingent liability, meaning generally a liability the payment of which is subject to the outcome of a future event, the Partnership recognizes a liability in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 5 "Accounting for Contingencies" ("SFAS No. 5"). SFAS No. 5 requires the recognition of contingent liabilities when the amount of liability can be reasonably estimated and the liability is probable. The Partnership is a Nominal Defendant in a Class Action Lawsuit. In 1998, a settlement proposal to resolve that litigation was negotiated. After a status conference, on June 4, 2001 the court set a trial date of March 4, 2002 and referred the case to mediation and to a magistrate judge (See Note 10). The Defendant's and Plaintiff's Counsel have continued to negotiate toward a settlement and have reached agreement as to its principal business terms. As part of the settlement, EFG has agreed to buy the loans made by the Exchange Partnerships to Echelon Residential Holdings for an aggregate of $32 million plus interest at 7.5% per annum, if they are not repaid prior to or at their scheduled maturity date. Upon completion of a stipulation of settlement, the parties will submit the settlement to the court for approval. The Partnership's estimated exposure for costs anticipated to be incurred in pursuing the settlement proposal is approximately $423,000 consisting principally of legal fees and other professional service costs. These costs are expected to be incurred regardless of whether the proposed settlement ultimately is effected and, therefore, the Partnership expensed approximately $332,000 of these costs in 1998 following the Court's approval of the settlement plan. The cost estimate is subject to change and is monitored by the General Partner based upon the progress of the litigation and other pertinent information. As a result, the Partnership accrued and expensed additional amounts of approximately $41,000 and $50,000 for such costs during 2000 and 1999, respectively. See notes 9 and 11 for additional discussions. 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 and its ownership of securities of 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. The General Partner is engaged in discussions with the staff of the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") regarding whether or not the Partnership may be an inadvertent investment company as a consequence of the above-referenced loan. 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. The General Partner has consulted counsel and believes that the Partnership is not an investment company. The General Partner has determined to take action to resolve the Partnership's status under the 1940 Act by means that may include disposing or acquiring certain assets that it might not otherwise dispose or acquire. Allocation of Profits and Losses ------------------------------------ For financial statement purposes, net income or loss is allocated to each Partner according to their respective ownership percentages (95% to the Recognized Owners and 5% to the General Partner). See Note 9 concerning allocation of income or loss for income tax purposes. Net Income (Loss) Per Unit ------------------------------ Net income (loss) per unit is based on 2,714,647 Units outstanding during each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2000 and computed after allocation of the General Partner's 5% share of net income (loss). Provision for Income Taxes ----------------------------- No provision or benefit from income taxes is included in the accompanying financial statements. The Partners are responsible for reporting their proportionate shares of the Partnership's taxable income or loss and other tax attributes on their separate tax returns. NOTE 4 - EQUIPMENT --------------------- The following is a summary of equipment owned by the Partnership at December 31, 2000. Remaining Lease Term (Months), as used below, represents the number of months remaining from December 31, 2000 under contracted lease terms. A remaining lease term equal to zero reflects equipment held for sale or re-lease in the opinion of EFG, the acquisition cost of the equipment did not exceed its fair market value.

The cost of each of the Partnership's aircraft represents proportionate ownership interests. The remaining interests are owned by other affiliated partnerships sponsored by EFG. All Partnerships individually report, in proportion to their respective ownership interests, their respective shares of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses associated with the aircraft. Certain of the Partnership's aircraft and the related lease payment streams were used to secure the Partnership's term loans with third-party lenders. The preceding summary includes leveraged equipment having an aggregate original cost of approximately $4,157,000 and a net book value of approximately $2,446,000 at December 31, 2000. (See Note 8). The Partnership entered into a three-year release agreement with Air Slovakia for its proportionate interest in a Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft, effective September 2000. Under the terms of this agreement, the Partnership will receive rents of approximately $350,000 over the term of the lease. The Partnership entered into a four-year re-lease agreement with Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for its proportionate interest in a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, effective September 2000. Under the terms of this agreement, the Partnership will receive rents of approximately $1,176,000 over the term of the lease. Generally, the costs associated with maintaining, insuring and operating the Partnership's aircraft are incurred by the respective lessees pursuant to terms specified in their individual lease agreements with the Partnership. However, the Partnership has purchased supplemental insurance coverage to reduce the economic risk arising from certain losses. Specifically, the Partnership is insured under supplemental policies for "Aircraft Hull Total Loss Only" and "Aircraft Hull Total Loss Only War and Other Perils." As aircraft are sold to third parties, or otherwise disposed of, the Partnership recognizes a gain or loss equal to the difference between the net book value of the aircraft at the time of sale or disposition and the proceeds realized upon sale or disposition. The ultimate realization of estimated residual value in the aircraft is dependent upon, among other things, EFG's ability to maximize proceeds from selling or re-leasing the aircraft. At December 31, 2000, all of the Partnership's aircraft were subject to contracted lease agreements, except the Rolls Royce aircraft engines, which were warehoused. The General Partner is attempting to remarket these engines. NOTE 5 - LOAN RECEIVABLE ---------------------------- On March 8, 2000, the Partnership and 10 affiliated partnerships (the ''Exchange Partnerships'') collectively loaned $32 million to 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. Echelon Residential Holdings, through its wholly-owned subsidiary (Echelon Residential LLC), used the loan proceeds, along with the loan proceeds from the other Exchange Partnerships, to acquire various real estate assets from Echelon International Corporation, an unrelated Florida-based real estate company. In the Class Action Lawsuit, there is a risk that the court may object to the General Partner's action in structuring the loan in this way since the EFG 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 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. The Partnership's participation in the loan is $3,640,000. 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. During the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership recognized $446,086 of interest income related to this loan. 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. Echelon Residential Holdings has no material business interests other than those connected with the real estate properties owned by Echelon Residential LLC. The summarized financial information for Echelon Residential Holdings as of December 31, 2000 and for the period March 8, 2000 (commencement of operations) through December 31, 2000 is as follows:

See Note 12, Subsequent Events, for discussion of an impairment recorded by the Partnership of the loan receivable and related interest receivable during the second quarter of 2001. 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 year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership recorded a net gain on sale of equipment, for financial statement purposes, of $91,471 for the Partnership's proportional interest in the aircraft and recognized sales-type lease revenue of $2,491. The net book value of equipment sold on sales-type lease totaled $296,767, which was a non-cash transaction. The components of the net investment in the sales-type lease are as follows:

NOTE 7 - 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 each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2000, which were paid or accrued by the Partnership to EFG or its Affiliates, are as follows:

As provided under the terms of the Management Agreement, EFG is compensated for its services to the Partnership. Such services include acquisition and management of equipment. For acquisition services, EFG was compensated by an amount equal to 3.07% of Equipment Base Price paid by the Partnership. For management services, EFG is compensated by an amount equal to 5% of gross operating lease rental revenue and 2% of gross full payout lease rental revenue received by the Partnership. Both acquisition and management fees are subject to certain limitations defined in the Management Agreement. Administrative charges represent amounts owed to EFG, pursuant to Section 10.4 of Restated Agreement, as amended, for persons employed by EFG who are engaged in providing administrative services to the Partnership. Reimbursable operating expenses due to third parties represent costs paid by EFG on behalf of the Partnership which are reimbursed to EFG at actual cost. All aircraft were purchased from EFG or one of its Affiliates. The Partnership's acquisition cost was determined by the method described in Note 3, Equipment on Lease. All rents and the 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 December 31, 2000, the Partnership was owed $33,452 by EFG for such funds and the interest thereon. These funds were remitted to the Partnership in January 2001. An affiliate of the General Partner owns Units in the Partnership as follows:

Old North Capital Limited Partnership ("ONC") is a Massachusetts limited partnership formed in 1995. The general partner of ONC is controlled by Gary D. Engle and the limited partnership interests of ONC are owned by Semele Group Inc. ("Semele"). Gary D. Engle is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Semele. NOTE 8 - NOTES PAYABLE -------------------------- Notes payable at December 31, 2000 consisted of two installment notes payable to banks of $906,869. One installment note bears an interest rate of 8.225% and the other bears a fluctuating interest rate based on LIBOR (approximately 6.7% at December 31, 2000) 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 Partnership had a balloon payment obligation due at the expiration of the lease term related to the aircraft leased to Finnair OY. This indebtedness was due to mature in 2001. In addition, the Partnership had a balloon payment obligation of $701,062, which matured in August 2000. The Partnership paid interest-only on this debt through 2000 and in February 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs refinanced this indebtedness and repaid the outstanding indebtedness related to the Finnair OY aircraft. See Note 12, "Subsequent Event", regarding this refinancing. Management believes that the carrying amount of notes payable approximates fair value at December 31, 2000 based on its experience and understanding of the market for instruments with similar terms. The annual maturities of the installment notes payable at December 31, 2000, reflecting the maturity of the notes in consideration of the February 2001 refinancing discussed in Note 12, "Subsequent Event", are as follows:

NOTE 9 - INCOME TAXES ------------------------- The Partnership is not a taxable entity for federal income tax purposes. Accordingly, no provision for income taxes has been recorded in the accounts of the Partnership. For financial statement purposes, the Partnership allocates net income or loss to each class of partner according to their respective ownership percentages (95% to the Recognized Owners and 5% to the General Partner). This convention differs from the income or loss allocation requirements for income tax and Dissolution Event purposes as delineated in the Restated Agreement, as amended. For income tax reporting purposes, the Partnership allocates net income or loss in accordance with such agreement. The Restated Agreement, as amended, requires that upon 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. The following is a reconciliation between net income (loss) reported for financial statement and federal income tax reporting purposes for the years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998:

The principal component of "Other" consists of the difference between the -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- tax gain or loss on aircraft disposals and the financial statement gain or loss -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- on aircraft disposals. It also includes reversal of certain maintenance -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- reserves. --------- The following is a reconciliation between partners' capital reported for -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- financial statement and federal income tax reporting purposes for the years -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ended December 31, 2000 and 1999: --------------------------------------

The cumulative difference between federal income tax and financial ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- statement income (loss) represents a timing difference. ------------------------------------------------------------- NOTE 10 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ------------------------------- In January 1998, certain plaintiffs (the "Plaintiffs") filed a class and derivative action, captioned Leonard Rosenblum, et al. v. Equis Financial Group -------------------------------------------------- Limited Partnership, et al., in the United States District Court for the ----------------------------- Southern District of Florida (the "Court") on behalf of a proposed class of ------- investors in 28 equipment leasing programs sponsored by EFG, including the ---- Partnership (collectively, the "Nominal Defendants"), against EFG and a number ---- of its affiliates, including the General Partner, as defendants (collectively, the "Defendants"). Certain of the Plaintiffs, on or about June 24, 1997, had filed an earlier derivative action, captioned Leonard Rosenblum, et al. v. Equis - ---------------------------------- Financial Group Limited Partnership, et al., in the Superior Court of the ----------------------------------------------- Commonwealth of Massachusetts on behalf of the Nominal Defendants against the ------ Defendants. Both actions are referred to herein collectively as the "Class -- Action Lawsuit". -- The Plaintiffs have asserted, among other things, claims against the Defendants on behalf of the Nominal Defendants for violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, common law fraud, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of the partnership or trust agreements that govern each of the Nominal Defendants. The Defendants have denied, and continue to deny, that any of them have committed or threatened to commit any violations of law or breached any fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs or the Nominal Defendants. On July 16, 1998, counsel for the Defendants and the Plaintiffs executed a Stipulation of Settlement setting forth terms pursuant to which a settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit was intended to be achieved and which, among other things, was at the time expected to reduce the burdens and expenses attendant to continuing litigation. The Stipulation of Settlement was preliminarily approved by the Court on August 20, 1998 when the Court issued its "Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing for Notice of, and Hearing on, the Proposed Settlement" (the "August 20 Order"). On March 12, 1999, counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants entered into an amended stipulation of settlement (the "Amended Stipulation") which was filed with the Court on March 12, 1999. The Amended Stipulation was preliminarily approved by the Court by its "Modified Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing For Notice of, and Hearing On, the Proposed Settlement" dated March 22, 1999 (the "March 22 Order"). The Amended Stipulation, among other things, divided the Class Action Lawsuit into two separate sub-classes that could be settled individually. On May 26, 1999, the Court issued an Order and Final Judgment approving settlement of one of the sub-classes. Settlement of the second sub-class, involving the Partnership and 10 affiliated partnerships (collectively referred to as the "Exchange Partnerships"), remained pending due, in part, to the complexity of the proposed settlement pertaining to this class. In February 2000, counsel for the Plaintiffs and the Defendants entered into a second amended stipulation of settlement (the "Second Amended Stipulation") which modified certain of the settlement terms contained in the Amended Stipulation. The Second Amended Stipulation was preliminarily approved by the Court by its "Second Modified Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing For Notice of, and Hearing On, the Proposed Settlement" dated March 6, 2000 (the "March 2000 Order"). Prior to issuing a final order approving the settlement of the second sub-class involving the Partnership, the Court will hold a fairness hearing that will be open to all interested parties and permit any party to object to the settlement. The investors of the Partnership and all other plaintiff sub-class members will receive a Notice of Settlement and other information pertinent to the settlement of their claims that will be mailed to them in advance of the fairness hearing. The settlement of the second sub-class was premised on the consolidation of the Exchange Partnerships' net assets (the "Consolidation"), subject to certain conditions, into a single successor company ("Newco"). Under the proposed Consolidation, the partners of the Exchange Partnerships would receive both common stock in Newco and a cash distribution; and thereupon the Exchange Partnerships would be dissolved. In addition, EFG would contribute certain management contracts, operations personnel, and business opportunities to Newco and cancel its current management contracts with all of the Exchange Partnerships. Newco would operate principally as a finance company and would use its best efforts to list its shares on the NASDAQ National Market or another national exchange or market as soon after the Consolidation as Newco deems that market conditions and its business operations are suitable for listing its shares and Newco has satisfied all necessary regulatory and listing requirements. The potential benefits and risks of the Consolidation were to be presented in a Solicitation Statement that would be mailed to all of the partners of the Exchange Partnerships as soon as the associated regulatory review process was completed and at least 60 days prior to the fairness hearing. A preliminary Solicitation Statement was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on August 24, 1998. One of the principal objectives of the Consolidation was to create a company that would have the potential to generate more value for the benefit of existing limited partners than other alternatives, including continuing the Partnership's customary business operations until all of its assets are disposed in the ordinary course of business. To facilitate the realization of this objective, the Amended Stipulation provided, among other things, that commencing March 22, 1999, the Exchange Partnerships could collectively invest up to 40% of the total aggregate net asset values of all of the Exchange Partnerships in any investment, including additional equipment and other business activities that the general partners of the Exchange Partnerships and EFG reasonably believed to be consistent with the anticipated business interests and objectives of Newco, subject to certain limitations. The Second Amended Stipulation, among other things, quantified the 40% limitation using a whole dollar amount of $32 million in the aggregate. On March 8, 2000, the Exchange Partnerships collectively made a $32 million loan as permitted by the Second Amended Stipulation approved by the Court. The Partnership's portion of the aggregate loan is $3,640,000. The loan consists of a term loan to Echelon Residential Holdings, a newly-formed real estate company that is owned by several independent investors and, in his individual capacity, 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. 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 unrelated Florida-based real estate company. The loan has a term of 30 months maturing on September 8, 2002 and bears interest at the annual rate of 14% for the first 24 months and 18% for the final six months of the term. Interest accrues and compounds monthly but is not payable until maturity. Echelon Residential Holdings has pledged its membership interests in Echelon Residential LLC to the Exchange Partnerships as collateral for the loan. In the absence of the Court's authorization to enter into new investment activities, the Partnership's Restated Agreement, as amended, would not permit such activities without the approval of limited partners owning a majority of the Partnership's outstanding Units. Consistent with the Amended Stipulation, the Second Amended Stipulation provides terms for unwinding any new investment transactions in the event that the Consolidation is not effected or the Partnership objects to its participation in the Consolidation. The Second Amended Stipulation, as well as the Amended Stipulation and the original Stipulation of Settlement, prescribe certain conditions necessary to effect a final settlement, including providing the partners of the Exchange Partnerships with the opportunity to object to the participation of their partnership in the Consolidation. Assuming the proposed settlement were effected according to its terms, the Partnership's share of legal fees and expenses related to the Class Action Lawsuit and the Consolidation was estimated to be approximately $423,000, of which approximately $332,000 was accrued and expensed by the Partnership in 1998 and additional amounts of approximately $41,000 and $50,000 was accrued and expensed in 2000 and 1999, respectively. While the Court's August 20 Order enjoined certain class members, including all of the partners of the Partnership, from transferring, selling, assigning, giving, pledging, hypothecating, or otherwise disposing of any Units pending the Court's final determination of whether the settlement should be approved, the March 22 Order permitted the partners to transfer Units to family members or as a result of the divorce, disability or death of the partner. No other transfers are permitted pending the Court's final determination of whether the settlement should be approved. The provision of the August 20 Order which enjoined the General Partners of the Exchange Partnerships from, among other things, recording any transfers not in accordance with the Court's order remains effective. 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 SEC has completed its review of the solicitation statement and related materials submitted to the SEC in connection with the proposed settlement, and (b) whether parties request the Court to schedule a hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement or are withdrawing the proposed settlement from judicial consideration and resuming the litigation of the Plaintiffs' claims. The Court also directed the parties to use their best efforts to assist the SEC so that its regulatory review may be completed on or before May 15, 2001. The Court continued the Final Approval Settlement Hearing until a date to be scheduled in July 2001 after receipt from the parties of a request to schedule a hearing. Subsequently, after the parties had responded to the court's order and had participated in a status conference on May 31, 2001, the court issued an order on June 4, 2001 setting a trial date of March 4, 2002, referring the case to mediation and referring discovery to a magistrate judge. The Defendant's and Plaintiff's Counsel have continued to negotiate toward a settlement and have reached agreement as to its principal business terms. As part of the settlement, EFG has agreed to buy the loans made by the Exchange Partnerships to Echelon Residential Holdings for an aggregate of $32 million plus interest at 7.5% per annum, if they are not repaid prior to or at their scheduled maturity date. Upon completion of a stipulation of settlement, the parties will submit the settlement to the court for approval. See Note 12, Subsequent Events, for an update of the status of proceedings. In addition to the foregoing, the Partnership is a party to other lawsuits that have arisen out of the conduct of its business, principally involving disputes or disagreements with lessees over lease terms and conditions as described below: First action involving Transmeridian Airlines ------------------------------------------------- On October 11, 1996, Prime Air Inc. d/b/a Transmeridian Airlines (the "Plaintiff") filed an action in the 61st Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (the "Court") entitled Prime Air, Inc. d/b/a Transmeridian -------------------------------------- Airlines v. Investors Asset Holding Corp. ("IAHC"), as Trustee for Airfund II ------------------------------------------------------------------------- International Limited Partnership, PLM International ("PLM"), and NavCom ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Aviation, Inc. (collectively, the "Defendants"). In that action, the Plaintiff ------------ claimed damages of more than $3 million for alleged breach of contract, fraud, civil conspiracy, tortious interference of business relations, negligent misrepresentation, negligence and gross negligence, and punitive damages against the Defendants in connection with Transmeridian's lease of a Boeing 727-251 ADV jet aircraft from the Partnership. On November 7, 1996, PLM removed the action to United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. On February 14, 1997, the Defendants answered the Plaintiff's Complaint denying the allegations made therein and asserting various defenses. On July 31, 1998, the Court granted IAHC's motion to strike Plaintiff's fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims due to failure to plead with particularity. Extensive discovery was conducted on the merits of Plaintiff's claims. The Plaintiff, at one point, provided an expert report seeking approximately $30 million in damages. The Plaintiff later provided a revised expert report claiming actual damages of approximately $8.5 million and Plaintiff continued to seek punitive damages and both pre-judgment and post-judgment interest. On March 18, 1999, the Court entered summary judgment in favor of IAHC and PLM on all remaining claims. The Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment, or in the alternative, to certify the Court's Order for Interlocutory Appeal. On April 30, 1999, the Court declined to alter or amend its judgment and entered final judgment in favor of IAHC and PLM on all remaining claims. The Plaintiff appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The Court of Appeals denied Transmeridian's appeal, affirmed the District Court's judgement in IAHC's favor, and subsequently denied Transmeridian's request for rehearing. Transmeridian has not sought further review of the District Court's judgment. There have been, however, subsequent proceedings in the District Court on IAHC's request for the assessment of costs in the amount of approximately $35,000. In connection with this litigation, the Partnership has incurred substantial legal fees, exceeding $1 million. An action seeking recovery of these costs was filed on behalf of the Partnership in November 1999. See "Indemnity action against Transmeridian Airlines and Apple Vacations" described below. Second action involving Transmeridian Airlines -------------------------------------------------- On November 9, 1998, Investors Asset Holding Corp., as Trustee for the Partnership (the "Plaintiff"), filed an action in Superior Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in Suffolk County against Prime Air, Inc. d/b/a Transmeridian Airlines ("Transmeridian"), Atkinson & Mullen Travel, Inc., and Apple Vacations, West, Inc., both d/b/a Apple Vacations, asserting various causes of action for declaratory judgment and breach of contract. The action subsequently was removed to United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims for breaches of contract and covenant of good faith and fair dealing against Transmeridian and breach of guaranty against Apple Vacations. In October 1998, an aircraft leased by Transmeridian (being the same aircraft in the above-referenced "First action involving Transmeridian Airlines") was damaged in an on-ground accident at the Caracas, Venezuela airport. The cost to repair the aircraft was estimated to be at least $350,000. In addition, the Partnership had to lease two substitute engines at a cost of $82,000 per month. During the year ended December 31, 1999, the Partnership incurred total engine lease costs of $984,000. This was partially offset by lease rents paid by Transmeridian of $560,000 during the same period. However, as of September 11, 1999, Transmeridian ceased paying rent on this aircraft. The Plaintiff alleges that Transmeridian, among other things, has impeded the Partnership's ability to terminate the two engine lease contracts between the Partnership and a third party. The Plaintiff intends to pursue insurance coverage and also to enforce written guarantees issued by Apple Vacations that absolutely and unconditionally guarantee Transmeridian's performance under the lease and is seeking recovery of all costs, lost revenue and monetary damages in connection with this matter. On September 22, 2000, Transmeridian file a petition for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta (the "Bankruptcy Court"). This filling automatically stayed all pending litigation against Transmeridian, including this action. The bankruptcy filings indicate Transmeridian has at least $24 million in debt. In January 2001, Transmeridian filed a reorganization plan and disclosure statement indicating that little if any money will be available for distribution to unsecured creditors like the Plaintiff. Moreover, Transmeridian's bankruptcy counsel has indicated recently that he intends to file an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court seeking the turn over to Transmeridian the proceeds of certain insurance policies (in the amount of approximately $800,000) that insured the Plaintiffs' aircraft against damage. Plaintiffs contend that all or most of these insurance proceeds should be paid to them and intend to contest vigorously any effort to cause these insurance proceeds to be paid to Transmeridian. Plaintiffs' counsel has recently initiated discussions with Transmeridian's counsel concerning settlement of the claims against Transmeridian and the dispute over the insurance proceeds. No assurances can be given that a settlement will be reached. On March 2, 2001, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a motion in the Bankruptcy Court asking the Court to lift the automatic stay of this Massachusetts proceeding so that it may proceed to final judgment. The Bankruptcy Court has scheduled a hearing on this motion for April 10, 2001. Transmeridian's bankruptcy counsel has indicated that he is considering asking the court to move this Massachusetts action to Georgia and consolidate it with the bankruptcy proceeding. The General Partner cannot predict the outcome of its motion for relief from stay or Transmeridian's efforts to transfer venue of the Massachusetts action. Notwithstanding the Transmeridian bankruptcy, the General Partner plans to vigorously pursue enforcement of the written guarantees issued by Apple Vacations; however, it is too early to predict the Plaintiff's likelihood of success. Indemnity action against Transmeridian Airlines and Apple Vacations -------------------------------------------------------------------------- On November 12, 1999, Investors Asset Holding Corp. ("IAHC"), as trustee for the Partnership, filed an action against Transmeridian Airlines (f/k/a Prime Air, Inc.) and Atkinson & Mullen Travel, Inc. (d/b/a Apple Vacations) under Civil Action No. H-99-3804 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, seeking recovery of attorneys' fees and related costs incurred in defending the action described above under the heading "First action involving Transmeridian Airlines." The present suit seeks recovery of expenses pursuant to the indemnification provisions of the lease agreement under which Transmeridian leased the Boeing 727-251 aircraft. Currently, the amount being sought is over $1 million. On September 1, 2000, IHAC filed with the Court a motion for partial summary judgment, seeking judgment on liability (i.e. that Transmeridian and Apple Vacations are liable under the lease agreements and guarantees). IHAC also filed a motion for leave to join in this litigation an affiliate of Apple's, Apple Vacations, West, inc., which also gave written guarantees of Transmeridian's performance under the lease agreements. On September 22, 2000, however, Transmeridian filed a petition for bankruptcy reorganization under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code in the Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Georgia in Atlanta (the "Bankruptcy Court"). See "Second action involving Transmeridian Airlines" above. On January 10, 2001, the Bankruptcy Court granted IHAC's motion for relief from the automatic stay so that this litigation may be pursued through to final judgment. Transmeridian's counsel in this action then filed a motion to withdraw its appearance on behalf of Transmeridian. The U.S. District Court allowed that motion on March 6, 2001, and gave Transmeridian 60 days in which to secure replacement counsel. Within 20 days of the entry of replacement counsel, Transmeridian is required to file its opposition to IHAC's motion for partial summary judgment. The U.S. District Court also allowed IHAC's motion to join Apple Vacations, West, Inc. as a defendant in this action. The Plaintiffs' counsel has recently initiated discussions with Transmeridian's counsel concerning settlement of the claims against Transmeridian. No assurances can be given that a settlement will be reached. The General Partner cannot predict the outcome of this suit. Action involving Northwest Airlines, Inc. --------------------------------------------- On September 22, 1995, Investors Asset Holding Corp. and First Security Bank, N.A., trustees of the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Plaintiffs"), filed an action in United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts against a lessee of the Partnership, Northwest Airlines, Inc. ("Northwest"). The Complaint alleges that Northwest did not fulfill its maintenance and return obligations under its Lease Agreements with the Plaintiffs and seeks declaratory judgment concerning Northwest's obligations and monetary damages. Northwest filed an Answer to the Plaintiffs' Complaint and a motion to transfer the venue of this proceeding to Minnesota. The Court denied Northwest's motion. On June 29, 1998, a United States Magistrate Judge recommended entry of partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs. Northwest appealed this decision. On April 15, 1999, the United States District Court Judge adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation and entered partial summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs on their claims for declaratory judgment. The parties then undertook a second phase of discovery, focused on damages. This second phase of damages is scheduled to conclude in April 2001 with the completion of depositions of the parties' experts. In February 2001, the District Court also denied summary judgment on certain of the Plaintiffs' other claims, including their tort claims for conversion. If no settlement is reached, the Plaintiffs will proceed to trial for an assessment of damages. No firm trial date has been established at this time; however, if a trial should become necessary, it is not expected to occur before June 2001. The General Partner believes that the Plaintiff's claims ultimately will prevail and that the Partnership's financial position will not be adversely affected by the outcome of this action. NOTE 11 - QUARTERLY RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (Unaudited) ------------------------------------------------------------ The following is a summary of the quarterly results of operations for the years ended December 31, 2000 and 1999: Three Months Ended

The Partnership's net income in the three months ended June 30, 2000 is primarily the result of the sale of a Boeing 727-251 ADV aircraft, which resulted in a net gain, for financial statement purposes, of $750,000. The Partnership's net income in the three months ended June 30, 1999 is primarily the result of the sale of a Boeing 727-251 ADV aircraft, which resulted in a net gain, for financial statement purposes, of $3,109,500. NOTE 12 - SUBSEQUENT EVENTS ------------------------------- Debt Refinancing ----------------- In February 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively "the Programs") refinanced the outstanding indebtedness and accrued interest related to an 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 $1,211,860 including $706,831 used to repay the existing indebtedness on the refinanced aircraft. The Partnership used a portion of its share of the additional proceeds of $505,028 to repay the outstanding balance of the indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft on lease to Finnair OY of $130,852 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 $404,138 in September 2004. Legal Proceedings ------------------ 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 SEC staff noted that Section 7 of the 1940 Act makes it unlawful for an unregistered investment company, among other things, to offer, sell, purchase, or acquire 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 SEC staff asked that the general partners advise them within the next 30 days as to what steps the Designated Partnerships will take to address their status under the 1940 Act. The SEC staff asserts that the notes evidencing the loans to Echelon Residential Holdings are investment securities and the ownership of the notes by said partnerships cause them to be investment companies and that, in the case of American Income Partners V-A Limited Partnership and V-B Limited Partnership, they may have become investment companies when they received the Semele securities as part of the compensation for the sale of a vessel to Semele in 1997. The general partners have consulted with counsel who specializes in the 1940 Act and, based on counsel's advice, do not believe that the Designated Partnerships are investment companies. The letter also stated that the Division is considering whether to commence 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 believed that its views, as expressed in the letter, would be 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. On May 15, 2001, Defendants' Counsel filed with the court Defendants' Status Report pursuant to the court's March 12, 2001 Order. Defendants reported that, notwithstanding the parties' best efforts, the staff of the SEC has not completed its review of the solicitation statement in connection with the proposed settlement of the Class Action Lawsuit. Nonetheless, the Defendants stated their belief that the parties should continue to pursue the court's final approval of the proposed settlement. In this regard, the Defendants also have maintained, on the advice of special 1940 Act counsel that, even if the 1940 Act applies to the Designated Partnerships, the 1940 Act does not prohibit going forward with the proposed settlement, as that transaction is merely incidental to a dissolution of the Partnerships and therefore is not subject to the prohibitions of Section 7 of the 1940 Act. The Defendants also referred to the SEC staff's letter of May 10, 2001 asserting that certain of the partnerships are investment companies and to special 1940 Act counsel's submissions to the SEC staff setting forth the reasons why the 1940 Act does not apply to the Designated Partnerships, noting that counsel had informed the staff of the Division of Investment Management that, based upon counsel's understanding of the surrounding circumstances and after an in-depth analysis of the applicable law, if asked, counsel would be willing to issue an opinion of the firm that none of the partnerships is an investment company under the 1940 Act. The Defendants stated their belief that the proposed settlement is still viable and in the best interests of the parties and that final approval should be pursued. The Defendants advised the court that they believe that if the court were to address the issue of whether or not the 1940 Act applies to the partnerships and the proposed consolidation, it could remove the major obstacle to the settlement being finally consummated. The Defendants also requested that the court schedule a hearing to address on a preliminary basis the objection to the proposed settlement raised in the staff's May 10, 2001 letter. Plaintiffs' Counsel also submitted a Plaintiffs' Status Report to the court on May 15, 2001 in which they reported that the SEC review has not been concluded and that they notified the Defendants that they would not agree to continue to stay the further prosecution of the litigation in favor of the settlement and that they intend to seek court approval to immediately resume active prosecution of the claims of the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' Counsel stated in the Report that the "[p]laintiffs continue to believe that the settlement is in the best interests of the Operating Partnership Sub-class. However, since the SEC has yet to complete its review of the proxy, the Plaintiffs do not believe that the litigation should continue to be stayed so that the SEC may continue its regulatory review for an indefinite period of time." Plaintiffs requested a pre-trial conference to schedule filing of Plaintiffs' motion for class certification on or before May 29, 2001 and resumption of merits discovery and discovery related to the class certification motion. Subsequently, after a status conference on May 31, 2001, the court issued an order on June 4, 2001 setting a trial date of March 4, 2002, referred the case to mediation and referred discovery to a magistrate judge. The Defendant's and Plaintiff's Counsel have continued to negotiate toward a settlement and have reached agreement as to its principal business terms. As part of the settlement, EFG has agreed to buy the loans made by the Exchange Partnerships to Echelon Residential Holdings for an aggregate of $32 million plus interest at 7.5% per annum, if they are not repaid prior to or at their scheduled maturity date. Upon completion of a stipulation of settlement, the parties will submit the settlement to the court for approval. There can be no assurance that a settlement of the sub-class involving the Exchange Partnerships will receive final Court approval and be effected. However, in the absence of a final settlement approved by the Court, the Defendants intend to defend vigorously against the claims asserted in the Class Action Lawsuit. Neither the General Partner nor its affiliates can predict with any degree of certainty the cost of continuing litigation to the Partnership or the ultimate outcome. Impairment of Loan Receivable -------------------------------- The General Partner has determined that recoverability of the Partnership's loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, including accrued interest, became impaired during the second quarter of 2001. As a result, the Partnership recorded an impairment of $318,500 at June 30, 2001, reflecting the General Partner's assessment of the amount of loss that is likely to be incurred by the Partnership. In addition to the write-down recorded at June 30, 2001, the Partnership reserved all accrued interest recorded on the loan through March 31, 2001, or $590,772, and has ceased the accrual of future interest, effective April 1, 2001. The write-down was precipitated principally by a slowing U.S. economy and its effects on the real estate development industry. The economic outlook for the properties that existed when the loan was funded has deteriorated and inhibited the ability of Echelon Residential Holdings' management to secure low-cost sources of development capital, including but not limited to joint-venture or equity partners. In response to these developments and lower risk tolerances in the credit markets, the management of Echelon Residential Holdings decided in the second quarter of 2001 to concentrate its prospective development activities within the southeastern United States and, therefore, to dispose of development sites located elsewhere. In May 2001, Echelon Residential Holdings closed its Texas-based development office; and since the beginning of 2001, the company has sold three of nine properties (two in July 2001 and one in October 2001). As of November 2001, one additional property is under contract to be sold, subject to due diligence that remains pending. As a result of these developments, the General Partner does not believe that Echelon Residential Holdings will realize the profit levels originally believed to be achievable from either selling these properties as a group or developing all of them as multi-family residential communities. Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Financial Disclosure. ---------------------- None. PART III Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Partnership. --------------------------------------------------------------------- (a-b) Identification of Directors and Executive Officers The Partnership has no Directors or Officers. As indicated in Item 1 of this report, AFG Aircraft Management Corporation is the sole General Partner of the Partnership. Under the Restated Agreement, as amended, the General Partner is solely responsible for the operation of the Partnership's properties. The Recognized Owners have no right to participate in the control of the Partnership's general operations, but they do have certain voting rights, as described in Item 12 herein. The names, titles and ages of the Directors and Executive Officers of the General Partner as of March 15, 2001 are as follows: DIRECTORS AND EXECUTIVE OFFICERS OF THE GENERAL PARTNER (See Item 13) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(c) Identification of Certain Significant Persons None. (d) Family Relationship No family relationship exists among any of the foregoing Partners, Directors or Executive Officers. (e) Business Experience Mr. MacDonald, age 52, is Chairman of EFG and has been President of the General Partner since 1988 and a Director of the General Partner since 1988. Mr. McDonald was a co-founder of EFG's predecessor, American Finance Group, which was established in 1980. Mr. MacDonald is a member of the Board of Managers of Echelon Development Holdings LLC and President of American Finance Group Securities Corporation. Prior to co-founding American Finance Group, Mr. MacDonald held various positions in the equipment leasing industry and the ethical pharmaceutical industry with Eli Lilly & Company. Mr. MacDonald holds an M.B.A. from Boston College and a B.A. degree from the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). Mr. Engle, age 52, is President and Chief Executive Officer of EFG, sole shareholder and Director of its general partner, Equis Corporation, and a Vice President and Director of several of EFG's subsidiaries and affiliates. Mr. Engle has been a Director of the General Partner since 1991 and is President of AFG Realty Corporation. Mr. Engle is also Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Semele Group Inc. ("Semele") and a member of the Board of Managers of Echelon Development Holdings LLC. Mr. Engle controls the general partners of Atlantic Acquisition Limited Partnership ("AALP") and Old North Capital Limited Partnership ("ONC"). Mr. Engle joined EFG in 1990 as an Executive Vice President and acquired control of EFG and its subsidiaries in December 1994. Mr. Engle co-founded Cobb Partners Development, Inc., a real estate and mortgage banking company, where he was a principal from 1987 to 1989. From 1980 to 1987, Mr. Engle was Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Arvida Disney Company, a large-scale community development organization owned by Walt Disney Company. Prior to 1980, Mr. Engle served in various management consulting and institutional brokerage capacities. Mr. Engle has an M.B.A. degree from Harvard University and a B.S. degree from the University of Massachusetts (Amherst). Mr. Butterfield, age 41, is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of EFG and has served as Vice President and Treasurer of the General Partner since 1996. Mr. Butterfield also serves as Vice President and Treasurer of subsidiaries and affiliates of EFG. Mr. Butterfield is also Chief Financial Officer of Semele and Vice President, Finance and Clerk of Equis/Echelon Management Corporation, the manager of Echelon Residential LLC. Mr. Butterfield joined EFG in June 1992 and became a Vice President in 1996 and Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer in 2000. Prior to joining EFG, Mr. Butterfield was an audit manager with Ernst & Young LLP, which he joined in 1987. Mr. Butterfield was also employed in public accounting and industry positions in New Zealand and London (UK) prior to coming to the United States in 1987. Mr. Butterfield attained his Associate Chartered Accountant (A.C.A.) professional qualification in New Zealand and has completed his C.P.A. requirements in the United States. Mr. Butterfield holds a Bachelor of Commerce degree from the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. Ms. Ofgant, age 35, is Senior Vice President, Lease Operations of EFG and has served as Senior Vice President of the General Partner since 1998. Ms. Ofgant also serves as Senior Vice President for certain of EFG's affiliates. Ms. Ofgant is Senior Vice President and Assistant Clerk of Equis/Echelon Management Corporation, the manager of Echelon Residential LLC. Ms. Ofgant joined EFG in July 1989 and held various positions with the company before becoming Senior Vice President in 1998. From 1987 to 1989, Ms. Ofgant was employed by Security Pacific National Trust Company. Ms. Ofgant holds a B.S. degree from Providence College. (f) Involvement in Certain Legal Proceedings None. (g) Promoters and Control Persons Not applicable. Item 11. Executive Compensation. ----------------------------------- (a) Cash Compensation Currently, the Partnership has no employees. However, under the terms of the Restated Agreement, as amended, the Partnership is obligated to pay all costs of personnel employed full or part-time by the Partnership, including officers or employees of the General Partner or its Affiliates. There is no plan at the present time to make any partners or employees of the General Partner or its Affiliates employees of the Partnership. The Partnership has not paid and does not propose to pay any options, warrants or rights to the officers or employees of the General Partner or its Affiliates. (b) Compensation Pursuant to Plans None. (c) Other compensation Although the Partnership has no employees, as discussed in Item 11(a), pursuant to Section 10.4(c) of the Restated Agreement, as amended, the Partnership incurs a monthly charge for personnel costs of the Manager for persons engaged in providing administrative services to the Partnership. A description of the remuneration paid by the Partnership to the Manager for such services is included in Item 13 herein, and in Note 7 to the financial statements included in Item 8, herein. (d) Stock Options and Stock Appreciation Rights. Not applicable. (e) Long-Term Incentive Plan Awards Table. Not applicable. (f) Defined Benefit or Actuarial Plan Disclosure. Not applicable. (g) Compensation of Directors None. (h) Termination of Employment and Change of Control Arrangement There exists no remuneration plan or arrangement with the General Partner or its Affiliates which results or may result from their resignation, retirement or any other termination. Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By virtue of its organization as a limited partnership, the Partnership has outstanding no securities possessing traditional voting rights. However, as provided for in Section 11.2(a) of the Restated Agreement, as amended (subject to Sections 11.2(b) and 11.3), a majority interest of the Recognized Owners has voting rights with respect to: 1. Amendment of the Restated Agreement; 2. Termination of the Partnership; 3. Removal of the General Partner; and 4. Approval or disapproval of the sale of all, or substantially all, of the assets of the Partnership (except in the orderly liquidation of the Partnership upon its termination and dissolution). No person or group is known by the General Partner to own beneficially more than 5% of the Partnership's 2,714,647 outstanding Units as of March 15, 2001. The ownership and organization of EFG is described in Item 1 of this report. Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions. -------------------------------------------------------------- The General Partner of the Partnership is AFG Aircraft Management Corporation, an affiliate of EFG. (a) Transactions with Management and Others 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 years ended December 31, 2000, 1999 and 1998, which were paid or accrued by the Partnership to EFG or its Affiliates, are as follows:

As provided under the terms of the Management Agreement, EFG is compensated for its services to the Partnership. Such services include acquisition and management of equipment. For acquisition services, EFG was compensated by an amount equal to 3.07% of Equipment Base Price paid by the Partnership. For management services, EFG is compensated by an amount equal to 5% of gross operating lease rental revenues and 2% of gross full payout lease rental revenues received by the Partnership. Both acquisition and management fees are subject to certain limitations defined in the Management Agreement. Administrative charges represent amounts owed to EFG, pursuant to Section 10.4(c) of the Restated Agreement, as amended, for persons employed by EFG who are engaged in providing administrative services to the Partnership. Reimbursable operating expenses due to third parties represent costs paid by EFG on behalf of the Partnership which are reimbursed to EFG at actual cost. All aircraft were purchased from EFG or one of its Affiliates. The Partnership's acquisition cost was determined by the method described in Note 3 to the financial statements included in Item 8, herein. All rents and proceeds from the sale of aircraft are paid directly to EFG or to a lender. EFG temporarily deposits collected funds in a separate interest-bearing escrow account prior to remittance to the Partnership. At December 31, 2000, the Partnership was owed $33,452 by EFG for such funds and the interest thereon. These funds were remitted to the Partnership in January 2001. In 1990, EFG assigned its equipment Management Agreement with the Partnership to AF/AIP Programs Limited Partnership, and AF/AIP Programs Limited Partnership entered into an identical management agreement with EFG. AF/AIP Programs Limited Partnership also entered into a nonexclusive confirmatory agreement with EFG's former majority owned subsidiary, AIRFUND Corporation ("AFC"), for the provision of aircraft remarketing services. An affiliate of the General Partner owns Units in the Partnership as follows:

Old North Capital Limited Partnership ("ONC") is a Massachusetts limited partnership formed in 1995. The general partner of ONC is controlled by Gary D. Engle and the limited partnership interests of ONC are owned by Semele. Gary D. Engle is Chairman and CEO of Semele. The discussions of the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings in Items 1(b) and 1(c) above are incorporated herein by reference. (b) Certain Business Relationships None. (c) Indebtedness of Management to the Partnership None. (d) Transactions with Promoters Not applicable. PART IV Item 14. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules and Reports on Form 8-K. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (a) Documents filed as part of this report: (2) Financial Statement Schedules: None required. (3) Exhibits: Except as set forth below, all Exhibits to Form 10-K/A, as set forth in Item 601 of Regulation S-K, are not applicable. A list of exhibits filed or incorporated by reference is as follows: Exhibit Number ---------- 2.1 Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Joint Motion to Modify Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing for Notice of, and Hearing on, the Proposed Settlement was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1998 as Exhibit 2.1 and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.2 Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Joint Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion to Modify Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing for Notice of, and Hearing on, the Proposed Settlement was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1998 as Exhibit 2.2 and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.3 Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing for Notice of, and Hearing on, the Proposed Settlement (August 20, 1998) was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1998 as Exhibit 2.3 and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.4 Modified Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing for Notice of, and Hearing on, the Proposed Settlement (March 22, 1999) was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 1998 as Exhibit 2.4 and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.5 Plaintiffs' and Defendants' Joint Memorandum in Support of Joint Motion to Further Modify Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing for Notice of, and Hearing on, the Proposed Settlement was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 as Exhibit 2.5 and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.6 Second Modified Order Preliminarily Approving Settlement, Conditionally Certifying Settlement Class and Providing for Notice of, and Hearing on, the Proposed Settlement (March 5, 2000) was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 as Exhibit 2.6 and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.7 Proposed Order Granting Joint Motion to Continue Final Approval Settlement Hearing (March 13, 2001) was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 and is incorporated herein by reference. 2.8 Order Setting Trial Date and Discovery Deadlines, Referring Case to Mediation and Referring Discovery to United States Magistrate Judge (June 4, 2001). Exhibit Number ------ 4 Amended and Restated Agreement and Certificate of Limited Partnership included as Exhibit A to the Prospectus, which was included in Registration Statement on Form S-1 (No. 33-25334) and is incorporated herein by reference. 10.1 Promissory Note in the principal amount of $3,640,000 dated March 8, 2000 between the Registrant, as lender, and Echelon Residential Holdings LLC, as borrower, was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 as Exhibit 10.1 and is incorporated herein by reference. 10.2 Pledge Agreement dated March 8, 2000 between Echelon Residential Holdings LLC (Pledgor) and American Income Partners V-A Limited Partnership, as Agent for itself and the Registrant, was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 as Exhibit 10.2 and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(a) Lease agreement with American Trans Air, Inc. was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1996 as Exhibit 99 (f) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(b) Lease agreement with Southwest Airlines, Inc. was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 as Exhibit 99 (f) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(c) Lease agreement with Southwest Airlines, Inc. was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 as Exhibit 99 (g) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(d) Lease agreement with Southwest Airlines, Inc. was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 as Exhibit 99 (h) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(e) Lease agreement with Finnair OY was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 as Exhibit 99 (i) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(f) Lease agreement with Finnair OY was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 as Exhibit 99 (j) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(g) Lease agreement with Transmeridian Airlines, Inc. was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1997 as Exhibit 99 (k) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(h) Lease agreement with Classic Airways Limited was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1998 as Exhibit 99 (k) and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(i) Lease agreement with Aerovias de Mexico S.A. de C.V. was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 and is incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit Number ------ 99(j) Aircraft Conditional Sale Agreement with Royal Aviation Inc. was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 and is incorporated herein by reference. 99(k) Lease agreement with Air Slovakia BWJ, Ltd was filed in the Registrant's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000 and is incorporated herein by reference. (b) Reports on Form 8-K None. (c) Other Exhibits None. (c) Financial Statement Schedules: Consolidated Financial Statements for Echelon Residential Holdings LLC as of December 31, 2000 and for the Period March 8, 2000 (Date of Inception) through December 31, 2000 and Independent Auditors' Report. SIGNATURES 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. AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership By: AFG Aircraft Management Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation and the General Partner of the Registrant.

SCHEDULE 14(D) ECHELON RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS LLC Consolidated Financial Statements as of December 31, 2000 and for the Period March 8, 2000 (Date of Inception) through December 31, 2000 and Independent Auditors' Report INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT To the Members of Echelon Residential Holdings LLC: We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Echelon Residential Holdings LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("the Company") as of December 31, 2000 and the related consolidated statement of operations, members' equity (deficiency) and cash flows for the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. 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 audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion. In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of the Company as of December 31, 2000, and the results of its operations and its cash flows for the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000 in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. Tampa, Florida March 23, 2001 ECHELON RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS LLC CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET DECEMBER 31, 2000

ECHELON RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS LLC CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS PERIOD MARCH 8, 2000 (DATE OF INCEPTION) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000

------ ECHELON RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS LLC ----------------------------------- CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF MEMBERS' EQUITY (DEFICIENCY) ------------------------------------------------------------ PERIOD MARCH 8, 2000 (DATE OF INCEPTION) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------ ECHELON RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS LLC ----------------------------------- CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS ---------------------------------------- PERIOD MARCH 8, 2000 (DATE OF INCEPTION) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------ ECHELON RESIDENTIAL HOLDINGS LLC ----------------------------------- NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ---------------------------------------------- PERIOD MARCH 8, 2000 (DATE OF INCEPTION) THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2000 1. SUMMARY OF BUSINESS AND SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES BACKGROUND - On March 7, 2000, EIN Acquisition Corporation ("EIN Acquisition") closed on a Tender Offer ("Tender Offer") for all of the outstanding shares of Echelon International Corporation ("Echelon") for a cash price of $34.00 per share. Immediately after the close of the Tender Offer, EIN Acquisition merged into Echelon (the "Merger"), with Echelon being the surviving entity. In conjunction with the Tender Offer, Echelon had entered into various contracts to sell or convey various real estate assets and investments in two real estate joint ventures to third parties. Subsequent to the Merger on March 8, 2000, Echelon closed on existing contracts to sell or convey its real estate assets and investments in two real estate joint ventures. Specific real estate assets and investments in two real estate joint ventures were sold to Echelon Residential LLC ("Echelon Residential"), a wholly owned limited liability subsidiary of Echelon Residential Holdings LLC ("Echelon Residential Holdings" or the "Company"). Echelon Residential will own, manage, and develop or sell these purchased multi-family residential properties. The acquisition of the assets by Echelon Residential was accounted for as an asset purchase under Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 16 ("APB No. 16"). In accordance with APB No. 16, Echelon Residential allocated the total purchase price to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based on the estimated fair market values at the date of acquisition. Since the purchase price of the business was less than the fair market value of the net assets acquired, the credit excess was allocated on a pro-rata basis to the real estate, corporate equipment and the investment in an unconsolidated joint venture. There are no contingencies or other matters that could materially affect the allocation of the purchase cost. The results of operations of the acquired real estate assets and investments in two real estate joint ventures are included in the consolidated results of Echelon Residential Holdings from the acquisition date. The Company's summarized consolidated balance sheet, reflecting the above acquisition of assets, as of March 8, 2000 is as follows:

The Company's fiscal year end is December 31. DESCRIPTION OF BUSINESS - Echelon Residential Holdings was formed on February 29, 2000, under the laws of the state of Delaware and operates in one industry segment: owning, leasing, developing, and managing real estate. There were no activities of Echelon Residential Holdings from February 29, 2000 through March 8, 2000. The Company is governed by its Amended and Restated Limited Liability Company Agreement ("the Agreement") dated June 23, 2000. At March 8, 2000, members' equity included capital contributions from the initial members of the Company, James A. Coyne and Charles E. Cobb, Jr. ("Initial Members"), who made collective capital contributions of $195,226. On June 23, 2000, the participating members, Darryl A. LeClair and Susan G. Johnson ("Participating Members") made capital contributions totaling $2,651,162. The collective Participating Members' capital contributions are comprised of Participating A Capital of $2,591,093, Participating B Capital of $45,052 and additional capital contributions of $15,017. Subsequent to the initial capital contributions above, the Agreement was executed and includes a provision whereby the members have no further obligation to contribute additional amounts of capital to the Company. If the Company requires additional funds, the Board of Managers is to notify the members. Each member has the right to contribute a pro rata share of such additional funds, based on the relative equity contributions made by each member. In addition, the liability of the members of the Company is limited to the members' total capital contributions. In accordance with the Agreement, the Participating Members earn a cumulative compounding annual return on their unreturned capital (as defined), at a per annum rate equal to 14% for Participating A capital and 15% for Participating B capital, commencing on June 23, 2000. Preferred returns will be paid to the Participating Members in accordance with the terms of the Agreement. Payout of preferred returns (if any) is contingent upon the cumulative performance of the Company. See Note 9 - Commitments and Contingencies. Per the Agreement, the Company is to distribute its cash flow (if any) periodically, but not less frequently than quarterly. The losses and profits of the Company are generally allocated to the members as follows: a) losses are generally allocable 77.9% to members other than Participating Members and 22.1% to Participating Members, and b) profits are generally allocated the same way except for a priority income allocation to the Participating Members to cover priority cash distributions made on their Participating Capital. PRINCIPLES OF CONSOLIDATION - The accompanying consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Echelon Residential Holdings, its wholly owned subsidiary and a 60% interest in a joint venture. All intercompany balances have been eliminated. Investments for which the Company has a 20% to 50% ownership interest are accounted for using the equity method. The Company has recorded a minority interest in the Company's consolidated financial statements to reflect the ownership of its partner in the joint venture. ESTIMATES - The preparation of financial statements in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amount of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of the financial statements and the amounts of revenues and expenses during the reported period. Actual results could differ from those estimates. Significant estimates include the recoverability of real estate held for sale. CASH AND CASH EQUIVALENTS - Cash and cash equivalents include cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturities of three months or less. RESTRICTED CASH - Restricted cash represents security deposits at multi-family residential communities held in separate noninterest-bearing depository accounts. RESTRICTED INVESTMENTS - Restricted investments represents certificates of deposit with maturities greater than three months. These investments are held by financial institutions that require such deposits in support of standby letters of credit. REAL ESTATE - Real estate additions are recorded at cost. Interest and real estate taxes incurred during construction periods are capitalized and depreciated on the same basis as the related assets. Costs directly related to the acquisition, development or improvement of real estate, and certain indirect development costs have also been capitalized. Depreciation is calculated on a straight-line basis over the estimated lives of the assets as follows:

IMPAIRMENT OF LONG-LIVED ASSETS - The carrying value of long-lived assets, including property and equipment, will be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the recorded value cannot be recovered from undiscounted future cash flows. REVENUE RECOGNITION - The Company recognizes revenue on the sale of real estate properties when title has passed to the buyer and all contingencies have been removed. Rental revenues, management fees, and developer fees are recognized when earned. INCOME TAXES - Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code and applicable state laws, the Company is not directly subject to income taxes; the results of its operations are included in the tax returns of its members. NEW ACCOUNTING PRONOUNCEMENTS - SFAS No. 133, Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities, is effective for all fiscal years beginning after June 15, 2000. SFAS No. 133, as amended, establishes accounting and reporting standards for derivative instruments and hedging activities. Under SFAS No. 133, certain contracts that were not formerly considered derivatives may now meet the definition of a derivative. The Company adopted SFAS No. 133 effective January 1, 2001. There was no impact on the Company's financial position, results of operations or liquidity resulting from the adoption of SFAS No. 133. Effective March 8, 2000 (date of inception), the Company adopted the provisions of Securities and Exchange Commission Staff Accounting Bulletin 101, Revenue Recognition in Financial Statements ("SAB No. 101"). SAB No. 101 provides guidance for the recognition, presentation, and disclosure of revenue in financial statements. The adoption of SAB No. 101 had no impact on the Company's financial statements. RECLASSIFICATIONS - Certain amounts previously reported in the March 8, 2000 consolidated balance sheet have been reclassified to conform to the December 31, 2000 presentation. 2. REAL ESTATE - NET As of December 31, 2000, real estate consists of the following:

For the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000, the Company recorded a write-down of land held for development or sale of $635,437 in the consolidated statement of operations. Land held for development or sale was determined to have been impaired because the estimated cash flows are less than the carrying value of the two parcels of land. The estimated fair value of these two parcels of land was based on letters of intent from third-party purchasers, dated October 2000 and December 2000, to purchase the two parcels of land. As of December 31, 2000, the Company's land and land improvements held for development or sale includes five parcels of improved and unimproved land for the development of multi-family residential communities. The land is located in urban areas in Memphis, Tennessee; Dallas, Texas; Denver, Colorado; and Colorado Springs, Colorado. As of December 31, 2000, real estate under development includes the following three multi-family residential communities:

As discussed in Note 6, Investment in Consolidated Joint Venture Partnership, ECHELON AT LAKESIDE commenced operations during the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 1, 2000 and portions of the project remained under construction as of December 31, 2000. As of December 31, 2000, real estate includes $606,990 of interest capitalized during the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000. 3. INVESTMENT IN UNCONSOLIDATED JOINT VENTURE In July 1999, Fannie Mae's American Communities Fund agreed to invest with a wholly owned subsidiary of Echelon in the development of ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE, a 303-unit multi-family residential community currently under construction in downtown Orlando, Florida. Echelon's 20% interest in the joint venture was purchased by Echelon Residential, in conjunction with the real estate assets purchased as discussed in Note 1, Summary of Business and Significant Accounting Policies. The Company accounts for its investment in the joint venture under the equity method. Concurrent with the execution of the joint venture agreement with Fannie Mae's American Communities Fund, the joint venture executed an agreement with Wachovia Bank, N.A. for a $21,500,000 loan to fund the construction of ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE. The loan is guaranteed by Echelon Residential. Construction of ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE began in late July 1999 and construction continued on portions of the project through December 31, 2000. For the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000, the Company recorded its share of losses for ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE, from the initial operations of the project, as a reduction of the investment in unconsolidated joint venture. As of December 31, 2000, total capital expenditures and construction loan draws for the project were $24,834,193 and $18,408,921, respectively. Through December 31, 2000, the Company's capital contributions to the joint venture totaled $1,386,000. The total of net losses and purchase price adjustment allocated to the investment in unconsolidated joint venture is $322,094. 4. CONSTRUCTION LOANS As of December 31, 2000, the Company's construction loans outstanding are as follows:

The Company has a $20,000,000 construction loan with Bank of America to fund the construction of ECHELON AT LAKESIDE. The loan is guaranteed by Echelon Residential. The interest rate is LIBOR plus 1.85% (8.4875% as of December 31, 2000), and the loan matures in September 2002. As of December 31, 2000, the Company has made $17,614,845 of construction draws on this loan. See further discussion of the development of ECHELON AT LAKESIDE included in Note 6, Investment in Consolidated Joint Venture Partnership. Accrued interest on the Bank of America construction loan is $125,685 as of December 31, 2000. The Company has a $26,075,000 construction loan with First Union National Bank of Florida to fund the construction of ECHELON AT THE BALLPARK, a 385-unit multi-family residential community currently under construction in downtown Memphis, Tennessee. The loan is guaranteed by Echelon Residential. The interest rate is LIBOR plus 1.65% (8.2125% as of December 31, 2000) with monthly interest payments required through the term of the loan, which expires on June 2002. As of December 31, 2000, the Company has made construction draws of $9,222,895. Accrued interest on the First Union National Bank construction loan is $8,258 as of December 31, 2000. The Company's significant financial covenants include minimum net worth and liquidity requirements. As of December 31, 2000, the Company was in compliance with all financial covenants contained in its debt agreements. In the opinion of management, the carrying value of the Company's construction loans approximate their fair value based on management's estimates for similar issues, giving consideration to quality, interest rates, maturity and other significant characteristics. Although management is not aware of any factors that would significantly affect the estimated fair value of the construction loans, the amounts have not been comprehensively revalued for purposes of these consolidated financial statements since December 31, 2000 and current estimates of fair value may differ significantly. See Note 10, Subsequent Event, for discussion of a construction loan executed for the construction of ECHELON AT UPTOWN, in February 2001. 5. NOTES PAYABLE As of December 31, 2000, notes payable outstanding are as follows:

On March 8, 2000, the Company executed $32,000,000 in notes payable with 11 partnerships. The Company contributed the proceeds from the notes payable to Echelon Residential to acquire various real estate assets from Echelon, as discussed in Note 1, Summary of Business and Significant Accounting Policies. These partnerships are managed by their general partners who have engaged Equis Financial Group ("EFG") as the partnerships' manager. Mr. James A. Coyne is Executive Vice President of EFG and is an equity investor in the Company. Mr. Coyne, in his individual capacity, is the only equity investor in the Company related to EFG. These notes payable have 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 sixmonths. No principal payments are required prior to the scheduled maturity. Interest accrues and compounds monthly and is payable at maturity. Accrued interest on these notes is $3,907,798 as of December 31, 2000. The Company has assigned and pledged a security interest in all of its rights, title, and interest in its membership interests in Echelon Residential to the 11 partnerships as collateral. On March 8, 2000, the Company executed a Series A Note with Cobb Partners Limited. The Series A Note 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. No principal payments are required prior to the scheduled maturity. Accrued interest on the Series A Note is $205,674 as of December 31, 2000. Interest accrues and compounds monthly and is payable at maturity. The Company also executed Series B Notes with several individuals, who are employees or investors of EFG. The Series B Notes have an annual interest rate of 15% and mature on June 30, 2004. No principal payments are required prior to the scheduled maturity. Interest accrues and compounds monthly and is payable at maturity. The Series B Notes are subordinated to the $32,000,000 notes payable and the Series A Note. Accrued interest on the Series B Notes is $76,920 as of December 31, 2000. On December 29, 2000, the Company executed a $770,000 note payable to Echelon Development Holdings LLC ("Echelon Development Holdings"). The note payable has a term of 24 months, maturing on December 29, 2002, and an annual interest rate of 10%. Interest accrues and compounds daily and is payable on December 31st of each year the note payable is outstanding. The Company repaid the note, plus interest of $6,751, on January 30, 2001. In the opinion of management, the carrying value of the Company's notes payable approximates the fair value based on management's estimates for similar issues, giving consideration to quality, interest rates, maturity and other significant characteristics. 6. INVESTMENT IN CONSOLIDATED JOINT VENTURE PARTNERSHIP In September 1999, Echelon entered into a joint venture agreement with Turner Heritage Investments, Ltd. ("Turner") for the development of ECHELON AT LAKESIDE, a 181-unit multi-family residential community currently under construction in Plano, Texas, which is near Dallas. Echelon's 60% interest in the joint venture was purchased by Echelon Residential, in conjunction with the transaction discussed in Note 1, Summary of Business and Significant Accounting Policies. Construction of ECHELON AT LAKESIDE began in October 1999 and continued on portions of the project through December 31, 2000. As of December 31, 2000, total capital expenditures for the project were $23,927,413. Through December 31, 2000, the Company has made capital contributions of $2,592,000 and Turner has contributed land valued at $2,592,000 to the joint venture. The Company's interest represents a controlling interest, and accordingly, for financial reporting purposes, the assets, liabilities, retained deficit, and current period results of operations of the joint venture for the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000, are included in the Company's consolidated financial statements and Turner's partnership interest in the joint venture has been recorded as a minority interest. See further discussion of debt financing for ECHELON AT LAKESIDE included in Note 4, Construction Loans. 7. RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS In conjunction with the purchase of Echelon's interest in the joint venture formed for the development of ECHELON AT LAKESIDE, Echelon Residential also assumed the development agreement, an asset management agreement and a property management and leasing agreement with Lakeside Baywater Enterprises Limited Partnership, the joint venture partnership. In accordance with the development agreement, Echelon Residential has been engaged as the developer for ECHELON AT LAKESIDE and receives a development fee, payable in arrears, in monthly installments of $44,371. In accordance with the asset management agreement, Echelon Residential receives a monthly asset management fee, computed in arrears, equal to 1% of the ECHELON AT LAKESIDE monthly gross income. Under the terms of the property management and leasing agreement, Echelon Residential also receives a monthly management fee, computed in arrears, equal to 4% of the ECHELON AT LAKESIDE monthly gross income. For the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000, Echelon Residential recognized $388,212 in development, asset management, and property management revenues from ECHELON AT LAKESIDE. In conjunction with the purchase of Echelon's interest in the joint venture formed for the development of ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE, Echelon Residential also assumed agreements which include the payment of a development fee, a property management and leasing agreement and an incentive management fee with Cheney Place LLC, the joint venture partnership. In accordance with these agreements, Echelon Residential has been engaged as the developer for ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE and receives a monthly development fee equal to 5% of the hard construction costs incurred during the month. Echelon Residential is also the property manager and leasing agent for the property and will receive a monthly management fee, computed in arrears, equal to $7,500 per month for two months prior to the opening of the clubhouse. For the next nine months thereafter, Echelon Residential will receive the greater of a) 3% of the effective monthly gross income or b) 3% of the effective monthly gross income that would be collected if 75% of ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE were occupied at rents equaling the average pro forma base rent. Thereafter, the monthly management fee will be calculated as 3% of the effective monthly gross income of ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE. The incentive management fee is equal to 2% of ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE'S effective gross income, as defined. For the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000, Echelon Residential recognized $392,695 in development, property management and incentive management fee revenues from ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE. Echelon Property Management LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Echelon Residential, has contracted to manage several operating multi-family residential communities currently leased by Echelon Commercial LLC ("Echelon Commercial"), a wholly owned limited liability subsidiary of Echelon Development Holdings. Several of the equity investors in Echelon Residential Holdings are also equity investors in Echelon Development Holdings. For the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000, Echelon Residential recognized $587,908 in property management revenues from the management of multi-family properties leased by Echelon Commercial. As of December 31, 2000, the Company had accounts receivable balances of $51,880 due from Echelon Commercial LLC, $19,455 due from ECHELON AT CHENEY PLACE and $44,186 from other related parties. These amounts were repaid by the end of February 2001. 8. RETIREMENT PLAN Echelon Residential is the sponsor of the Echelon 401(k) Savings Plan ("Savings Plan") under Section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Service Code (the "Code"), to which participants may contribute a percentage of their discretionary contributions to the Savings Plan. The Company did not contribute to the Savings Plan during the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000. As of January 1, 2001, the Company initiated an option in the Savings Plan to include a mandatory matching contribution from the Company. 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES As of December 31, 2000, two multi-family residential communities were under construction and had remaining commitments of $12,985,656 with construction contractors. On December 29, 2000, the Company executed a $5,000,000 revolving promissory note with Echelon Development Holdings. The revolving promissory note has a term of 24 months, maturing on December 29, 2002, and an annual interest rate of 10%. Interest accrues and compounds daily and is payable on December 31st of each year the note is outstanding. As of December 31, 2000, there were no amounts outstanding on the revolving promissory note. As discussed in Note 1, Summary of Business and Significant Accounting Policies, the Company maintains preferred return accounts for the Participating Members. As of December 31, 2000, the preferred return balances for Participating A and B Capital were $198,597 and $3,709, respectively. These amounts have not been paid and therefore, have not been reflected as a reduction of Participating A and B Capital in the December 31, 2000 consolidated financial statements. The joint venture formed for the development of ECHELON AT LAKESIDE maintains preferred return accounts for the limited partners, Echelon LP, a wholly owned limited liability subsidiary of Echelon Residential, and Turner. The payment of any preferred returns to Echelon LP would be eliminated upon consolidation. As of December 31, 2000, the preferred return balance for Turner was $312,069. This amount has not been paid and, therefore, has not been reflected as a reduction of member's equity in the December 31, 2000 consolidated financial statements. 10. SUBSEQUENT EVENT In February 2001, the Company closed on a $18,600,000 loan from SouthTrust Bank for the construction financing of ECHELON AT UPTOWN, a 244-unit multi-family residential community to be developed in downtown Orlando, Florida. The interest rate is LIBOR plus 1.75% with monthly interest payments required over the 36-month initial term of the loan. The loan is guaranteed by Echelon Residential and construction is expected to commence in the second quarter of 2001. 11. QUARTERLY RESULTS OF OPERATIONS (UNAUDITED) The following is a summary of the quarterly results of operations for the period March 8, 2000 (date of inception) through December 31, 2000:

12. MANAGEMENT'S BUSINESS PLAN (UNAUDITED) As of the fourth quarter of 2001, the Company's management is pursuing three principal business strategies to maximize the value of the Company's real estate assets, including the continued development of the Company's real estate portfolio, retaining other joint venture equity partners for real estate projects and selling of certain real estate assets. In addition, as part of a litigation settlement unrelated to the Company that must be approved by the court, EFG has agreed in principle to buy the notes payable from the 11 partnerships for an aggregate of $32,000,000 plus interest at 7.5% per annum, if they are not repaid prior to or at the scheduled maturity date. If the litigation settlement is approved, the interest rate on the notes payable would be retroactively adjusted to 7.5% simple interest as of March 8, 2000. EFG has also agreed in principle to forbear any foreclosure action against the Company and will evaluate the characterization of the notes payable, which may include converting the notes payable to long-term debt or equity. See Note 5, Notes Payable. ******

AIRFUND II INTERNATIONAL LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 10-K/A