10-Q 1 doc1.txt UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-Q (Mark One) [X] QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the quarterly period ended SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 ----------------------- OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from to . -------- Commission File No. 0-20029 AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-E, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ------------------------------------------------------------- (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Massachusetts 04-3127244 (State or other jurisdiction of (IRS Employer incorporation or organization) Identification No.) 88 Broad Street, Boston, MA 02110 (Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code) Registrant's telephone number, including area code (617) 854-5800 ------------------- (Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report.) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes X No ----- AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-E, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-Q INDEX

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

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

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

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

See Note 7 to the financial statements regarding the reduction of the Partnership's carrying value of its investment securities - affiliate during the nine months ended September 30, 2001. See Note 9 to the financial statements regarding the refinancing of one of the Partnership's notes payable in February 2001. The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-E, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS SEPTEMBER 30, 2001 (UNAUDITED) NOTE 1 - BASIS OF PRESENTATION ----------------------------------- The financial statements presented herein are prepared in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial reporting and the instructions for preparing Form 10-Q under Rule 10-01 of Regulation S-X of the Securities and Exchange Commission and are unaudited. As such, these financial statements do not include all information and footnote disclosures required under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements and, accordingly, the accompanying financial statements should be read in conjunction with the footnotes presented in the 2000 Annual Report. Except as disclosed herein, there has been no material change to the information presented in the footnotes to the 2000 Annual Report. Subsequent to the issuance of the Partnership's financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership determined that the loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings LLC ("Echelon Residential Holdings") 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 not evaluated as likely to be collected. Accordingly, the Partnership reversed the proportionate share of losses in Echelon Residential Holdings for the nine months ended September 30, 2000 of $108,367 previously recorded and recognized interest income of $399,141, resulting in a decrease in the net loss for the nine months ended September 30, 2000 of $507,508, or $0.55 per limited partnership unit. As a result, the accompanying financial statements for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2000 and as of December 31, 2000 have been restated from the amounts previously reported. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting of normal and recurring adjustments) considered necessary to present fairly the financial position at September 30, 2001 and December 31, 2000 and results of operations for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000 have been made and are reflected. Operating results for the nine months ended September 30, 2001 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the entire year. NOTE 2 - CASH ---------------- At September 30, 2001, American Income Fund I-E, a Massachusetts Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") had $2,530,066 invested in federal agency discount notes, repurchase agreements secured by U.S. Treasury Bills or interests in U.S. Government securities, or other highly liquid overnight investments. NOTE 3 - REVENUE RECOGNITION -------------------------------- Rents are payable to the Partnership monthly, quarterly or semi-annually and no significant amounts are calculated on factors other than the passage of time. The leases are accounted for as operating leases and are noncancellable. Rents received prior to their due dates are deferred. In certain instances, the Partnership may enter renewal or re-lease agreements which expire beyond the Partnership's anticipated dissolution date. This circumstance is not expected to prevent the orderly wind-up of the Partnership's business activities as the General Partner and Equis Financial Group Limited Partnership ("EFG") would seek to sell the then-remaining equipment assets either to the lessee or to a third party, taking into consideration the amount of future noncancellable rental payments associated with the attendant lease agreements. See also Note 10 regarding the Class Action Lawsuit. Future minimum rents for operating leases of $2,250,982 are due as follows:

Future minimum rents for operating leases does not include the operating leases for which the lease payments are based on the usage of the equipment leased. In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. The Programs received an early termination fee of $840,000 and a payment of $400,000 for certain maintenance required under the existing lease agreement. The Partnership's share of the early termination fee was $146,412, which was recognized as operating lease revenue during the nine months ended September 30, 2001 and its share of the maintenance payment was $69,720, which is accrued as a maintenance obligation at September 30, 2001. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years. The Programs will receive rents of $6,240,000 over the lease term, of which the Partnership's share is $1,087,632. 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 $70,225 are due through the date of the lease expiration in January 2002. NOTE 4 - EQUIPMENT --------------------- The following is a summary of equipment owned by the Partnership at September 30, 2001. Remaining Lease Term (Months), as used below, represents the number of months remaining from September 30, 2001 under contracted lease terms and is presented as a range when more than one lease agreement is contained in the stated equipment category. A Remaining Lease Term equal to zero reflects equipment either held for sale or re-lease or being leased on a month-to-month basis. In the opinion of EFG, the acquisition cost of the equipment did not exceed its fair market value.

At September 30, 2001, the Partnership's equipment portfolio included equipment having a proportionate original cost of approximately $8,940,000, representing approximately 89% of total equipment cost. Certain of the equipment and related lease payment streams were used to secure term loans with third-party lenders. The preceding summary of equipment includes leveraged equipment having an original cost of approximately $5,250,000 and a net book value of approximately $3,312,000 at September 30, 2001 (see Note 9). The summary above includes the Partnership's interest in a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, which had been leased to Finnair OY through April 2001. Upon expiration of the lease, the aircraft was returned to the General Partner. The Partnership's interest in this aircraft had an original cost of approximately $1,360,000 and a net book value of approximately $661,000 at September 30, 2001. The General Partner is attempting to remarket this aircraft. The Partnership accounts for impairment of long-lived assets in accordance with Statement of Financial Accounting Standards ("SFAS") No. 121, "Accounting for the Impairment of Long-Lived Assets and for Long-Lived Assets to be Disposed of" which was issued in March 1995. SFAS No. 121 requires that long-lived assets be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the net book value of the assets may not be recoverable from undiscounted future cash flows. During the three months ended June 30, 2001, the Partnership recorded a write-down of equipment, representing an impairment to the carrying value of the Partnership's interest in the McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft discussed above. The resulting charge of $189,000 was based on a comparison of estimated fair value and carrying value of the Partnership's interest in the aircraft. 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. The Partnership's original loan was $4,790,000. 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. 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 and for the periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively, is as follows: (Unaudited) As of and for the periods ended September 30,

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 $419,125, 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 $777,417 recorded on the loan receivable from inception through March 31, 2001 and has ceased accruing interest on its loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, effective April 1, 2001. The total impairment of $1,196,542 is recorded as write-down of impaired loan and interest receivable in the accompanying Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 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. NOTE 6 - NET INVESTMENT IN SALES-TYPE LEASE -------------------------------------------------- The Partnership's net investment in a sales-type lease is the result of the conditional sale of the Partnership's proportionate interest in a Boeing 737 aircraft executed in October 2000. The title to the aircraft transfers to Royal Aviation Inc., at the expiration of the lease term. The sale of the aircraft has been recorded by the Partnership as a sales-type lease, with a lease term expiring in January 2002. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001, the Partnership recognized sales-type lease revenue of $3,001 and $9,003, respectively, from this lease. At September 30, 2001, the components of the net investment in the sales-type lease are as follows:

Unearned income is being amortized to revenue over the lease term, expiring in January 2002. NOTE 7 - INVESTMENT SECURITIES - AFFILIATE AND NOTE RECEIVABLE - AFFILIATE -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As a result of an exchange transaction in 1997, the Partnership is the beneficial owner of 42,574 shares of Semele Group Inc. ("Semele") common stock and holds a beneficial interest in a note from Semele (the "Semele Note") of $938,718. The Semele Note matures in April 2003 and bears an annual interest rate of 10% with mandatory principal reductions prior to maturity, if and to the extent that net proceeds are received by Semele from the sale or refinancing of its principal real estate asset consisting of an undeveloped 274-acre parcel of land near Malibu, California. The Partnership recognized interest income of $70,211 related to the Semele Note for each of the nine months ended September 30, 2001 and 2000. The exchange in 1997 involved the sale by five partnerships and certain other affiliates of their beneficial interests in three cargo vessels to Semele in exchange for cash, Semele common stock and the Semele Note. At the time of the transaction, Semele was a public company unaffiliated with the general partners and the partnerships. Subsequently, as part of the exchange transaction, Semele solicited the consent of its shareholders to, among other things, engage EFG to provide administrative services and to elect certain affiliates of EFG and the general partners as members of the board of directors. At that point, Semele became affiliated with EFG and the general partners. The maturity date of the Semele Note has been extended. Since the Semele Note was received as consideration for the sale of the cargo vessels to an unaffiliated party and the extension of the maturity of the Semele Note is documented in an amendment to the existing Semele Note and not as a new loan, the general partners of the owner partnerships do not consider the Semele Note to be within the prohibition in the Partnership Agreements against loans to or from the general partner and its affiliates. Nonetheless, the extension of the maturity date might be construed to be the making of a loan to an affiliate in violation of the Partnership Agreements and to be a violation of the court's order, in connection with the settlement of the class action lawsuit discussed in Note 10, that authorized New Investments while providing that all other provisions of the Partnership Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. In accordance with SFAS No. 115, "Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities", marketable equity securities classified as available-for-dale are carried at fair value. At March 31, 2001, the Partnership determined that the decline in the market value of its Semele common stock was other-than-temporary. As a result, the Partnership wrote down the cost of the Semele common stock to $3.3125 per share (the quoted price of the Semele stock on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market on the date the stock traded closest to March 31, 2001), for a total realized loss in the nine months ended September 30, 2001 of $34,591. During the six months ended September 30, 2001, the Partnership decreased the carrying value of its investment in Semele common stock based on the quoted price of the Semele stock on the OTC Bulletin Board on the date the stock traded closest to September 30, 2001, resulting in an unrealized loss of $25,544 at September 30, 2001. This loss was reported as a component of comprehensive loss included in the Statement of Changes in Partners' Capital. NOTE 8 - RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS ---------------------------------------- All operating expenses incurred by the Partnership are paid by EFG on behalf of the Partnership and EFG is reimbursed at its actual cost for such expenditures. Fees and other costs incurred during the nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, which were paid or accrued by the Partnership to EFG or its Affiliates, are as follows:

All rents and proceeds from the sale of equipment are paid directly to either EFG or to a lender. EFG temporarily deposits collected funds in a separate interest-bearing escrow account prior to remittance to the Partnership. At September 30, 2001, the Partnership was owed $75,782 by EFG for such funds and the interest thereon. These funds were remitted to the Partnership in October 2001. The discussion of the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings in Note 5 above is incorporated herein by reference. NOTE 9 - NOTES PAYABLE -------------------------- Notes payable at September 30, 2001 consisted of three installment notes totaling $2,036,129 payable to banks and institutional lenders which bear an interest rate of either 6.76%, 7.03% or 7.65%,. All of the installment notes are non-recourse and are collateralized by the equipment and assignment of the related lease payments. The installment notes amortize monthly and, in addition the Partnership has a balloon payment obligation at the expiration of the lease term related to one of the two aircraft leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. of $264,310 in September 2004. In February 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively "the Programs") refinanced the outstanding indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft on lease to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. In addition to refinancing the Programs' total existing indebtedness and accrued interest of $4,758,845, the Programs received additional debt proceeds of $3,400,177. The Partnership's aggregate share of the refinanced and new indebtedness was $792,567 including $462,274 used to repay the existing indebtedness on the refinanced aircraft. The Partnership used a portion of its share of the additional proceeds of $330,293 to repay the outstanding balance of the indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft then on lease to Finnair OY of $85,579 and certain aircraft reconfiguration costs that the Partnership had accrued at December 31, 2000. In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Reno Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years. (See Note 3 - Revenue Recognition). The Reno Programs executed a debt agreement with a new lender collateralized by the aircraft and assignment of the Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. lease payments. The Reno Programs received debt proceeds of $5,316,482, of which the Partnership's share was $926,658. The Partnership used the new debt proceeds and a portion of certain other receipts from Reno to repay the outstanding balance of the existing indebtedness related to the aircraft of $970,132 and accrued interest and fees of $14,453. Management believes that the carrying amount of notes payable approximates fair value at September 30, 2001 based on its experience and understanding of the market for instruments with similar terms. The annual maturities of the notes payable are as follows:

NOTE 10 - LEGAL PROCEEDINGS ------------------------------- As described more fully in the Partnership's Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2000, the Partnership is a Nominal Defendant in a Class Action Lawsuit, the outcome of which could significantly alter the nature of the Partnership's organization and its future business operations. On March 12, 2001, after a status conference and hearing, the Court issued an order that required the parties, no later than May 15, 2001, to advise the Court on (a) whether the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") had completed its review of the solicitation statement and related materials submitted to the SEC in connection with the proposed settlement, and (b) whether the parties requested the Court to schedule a hearing for final approval of the proposed settlement or were withdrawing the proposed settlement from judicial consideration and resuming the litigation of the Plaintiffs' claims. On May 11, 2001, the general partners of the partnerships that are nominal defendants in the Class Action Lawsuit received a letter dated May 10, 2001 from the Associate Director and Chief Counsel of the Division of Investment Management of the SEC informing the general partners that the staff of the Division believes that American Income Partners V-A Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-B Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-C Limited Partnership, American Income Partners V-D Limited Partnership, American Income Fund I-A, American Income Fund I-B, American Income Fund I-E and AIRFUND II International Limited Partnership (the "Designated Partnerships") are investment companies as defined in Section 3(a)(1)(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the "1940 Act"). The SEC staff noted that Section 7 of the 1940 Act makes it unlawful for an unregistered investment company to offer or sell or purchase any security or engage in any business in interstate commerce. Accordingly, Section 7 would prohibit any partnership that is an unregistered investment company from engaging in any business in interstate commerce, except transactions that are merely incidental to its dissolution. The letter also stated that the Division is considering enforcement action with respect to this matter. Noting that the parties to the Class Action Lawsuit were scheduled to appear before the court in the near future to consider a proposed settlement, and that the SEC staff's views, as expressed in the letter, are relevant to the specific matters that will be considered by the court at the hearing, the SEC staff submitted the letter to the court for its consideration. 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. AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-E, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-Q PART I. FINANCIAL INFORMATION Item 2. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- of Operations. --------------- Certain statements in this quarterly report of American Income Fund I-E, a Massachusetts Limited Partnership (the "Partnership") that are not historical fact constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and are subject to a variety of risks and uncertainties. There are a number of factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in any forward-looking statements made herein. These factors include, but are not limited to, the outcome of the Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the accompanying financial statements, the remarketing of the Partnership's equipment, and the performance of the Partnership's non-equipment assets. The Investment Company Act of 1940 (the "1940 Act") places restrictions on the capital structure and business activities of companies registered thereunder. The Partnership has active business operations in the financial services industry, including equipment leasing, the loan to Echelon Residential Holdings LLC ("Echelon Residential Holdings") and its ownership of securities of Semele Group Inc. ("Semele"). The Partnership does not intend to engage in investment activities in a manner or to an extent that would require the Partnership to register as an investment company under the 1940 Act. However, it is possible that the Partnership may unintentionally engage in an activity or activities that may be construed to fall within the scope of the 1940 Act. 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 it 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 letter also stated that the Division is considering enforcement action with respect to this matter. Noting that the parties to the Class Action Lawsuit were scheduled to appear before the court in the near future to consider a proposed settlement, and that the SEC staff's views, as expressed in the letter, are relevant to the specific matters that will be considered by the court at the hearing, the SEC staff submitted the letter to the court for its consideration. 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. See Note 10 to the financial statements for additional discussion. Three and nine months ended September 30, 2001 compared to the three and nine -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- months ended September 30, 2000: ------------------------------------ The Partnership was organized in 1991 as a direct-participation equipment leasing program to acquire a diversified portfolio of capital equipment subject to lease agreements with third parties. Presently, the Partnership is a Nominal Defendant in a Class Action Lawsuit, the outcome of which could significantly alter the nature of the Partnership's organization and its future business operations. (See Note 10 to the financial statements.) Pursuant to the Amended and Restated Agreement and Certificate of Limited Partnership (the "Restated Agreement, as amended,") the Partnership is scheduled to be dissolved by December 31, 2002. However, the General Partner does not expect that the Partnership will be dissolved until such time as the Class Action Lawsuit is settled or adjudicated. The events of September 11, 2001 and the slowing U.S. economy could have an adverse effect on market values for the Partnership's assets and the Partnership's ability to negotiate future lease agreements. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it currently is not possible for the General Partner to determine the long-term effects, if any, that these events may have on the economic performance of the Partnership's equipment portfolio. Approximately 56% of the Partnership's equipment portfolio consists of commercial jet aircraft. The events of September 11, 2001 adversely affected market demand for both new and used commercial aircraft and weakened the financial position of most airlines. No direct damage occurred to any of the Partnership's assets as a result of these events and while it is currently not possible for the General Partner to determine the ultimate long-term economic consequences of these events to the Partnership, the General Partner expects that the resulting decline in air travel will suppress market prices for used aircraft in the short term and could inhibit the viability of the airline industry. In the event of a default by an aircraft lessee, the Partnership could suffer material losses. At September 30, 2001, the Partnership has collected substantially all rents owed from aircraft lessees. The General Partner is monitoring the situation and will continue to evaluate potential implications to the Partnership's financial position and future liquidity. Results of Operations ----------------------- For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001, the Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $302,887 and $1,072,130, respectively, compared to $289,953 and $908,717, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. The increase in operating lease revenue from 2000 to 2001 resulted from the September 2000 re-lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft and a Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft in which the Partnership holds ownership interests and lease termination proceeds, as discussed below. These increases were partially offset by the affects on operating lease revenue of the lease term expiration in April 2001 of a second McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft and sales of equipment. In the future, operating lease revenue is expected to decline due to lease term expirations and equipment sales. The lease term associated with a Boeing 737-2H4, in which the Partnership holds an ownership interest, expired in December 1999. The aircraft was re-leased in September 2000 to Air Slovakia BWJ Ltd., with a lease term expiring in September 2003. The Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $74,800 for the nine month period ended September 30, 2001 related to its interest in this aircraft. The lease term associated with a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, in which the Partnership holds an ownership interest, expired in January 2000. The aircraft was re-leased in September 2000 to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., with a lease term expiring in September 2004. The Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $144,200 and $31,316 related to this aircraft during the nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively. In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Reno Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. The Reno Programs received an early termination fee of $840,000 and a payment of $400,000 for certain maintenance required under the existing lease agreement. The Partnership's share of the early termination fee was $146,412, which was recognized as operating lease revenue during the nine months ended September 30, 2001 and its share of the maintenance payment was $69,720, which was accrued as a maintenance obligation at September 30, 2001. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years. The Reno Programs will receive rents of $6,240,000 over the lease term, of which the Partnership's share is $1,087,632. The General Partner is attempting to remarket the second McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft, in which the Partnership holds an ownership interest. The lease term associated with this aircraft expired in April 2001 and the aircraft is currently off lease. The Partnership recognized operating lease revenue of $68,716 and $155,781 related to this aircraft during the nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively. In October 2000, the Partnership and certain of its affiliates executed a conditional sales agreement with Royal Aviation Inc. for the sale of the Partnership's interest in a Boeing 737-2H4 aircraft. This aircraft had been off lease from January 2000 through the date of the conditional sale in October 2000. The title to the aircraft transfers to Royal Aviation Inc., at the expiration of the lease term. The sale of the aircraft has been recorded by the Partnership as a sales-type lease, with a lease term expiring in January 2002. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001, the Partnership recognized sales-type lease revenue of $3,001 and $9,003, respectively. The Partnership's equipment portfolio includes certain assets in which the Partnership holds a proportionate ownership interest. In such cases, the remaining interests are owned by an affiliated equipment leasing program sponsored by EFG. Proportionate equipment ownership enabled the Partnership to further diversify its equipment portfolio at inception by participating in the ownership of selected assets, thereby reducing the general levels of risk, which could have resulted from a concentration in any single equipment type, industry or lessee. The Partnership and each affiliate individually report, in proportion to their respective ownership interests, their respective shares of assets, liabilities, revenues, and expenses associated with the equipment. Interest income for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 was $48,357 and $337,775, respectively, compared to $238,008 and $602,352, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. Interest income is typically generated from temporary investment of rental receipts and equipment sale proceeds in short-term instruments and interest earned on the loans receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings and Semele. The amount of future interest income from short-term investments is expected to fluctuate as a result of changing interest rates and the amount of cash available for investment, among other factors. Interest income during the nine months ended September 30, 2001 included $190,397 earned on the loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, compared to $181,314 and $399,141, respectively, for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2000. 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 $419,125, 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 $777,417 recorded on the loan receivable from inception through March 31, 2001 and has ceased accruing interest on its loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, effective April 1, 2001. The total impairment of $1,196,542 is recorded as write-down of impaired loan and interest receivable in the accompanying Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 2001. Interest income during the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000 also included $23,661 and $70,211, respectively, earned on a note receivable from Semele (see Note 7 to the financial statements herein). During the nine months ended September 30, 2001, the Partnership sold fully depreciated equipment to existing lessees and third parties, resulting in net gains, for financial statement purposes, of $50. There were no equipment sales in the three months ended September 30, 2001. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2000, the Partnership sold equipment with an aggregate net book value of $190,331 to existing lessees and third parties for a net gain, for financial statement purposes, of $48,994 and $56,494 respectively. It cannot be determined whether future sales of equipment will result in a net gain or a net loss to the Partnership, as such transactions will be dependent upon the condition and type of equipment being sold and its marketability at the time of sale. In addition, the amount of gain or loss reported for financial statement purposes is partly a function of the amount of accumulated depreciation associated with the equipment being sold. The ultimate realization of residual value for any type of equipment will be dependent upon many factors, including EFG's ability to sell and re-lease equipment. Changing market conditions, industry trends, technological advances, and many other events can converge to enhance or detract from asset values at any given time. EFG attempts to monitor these changes in order to identify opportunities which may be advantageous to the Partnership and which will maximize total cash returns for each asset. The total economic value realized upon final disposition of each asset is comprised of all primary lease term revenue generated from that asset, together with its residual value. The latter consists of cash proceeds realized upon the asset's sale in addition to all other cash receipts obtained from renting the asset on a re-lease, renewal or month-to-month basis. Consequently, the amount of gain or loss reported in the financial statements is not necessarily indicative of the total residual value the Partnership achieved from leasing the equipment. Depreciation expense for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 was $174,658 and $523,972, respectively, compared to $181,147 and $524,234, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. For financial reporting purposes, to the extent that an asset is held on primary lease term, the Partnership depreciates the difference between (i) the cost of the asset and (ii) the estimated residual value of the asset on a straight-line basis over such term. For purposes of this policy, estimated residual values represent estimates of equipment values at the date of primary lease expiration. To the extent that equipment is held beyond its primary lease term, the Partnership continues to depreciate the remaining net book value of the asset on a straight-line basis over the asset's remaining economic life. During the nine months ended September 30, 2001, the Partnership also recorded a write-down of equipment, representing an impairment to the carrying value of the Partnership's interest in a McDonnell Douglas MD-82 aircraft returned in April 2001 and currently off lease. The resulting charge of $189,000 was based on a comparison of estimated fair value and carrying value of the Partnership's interest in the aircraft. The estimate of the fair value was based on (i) information provided by a third-party aircraft broker and (ii) EFG's assessment of prevailing market conditions for similar aircraft. Aircraft condition, age, passenger capacity, distance capability, fuel efficiency, and other factors influence market demand and market values for passenger jet aircraft. For the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, the Partnership incurred interest expense of $39,251 and $110,734, respectively, compared to $49,320 and $153,198, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. In the future, interest expense will decline as the principal balance of notes payable is reduced through the application of rent receipts to outstanding debt. Management fees were $5,548 and $47,302, respectively, for the three and nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 compared to $13,458 and $42,305, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. Operating expenses were $318,768 and $653,365 for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2001 compared to $297,654 and $423,904, respectively, for the same periods in 2000. During the nine months ended September 30, 2001, operating expenses included approximately $84,000 related to the Class Action Lawsuit discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements herein and approximately $311,000 of re-marketing and storage costs related to the re-lease of an aircraft in June 2001, and storage of another aircraft, which was returned to the General Partner in April 2001, upon its lease term expiration. Operating expenses during the nine months ended September 30, 2000 included approximately $131,000 accrued for the Partnership's proportionate share of the cost of a required D-check on a McDonnell Douglas aircraft currently off lease. Other operating expenses consist principally of administrative charges, professional service costs, such as audit and other legal fees, as well as printing, distribution and other remarketing expenses. In certain cases, equipment storage or repairs and maintenance costs may be incurred in connection with other equipment being remarketed. At March 31, 2001, the Partnership determined that the decline in the market value of its Semele common stock was other than temporary. As a result, the Partnership wrote down the cost of the Semele common stock to $3.3125 per share (the quoted price of the Semele stock on the NASDAQ SmallCap Market on the date the stock traded closest to March 31, 2001), for a total realized loss in the nine months ended September 30, 2001 of $34,591. Liquidity and Capital Resources and Discussion of Cash Flows -------------------------------------------------------------------- The Partnership by its nature is a limited life entity. The Partnership's principal operating activities derive from asset rental transactions. Accordingly, the Partnership's principal source of cash from operations is provided by the collection of periodic rents. These cash inflows are used to satisfy debt service obligations associated with leveraged leases, and to pay management fees and operating costs. Operating activities generated net cash inflows of $730,291 and $941,188 for the nine months ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, respectively. Future renewal, re-lease and equipment sale activities will cause a decline in the Partnership's lease revenues and corresponding sources of operating cash. Overall, expenses associated with rental activities, such as management fees, and net cash flow from operating activities will also decline as the Partnership remarkets its assets. The Partnership, however, may continue to incur significant costs to facilitate the successful remarketing of its aircraft in the future. The loan to Echelon Residential Holdings and accrued interest thereon are due in full at maturity on September 8, 2002. Cash realized from asset disposal transactions is reported under investing activities on the accompanying Statement of Cash Flows. During the nine months ended September 30, 2001 and 2000, the Partnership realized equipment sale proceeds of $50 and $246,825, respectively. Future inflows of cash from asset disposals will vary in timing and amount and will be influenced by many factors including, but not limited to, the frequency and timing of lease expirations, the type of equipment being sold, its condition and age, and future market conditions. At September 30, 2001, the Partnership was due aggregate future minimum lease payments of $2,321,207 from contractual operating and sales-type lease agreements (see Note 3 to the financial statements), a portion of which will be used to amortize the principal balance of notes payable of $2,036,129 (see Note 9 to the financial statements). At the expiration of the individual lease terms underlying the Partnership's future minimum lease payments, the Partnership will sell the equipment or enter re-lease or renewal agreements when considered advantageous by the General Partner and EFG. Such future remarketing activities will result in the realization of additional cash inflows in the form of equipment sale proceeds or rents from renewals and re-leases, the timing and extent of which cannot be predicted with certainty. This is because the timing and extent of remarketing events often is dependent upon the needs and interests of the existing lessees. Some lessees may choose to renew their lease contracts, while others may elect to return the equipment. In the latter instances, the equipment could be re-leased to another lessee or sold to a third party. In connection with a preliminary settlement agreement for a Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the financial statements, the court permitted the Partnership to invest in any new investment, including but not limited to new equipment or other business activities, subject to certain limitations. On March 8, 2000, the Partnership loaned $4,790,000 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. 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 $419,125, 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 $777,417 recorded on the loan receivable from inception through March 31, 2001 and has ceased accruing interest on its loan receivable from Echelon Residential Holdings, effective April 1, 2001. The total impairment of $1,196,542 is recorded as write-down of impaired loan and interest receivable in the accompanying Statement of Operations for the nine months ended September 30, 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. 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. As a result of an exchange transaction in 1997, the Partnership is the beneficial owner of 42,574 shares of Semele common stock and holds a beneficial interest in a note from Semele (the "Semele Note") of $938,718. The Semele Note matures in April 2003 and bears an annual interest rate of 10% with mandatory principal reductions prior to maturity, if and to the extent that net proceeds are received by Semele from the sale or refinancing of its principal real estate asset consisting of an undeveloped 274-acre parcel of land near Malibu, California. The exchange in 1997 involved the sale by five partnerships and certain other affiliates of their beneficial interests in three cargo vessels to Semele in exchange for cash, Semele common stock and the Semele Note. At the time of the transaction, Semele was a public company unaffiliated with the general partners and the partnerships. Subsequently, as part of the exchange transaction, Semele solicited the consent of its shareholders to, among other things, engage EFG to provide administrative services and to elect certain affiliates of EFG and the general partners as members of the board of directors. At that point, Semele became affiliated with EFG and the general partners. The maturity date of the Semele Note has been extended. Since the Semele Note was received as consideration for the sale of the cargo vessels to an unaffiliated party and the extension of the maturity of the Semele Note is documented in an amendment to the existing Semele Note and not as a new loan, the general partners of the owner partnerships do not consider the Semele Note to be within the prohibition in the Partnership Agreements against loans to or from the general partner and its affiliates. Nonetheless, the extension of the maturity date might be construed to be the making of a loan to an affiliate in violation of the Partnership Agreements and to be a violation of the court's order, in connection with the settlement of the class action lawsuit discussed in Note 10 to the financial statements, that authorized New Investments while providing that all other provisions of the Partnership Agreements shall remain in full force and effect. In accordance with SFAS No. 115, "Accounting for Certain Investments in Debt and Equity Securities", marketable equity securities classified as available-for-dale are carried at fair value. At March 31, 2001, the Partnership determined that the decline in the market value of its Semele common stock was other-than-temporary. As a result, the Partnership wrote down the cost of the Semele common stock resulting in a total realized loss in the nine months ended September 30, 2001 of $34,591. See Results of Operations. During the six months ended September 30, 2001, the Partnership decreased the carrying value of its investment in Semele common stock based on the quoted price of the Semele stock on the OTC Bulletin Board on the date the stock traded closest to September 30, 2001, resulting in an unrealized loss of $25,544. This loss was reported as a component of comprehensive loss included in the Statement of Changes in Partners' Capital. The Semele Note and the Semele common stock are subject to a number of risks including, Semele's ability to make loan payments which is dependent upon the liquidity of Semele and primarily Semele's ability to sell or refinance its principal real estate asset consisting of an undeveloped 274-acre parcel of land near Malibu, California. The market value of the Partnership's investment in Semele common stock has generally declined since the Partnership's initial investment in 1997. In 1998, the General Partner determined that the decline in the market value of the stock was other than temporary and wrote down the Partnership's investment. Again in the three months ended March 31, 2001, the General Partner made the same determination and wrote down the Partnership's investment. Subsequently, the market value of the Semele common stock has fluctuated. The market value of the stock could decline in the future. Gary D. Engle, President and Chief Executive Officer of EFG and a Director of the General Partner is Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Semele and James A. Coyne, Executive Vice President of EFG is Semele's President and Chief Operating Officer. Mr. Engle and Mr. Coyne are both members of the Board of Directors of, and own significant stock in, Semele. The Partnership obtained long-term financing in connection with certain equipment. The origination of such indebtedness and the subsequent repayments of principal are reported as components of financing activities in the accompanying Statement of Cash Flows. The corresponding note agreements are recourse only to the specific aircraft financed and to the minimum rental payments contracted to be received during the debt amortization period (which generally coincides with the lease term). As rental payments are collected, a portion or all of the rental payment is used to repay associated indebtedness. In the future, the amount of cash used will decline as the principal balance of notes payable is reduced through the collection and application of rents. In addition, the Partnership has a balloon payment obligation as discussed below. In February 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively "the Programs") refinanced the outstanding indebtedness and accrued interest related to 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 $792,567 including $462,274 used to repay the existing indebtedness on the refinanced aircraft. The Partnership used a portion of its share of the additional proceeds of $330,293 to repay the outstanding balance of the indebtedness and accrued interest related to the aircraft then on lease to Finnair OY of $85,579 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 Partnership has a balloon payment obligation at the expiration of the lease term of $264,310 in September 2004. In the nine months ended September 30, 2000, the Partnership refinanced the indebtedness associated with the same aircraft and in addition to refinancing the existing indebtedness, received additional proceeds of $131,618. In June 2001, the Partnership and certain affiliated investment programs (collectively, the "Reno Programs") executed an agreement with the existing lessee, Reno Air, Inc. ("Reno"), to early terminate the lease of a McDonnell Douglas MD-87 aircraft that had been scheduled to expire in January 2003. Coincident with the termination of the Reno lease, the aircraft was re-leased to Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. for a term of four years (see Results of Operations). The Reno Programs executed a debt agreement with a new lender collateralized by the aircraft and assignment of the Aerovias de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. lease payments. The Reno Programs received debt proceeds of $5,316,482, of which the Partnership's share was $926,658. The Partnership used the new debt proceeds and a portion of certain other receipts from Reno to repay the outstanding balance of the existing indebtedness related to the aircraft of $970,132 and accrued interest and fees of $14,453. There are no formal restrictions under the Restated Agreement, as amended, that materially limit the Partnership's ability to pay cash distributions, except that the General Partner may suspend or limit cash distributions to ensure that the Partnership maintains sufficient working capital reserves to cover, among other things, operating costs and potential expenditures, such as refurbishment costs to remarket equipment upon lease expiration. In addition to the need for funds in connection with the Class Action Lawsuit, liquidity is especially important as the Partnership matures and sells equipment, because the remaining equipment base consists of fewer revenue-producing assets that are available to cover prospective cash disbursements. Insufficient liquidity could inhibit the Partnership's ability to sustain its operations or maximize the realization of proceeds from remarketing its remaining assets. In particular, the Partnership must contemplate the potential liquidity risks associated with its investment in commercial jet aircraft. The management and remarketing of aircraft can involve, among other things, significant costs and lengthy remarketing initiatives. Although the Partnership's lessees are required to maintain the aircraft during the period of lease contract, repair, maintenance, and/or refurbishment costs at lease expiration can be substantial. For example, an aircraft that is returned to the Partnership meeting minimum airworthiness standards, such as flight hours or engine cycles, nonetheless may require heavy maintenance in order to bring its engines, airframe and other hardware up to standards that will permit its prospective use in commercial air transportation. At September 30, 2001, the Partnership's equipment portfolio included ownership interests in four commercial jet aircraft, one of which is a Boeing 737 aircraft. The Boeing 737 aircraft is a Stage 2 aircraft, meaning that it is prohibited from operating in the United States unless it is retro-fitted with hush-kits to meet Stage 3 noise regulations promulgated by the Federal Aviation Administration. During 2000, this aircraft was re-leased to Air Slovakia BWJ, Ltd. through September 2003. The remaining three aircraft in the Partnership's portfolio already are Stage 3 compliant. Two of these aircraft have lease terms expiring in September 2004 and June 2005, respectively, and the third aircraft was returned to the General Partner upon its lease expiration in April 2001. The General Partner is attempting to remarket this aircraft. Recent changes in economic condition of the airline industry have adversely affected the demand for and market values for commercial jet aircraft. These changes could adversely affect the operations of the Partnership and the residual value of the commercial jet aircraft. Currently, all of commercial jet aircraft in which the Partnership has a proportionate ownership interest are subject to contracted lease agreements except one McDonnell Douglas MD-82, which was returned to the General Partner upon its lease expiration in April 2001. The General Partner is attempting to remarket this aircraft. Cash distributions to the General and Limited Partners had been declared and generally paid within fifteen days following the end of each calendar quarter. The payment of such distributions is reported under financing activities on accompanying Statement of Cash Flows. No cash distributions were declared for either of the nine month periods ended September 30, 2001 or 2000. In any given year, it is possible that Limited Partners will be allocated taxable income in excess of distributed cash. This discrepancy between tax obligations and cash distributions may or may not continue in the future, and cash may or may not be available for distribution to the Limited Partners adequate to cover any tax obligation. Cash distributions when paid to the Limited Partners generally consist of both a return of and a return on capital. Cash distributions do not represent and are not indicative of yield on investment. Actual yield on investment cannot be determined with any certainty until conclusion of the Partnership and will be dependent upon the collection of all future contracted rents, the generation of renewal and/or re-lease rents, the residual value realized for each asset at its disposal date and the performance of the Partnership's non-equipment assets. The Partnership's capital account balances for federal income tax and for financial reporting purposes are different primarily due to differing treatments of income and expense items for income tax purposes in comparison to financial reporting purposes (generally referred to as permanent or timing differences; see Note 9 to the financial statements presented in the Partnership's 2000 Annual Report). For instance, selling commissions and organization and offering costs pertaining to syndication of the Partnership's limited partnership units are not deductible for federal income tax purposes, but are recorded as a reduction of partners' capital for financial reporting purposes. Therefore, such differences are permanent differences between capital accounts for financial reporting and federal income tax purposes. Other differences between the bases of capital accounts for federal income tax and financial reporting purposes occur due to timing differences. Such items consist of the cumulative difference between income or loss for tax purposes and financial statement income or loss and the treatment of unrealized gains or losses on investment securities for book and tax purposes. The principal component of the cumulative difference between financial statement income or loss and tax income or loss results from different depreciation policies for book and tax purposes. For financial reporting purposes, the General Partner has accumulated a capital deficit at September 30, 2001. This is the result of aggregate cash distributions to the General Partner being in excess of its capital contribution of $1,000 and its allocation of financial statement net income or loss. Ultimately, the existence of a capital deficit for the General Partner for financial reporting purposes is not indicative of any further capital obligations to the Partnership by the General Partner. The Restated Agreement, as amended, requires that upon the dissolution of the Partnership, the General Partner will be required to contribute to the Partnership an amount equal to any negative balance, which may exist in the General Partner's tax capital account. At December 31, 2000, the General Partner had a positive tax capital account balance. The outcome of the Class Action Lawsuit described in Note 10 to the accompanying financial statements, will be the principal factor in determining the future of the Partnership's operations. Commencing with the first quarter of 2000, the General Partner suspended the payment of quarterly cash distributions pending final resolution of the Class Action Lawsuit. Accordingly, future cash distributions are not expected to be paid until the Class Action Lawsuit is settled or adjudicated. Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk -------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Partnership's financial statements include financial instruments that are exposed to interest rate risks. The Partnership's three notes payable bear interest rates of 6.76%, 7.03% and 7.65%, which amortize monthly through September 2005. The fair market value of fixed interest rate on debt may be adversely impacted due to a decrease in interest rates. The effect of interest rate fluctuations on the Partnership for the nine months ended September 30, 2001 was not material. 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. The effect of interest rate fluctuations on the Partnership for the nine months ended September 30, 2001 was not material. AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-E, A MASSACHUSETTS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP FORM 10-Q PART II. OTHER INFORMATION

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

AMERICAN INCOME FUND I-E LTD PARTNERSHIP 10-Q