Total no. of pages: 5
There is No Exhibit Index
FORM 8-K
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported): August 25, 1997
MLH INCOME REALTY PARTNERSHIP VI
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its governing instrument)
New York 0-15532
(State of Organization) Commission File Number
13-3272339
(I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)
World Financial Center, South Tower
225 Liberty Street, New York, New York 10080-6112
(Address of principal executive office) (Zip Code)
Registrant's telephone number, including area code: (800) 288-3694
<PAGE>
ITEM 5. OTHER EVENTS
A. CLASS ACTION LITIGATION
During calendar years 1995 and 1996, certain putative class actions were
filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York,
purportedly on behalf of, among others, all persons who purchased limited
partnership interests in MLH Income Realty Partnership VI (the "Registrant").
The actions were later consolidated into a single action (the "Consolidated
Action").
In addition to investors of the Registrant, the Consolidated Action was
filed purportedly on behalf of all persons who purchased limited partnership
interests in certain other limited partnerships formed by affiliates of MLH
Property Managers Inc. (the "Managing General Partner") and for which the
Managing General Partner has acted or acts as a general partner, and certain
other limited partnerships for whom Merrill Lynch, Pierce Fenner & Smith
Incorporated acted as selling agent, against the Registrant's General Partners
and certain direct and indirect subsidiaries and/or affiliates of Merrill Lynch
& Co., Inc., as defendants (collectively, the "Defendants").
The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that the Defendants (i) violated the
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), (ii) engaged in
fraud and negligent misrepresentation in connection with the sale of limited
partnership interests in the Registrant and the other partnerships, (iii)
breached their fiduciary duties, and (iv) breached their contracts or tortiously
interfered with express or implied contracts and covenants.
On August 25, 1997, the Honorable Michael B. Mukasey, United States
District Judge in the Southern District of New York, issued a 51-page Opinion
and Order granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated Action.
Finding that plaintiffs' RICO claims were barred by the applicable statutes of
limitations, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' RICO claims with prejudice and
dismissed the remaining state law claims for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. The Court declined to grant plaintiffs leave to replead.
B. TREASURE ISLAND DEVELOPMENT
As disclosed in Reports previously filed, in February of 1996, Treasure
Island Associates ("TIA"), a joint venture partnership between the Registrant
and an unaffiliated entity, submitted an application to the City of Laguna Beach
for the redevelopment of the land formerly know as Treasure Island, a mobile
home community located in Laguna Beach, California (the "Property"). TIA owns
the fee interest in the Property. The initial application included a combination
of detached single-family residences, multi-family housing and resort hotel
complex including meeting rooms and restaurants. The application was suspended
on July 30, 1996 and a revised application was submitted in March, 1997.
On February 27, 1997, TIA submitted a development proposal to the City of
Laguna Beach for the redevelopment of the Property which consists of a local
coastal program ("LCP") and a specific plan for the reuse of the property as a
resort development. An LCP is required by California because the City of Laguna
Beach has not obtained approval by the California Coastal Commission for the
Property as required by the Coastal Act. Although the ultimate use and density
of the Property are subject to legislative and administrative approvals of the
City of Laguna Beach and the California Coastal Commission, the LCP describes a
project consisting of a resort center with up to 250 guest rooms and associated
conference, restaurant and parking facilities, 47 resort residential villas, and
approximately 11.6 acres of public open space.
Once the LCP and specific plan are approved by the City of Laguna Beach and
the California Coastal Commission, the Registrant will seek implementing
approvals which will consist of a site plan for the specific improvements to be
constructed on the Property and a tract map which will subdivide the Property
for financing and sale purposes.
A draft environmental impact report required by the California
Environmental Quality Act was prepared for the project and released to the
public for its review on August 25, 1997. California law provides a 45-day
public review period after which administrative and legislative hearings on the
Registrant's proposal will be scheduled with the Planning Commission and City
Council of the City of Laguna Beach. The Registrant expects the proposal to be
heard by the California Coastal Commission in the first half of calendar year
1998 with hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council of the City
of Laguna Beach for the site plan and tract map to occur shortly thereafter.
<PAGE>
This Report contains statements of expected future developments. The
Registrant wishes to insure that such statements are accompanied by meaningful
cautionary statements pursuant to the safe harbor established in the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These forward looking statements
reflect the Managing General Partner's expectations that the Registrant will
successfully receive acceptance by the California Coastal Commission and the
City of Laguna Beach. These forward looking statements reflect the Managing
General Partner's expectations and are based upon current available data. As a
result, actual receipt of such approvals is subject to future events and
uncertainties which could materially affect the ability of the Managing General
Partner to receive these approvals. Among the factors which could materially
affect the Managing General Partner's prospects for receiving the approvals are:
(i) uncertainties regarding the granting of approvals by the California Coastal
Commission or City of Laguna Beach, (ii) possible delays in the administrative
process required to obtain the approvals which are outside the control of the
Managing General Partner; (iii) objections by third parties to the development
plan proposed by the Managing General Partner for the Property, including
possible litigation, which could significantly delay or ultimately prevent the
receipt of one or both of the approvals. However, there can be no assurance that
the approvals will be obtained. Also, at this time, even assuming the
acceptances are obtained on a timely basis, the Managing General Partner is
unable to predict with certainty at what point the Property can most effectively
be marketed for sale.
TIA acquired the Property on August 1, 1989. A description of the Property
may be found in the Registrant's Current Report on Form 8-K dated August 15,
1989, a copy of which Report is incorporated herein by reference.
<PAGE>
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Registrant has duly caused this report to
be signed on its behalf by the undersigned, thereunto duly authorized.
MLH INCOME REALTY PARTNERSHIP VI
By: MLH Property Managers Inc.
Managing General Partner
By: ______________________________
Jack A. Cuneo
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chief Operating Officer
Dated: September 15, 1997
