<PAGE>
UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549
FORM 10-K
[X] Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934
For the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998
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 Number 0-17557
Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P.
(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)
Delaware 36-3569428
(State or other jurisdiction of (I.R.S. Employer
incorporation or organization) Identification No.)
30 North LaSalle Street, Chicago, Illinois 60602
(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)
(312) 759-7660
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:
Title of each class Name of each exchange on
which registered
None None
Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:
Depository Units representing Beneficial Assignments of Limited
Partnership Interests
(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 (Section 229.405 of this chapter) is
not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of
registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information
statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K
or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [ X ]
The aggregate sales price of the depositary units representing
beneficial assignments of limited partnership interests of the
registrant (the "Units") to unaffiliated investors of the
registrant during the initial offering period was $25,000,000.
This does not reflect market value. This is the price at which the
Units were sold to the public during the initial offering period.
There is no current market for the Units nor have Units been sold
within the last 60 days prior to this filing.
Portions of the Prospectus of the registrant dated September 4,
1987, as supplemented November 24, 1987 and December 28, 1987 and
filed pursuant to Rule 424(b) and Rule 424(c)under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended, are incorporated by reference into Parts
II, III and IV of this Annual Report on Form 10-K.
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P.
1998 FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT
INDEX
PART I Page
Item 1. Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3
Item 2. Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
Item 3. Legal Proceedings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders. . . . . . 30
PART II
Item 5. Market for the Registrant's Units and Related
Security Holder Matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Item 6. Selected Financial Data. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial
Condition and Results of Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..34
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About
Market Risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data. . . . . . . . . . 44
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on
Accounting and Financial Disclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
PART III
Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Partnership . . . . . 45
Item 11. Executive Compensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners
and Management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions. . . . . . . . 49
PART IV
Item 14. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and
Reports on Form 8-K . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)
PART I
Item 1. Business.
Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P. (the "Partnership") is a Delaware
limited partnership formed in January 1987 for the purpose of
acquiring debt-free ownership of existing, free-standing,
income-producing retail, office and industrial real estate
properties predominantly subject to "triple-net" leases. It was
anticipated at the time the Partnership first offered its Units
(as defined below) that a majority of these properties would be
leased to operators of national franchise fast food restaurants,
automotive services and convenience stores, as well as banks and
savings and loans. The leases would provide for a base minimum
annual rent and increases in rent, such as through participation
in gross sales above a stated level, fixed increases on specific
dates or indexation of rent to indices such as the Consumer Price
Index. The Partnership sold $25,000,000 in depository units
representing beneficial assignments of limited partnership
interests (the "Units") commencing September 4, 1987, at $10.00
per Unit (the "Offering") pursuant to a Registration Statement on
Form S-11 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended. The
Offering closed on May 19, 1988. An additional $2,922,102 has
been raised through the sale of additional Units pursuant to the
Partnership's distribution reinvestment plan (the "Plan") through
December 31, 1998. These Units were purchased from the Units
reserved for the Plan after the termination of the Offering. As
of December 31, 1998, $1,647,070 of Units sold through the
Offering have been repurchased by the Partnership from investors
liquidating their investment and have been retired. The investors
in the Partnership (the "Interest Holders") share in the benefits
of ownership of the Partnership's real property investments
according to the number of Units each owns.
The principal investment objectives of the Partnership are: (i)
distribution of current cash flow from the Partnership's cash flow
attributable to rental income; (ii) capital appreciation; (iii)
preservation and protection of capital; (iv) the potential for
increased income and protection against inflation through
escalation in the base rent or participation and growth in the
sales of the lessees of the Partnership's properties; (v) the
production of "passive" income to offset "passive" losses from
other investments; and (vi) the partial shelter of cash
distributions for Taxable Interest Holders.
A Taxable Interest Holder is defined as: (a) an Interest Holder
who purchased Units from the Partnership during the Offering and
who at the time of such purchase was not: (i) a Qualified Plan;
(ii) an organization (other than a cooperative described in
Section 521 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended [the
"Code"]) which is exempt from tax imposed by Chapter 1 (Normal
Taxes and Surtaxes) of the Code; or (iii) a foreign person or
entity, unless more than 50% of the gross income derived by the
foreign person or entity from the Partnership is subject to U.S.
income tax; and (b) each subsequent transferee of any Units from
an Interest Holder described in (a) above.
A Tax-Exempt Interest Holder is defined as: (a) an Interest
Holder who purchased Units from the Partnership during the
Offering and who at the time of such purchase was: (i) a
Qualified Plan; (ii) an organization (other than a cooperative
described in Section 521 of the Code) which is exempt from tax
imposed by Chapter 1 (Normal Taxes and Surtaxes) of the Code; or
(iii) a foreign person or entity, unless more than 50% of the
gross income derived by the foreign person or entity from the
Partnership is subject to U.S. income tax; (b) a Taxable Interest
Holder who elects to be treated as an investor described in (a)
above; and (c) each subsequent transferee of any Units from an
Interest Holder described in (a) and (b) above.
Some tax shelter of cash distributions by the Partnership is
available to Taxable Interest Holders through depreciation of the
underlying properties. Taxable Interest Holders benefit from the
special allocation of all depreciation to the Units which they
acquired from the Partnership because their reduced taxable income
each year will result in a reduction in taxes due, although no
"spill-over" losses are expected. Taxable income generated by
property operations will likely be considered passive income for
federal income tax purposes because Section 469(c)(2) of the Code
states that a passive activity includes "any rental activity" and,
therefore, is available to offset losses Taxable Interest Holders
may have realized in other passive investments.
It was originally contemplated that the Partnership would
dispose of its properties approximately six to nine years after
their acquisition with a view towards liquidation of the
Partnership within that period.
In accordance therewith, the Partnership entered into an
agreement and plan of merger dated as of June 14, 1996, as amended
March 24, 1997, June 30, 1997, September 30, 1997, December 31,
1997 and March 31, 1998 and June 30, 1998 (the "Merger
Agreement"). The Partnership proposed to merge with and into
Brauvin Real Estate Funds L.L.C., a Delaware limited liability
company (the "Purchaser"), affiliated with certain of the General
Partners through a merger of its Units. Although the Merger will
not be consummated, the following text describes the transaction.
Promptly upon consummation of the Merger, the Partnership would
have ceased to exist and the Purchaser, as the surviving entity,
would succeed to all of the assets and liabilities of the
Partnership. The Interest Holders holding a majority of the Units
voted to approve the Merger on November 8, 1996. The Interest
Holders also voted to approve an amendment to the Agreement
allowing the Partnership to sell or lease property to affiliates
(this amendment, together with the Merger shall be referred to
herein as the "Transaction").
The redemption price to be paid to the Interest Holders in
connection with the Merger was based on the fair market value of
the properties of the Partnership (the "Assets"). Cushman &
Wakefield Valuation Advisory Services ("Cushman & Wakefield"), an
independent appraiser, the largest real estate valuation and
consulting organization in the United States, was engaged by the
Partnership to prepare an appraisal of the Assets, to satisfy the
Partnership's requirements under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended. Cushman & Wakefield determined
the fair market value of the Assets to be $23,198,450, or $8.83
per Unit, as of April 1, 1996. Subsequently, the Partnership
purchased a 16% interest in Brauvin Bay County Venture. Based on
the terms of the Merger Agreement, the fair market value of the
Assets were to be increased by the amount of the investment in
Brauvin Bay County Venture, and correspondingly, the Partnership's
cash holdings were reduced by the same amount and, therefore, the
total redemption amount would remain unchanged. The redemption
price of $9.31 per Unit also included all remaining cash of the
Partnership, less net earnings of the Partnership from and after
August 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, less the Partnership's
actual costs incurred and accrued through the effective time at
the filing of the certificate of merger, including reasonable
reserves in connection with: (i) the proxy solicitation; (ii) the
Transaction (as detailed in the Merger Agreement); and (iii) the
winding up of the Partnership, including preparation of the final
audit, tax return and K-1s (collectively, the "Transaction Costs")
and less all other Partnership obligations. Of the original cash
redemption amount, approximately $0.48 was distributed to Interest
Holders in the December 31, 1997 distribution.
The General Partners were not to receive any payment in exchange
for the redemption of their general partnership interests nor
would they have received any fees from the Partnership in
connection with the Transaction. The Managing General Partner and
his son, James L. Brault, an executive officer of the Corporate
General Partner, were to have a minority ownership interest in the
Purchaser.
The Merger was not completed primarily due to certain litigation
that was still pending at December 31, 1998. The General
Partners believe that these lawsuits are without merit and,
therefore, continue to vigorously defend against them. However,
because of the August 12, 1998 rulings of the District Court in
the Christman litigation, as described in Item 3, it is not
possible for the Merger to be consummated.
The terms of the transactions between the Partnership and
affiliates of the General Partners of the Partnership are set
forth in Item 13 below. Reference is hereby made to such sections
for a description of such terms and transactions.
The restated limited partnership agreement of the Partnership
(the "Agreement") provides that the Partnership shall terminate
December 31, 2025, unless sooner terminated pursuant to its terms.
The Partnership has no employees.
Market Conditions/Competition
The Partnership has utilized its proceeds available for
investment to acquire properties. Since the leases of certain of
the Partnership's properties entitle the Partnership to
participate in gross receipts of lessees above fixed minimum
amounts, the success of the Partnership will depend in part on the
ability of those lessees to compete with similar businesses in
their respective vicinities.
Since the Merger will not be completed, the General Partners
will have to determine whether to continue the Partnership's
operations or attempt to sell some or all of the properties. The
Partnership has and continues to compete with many other entities
engaged in real estate activities. The General Partners will
evaluate factors such as the economy, the lease terms, the
financial strength of the existing tenants and the ability to
locate potential purchasers.
Item 2. Properties.
The Partnership is a landlord only and does not participate in
the operations of any of the properties discussed herein. All
lease payments due the Partnership are current. All properties
are 100% occupied (with the exception of the Buffalo, Palm Bay and
Logansport properties) and were paid for in cash, without any
financing. The General Partners believe that the Partnership's
properties are adequately insured.
The following information is presented for the only property
whose cost basis exceeds 10% of the gross proceeds of the
Offering.
On July 21, 1989, the Partnership and Brauvin High Yield Fund
L.P. II ("BHYF II"), an affiliated public real estate limited
partnership, formed a joint venture, Brauvin Funds Joint Venture
("Funds JV"), to purchase a Scandinavian Health Spa (the "Health
Spa") in Glendale, Arizona from an unaffiliated developer for
$5,250,000, plus closing costs. The Health Spa was constructed in
1988. The Health Spa is subject to a triple-net lease with the
lessee, Scandinavian U.S. Swim & Fitness, Inc., which is
responsible for paying all taxes, insurance premiums and
maintenance costs. The lease terminates in 2009. The rent is
payable in equal monthly installments and was increased by 11.5%
on February 1, 1994 and will increase by 11.5% every five years
thereafter. The lease is guaranteed by Bally's Health and Tennis
Corporation whose financial statements reflected a net worth of
approximately $275 million at the time of acquisition. On this
basis, the General Partners determined that no rent insurance
would be required by the Partnership.
The Partnership contributed $2,585,608 (49%) to Funds JV and
BHYF II contributed $2,691,143 (51%). Taxable income and
distributable cash flow have been and will continue to be
allocated according to the venturers' respective capital
contributions.
The following is a summary of the real estate and improvements
of each of the 20 Taco Bell restaurants, 11 Ponderosa restaurants,
the 49% interest in the Scandinavian Health Spa, the 1% interest
in 6 Ponderosa restaurants, the two Children's World Learning
Centers, the 23.4% interest in a CompUSA store and the 16.0%
interest in a Blockbuster Video store purchased by the
Partnership.
Taco Bells:
Warner Robins, Georgia
Unit 1389 is located at 1998 Watson Boulevard. The building
consists of 1,288 square feet situated on a 25,000 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1977 utilizing jumbo bricks.
In December 1998, the Partnership and the tenant agreed to an
additional lease term for this property to begin in October 2003
and expire in October 2013.
Valdosta, Georgia
Unit 1392 is located at 2918 North Ashley Street. The building
consists of 1,288 square feet situated on a 16,222 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1982 utilizing jumbo bricks.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $24,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Warner
Robins, Georgia. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction
of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings
based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land)
and 70% (building).
In December 1998, the Partnership and the tenant agreed to an
additional lease term for this property to begin in August 2002
and expire in August 2013.
Albany, Georgia
Unit 1450 is located at 1707 North Slappey Boulevard. The
building consists of 1,288 square feet situated on a 11,850 square
foot parcel and was constructed in 1982 utilizing jumbo bricks.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $64,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Albany,
Georgia. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the
property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on
the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
In December 1998, the Partnership and the tenant agreed to an
additional lease term for this property to begin in August 2002
and expire in August 2013.
Alliance, Ohio
Unit 1653 is located at 110 West State Street. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 14,400 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete
block with a clay tile roof.
Dunedin, Florida
Unit 1835 is located at 2296 State Route 580. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 21,021 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing jumbo bricks.
In February 1995, Taco Bell closed and vacated this restaurant.
Taco Bell, in accordance with the lease, continued to pay rent and
certain occupancy costs for this property. In March 1996, Taco
Bell and the Partnership agreed to sub-lease this property to a
local tenant. Taco Bell continues to remain responsible to the
Partnership for all rents and certain occupancy expenses through
the original lease term.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $27,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Dunedin,
Florida. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the
property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on
the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
Logansport, Indiana
Unit 1845 is located at 3419 Highway 24 East. Highway 24 East
is a two-lane east-west road. The building consists of 1,566
square feet situated on a 19,200 square foot parcel and was
constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete block.
This property was closed in 1997 but remains current on its
rental payments per the terms of the lease.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $36,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in
Logansport, Indiana. This allowance has been recorded as a
reduction of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and
buildings based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30%
(land) and 70% (building).
In the first quarter of 1999, the tenant gave the partnership
notice that they intend to reopen this facility as a Blimpie's
restaurant.
Dover, Ohio
Unit 1856 is located at 718 Boulevard Avenue. Boulevard Avenue
is a four-lane northwest-southwest highway. The building consists
of 1,584 square feet situated on a 20,500 square foot parcel and
was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $6,000 related to an other than temporary decline in
the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Dover, Ohio.
This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the property's
cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on the
original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
Greenville, North Carolina
Unit 1871 is located at 319 East Greenville Boulevard. The
building consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 22,788 square
foot parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over
concrete block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $308,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in
Greenville, North Carolina. This allowance has been recorded as
a reduction of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and
buildings based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30%
(land) and 70% (building).
Palm Bay, Florida
Unit 1912 is located at 176 North Harris Avenue. Harris Avenue
is a frontage street to Palm Bay Road. The building consists of
1,584 square feet situated on a 15,250 square foot parcel and was
constructed in 1980 utilizing jumbo bricks.
In December 1998, the tenant closed and vacated this property.
However, the tenant remains current on all its lease obligations
with the Partnership.
Sandusky, Ohio
Unit 1915 is located at 3306 Milan Road. The building consists
of 1,584 square feet situated on a 33,000 square foot parcel and
was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete block.
Mesa, Arizona
Unit 1925 is located at 531 East Southern Avenue. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 28,000 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
Zanesville, Ohio
Unit 1929 is located at 2460 North Maple Street. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 17,934 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
Ashtabula, Ohio
Unit 1937 is located at 1226 West Prospect Avenue. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 21,049 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
Dalton, Georgia
Unit 1966 is located at 1509 Walnut Avenue. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 18,275 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $5,000 related to an other than temporary decline in
the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Dalton,
Georgia. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the
property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on
the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
Ashland, Ohio
Unit 1994 is located at 315 Claremont Avenue. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 16,000 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $1,000 related to an other than temporary decline in
the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Ashland,
Ohio. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the
property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on
the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
Martinez, California
Unit 2030 is located at 11 Muir Road. The building consists of
1,584 square feet situated on a 13,940 square foot parcel and was
constructed in 1981 utilizing concrete block over wood frame.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $9,000 related to an other than temporary decline in
the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Martinez,
California. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of
the property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based
on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
Phoenix, Arizona
Unit 2069 is located at 1701 West Bell Street. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 9,375 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1981 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $19,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Phoenix,
Arizona. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the
property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on
the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
Noblesville, Indiana
Unit 2132 is located at 610 West Route 32. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 26,250 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1982 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
Spartanburg, South Carolina
Unit 2200 is located at 800 North Pine Street. The building
consists of 1,584 square feet situated on a 24,750 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1982 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $7,000 related to an other than temporary decline in
the value of real estate for the Taco Bell located in Spartanburg,
South Carolina. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction
of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings
based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land)
and 70% (building).
Winslow, Arizona
Unit 2091 is located at 1605 North Park Drive. The building
consists of 2,808 square feet situated on a 37,651 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1982 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
In March 1999, the Partnership agreed to an assignment of the
tenant's lease for this property to Desert De Oro Foods, Inc.
Ponderosas:
Brandon, Florida
Unit 1061 is located at 1449 West Brandon Boulevard. The
building consists of 6,376 square feet situated on a 50,094 square
foot parcel and was constructed in 1985 utilizing wood siding over
concrete block.
In connection with the Merger, the Partnership has undertaken
environmental studies of potentially affected properties. The
Brandon property has been identified by the environmental study as
having a potential environmental issue. A remedial investigation
and feasibility study has been completed, and the results of that
study have been forwarded to the appropriate authorities. The
study indicates a range of viable remedial approaches, but
agreement has not yet been reached with the authorities on the
final remediation approach. The Partnership has accrued its best
estimate of the costs that will be incurred to complete the
environmental remediation at this property, which is estimated to
be $80,000.
In connection with the purchase of the above property by the
Partnership, the Partnership was to be reimbursed by the former
owner for environmental clean-up. The Partnership will therefore
seek reimbursement of the costs from this former owner. No
estimate of the collectibility of this reimbursement can be made
at this time.
Johnstown, New York
Unit 778 is located at Route 30-A and North Comrie Avenue. The
building consists of 5,833 square feet situated on a 50,094 square
foot parcel and was constructed in 1979 utilizing wood siding over
concrete block.
Indianapolis, Indiana
Unit 109 is located at 2915 South Madison Avenue. The building
consists of 7,040 square feet situated on a 79,645 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1969 utilizing wood siding over
concrete block.
Massena, New York
Unit 752 is located at St. Regis Boulevard and Main Street. The
building consists of 5,817 square feet situated on a 48,399 square
foot parcel and was constructed in 1979 utilizing wood siding over
concrete block.
The tenant has given the Partnership notice of its intent to
purchase the property under the tenant's existing purchase option
the property under the tenants exiting purchase option contained
within the lease. The purchase price of the property will be
based on the appraised value of the asset.
Chenango, New York
Unit 673 is located at 1261 Front Street. The building consists
of 5,402 square feet situated on a 32,712 square foot parcel and
was constructed in 1979 utilizing wood siding over concrete block
and face brick.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $125,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa located in Chenango,
New York. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the
property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on
the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
New Windsor, New York
Unit 782 is located at 334 Windsor Highway. The building
consists of 5,402 square feet situated on a 47,685 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1980 utilizing wood siding over
concrete block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $89,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa located in New
Windsor, New York. This allowance has been recorded as a
reduction of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and
buildings based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30%
(land) and 70% (building).
Wadsworth, Ohio
Unit 775 is located at 135 Great Oaks Trail. The building
consists of 5,800 square feet situated on a 43,560 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1986 utilizing stucco over concrete
block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $32,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa located in
Wadsworth, Ohio. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction
of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings
based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land)
and 70% (building).
Westerville, Ohio
Unit 815 is located at 728 South State Street. The building
consists of 4,528 square feet situated on a 46,478 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1984 utilizing facebrick with wood
siding frontage.
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Unit 194 is located at 308 North Drake Road. The building
consists of 5,088 square feet situated on a 95,383 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1970 utilizing wood siding over
concrete block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $108,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa located in Grand
Rapids, Michigan. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction
of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings
based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land)
and 70% (building).
Buffalo, New York
Unit 677 is located at 2060 Main Street. The building consists
of 5,440 square feet situated on a 192,656 square foot parcel and
was constructed in 1980 and remodeled in 1987 utilizing wood
siding over concrete block with a sloped and shingled roof.
Ponderosa closed this facility on May 27, 1997, but continues
to pay rent to the Partnership per the terms of the lease.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $222,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa located in Buffalo,
New York. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction of the
property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings based on
the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land) and 70%
(building).
Westbourne, Ohio
Unit 409 is located at 3328 Westbourne Drive. The building
consists of 5,400 square feet situated on a 48,000 square foot
parcel and was constructed in 1974 using wood siding over wood
frame.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Partnership recorded an
impairment of $63,000 related to an other than temporary decline
in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa located in
Westbourne, Ohio. This allowance has been recorded as a reduction
of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and buildings
based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30% (land)
and 70% (building).
Joint Venture Ponderosas:
Louisville, Kentucky
Unit 110 is located at 4801 Dixie Highway. The building, built
in 1969, consists of 5,100 square feet situated on a 62,496 square
foot parcel. The building was constructed utilizing wood siding
over concrete block with flagstone.
Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio
Unit 268 is located at 1641 State Road. The building, built in
1973, consists of 5,587 square feet situated on a 40,228 square
foot parcel. The building was constructed utilizing wood siding
over concrete block.
In September 1997, Ponderosa and the Joint Venture Partnership
agreed to sub-lease this property to a local franchisee.
Ponderosa continues to remain responsible to the Partnership for
all rent and certain occupancy expenses through the original lease
term.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Joint Venture Partnership
recorded an impairment of $8,000 related to an other than
temporary decline in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa
located in Cuyahoga Falls, Ohio. This allowance has been recorded
as a reduction of the property's cost, and allocated to the land
and buildings based on the original acquisition cost allocation of
30% (land) and 70% (building).
Tipp City, Ohio
Unit 785 is located at 135 South Garber. The building, built
in 1980, consists of 6,080 square feet situated on a 53,100 square
foot parcel. The building was constructed utilizing wood siding
over concrete block.
Ponderosa closed this facility on June 1, 1997, but continues
to pay rent to the Partnership per the terms of lease.
In April of 1999, the property was subleased to an operator of
a sports bar concept through the remaining term of the original
lease. The original tenant remains fully liable under the terms
of the original lease through maturity.
In April 1999, the Partnership agreed to a sublease of this
facility to Bullie's Sports Bar & Grill, Inc.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Joint Venture Partnership
recorded an impairment of $130,000 related to an other than
temporary decline in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa
located in Tipp City, Ohio. This allowance has been recorded as
a reduction of the property's cost, and allocated to the land and
buildings based on the original acquisition cost allocation of 30%
(land) and 70% (building).
Mansfield, Ohio
Unit 850 is located at 1075 Ashland Road. The building, built
in 1980, consists of 5,600 square feet situated on a 104,500
square foot parcel. The building was constructed utilizing wood
siding over concrete block and flagstone.
In January 1998, the joint venture sold this closed property to
an unaffiliated third party for approximately $750,000. This sale
resulted in an immaterial loss to the joint venture partnership.
Tampa, Florida
Unit 1060 is located at 4420 West Gandy. The building, built
in 1986, consists of 5,777 square feet situated on a 50,094 square
foot parcel. The building was constructed utilizing wood siding
over concrete block.
Mooresville, Indiana
Unit 1057 is located at 499 South Indiana Street. The building,
built in 1981, consists of 6,770 square feet situated on a 63,525
square foot parcel. The building was constructed utilizing wood
siding over concrete block.
During the third quarter of 1998, the Joint Venture Partnership
recorded an impairment of $68,000 related to an other than
temporary decline in the value of real estate for the Ponderosa
located in Mooresville, Indiana. This allowance has been recorded
as a reduction of the property's cost, and allocated to the land
and buildings based on the original acquisition cost allocation of
30% (land) and 70% (building).
Scandinavian Health Spa:
Glendale, Arizona
The Partnership has a 49% interest in a joint venture with an
affiliated real estate limited partnership that purchased the
Scandinavian Health Spa. The Health Spa is a 36,556 square foot
health club located on a three acre parcel in Glendale, Arizona,
a suburb of Phoenix. The property is a two-story health and
fitness workout facility located within the 195,000 square foot
Glendale Galleria Shopping Center.
Children's World Learning Centers:
Troy, Michigan
The Children's World Learning Center is a 6,175 square foot
facility located at 1064 East Wattles. The single-story building
was constructed in 1985 utilizing a wood frame and a pitched roof
with asphalt shingles.
Sterling Heights, Michigan
The Children's World Learning Center is a 5,005 square foot
facility located at 35505 Schoenherr. The single-story building
was constructed in 1983 utilizing a wood frame and a pitched roof
with asphalt shingles.
CompUSA:
Duluth, Georgia
The Partnership owns a 23.4% interest in a joint venture with
affiliated public real estate limited partnerships that acquired
the land and building underlying a CompUSA store. The CompUSA
store is a 25,000 square foot single story building located on a
105,919 square foot parcel in Duluth, Georgia, a suburb of
Atlanta, in the Gwinnett Place Mall Shopping Area. The single
story building was completed in March 1993 utilizing a frame of
steel and concrete block.
Blockbuster Video:
Callaway, Florida
The Partnership owns a 16.0% interest in a joint venture with
affiliated public real estate limited partnerships that acquired
the land and building underlying a Blockbuster Video store. The
property is located at 123 N. Tydall Parkway on the major arterial
in the Panama City, Florida area. The property contains a 6,466
square foot building located on a 40,075 square foot parcel of
land.
The following table summarizes the operations of the
Partnership's properties.
<TABLE>
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND
SUMMARY OF OPERATING DATA
DECEMBER 31, 1998
<CAPTION>
1998
PERCENT OF 1998 PERCENT LEASE
PURCHASE ORIGINAL RENTAL OF RENTAL EXPIRATION RENEWAL
PROPERTIES PRICE UNITS SOLD INCOME INCOME DATES OPTIONS
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
49% OF 1 SCANDINAVIAN HEALTH SPA $ 2,572,500 10.3% $ 350,450 12.0% 2009 4 FIVE YEAR OPTIONS
1% OF 6 PONDEROSA RESTAURANTS 56,850 0.2% 6,319 0.2% 2003 4 FIVE YEAR OPTIONS
23.4% OF 1 COMPUSA STORE 549,900 2.2% 58,131 2.0% 2008 4 FIVE YEAR OPTIONS
20 TACO BELL RESTAURANTS 6,770,707 27.1% 1,120,233 38.4% 2000-2006 NONE
11 PONDEROSA RESTAURANTS 10,087,611 40.3% 1,217,559 41.8% 2003 4 FIVE YEAR OPTIONS
2 CHILDREN'S WORLD LEARNING CENTERS 1,096,078 4.4% 145,659 5.0% 2003-2005 4 FIVE YEAR OPTIONS
16.0% of 1 BLOCKBUSTER
VIDEO STORE 162,213 .6% 17,480 0.6% 2006 3 FIVE YEAR OPTIONS
$21,295,859 85.1% $2,915,831 100.0%
<FN>
<F1>
NOTE - THE FORMAT OF THIS SCHEDULE DIFFERS FROM THE INCOME STATEMENT OF THE PARTNERSHIP.
THIS SCHEDULE ALLOCATES THE PARTNERSHIP'S SHARE OF PURCHASE PRICE AND RENTAL INCOME FROM EACH JOINT VENTURE.
THE INCOME STATEMENT USES THE EQUITY METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, THEREFORE, NO RENTAL INCOME IS RECORDED IN THE RENTAL
INCOME ACCOUNTS FOR THE JOINT VENTURES.
</FN>
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
Risks of Ownership
The possibility exists that the tenants of the Partnership's
properties may be unable to fulfill their obligations pursuant to
the terms of their leases, including making base rent or
percentage rent payments to the Partnership. Such a default by
the tenants or a premature termination of any one of the leases
could have an adverse effect on the financial position of the
Partnership. Furthermore, the Partnership may be unable to
successfully locate a substitute tenant due to the fact that these
buildings have been designed or built primarily to house a
specific operation. Thus, the properties may not be readily
marketable to a new tenant without substantial capital
improvements or remodeling. Such improvements may require
expenditure of Partnership funds otherwise available for
distribution. In addition, because in excess of 40% of the
Partnership's cash available for investment has been invested in
properties operated as Ponderosa family restaurants and in excess
of 38% of the Partnership's rental income is from properties
operated as Taco Bells restaurants, the Partnership is subject to
some risk of loss should adverse events affect Ponderosa or Taco
Bell restaurants and in turn adversely affect the lessees' ability
to pay rent to the Partnership.
Item 3. Legal Proceedings.
Two legal actions, as hereinafter described, were pending at
December 31, 1998 against the General Partners of the Partnership
and affiliates of such General Partners, as well as against the
Partnership on a nominal basis in connection with the Merger, with
regard to the Illinois Christman lawsuit, as described below. On
April 13, 1999, all the parties to the litigation reached an
agreement to settle the litigation, subject to the approval by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Management believes that the settlement will not have
a material financial impact on the Partnership. The terms of the
settlement agreement, along with a Notice to the Class, will be
forwarded to the Interest Holders in the second quarter of 1999. One
additional legal action, which was dismissed on January 28, 1998
had also been brought against the General Partners of the
Partnership and affiliates of such General Partners, as well as
the Partnership on a nominal basis in connection with the Merger.
With respect to these actions the Partnership and the General
Partners and their named affiliates denied all allegations set
forth in the complaints and vigorously defended against such
claims.
A. The Dismissed Florida Lawsuit
On September 17, 1996, a lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court
of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida, styled Rebecca Scialpi and Helen Friedlander v. Jerome J.
Brault, Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors II,
Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors III, Inc., and Brauvin Realty
Advisors IV, Inc., James L. Brault, and Brauvin Real Estate Funds,
L.L.C. and Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P., Brauvin High Yield Fund
L.P. II, Brauvin Income Plus L.P. III, and Brauvin Corporate Lease
Program IV, L.P., Docket No. 96012807. The Partnership and the
other affiliated partnerships named in this lawsuit (the
"Affiliated Partnerships") that were proposed to be a party to a
merger or sale with the Purchaser, were each named as a "Nominal
Defendant" in this lawsuit. The named plaintiffs were not limited
partners in the Partnership. Rather, the named plaintiffs are
limited partners in Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P. II, one of the
Affiliated Partnerships. Jerome J. Brault, the Managing General
Partner of the Partnership, and Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., the
Corporate General Partner of the Partnership, as well as certain
corporate general partners of the Affiliated Partnerships, were
named as defendants in this lawsuit. James L. Brault, an officer
of the Corporate General Partner and the son of Jerome J. Brault,
was also named as a defendant. This lawsuit was dismissed for
want of prosecution on January 28, 1998.
B. The Illinois Christman Lawsuit
On September 18, 1996, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, styled M. Barbara Christman, Joseph Forte, Janet M.
Toolson, John Archbold, and Ben O. Carroll v. Brauvin Realty
Advisors, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors II, Inc., Brauvin Realty
Advisors III, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors IV, Inc., Jerome J.
Brault, Brauvin Real Estate Funds, L.L.C. and Brauvin High Yield
Fund L.P., Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P. II, Brauvin Income Plus
L.P. III, and Brauvin Corporate Lease Program IV L.P., Docket No.
96C6025. The Partnership and the Affiliated Partnerships are each
named as a "Nominal Defendant" in the lawsuit. Jerome J. Brault
and the Corporate General Partner of the Partnership, as well as
the corporate general partners of the Affiliated Partnerships, are
named as defendants.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 8, 1996,
which alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties, breaches of
the Agreement, and violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade
Practices Act. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief,
as well as compensatory and punitive damages, relating to the
Transaction.
On October 2, 1996, the District Court certified plaintiffs'
proposed class as all of the limited partners of the Partnership
and of the Affiliated Partnerships, and appointed plaintiffs'
counsel, The Mills Law Firm, as counsel for the class. On October
2, 1996, the District Court also conducted a hearing on
plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the special meetings of
the limited partners and the Transaction. The District Court
denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction at the
conclusion of the October 2, 1996 hearing.
On September 27, 1996, counsel for plaintiffs, The Mills Law
Firm, mailed a solicitation to all of the Interest Holders,
requesting that they revoke their previously-mailed proxies in
favor of the Merger. On October 11, 1996, the General Partners
filed a counterclaim against plaintiffs and their counsel, The
Mills Law Firm, alleging that plaintiffs and The Mills Law Firm
violated the federal securities laws and proxy rules by sending
their September 27, 1996 letter to the Interest Holders. The
plaintiffs and The Mills Law Firm have moved to dismiss this
counterclaim. The District Court has taken this motion under
advisement and has yet to issue a ruling.
On October 10 and 11, 1996, the District Court conducted an
evidentiary hearing on the motion of the General Partners to
invalidate revocations of proxies procured as a result of The
Mills Law Firm's September 27, 1996 letter. In that evidentiary
hearing, The Mills Law Firm admitted that it violated the proxy
rules by sending its September 27, 1996 letter to the Interest
Holders without filing such letter with the Securities and
Exchange Commission (the "Commission") in violation of the
Commission's requirements. At the conclusion of the hearing on
October 10 and 11, the District Court found that the General
Partners have a likelihood of succeeding on the merits with
respect to their claim that the September 27, 1996 letter sent to
the Interest Holders by plaintiffs and The Mills Law Firm is false
or misleading in several significant respects.
Notwithstanding this finding, the District Court did not
invalidate the revocations of proxies resulting from The Mills Law
Firm's September 27, 1996 letter because it did not believe it
possessed the authority to do so under present law. This ruling
was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh
Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed this appeal on the grounds
that the appeal was rendered moot by the Interest Holders'
approval November 8, 1996 of the Merger.
On October 16, 1996 and on November 6, 1996, the parties filed
cross-motions for partial summary judgement addressing the
allegation in plaintiffs' amended complaint that the Partnership
Agreement does not allow the Interest Holders to vote in favor of
or against the Transaction by proxy. On August 12, 1998, the
District Court granted plaintiffs motion for partial summary
judgement, holding that the Agreement did not allow the Interest
Holders to vote in favor of or against the Transaction by proxy.
On April 2, 1997, the Court granted plaintiffs' leave to again
amend their complaint. In their second amended complaint,
plaintiffs have named the Partnership as a "Nominal Defendant."
Plaintiffs have also added a new claim, alleging that the General
Partners violated certain of the rules of the Securities and
Exchange Commission's (the "Commission") by making false and
misleading statements in the Proxy. Plaintiffs also allege that
the General Partners breached their fiduciary duties, breached
various provisions of the Agreement, violated the Illinois
Deceptive Trade Practice Act, and violated section 17-305 of the
Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The General
Partners deny those allegations and will continue to vigorously
defend against these claims.
On April 2, 1997, plaintiffs again requested that the District
Court enjoin the closing of the Transaction. After conducting a
lengthy hearing on May 1, 1997, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the closing of the
Transaction. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals from the District Court's May 1, 1997
order denying plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the
closing of the Transaction. This appeal was dismissed by the
Seventh District Court of Appeals on January 23, 1998 based on the
appellate courts finding that the District Courts order of January
16, 1998 rendered the appeal moot.
On January 16, 1998, by agreement of the Partnership and the
General Partner and pursuant to a motion of the General Partner,
the District Court entered an order preventing the Partnership and
the General Partners from completing the Merger, or otherwise
disposing of all or substantially all of the Partnership's assets,
until further order from the Court.
On January 28, 1998, the District Court entered an Order of
Reference to Special Master, designating a Special Master and
vesting the Special Master with authority to resolve certain
aspects of the lawsuit subject to the District Court's review and
confirmation. The Special Master has been empowered to determine
how the assets of the Partnership should be sold or disposed of in
a manner which allows the Interest Holders to maximize their
financial return in the shortest practicable time frame. In
addition, early in the second quarter of 1998, the Special Master
retained a financial advisor (the "Financial Advisor"), at the
expense of the Partnership to assist the Special Master. The
Financial Advisor has been engaged to perform a valuation of the
properties of the Partnership as well as a valuation of the
Partnership itself. The cost to the Partnership for the services
of the Financial Advisor was $135,000.
On August 4, 1998, the Special Master filed a Report and
Recommendation with the District Court, expressing the Special
Master's recommendation that the Partnership's properties be
disposed of in an auction conducted by the Financial Advisor under
the direction of the Special Master. The District Court accepted
this Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 1998, the Special
Master filed an additional Report and Recommendation with the
District Court, requesting that the Court withdraw its Order of
Reference to Special Master on the grounds it would be impossible
to effect the sale of the Partnerships in a manner that maximizes
the financial return to Limited Partners in a short time frame,
unless certain litigation issues are resolved. The District Court
has accepted this Report and Recommendation.
On January 21, 1999, plaintiffs filed another amended complaint,
adding additional claims against the General Partners and seeking
class certification under Federal Rule 23 as to the newly added
claims, and as to all other claims in plaintiffs' complaint which
had not been previously certified. The District Court granted
plaintiffs' request for class certification as to all of the
claims not previously certified, and certified all of the claims
of the plaintiffs' complaint under Rule 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2)and
23(b)(3).
In addition, pursuant to the General Partners' motion, the
District Court dismissed as moot certain of plaintiffs' claims,
including plaintiffs' claim that the General Partners violated
certain of the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission by
allegedly making false and misleading statements in the Proxy.
The District Court similarly dismissed as moot a counterclaim that
had been made against class plaintiffs and their counsel for
violating the federal securities laws.
On April 13, 1999, all of the parties reached a Settlement
Agreement encompassing all matters in the lawsuit. The Settlement
Agreement is subject to the approval by the District Court, and
the Interest Holders will be provided with a written notice
concerning its terms. The settlement will not have a material
financial impact on the Partnership.
C. The Scialpi Illinois Lawsuit
On June 20, 1997, another lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled
Benjamin Siegel, Rebecca Scialpi, Helen Friedlander, and BHS &
Associates, Inc. v. Jerome J. Brault, Brauvin Realty Advisors,
Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors II, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors
III, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors IV, Inc., James L. Brault,
Brauvin Real Estate Funds LLC, Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P.,
Brauvin High Yield Fund II L.P., Brauvin Income Plus L.P. III, and
Brauvin Corporate Lease Program IV, L.P. docket number 97 C 4450.
The Partnership and the Affiliated Partnerships are each named as
"Nominal Defendant" in the lawsuit. Jerome J. Brault and the
Corporate General Partner of the Partnership, as well as the
corporate general partners of the Affiliated Partnerships, have
been named as defendants in this lawsuit. James L. Brault, an
officer of the Corporate General Partner and the son of Jerome J.
Brault, is also named as a defendant.
Notably, the complaint was filed by two of the same parties,
Scialpi and Friedlander, who were plaintiffs in the Florida
lawsuit, which is described above. As also indicated above,
Scialpi and Friedlander are not limited partners of the
Partnership, but are limited partners in one of the Affiliated
Partnerships, Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P. II. On August 15, 1997
the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint dropping Benjamin Siegel
as a plaintiff. The plaintiffs are also represented by the same
lawyers that represented them in the Florida lawsuit.
The complaint alleges a putative class action consisting of
claims that certain Commission rules were violated by making false
and misleading statements in the Proxy, the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and breached the Agreement. The complaint
was consolidated with the Christman lawsuit, which is described
above, pursuant to General Rule 2.31 of the United States District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois. The General Partners
deny these allegations and intend to vigorously defend against
these claims. There have been no material developments with
respect to this lawsuit since it was filed on June 20, 1997;
however, management believes that the terms of the April 13, 1999
settlement agreement described above will encompass this lawsuit.
ITEM 4. Submission Of Matters To a Vote of Security Holders.
None.
<PAGE>
PART II
Item 5. Market for the Registrant's Units and Related Security
Holder Matters.
At December 31, 1998, there were approximately 1,840 Interest
Holders in the Partnership. There is no established public
trading market for Units and it is not anticipated that there will
be a public market for Units. Neither the General Partners nor
the Partnership are obligated, but reserve the right, to redeem or
repurchase Units. Units may also be purchased by the Plan in
certain instances. Any Units so purchased shall be retired.
Pursuant to the terms of the Agreement, there are restrictions
on the ability of the Interest Holders to transfer their Units.
In all cases, the General Partners must consent to the
substitution of an Interest Holder.
Cash distributions to Interest Holders for 1998, 1997 and 1996
were $1,974,310, $3,753,547, and $1,321,381, respectively. Prior
to the commencement of the Partnership's proxy solicitation in
August 1996, distributions were paid four times per year, within
60 days following the end of each calendar quarter. See Item 7.
All distributions represent cash flow from operations. No amount
distributed was a return of capital. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, net income after August 1, 1996 was to accrue to
the Purchaser and, therefore, the net income through July 31, 1996
was to be distributed to the Interest Holders at the time of the
closing of the Merger. Since the net income of the Partnership
after August 1, 1996 was to accrue to the Purchaser, no
distributions of net income were paid to the Interest Holders for
the two months of August and September 1996 and the quarter ended
December 31, 1996. Included in the December 31, 1997 distribution
was any prior period earnings including amounts previously
reserved for anticipated closing costs. Since the Transaction
will not be completed the General Partners have decided to
distribute part of the net earnings earned from August 1, 1996
until December 31, 1996 to the Interest Holders.
<PAGE>
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)
(Not Covered By Independent Auditor's Report)
Item 6. Selected Financial Data.
Years Ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996
1998 1997 1996
Selected Income Statement Data:
Rental Income $2,483,451 $ 2,514,561 $ 2,447,036
Interest and other 81,257 137,130 88,582
Net Income 816,736 2,006,768 1,836,063
Net Income Per Unit (a) $ 0.30 $ 0.75 $ 0.69
Selected Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and Cash Equivalents $1,478,616 $ 1,030,464 $ 2,231,481
Land and Buildings 18,177,975 19,322,975 19,322,975
Investment in Brauvin High
Yield Venture 18,726 31,007 32,374
Investment in Brauvin Funds
Joint Venture 2,413,241 2,431,037 2,450,861
Investment in Brauvin
Gwinnett County Venture 534,901 543,333 550,625
Investment in Brauvin Bay
County Venture 165,884 166,329 171,433
Total Assets 18,802,917 19,917,525 21,553,997
Cash Distributions to
General Partners 105,317 -- 26,798
Cash Distributions to
Interest Holders (b) 1,974,310 3,753,547 1,321,381
Cash Distributions to
Interest Holders Per
Unit(a) $ 0.75 $ 1.43 $ 0.50
(a) Net income per Unit and cash distributions to Interest Holders
per Unit are based on the average Units outstanding during the
year since they were of varying dollar amounts and percentages
based upon the date Interest Holders were admitted to the
Partnership and additional Units were purchased through the
Plan.
(b) This includes $8,340, $1,989, and $8,682 paid to various states
for income taxes on behalf of all Interest Holders for the
years 1998, 1997 and 1996, respectively.
The above selected financial data should be read in conjunction
with the financial statements and the related notes appearing
elsewhere in this annual report.
<PAGE>
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)
(Not Covered By Independent Auditor's Report)
Item 6. Selected Financial Data - continued.
Years Ended December 31, 1995 and 1994
1995 1994
Selected Income Statement Data:
Rental Income $2,502,755 $ 2,494,203
Interest and other Income 63,650 27,682
Net Income 2,367,443 2,296,122
Net Income Per Unit (a) $ 0.91 $ 0.87
Selected Balance Sheet Data:
Cash and Cash Equivalents $ 1,363,085 $ 1,016,066
Land and Buildings 19,322,975 19,322,975
Investment in Brauvin High
Yield Venture 33,746 34,179
Investment in Brauvin Funds
Joint Venture 2,472,647 2,494,341
Investment in Brauvin
Gwinnett County Venture 557,389 569,626
Total Assets 20,932,600 21,010,763
Cash Distributions to
General Partners 52,869 53,233
Cash Distributions to
Interest Holders (b) 2,600,149 2,616,758
Cash Distributions to
Interest Holders Per
Unit(a) $ 1.00 $ 1.01
(a) Net income per Unit and cash distributions to Interest
Holders per Unit are based on the average Units outstanding
during the year since they were of varying dollar amounts
and percentages based upon the date Interest Holders were
admitted to the Partnership and additional Units were
purchased through the Plan.
(b) This includes $9,209 and $8,342 paid to various states for
income taxes on behalf of all Interest Holders for the
years 1996 and 1995, respectively.
The above selected financial data should be read in conjunction
with the financial statements and the related notes appearing
elsewhere in this annual report.
Item 7. Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition
and Results of Operations.
General
Certain statements in this Annual Report that are not historical
fact constitute "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Discussions
containing forward-looking statements may be found in this section
and in the section entitled "Business." Without limiting the
foregoing, words such as "anticipates," "expects," "intends,"
"plans" and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-
looking statements. These statements are subject to a number of
risks and uncertainties. Actual results could differ materially
from those projected in the forward-looking statements. The
Partnership undertakes no obligation to update these forward-
looking statements to reflect future events or circumstances.
Year 2000
The "Year 2000" problem concerns the inability of computer
technology systems to correctly identify and process date sensitive
information beyond December 31, 1999. Many computers
automatically add the "19" prefix to the last two digits the
computer reads for the year when date information is needed in
computer software programs. Thus when a date beginning on January
1, 2000 is entered into a computer, the computer may interpret this
date as the year "1900" rather than "2000".
The Partnership's computer information technology systems
consists of a network of personal computers linked to a server
built using hardware and software from mainstream suppliers. The
Partnership does not own any equipment that contains embedded
microprocessors, which may also pose a potential Year 2000 problem.
Additionally, the Partnership has no internally generated software
coding to correct as all of the Partnership's software is purchased
and licensed from external providers. These external providers
have assured management that their systems are, or will be, Year
2000 compliant.
The Partnership has two main software packages that contain date
sensitive information, (i) accounting and (ii) investor relations.
In 1997, the Partnership initiated and completed the conversion
from its existing accounting software to a new software program
that is Year 2000 compliant. In 1998, the investor relations
software was also updated to a new software program that is Year
2000 compliant. Management has determined that the Year 2000 issue
will not pose significant operational problems for its remaining
computer software systems. All costs associated with these
conversions are expensed as incurred, and are not material.
Management does not believe that any further expenditures will be
necessary for the Partnership to be Year 2000 compliant. However,
existing personal computers may be replaced from time to time with
newer machines.
Also in 1997, management of the Partnership initiated formal
communications with all of its significant third party vendors,
service providers and financial institutions to determine the
extent to which the Partnership is vulnerable to those third
parties failure to remedy their own Year 2000 issue. There can be
no guarantee that the systems of these third parties will be timely
converted and would not have an adverse effect on the Partnership.
The most reasonably likely worst case scenario for the
Partnership with respect to the Year 2000 issue would be the
inability of certain tenants to timely make their rental payments
beginning in January 2000. This could result in the Partnership
temporarily suffering a depletion of the Partnership's cash
reserves as expenses will need to be paid while the cash flows from
revenues are delayed. The Partnership has no formal Year 2000
contingency plan.
Liquidity and Capital Resources
The Partnership commenced an offering to the public on September
4, 1987 of 1,500,000 Units which was subsequently increased to
2,500,000 Units. The offering closed on May 19, 1988 after
2,500,000 Units were sold. The Partnership purchased the land and
buildings underlying seven Taco Bell restaurants in 1987. In 1988,
the Partnership purchased 13 Taco Bell restaurants, nine Ponderosa
restaurants and an interest in a joint venture which purchased six
Ponderosa restaurants. In 1989, the Partnership purchased the land
and building underlying a Ponderosa restaurant, an interest in a
joint venture which purchased a Scandinavian Health Spa, the land
and buildings underlying two Children's World Learning Centers and
the land and building underlying an additional Ponderosa restaurant.
On November 9, 1993, the Partnership purchased a 23.4% interest
in a joint venture with affiliated public real estate limited
partnerships (the "Venture"). The Venture acquired the land and
building underlying a 25,000 square foot CompUSA computer
superstore from an unaffiliated seller.
On October 31, 1996, the Partnership purchased a 16.0% interest
in a joint venture with affiliated public real estate limited
partnerships (the "Bay County Venture"). The Bay County Venture
purchased real property upon which a newly constructed Blockbuster
Video store is operated. The property contains a 6,466 square foot
building located on a 40,075 square foot parcel of land.
The Partnership raised $25,000,000 through its initial offering
and an additional $2,922,102, as of December 31, 1998, through
Units purchased by certain Interest Holders investing their
distributions of Operating Cash Flow in additional Units through
the Plan, which process continued until the proxy solicitation
process began. As of December 31, 1998, Units valued at $1,647,070
have been repurchased by the Partnership from Interest Holders
liquidating their original investment and have been retired. The
Partnership has no funds available to purchase additional property,
excluding those raised through the Plan.
Below is a table summarizing the four year historical data for
distribution rates per unit:
Distribution
Date 1999 1998 (a) 1997(b) 1996 1995
February 15 $.2898 $ -- $.2274 $.2500 $.2500
May 15 -- .2473 .2013 .2500 .2500
August 15 -- .1920 .2745 -- .2500
November 1 - .3088 .7245 -- .2500
(a) The 1998 distributions were made on May 8, 1998, August 15,
1998, November 15, 1998, and February 15, 1999.
(b) The 1997 distributions were made on March 31, 1997, July 15,
1997, October 22, 1997, and December 31, 1997.
Distributions of the Partnership's net earnings for the periods
January 1, 1997 to March 31, 1997, April 1, 1997 to June 30, 1997,
July 1, 1997 to September 30, 1997 and October 1, 1997 to December
31, 1997 were made to the Interest Holders on March 31, 1997, July
15, 1997, October 22, 1997 and December 31, 1997, respectively, in
the amounts of approximately $597,600, $529,000, $721,300 and
$1,903,600. In addition, distributions of approximately $2,000 were
paid to various states for income taxes on behalf of all Interest
Holders during 1997.
Distributions of the Partnership's net earnings for the periods
January 1, 1998 to March 31, 1998, April 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998,
July 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998, and October 1, 1998 to December
31, 1998, were made to Interest Holders on May 8, 1998, August 15,
1998, November 15, 1998 and February 15, 1999, respectively, in the
amounts of approximately $650,000, $504,000, $812,000 and $762,000.
Per the terms of the cash out Merger, the Partnership's net
earnings from April 1996 through July 1996 were to be distributed
to the Interest Holders in conjunction with the closing of the
Merger. However, because of the lengthy delay and the uncertainty
of the ultimate closing date, the General Partners decided to make
a significant distribution on December 31, 1997 of the Partnership's
earnings. Included in the December 31, 1997 distribution was any
prior period earnings including amounts previously reserved for
anticipated closing costs.
Based on the August 12, 1998, ruling of the District Court in the
Christman litigation, it is not possible for the Merger to be
consummated. The reserves will be re-established by the Partnership
as soon as a definitive sale process has been determined and the
associated costs and reserves can be identified.
During the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, the
General Partners and their affiliates earned management fees of
$25,119, $24,929, and $24,994, respectively, and received $105,317,
$0.00 and $26,798 in Operating Cash Flow distributions for the years
ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996, respectively. In January
1998, the Partnership paid the General Partners approximately
$75,500 as an operating cash flow distribution for the year ended
December 31, 1997.
Future increases in the Partnership's distributions will largely
depend on increased sales at the Partnership's properties resulting
in additional percentage rent and, to a lesser extent on rental
increases, which will occur due to increases in receipts from
certain leases based upon increases in the Consumer Price Index or
scheduled increases of base rent.
Although the Merger Agreement will not be consummated, the
following text describes the Transaction. Pursuant to the terms of
the Merger Agreement the Interest Holders would have received
approximately $9.31 per Unit in cash (of this amount approximately
$0.48 has already been distributed to the Interest Holders).
Promptly upon consummation of the Merger, the Partnership would have
ceased to exist and the Purchaser, as the surviving entity, would
have succeeded to all of the assets and liabilities of the
Partnership.
The Partnership drafted a proxy statement, which required prior
review and comment by the Commission, to solicit proxies for use at
the Special Meeting originally scheduled to be held at the offices
of the Partnership on September 24, 1996. As a result of various
legal issues, as described in "Legal Proceedings", the Special
Meeting was adjourned to November 8, 1996 at 9:00 a.m. The purpose
of the Special Meeting was to vote upon the Merger and certain other
matters as described in the Proxy.
By approving the Merger, the Interest Holders also would have
approved an amendment to the Agreement allowing the Partnership to
sell or lease property to affiliates (this amendment, together with
the Merger shall be referred to herein as the "Transaction"). The
Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act (the "Act")
provides that a merger must also be approved by the general partners
of a partnership, unless the limited partnership agreement provides
otherwise. Because the Agreement did not address this matter, at
the Special Meeting, Interest Holders holding a majority of the
Units were also asked to approve the adoption of an amendment to the
Agreement to allow the majority vote of the Interest Holders to
determine the outcome of the transaction with the Purchaser without
the vote of the General Partners. Neither the Act nor the Agreement
provides the Interest Holders not voting in favor of the Transaction
with dissenters' appraisal rights.
The redemption price to be paid to the Interest Holders in
connection with the Merger was based on the fair market value of the
properties of the Partnership (the "Assets"). Cushman & Wakefield
Valuation Advisory Services ("Cushman & Wakefield"), an independent
appraiser, the largest real estate valuation and consulting
organization in the United States, was engaged by the Partnership
to prepare an appraisal of the Assets, to satisfy the Partnership's
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended. Cushman & Wakefield determined the fair market
value of the Assets to be $23,198,450, or $8.83 per Unit. The
redemption price of $9.31 per Unit also included all remaining cash
of the Partnership, less net earnings of the Partnership from and
after August 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996, less the
Partnership's actual costs incurred and accrued through the
effective time at the filing of the certificate of merger, including
reasonable reserves in connection with: (i) the proxy solicitation;
(ii) the Transaction (as detailed in the Merger Agreement); and
(iii) the winding up of the Partnership, including preparation of
the final audit, tax return and K-1s (collectively, the "Transaction
Costs") and less all other Partnership obligations. Of the total
redemption price stated above approximately $0.48 was distributed
to Interest Holders in the December 31, 1997 distribution.
Cushman & Wakefield subsequently provided an opinion as to the
fairness of the Transaction to the Interest Holders from a financial
point of view. In its opinion, Cushman & Wakefield advised that the
price per Unit reflected in the Transaction was fair, from a
financial point of view, to the Interest Holders. Cushman &
Wakefield's determination that a price is "fair" does not mean that
the price was the highest price which might be obtained in the
marketplace, but rather that based on the appraised values of the
Assets, the price reflected in the Transaction was believed by
Cushman & Wakefield to be reasonable.
Mr. Jerome J. Brault is the Managing General Partner of the
Partnership and Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. is the Corporate
General Partner. On April 23, 1997, Mr. David M. Strosberg resigned
as an Individual General Partner of the Partnership. Mr. Cezar M.
Froelich resigned his position as an Individual General Partner of
the Partnership effective as of September 17, 1996. The General
Partners were not to receive any payment in exchange for the
redemption of their general partnership interests nor were they to
receive any fees from the Partnership in connection with the
Transaction. The remaining General Partners do not believe that Mr.
Strosberg's or Mr. Froelich's lack of involvement has had an adverse
effect, and should not in the future have any adverse effect, on the
operations of the Partnership.
The Managing General Partner and his son, James L. Brault, an
executive officer of the Corporate General Partner, were to have a
minority ownership interest in the Purchaser. Therefore, the
Messrs. Brault had an indirect economic interest in consummating the
Transaction that was in conflict with the economic interests of the
Interest Holders. Messrs. Froelich and Strosberg have no
affiliation with the Purchaser.
Although the Special Meeting was held and an affirmative vote of
the majority of the Interest Holders was received, the District
Court in the Christman Litigation ruled on August 12, 1998 in favor
of the plaintiffs motion for summary judgement, holding that the
Agreement did not allow the Interest Holders to vote in favor or
against the Transaction by proxy.
As discussed in Item 3, all the parties to the litigation reached
an agreement to settle the litigation, subject to the approval by
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois. Unfortunately, however, the delay caused by the
litigation has had an adverse effect on the Partnership today as
well as on future prospects.
The 1998 and 1997 distributions were based on the net earnings of
the Partnership in 1998 and 1997. These distributions were lower
than prior distributions because the Partnership incurred
significant valuation fees and legal costs to defend against the
lawsuits. In addition, the remaining term of the Partnership's
properties' leases continue to shrink. This fact is causing the
Partnership to potentially face the risks and costs of lease
rollover. This heightened degree of risk may also have an adverse
effect on the ultimate value of the Assets. Further, the
Partnership's most significant tenant, Ponderosa, has recently
closed and vacated four of the Partnership's properties. (The
Partnership owns one of them directly and has a joint venture
interest in the other three.) The General Partners are working to
remedy this situation. In January 1998, the Brauvin High Yield
Venture partnership sold one of these assets to a third party not
related to either the Purchaser or the Partnership. Although the
closing of the restaurants should not have a significant short term
effect, it could materially affect the Assets' long term prospects.
Unfortunately, these recent developments are some of the exact risks
and costs the Partnership was seeking to avoid with the successful
completion of the Merger.
On January 16, 1998, by agreement of the Partnership and the
General Partner and pursuant to a motion of the General Partner, the
District Court entered an order preventing the Partnership and the
General Partners from completing the Merger, or otherwise disposing
of all or substantially all of the Partnership's assets, until
further order from the Court.
On January 28, 1998, the District Court entered an Order of
Reference to Special Master, designating a Special Master and
vesting the Special Master with authority to resolve certain aspects
of the lawsuit subject to the District Court's review and
confirmation. The Special Master has been empowered to determine
how the assets of the Partnership should be sold or disposed of in
a manner which allows the Interest Holders to maximize their
financial return in the shortest practicable time frame. In
addition, early in the second quarter of 1998, the Special Master
retained a financial advisor (the "Financial Advisor"), at the
expense of the Partnership to assist the Special Master. The
Financial Advisor was engaged to perform a valuation of the
properties of the Partnership as well as a valuation of the
Affiliated Partnership's. The cost to the Partnership for the
services of the Financial Advisor was $135,000.
On August 4, 1998, the Special Master filed a Report and
Recommendation with the District Court expressing the Special
Master's recommendation that the Partnership's properties be
disposed of in an auction conducted by the Financial Advisor under
the direction of the Special Master. The District Court accepted
this Report and Recommendation. On November 4, 1998, the Special
Master filed an additional Report and Recommendation with the
District Court, requesting that the Court withdraw its Order of
Reference to Special Master on the grounds it would be impossible
to effect the sale of the Partnership's properties in a manner that
maximizes the financial return to Limited Partners in a short time
frame, unless certain litigation issues are resolved. The District
Court has accepted this Report and Recommendation.
As detailed in Item 3, by agreement of the Partnership and the
General Partners and pursuant to a motion of the General Partners,
the District Court entered an order preventing the Partnership and
the General Partners from completing the Merger or otherwise
disposing of all or substantially all of the Partnership's assets
until further order of the Court.
Results of Operations - Years ended December 31, 1998 and 1997
Results of operations for the year ended December 31, 1998
reflected net income of $816,736 as compared to net income of
$2,006,768 for the year ended December 31, 1997, a decrease of
approximately $1,190,000. The decrease in net income is primarily
associated with a loss on impairment for an other than temporary
decline in value of the partnerships real estate in the amount of
$1,145,000.
Total income for the year ended December 31, 1998 was $2,564,708
as compared to $2,651,691 for the year ended December 31, 1997, a
decrease of approximately $87,000. The decrease in total income was
primarily a result of a 1997 one-time settlement of outstanding
issues with a major tenant of the Partnership which increased rental
income in 1997. Additionally, total income decreased as a result
of a decrease in interest income which was the result of decreased
funds invested during 1998.
Total expenses for the year ended December 31, 1998 were
$2,102,291 as compared to $997,660 for the year ended December 31,
1997, an increase of approximately $1,105,000. The increase in
expenses was primarily due to a loss on impairment recorded in 1998
in the amount of $1,145,000. Further increasing expenses between
1998 and 1997 was an increase in valuation fees of $135,000 which
was paid to the Financial Advisors. Partially offsetting increases
in expenses between 1998 and 1997 was a decrease in Transaction
costs and environmental remediation of approximately $75,600 and
$80,000, respectively.
Results of Operations - Years ended December 31, 1997 and 1996
Results of operations for the Partnership for the year ended
December 31, 1997 reflected net income of $2,006,768 as compared to
$1,836,063 for the year ended December 31, 1996, an increase of
approximately $170,700.
Total income for the year ended December 31, 1997 was $2,651,691
as compared to $2,535,618 for the year ended December 31, 1996, an
increase of approximately $116,100. Total income was effected by
an increase in interest income as a result of the Partnership having
more funds invested during 1997 as a result of certain provisions
of the Transaction, and an increase in percentage rent at certain
of the Partnership's properties.
Total expenses for the year ended December 31, 1997 were $997,660
as compared to $1,047,225 for the year ended December 31, 1996, a
decrease of approximately $49,600. The decrease in expenses is
primarily the result of: (i) reduced legal and other professional
fees paid or accrued as a result of the Transaction in 1997 when
compared to the 1996 period; and (ii) the Partnership's hiring of
an independent real estate company in 1996 to conduct property
valuations to provide a valuation of the Units to satisfy the
Partnership's requirements under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974, as amended.
Results of Operations - Years ended December 31, 1996 and 1995
Results of operations for the Partnership for the year ended
December 31, 1996 reflected net income of $1,836,063 as compared to
$2,367,443 for the year ended December 31, 1995, a decrease of
approximately $531,400. The decrease in net income resulted from
the increase in expenses as a result of the property valuations and
the Transaction.
Total income for the year ended December 31, 1996 was $2,535,618
as compared to $2,566,405 for the year ended December 31, 1995, a
decrease of approximately $30,800. Total income was effected by an
increase in interest income as a result of the Partnership having
more funds invested during 1996, however, this increase in interest
income was offset by a decline in percentage rent at certain of the
Partnership's properties during 1996.
Total expenses for the year ended December 31, 1996 were
$1,047,225 as compared to $545,438 for the year ended December 31,
1995, an increase of approximately $501,800. The increase in
expenses was primarily the result of: (i) legal and other
professional fees paid or accrued as a result of the Transaction;
and (ii) the Partnership hiring an independent real estate company
to conduct property valuations to provide a valuation of the Units
to satisfy the Partnership's requirements under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended.
Impact of Inflation
The Partnership anticipates that the operations of the
Partnership will not be significantly impacted by inflation. To
offset any potential adverse effects of inflation, the Partnership
entered into "triple-net" leases with the tenant being responsible
for all operating expenses, insurance and real estate taxes. In
addition, several of the leases require escalations of rent based
upon increases in the Consumer Price Index, scheduled increases of
base rents, or tenant sales.
Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market
Risk
The Partnership does not engage in any hedge transactions or derivative
financial instruments,or have any interest sensitive ogligations.
Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data.
See Index of Financial Statements and Schedule on Page F-1 of
this Annual Report on Form 10-K for financial statements and
financial statement schedule, where applicable.
The supplemental financial information specified in Item 302 of
Regulation S-K is not applicable.
Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on
Accounting and Financial Disclosure.
During the Partnership's two most recent fiscal years, there have
been no changes in, or disagreements with, the accountants.
<PAGE>
PART III
Item 10. Directors and Executive Officers of the Partnership.
The General Partners of the Partnership are:
Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., an Illinois corporation
Mr. Jerome J. Brault, individually
Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. was formed under the laws of the
State of Illinois in 1986, with its issued and outstanding shares
being owned by Messrs. Jerome J. Brault (beneficially) (44%), Cezar
M. Froelich (44%) and David M. Strosberg (12%).
The principal officers and directors of the Corporate General
Partner are:
Mr. Jerome J. Brault . Chairman of the Board of
Directors, President, Chief
Executive Officer and Director
Mr. James L. Brault .. Vice President and Secretary
Mr. Thomas E. Murphy .. Treasurer and Chief Financial
Officer
The business experience during the past five years of the General
Partners and the principal officers and directors of the Corporate
General Partner are as follows:
MR. JEROME J. BRAULT (age 65) chairman of the board of directors,
president and chief executive officer of the Corporate General
Partner, as well as a principal shareholder of the Corporate General
Partner. He is a member and manager of Brauvin Real Estate Funds,
L.L.C. He is a member of Brauvin Capital Trust L.L.C. Since 1979,
he has been a shareholder, president and a director of
Brauvin/Chicago, Ltd. He is an officer, director and one of the
principal shareholders of various Brauvin entities which act as the
general partners of six other publicly registered real estate
programs. He is an officer, director and one of the principal
shareholders of Brauvin Associates, Inc., Brauvin Management
Company, Brauvin Advisory Services, Inc. and Brauvin Securities,
Inc., Illinois companies engaged in the real estate and securities
businesses. He is a director, president and chief executive officer
of Brauvin Net Lease V, Inc. He is the chief executive officer of
Brauvin Capital Trust, Inc. Mr. Brault received a B.S. in Business
from DePaul University, Chicago, Illinois in 1959.
MR. JAMES L. BRAULT (age 38) is a vice president and secretary
and is responsible for the overall operations of the Corporate
General Partner and other affiliates of the Corporate General
Partner. He is an officer of various Brauvin entities which act as
the general partners of six other publicly registered real estate
programs. Mr. Brault is executive vice president and assistant
secretary and is responsible for the overall operations of Brauvin
Management Company. He is also an executive vice president and
secretary of Brauvin Net Lease V, Inc. He is a manager of Brauvin
Real Estate Funds, L.L.C., Brauvin Capital Trust, L.L.C. and
BA/Brauvin L.L.C. He is the president of Brauvin Capital Trust,
Inc. Prior to joining the Brauvin organization in May 1989, he was
a Vice President of the Commercial Real Estate Division of the First
National Bank of Chicago ("First Chicago"), based in their
Washington, D.C. office. Mr. Brault joined First Chicago in 1983
and his responsibilities included the origination and management of
commercial real estate loans, as well as the direct management of
a loan portfolio in excess of $150 million. Mr. Brault received a
B.A. in Economics from Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts
in 1983 and an M.B.A. in Finance and Investments from George
Washington University, Washington, D.C. in 1987. Mr. Brault is the
son of Mr. Jerome J. Brault.
MR. THOMAS E. MURPHY (age 32) is the treasurer and chief
financial officer of the Corporate General Partner and other
affiliates of the Corporate General Partner. He is the chief
financial officer of various Brauvin entities which act as the
general partners of six other publicly registered real estate
programs. Mr. Murphy is also the chief financial officer of Brauvin
Associates, Inc., Brauvin Management Company, Brauvin Financial,
Inc., Brauvin Securities, Inc. and Brauvin Net Lease V, Inc. He is
the treasurer, chief financial officer and secretary of Brauvin
Capital Trust, Inc. He is responsible for the Partnership's
accounting and financial reporting to regulatory agencies. He
joined the Brauvin organization in July 1994. Prior to joining the
Brauvin organization he worked in the accounting department of
Zell/Merrill Lynch and First Capital Real Estate Funds where he was
responsible for the preparation of the accounting and financial
reporting for several real estate limited partnerships and
corporations. Mr. Murphy received a B.S. degree in Accounting from
Northern Illinois University in 1988. Mr. Murphy is a Certified
Public Accountant and is a member of the Illinois Certified Public
Accountants Society.
Item 11. Executive Compensation.
(a & b)The Partnership is required to pay certain fees, make
distributions and allocate a share of the profits and losses of the
Partnership to the Corporate General Partner and its affiliates as
described under the caption "Compensation Table" on pages 11 to 13
of the Partnership's Prospectus, as supplemented, and the sections
of the Agreement entitled "Distributions of Operating Cash Flow,"
"Allocation of Profits, Losses and Deductions," "Distribution of Net
Sale or Refinancing Proceeds" and "Compensation of General Partners
and Their Affiliates" on pages A-12 to A-17 of the Agreement
attached as Exhibit A to the Prospectus. The relationship of the
Corporate General Partner (and its directors and officers) to its
affiliates is set forth above in Item 10. Reference is also made
to Note 2 of the Notes to the Financial Statements filed with this
annual report for a description of such distributions and
allocations.
The General Partners are entitled to receive Acquisition Fees for
services rendered in connection with the selection, purchase,
construction or development of any property by the Partnership
whether designated as real estate commissions, acquisition fees,
finders' fees, selection fees, development fees, construction fees,
non-recurring management fees, consulting fees or any other similar
fees or commissions, however treated for tax or accounting purposes.
Aggregate Acquisition Fees payable to all persons in connection with
the purchase of Partnership properties may not exceed such
compensation as is customarily charged in arm's-length transactions
by others rendering similar services as an ongoing public activity
in the same geographic locale and for comparable properties. The
aggregate Acquisition Fees to be paid to the General Partners and
their affiliates shall not exceed 4-1/2% of the gross proceeds of
the Offering. In addition, an additional Acquisition Fee may be
paid to the General Partners and its affiliates to the extent of
excess working capital reserves (as defined). No acquisition fees
were paid in 1998 or 1997. An acquisition fee of $8,588 was paid
in 1996 related to the Bay County Venture purchase.
An affiliate of the General Partners may provide leasing and
re-leasing services to the Partnership in connection with the
management of Partnership properties. The maximum property
management fee to the General Partners or their affiliates shall be
equal to 1% of the gross revenues of each Partnership property or
interest therein; however, the receipt of such property management
fees by the General Partners or their affiliates is subordinated to
the receipt by the Interest Holders of a 10% non-cumulative,
non-compounded annual return on Adjusted Investment. In 1998, 1997
and 1996, the Partnership paid management fees of $25,278, $22,754,
and $24,994, respectively, to affiliates of the General Partners.
(c, d, e & f) Not applicable.
(g) The Partnership has no employees and pays no
employee or director compensation.
(h & i) Not applicable.
(j) Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider
Participation. Since the Partnership has no
employees, it did not have a compensation committee
and is not responsible for the payment of any
compensation.
(k) Not applicable.
(l) Not applicable.
The following is a summary of all fees, commissions and other
expenses paid or payable to the General Partners or their affiliates
for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996:
1998 1997 1996
Selling commissions $ -- $ -- $ 9,010
Management fees 25,119 24,929 24,994
Reimbursable operating expense 137,597 146,195 118,764
Legal fees -- 267 2,737
Acquisition fees -- -- 8,588
Transaction costs -- -- 10,854
As of December 31, 1998 and 1997, the Partnership has made all
payments to affiliates except for $2,016 and $2,175, respectively,
related to management fees.
Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and
Management.
(a) No person or group is known by the Partnership to own
beneficially more than 5% of the outstanding Units of the
Partnership.
(b) One of the former Individual General Partners of the
Partnership purchased $5,000 of the Units. No officers or
directors of the Corporate General Partner own any Units.
Amount and
Title Nature of Percentage
of Name and Address Beneficial Of
Class of Beneficial Owners Ownership Class
Units David M. Strosberg $5,000 0.02%
320 W. Illinois #C-221
Chicago, IL 60610
(c) Other than as described in the Proxy, the Partnership is
not aware of any arrangement, the operations of which may
result in a change of control of the Partnership.
No officer or director of the Corporate General Partner possesses
a right to acquire beneficial ownership of Units of the Partnership.
The General Partners will share in the profits, losses and
distributions of the Partnership as outlined in Item 11, "Executive
Compensation."
Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions.
(a & b) The Partnership is entitled to engage in various
transactions involving affiliates of the Corporate General Partner,
as described in the section of the Partnership's Prospectus, as
supplemented, entitled "Compensation Table" and "Conflicts of
Interest" at pages 11 to 16 and the section of the Agreement
entitled "Rights, Duties and Obligations of General Partners" at
pages A-19 to A-25 of the Agreement. The relationship of the
Corporate General Partner to its affiliates is set forth in Item 10.
Cezar M. Froelich, a former Individual General Partner and a
shareholder of the Corporate General Partner, is a principal of the
law firm of Shefsky & Froelich Ltd., which firm acted as securities
and real estate counsel to the Partnership and certain of its
affiliates.
(c) No management persons are indebted to the Partnership.
(d) There have been no transactions with promoters.
<PAGE>
PART IV
Item 14. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules, and Reports on
Form 8-K.
(a) The following documents are filed as part of this report:
(1) (2) Financial Statements and Schedule indicated in Part II,
Item 8 "Financial Statements and Supplementary Data."
(See Index to Financial Statements and Schedule on page
F-1 of Form 10-K).
(3) Exhibits required by the Securities and Exchange . . .
Commission Regulation S-K Item 601:
(21) Subsidiaries of the Registrant.
(27) Financial Data Schedule.
The following exhibits are incorporated by reference from the
Registrant's Registration Statement (File No. 33-11899) on Form S-11
filed under the Securities Act of 1933:
Exhibit No. Description
3.(a) Restated Limited Partnership Agreement
3.(b) Articles of Incorporation of Brauvin
Realty Advisors, Inc.
3.(c) By-Laws of Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc.
3.(d) Amendment to the Certificate of Limited
Partnership of the Partnership
10.(a) Escrow Agreement
(b) Form 8-K.
None.
(c) An annual report for the fiscal year 1998 will be sent to the
Interest Holders subsequent to this filing.
The following exhibits are incorporated by reference to the
Registrant's fiscal year ended December 31, 1994 Form 10-K (File No.
0-17557):
Exhibit No. Description
(10)(b)(1) Management Agreement
(28) Pages 9-16 of the Partnership's Prospectus dated
September 4, 1987 as supplemented, and pages A-12
to A-17 and A-19 to A-25 of the Agreement.
The following exhibits are incorporated by reference to the
Registrant's definitive proxy statement dated August 23, 1996 (File
No. 0-17557):
Exhibit No. Description
(10)(c) Merger Agreement.
The following exhibit is incorporated by reference to the
Registrant's fiscal year ended December 31, 1996 Form 10-K (File No.
0-17557):
(10)(d) First Amendment and Waiver to Agreement and Plan
of Merger.
<PAGE>
SIGNATURES
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.
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P.
BY: Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc.
Corporate General Partner
By:/s/ Jerome J. Brault
Jerome J. Brault
Chairman of the Board of Directors,
President and Chief Executive Officer
By:/s/ Thomas E. Murphy
Thomas E. Murphy
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
By:/s/ James L. Brault
James L. Brault
Vice President and Secretary
INDIVIDUAL GENERAL PARTNER
/s/ Jerome J. Brault
Jerome J. Brault
DATED: April 15, 1999
<PAGE>
INDEX TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND SCHEDULE
Page
Independent Auditors' Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-2
Financial Statements:
Balance Sheets, December 31, 1998 and 1997 . . . . . . . . . . F-3
Statements of Operations, for the years ended
December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-4
Statements of Partners' Capital, for the years ended
December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-5
Statements of Cash Flows, for the years ended
December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-6
Notes to Financial Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-7
Schedule III -- Real Estate and Accumulated
Depreciation, December 31, 1998. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-31
All other schedules provided for in Item 14(a)(2) of Form 10-K are
either not required, or are inapplicable, or not material.
<PAGE>
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT
To the Partners
Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P.
Chicago, Illinois
We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Brauvin High Yield
Fund L.P. (a limited partnership) as of December 31, 1998 and 1997,
and the related statements of operations, partners' capital, and cash
flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31,
1998. Our audits also included the financial statement schedule
listed in the Index to Financial Statements and Schedule on page F-1.
These financial statements and the financial statement schedule are
the responsibility of the Partnership's management. Our
responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements
and the financial statement schedule based on our audits.
We conducted our audits in accordance with generally accepted
auditing standards. 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, such financial statements present fairly, in all
material respects, the financial position of Brauvin High Yield Fund
L.P. at December 31, 1998 and 1997, and the results of its operations
and its cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended
December 31, 1998 in conformity with generally accepted accounting
principles. Also, in our opinion, such financial statement schedule,
when considered in relation to the basic financial statements taken
as a whole, presents fairly in all material respects the information
set forth therein.
/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP
Chicago, Illinois
February 16, 1999
(April 14, 1999 as to Note 8)
<PAGE>
BALANCE SHEETS
December 31, December 31,
1998 1997
ASSETS
Investment in real estate, at cost:
Land $ 5,425,268 $ 5,768,768
Buildings 12,752,707 13,554,207
18,177,975 19,322,975
Less: Accumulated depreciation (4,003,906) (3,625,393)
Net investment in real estate 14,174,069 15,697,582
Investment in Joint Ventures (Note 7):
Brauvin High Yield Venture 18,726 31,007
Brauvin Funds Joint Venture 2,413,241 2,431,037
Brauvin Gwinnett County Venture 534,901 543,333
Brauvin Bay County Venture 165,884 166,329
Cash and cash equivalents 1,478,616 1,030,464
Prepaid offering costs 15,703 15,703
Other assets 1,777 2,070
Total Assets $18,802,917 $19,917,525
LIABILITIES AND PARTNERS' CAPITAL
LIABILITIES:
Accounts payable and accrued
expenses $ 268,111 $ 118,882
Environmental remediation
accrual 80,000 80,000
Rent received in advance 29,912 30,699
Tenant security deposits 51,934 51,934
Due to affiliates 2,016 2,175
Total Liabilities 431,973 283,690
PARTNERS' CAPITAL:
General Partners 85,371 174,353
Interest Holders 18,285,573 19,459,482
Total Partners' Capital 18,370,944 19,633,835
Total Liabilities and
Partners' Capital $18,802,917 $19,917,525
See accompanying notes to financial statements
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS
For the years ended December 31,
1998 1997 1996
INCOME
Rental $2,483,451 $2,514,561 $2,447,036
Interest and other 81,257 137,130 88,582
Total income 2,564,708 2,651,691 2,535,618
EXPENSES
General and administrative 206,755 218,565 189,729
Management fees (Note 3) 25,119 24,929 24,994
Transaction costs (Note 8) 211,904 287,531 356,850
Valuation fees 135,000 -- 89,016
Depreciation 378,513 386,635 386,636
Provision for
impairment(Note 6) 1,145,000 - --
Environmental remediation
expense (Note 9) -- 80,000 --
2,102,291 997,660 1,047,225
Income before equity interest
in joint ventures 462,417 1,654,031 1,488,393
Equity Interest in Joint
Ventures' Net Income:
Brauvin High Yield Venture 1,424 5,833 5,828
Brauvin Funds Joint Venture 290,904 286,426 291,814
Brauvin Gwinnett County
Venture 48,196 49,102 49,396
Brauvin Bay County Venture 13,795 11,376 632
Net income $ 816,736 $2,006,768 $1,836,063
Net income allocated to the
General Partners $ 16,335 $ 40,135 $ 36,721
Net income allocated to the
Interest Holders $ 800,401 $1,966,633 $1,799,342
Net income per
Unit outstanding (a) $ 0.30 $ 0.75 $ 0.69
(a) Net income per Unit was based on the average Units outstanding
during the year since they were of varying dollar amounts and
percentages based upon the dates Interest Holders were admitted to
the Partnership and additional Units were purchased through the
distribution reinvestment plan (the "Plan").
See accompanying notes to financial statements
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF PARTNERS' CAPITAL
For the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996
General Interest
Partners Holders * Total
Balance, January 1, 1996 $124,295 $20,710,959 $20,835,254
Contributions, net 67,546 67,546
Selling commissions and other
offering costs (10,070) (10,070)
Net income 36,721 1,799,342 1,836,063
Cash distributions (26,798) (1,321,381) (1,348,179)
Balance, December 31, 1996 134,218 21,246,396 21,380,614
Net income 40,135 1,966,633 2,006,768
Cash distributions - (3,753,547) (3,753,547)
Balance, December 31, 1997 174,353 19,459,482 19,633,835
Net income 16,335 800,401 816,736
Cash distributions (105,317) (1,974,310) (2,079,627)
Balance, December 31, 1998 $ 85,371 $18,285,573 $18,370,944
* Total Units outstanding at December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 were
2,627,503, 2,627,503 and 2,627,503, respectively. Cash distributions
to Interest Holders per Unit were approximately, $0.75, $1.43, and
$0.50 for the years ended December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996,
respectively. Cash distributions to Interest Holders per Unit are
based on the average Units outstanding during the year since they
were of varying dollar amounts and percentages based upon the dates
Interest Holders were admitted to the Partnership and additional
Units were purchased through the Plan.
See accompanying notes to financial statements
<PAGE>
STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOWS
For the years ended December 31,
1998 1997 1996
Cash Flows From Operating Activities:
Net income $816,736 $2,006,768 $1,836,063
Adjustments to reconcile net income to
net cash provided by operating activities:
Depreciation 378,513 386,635 386,636
Provision for impairment 1,145,000 -- --
Equity interest in net income from:
Brauvin High Yield Venture (1,424) (5,833) (5,828)
Brauvin Funds Joint Venture (290,904) (286,426) (291,814)
Brauvin Gwinnett County Venture (48,196) (49,102) (49,396)
Brauvin Bay County Venture (13,795) (11,376) (632)
Changes in:
Due from affiliates -- 20 338
Other assets 293 15,213 476
Accounts payable and accr expenses 149,229 89,864 18,575
Due to affiliates (159) 2,175 --
Rent received in advance (787) (113,666) 57,462
Environmental remediation accrual -- 80,000 --
Tenant security deposits -- 51,934 --
Net cash provided by operating
activities 2,134,506 2,166,206 1,951,880
Cash Flows From Investing Activities:
Return of capital-
Brauvin High Yield Venture 7,505
Distributions from:
Brauvin High Yield Venture 6,200 7,200 7,200
Brauvin Funds Joint Venture 308,700 306,250 313,600
Brauvin Gwinnett County Venture 56,628 56,394 56,160
Brauvin Bay County Venture 14,240 16,480 --
Investment in Brauvin Bay County
Venture -- -- (170,801)
Net cash provided by investing
activities 393,273 386,324 206,159
Cash Flows From Financing Activities:
Sale of Units, net of liquidations, selling
commissions and other offering costs -- -- 58,536
Cash distributions to General Partners (105,317) -- (26,798)
Cash distributions to Interest Holders (1,974,310) (3,753,547) (1,321,381)
Net cash used in financing activitie (2,079,627) (3,753,547) (1,289,643)
Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash
equivalents 448,152 (1,201,017) 868,396
Cash and cash equivalents at beginning
of year 1,030,464 2,231,481 1,363,085
Cash and cash equivalents at end
of year $1,478,616 $1,030,464 $2,231,481
See accompanying notes to financial statements
(1) ORGANIZATION AND SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
ORGANIZATION
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P. (the "Partnership") is a Delaware
limited partnership organized for the purpose of acquiring debt-free
ownership of existing, free-standing, income-producing retail,
office and industrial real estate properties predominantly subject
to "triple-net" leases. The General Partners of the Partnership are
Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc. and Jerome J. Brault. Brauvin Realty
Advisors, Inc. is owned primarily by Messrs. Brault (beneficially)
(44%) and Cezar M. Froelich (44%). Mr. Froelich resigned as a
director of the Corporate General Partner in December 1994 and as
an individual General Partner effective as of September 17, 1996.
Brauvin Securities, Inc., an affiliate of the General Partners, was
the selling agent of the Partnership. The Partnership is managed
by an affiliate of the General Partners.
The Partnership was formed on January 6, 1987 and filed a
Registration Statement on Form S-11 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission which became effective on September 4, 1987. The sale
of the minimum of $1,200,000 of depository units representing
beneficial assignments of limited partnership interests of the
Partnership (the "Units") necessary for the Partnership to commence
operations was achieved on November 18, 1987. The Partnership's
offering closed on May 19, 1988. A total of $25,000,000 of Units
were subscribed for and issued between September 4, 1987 and May 19,
1988, pursuant to the Partnership's public offering. Through
December 31, 1998, 1997 and 1996 the Partnership had sold
$27,922,102, $27,922,102 and $27,922,102 of Units, respectively.
These totals include $2,922,102 of Units purchased by Interest
Holders who utilized their distributions of Operating Cash Flow to
purchase additional Units through the distribution reinvestment plan
(the "Plan"). Units valued at $1,647,070 have been repurchased by
the Partnership from Interest Holders liquidating their investment
in the Partnership and have been retired as of December 31, 1998,
1997 and 1996. As of December 31, 1998, the Plan participants have
acquired Units under the Plan which approximate 10% of total Units
outstanding.
The Partnership has acquired the land and buildings underlying 20
Taco Bell restaurants, 11 Ponderosa restaurants and two Children's
World Learning Centers. The Partnership also acquired 1%, 49%,
23.4% and 16% equity interests in four joint ventures with three
entities affiliated with the Partnership. These ventures own the
land and buildings underlying six Ponderosa restaurants, a
Scandinavian Health Spa, a CompUSA store and a Blockbuster Video
store, respectively.
SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES
Management's Use of Estimates
The preparation of financial statements in conformity with
generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make
estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amounts of assets
and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities
at the date of the financial statements and the reported amounts of
revenues and expenses during the reporting period. Actual results
could differ from these estimates.
Accounting Method
The accompanying financial statements have been prepared using the
accrual method of accounting.
Federal Income Taxes
Under the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code, the
Partnership's income and losses are reportable by the partners on
their respective income tax returns. Accordingly, no provision is
made for Federal income taxes in the financial statements. However,
in certain instances, the Partnership has been required under
applicable state law to remit directly to the tax authorities
amounts representing withholding from distributions paid to
partners.
Investment in Real Estate
The operating properties acquired by the Partnership are stated
at cost including acquisition costs, net of an allowance for
impairment. Depreciation expense is computed on a straight-line
basis over approximately 35 years.
The Partnership provides an allowance for impairment to reduce the
cost basis of real estate to its estimated fair value when the real
estate is judged to have suffered an impairment that is other than
temporary. The Partnership has performed an analysis of its long-
lived assets, and the Partnership's management determined that there
were no events or changes in circumstances that indicated that the
carrying amount of the assets may not be recoverable at December 31,
1998, 1997, and 1996, except as described in Note 6.
Investment in Joint Ventures
The Partnership owns a 1% equity interest in Brauvin High Yield
Venture, which owns the land and building underlying six Ponderosa
restaurants; a 49% equity interest in Brauvin Funds Joint Venture,
which owns the land and building underlying a Scandinavian Health
Spa; a 23.4% equity interest in Brauvin Gwinnett County Venture,
which owns the land and building underlying a CompUSA store; and a
16% equity interest in Brauvin Bay County Venture which owns the
land and building underlying a Blockbuster Video store. The
accompanying financial statements include the investments in Brauvin
High Yield Venture, Brauvin Funds Joint Venture, Brauvin Gwinnett
County Venture and Brauvin Bay County Venture, using the equity
method of accounting.
Prepaid Offering Costs
Prepaid offering costs represent amounts in excess of the defined
percentages of the gross proceeds. Prior to the commencement of the
Partnership's proxy solicitation (see Note 8), gross proceeds were
expected to increase due to the purchase of additional Units through
the Plan and the prepaid offering costs would be transferred to
offering costs and treated as a reduction in Partners' Capital.
Cash and Cash Equivalents
Cash and cash equivalents include all highly liquid debt
instruments with an original maturity within three months of
purchase.
Estimated Fair Value of Financial Instruments
Disclosure of the estimated fair value of financial instruments
is made in accordance with the requirements of Statement of
Financial Accounting Standards No. 107, "Disclosures About Fair
Value of Financial Instruments." The estimated fair value amounts
have been determined by using available market information and
appropriate valuation methodologies. However, considerable
judgement is necessarily required in interpreting market data to
develop estimates of fair value.
The fair value estimates presented herein are based on information
available to management as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, but may
not necessarily be indicative of the amounts that the Partnership
could realize in a current market exchange. The use of different
assumptions and/or estimation methodologies may have a material
effect on the estimated fair value amounts.
The carrying amounts of the following items are a reasonable
estimate of fair value: cash and cash equivalents; accounts payable
and accrued expenses; environmental remediation accrual; rent
received in advance; tenant security deposits and due to affiliates.
(2) PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
Distributions
All Operating Cash Flow, as defined in the Partnership Agreement
(the "Agreement"), shall be distributed: (a) first, to the Interest
Holders until the Interest Holders receive an amount equal to their
10% Current Preferred Return, as such term is defined in the
Agreement; and (b) thereafter, any remaining amounts will be
distributed 98% to the Interest Holders and 2% to the General
Partners.
The net proceeds of a sale or refinancing of a Partnership
property shall be distributed as follows:
* first, to the Interest Holders until each Interest Holder has
been paid an amount equal to the 10% Cumulative Preferred
Return, as defined in the Agreement;
* second, to the Interest Holders until each Interest Holder has
been paid an amount equal to his Adjusted Investment, as
defined in the Agreement;
* third, to the General Partners until they have been paid an
amount equal to a 2% preferred return; and
* fourth, 95% of any remaining Net Sale or Refinancing Proceeds,
as such term is defined in the Agreement, to the Interest
Holders and the remaining 5% to the General Partners.
Profits and Losses
Net profits and losses from operations of the Partnership
(computed without regard to any allowance for depreciation or cost
recovery deductions under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as
amended (the "Code")) for each taxable year of the Partnership shall
be allocated 98% to the Interest Holders and 2% to the General
Partners. Notwithstanding the foregoing, all depreciation and cost
recovery deductions allowed under the Code shall be allocated 2% to
the General Partners and 98% to the Taxable Interest Holders, as
defined in the Agreement.
The net profit of the Partnership from any sale or other
disposition of a Partnership property shall be allocated (with
ordinary income being allocated first) as follows: (a) first, an
amount equal to the aggregate deficit balances of the Partners'
Capital Accounts, as such term is defined in the Agreement, shall
be allocated to each Partner who or which has a deficit Capital
Account balance in the same ratio as the deficit balance of such
Partner's Capital Account bears to the aggregate of the deficit
balances of all Partners' Capital Accounts; (b) second, to the
Interest Holders until the Interest Holders have been allocated
profits equal to their 10% Cumulative Preferred Return; (c) third,
to the Interest Holders until the Interest Holders have been
allocated an amount of profit equal to the amount of their Adjusted
Investment; (d) fourth, to the General Partners until such time as
they have been allocated profits equal to a 2% preferred return; and
(e) thereafter, 95% to the Interest Holders and 5% to the General
Partners. The net loss of the Partnership from any sale or other
disposition of a Partnership property shall be allocated as follows:
(a) first, an amount equal to the aggregate positive balances in the
Partners' Capital Accounts, to each Partner in the same ratio as the
positive balance in such Partner's Capital Account bears to the
aggregate of all Partners' positive Capital Accounts balances; and
(b) thereafter, 98% to the Interest Holders and 2% to the General
Partners.
(3) TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PARTIES
An affiliate of the General Partners manages the Partnership's
real estate properties for an annual management fee equal to up to
1% of gross revenues derived from the properties. The property
management fee is subordinated, annually, to receipt by the Interest
Holders of an annual 10% non-cumulative, non-compounded return on
Adjusted Investment (as defined).
The Partnership pays affiliates of the General Partners selling
commissions of 8-1/2% of the capital contributions received for
Units sold by the affiliates.
An affiliate of one of the General Partners provides securities
and real estate counsel to the Partnership.
The Partnership pays an affiliate of the General Partners an
acquisition fee in the amount of up to 4.5% of the gross proceeds
of the Partnership's offering for the services rendered in
connection with the process pertaining to the acquisition of a
property. Acquisition fees related to the properties not ultimately
purchased by the Partnership are expensed as incurred.
Fees, commissions and other expenses paid or payable to the
General Partners or its affiliates for the years ended December 31,
1998, 1997 and 1996 were as follows:
1998 1997 1996
Selling commissions $ -- $ -- $ 9,010
Management fees 25,119 24,929 24,994
Reimbursable operating
expenses 137,597 146,195 118,764
Legal fees -- 267 2,737
Acquisition fees -- -- 8,588
Transaction costs -- -- 10,854
As of December 31, 1998 and 1997, the Partnership has made all
payments to affiliates except for $2,016, and $2,175, respectively,
related to management fees.
(4) LEASES
The Partnership's rental income is principally obtained from
tenants through rental payments provided under triple-net
noncancelable operating leases. The leases provide for a base
minimum annual rent and increases in rent such as through
participation in gross sales above a stated level.
The following is a schedule of noncancelable future minimum
rental payments due to the Partnership under operating leases of
Partnership properties as of December 31, 1998:
Year ending December 31:
1999 $2,157,273
2000 2,112,359
2001 1,889,635
2002 1,807,580
2003 1,343,346
Thereafter 217,140
$9,527,333
Additional rent based on percentages of tenant sales increases
was $327,367, $344,302 and $296,269 in 1998, 1997 and 1996,
respectively.
Approximately 42% and 38% of the Partnership's rental income is
from properties operated as Ponderosa and Taco Bell restaurants,
respectively. The Partnership is subject to some risk of loss
should adverse events affect those Ponderosa and Taco Bell
restaurants and, in turn, adversely affect the lessees' ability to
pay rent to the Partnership.
(5) WORKING CAPITAL RESERVES
The Partnership set aside 1% of the gross proceeds of its
Offering as a working capital reserve. At any time two years
subsequent to the termination of the Partnership's offering (May 19,
1990), it became permissible to reduce the working capital reserve
to an amount equal to not less than 1/2% of the proceeds of the
Offering ($125,000) if the General Partners believed such reduction
to be in the best interests of the Partnership and the Interest
Holders. As a result thereof, $125,000 was paid to an affiliate of
the General Partners in the fourth quarter of 1990 as an additional
Acquisition cost allocation Fee and $125,000 remains in reserve.
(6) PROVISION FOR IMPAIRMENT
In 1998, the Partnership engaged LaSalle Partners, Inc. to
perform a valuation of the Partnership's properties. As a result
of this valuation, during the third quarter of 1998, a provision for
impairment in the total amount of $1,145,000 was recorded in the
financial statements of the Partnership. This allowance has been
recorded as a reduction of the properties' cost, and allocated to
land and buildings based on the original acquisition cost allocation
of 30%(land) and 70% (building).
(7) INVESTMENT IN JOINT VENTURES
The Partnership owns equity interests in the Brauvin High Yield
Venture, Brauvin Funds Joint Venture, Brauvin Gwinnett County
Venture and Brauvin Bay County Venture and reports its investments
on the equity method. The following are condensed financial
statements for the Brauvin High Yield Venture, Brauvin Funds Joint
Venture, Brauvin Gwinnett County Venture and Brauvin Bay County
Venture:
<PAGE>
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD VENTURE
December 31, December 31,
1998 1997
Land and buildings, net $3,695,748 $4,922,583
Other assets 12,634 15,554
$3,708,382 $4,938,137
Liabilities $ 30,644 $ 32,310
Partners' capital 3,677,738 4,905,827
$3,708,382 $4,938,137
Years Ended December 31,
1998 1997 1996
Rental and other income $632,815 $717,459 $714,260
Expenses:
Depreciation 98,134 120,250 120,250
Management fees 6,292 7,494 7,413
Operating and
administrative 7,366 6,422 3,811
Loss on impairment 264,000 -- --
Loss on sale of property 114,604 -- --
490,396 134,166 131,474
Net Income $142,419 $583,293 $582,786
<PAGE> BRAUVIN FUNDS JOINT VENTURE
December 31, December 31,
1998 1997
Land and buildings, net $4,486,212 $4,596,308
Other assets 497,008 420,444
$4,983,220 $5,016,752
Liabilities $ 4,991 $ 2,205
Partners' capital 4,978,229 5,014,547
$4,983,220 $5,016,752
Year Ended December 31,
1998 1997 1996
Rental and other income $717,858 $715,218 $716,981
Expenses:
Depreciation 110,096 110,096 110,096
Management fees 6,626 6,642 6,752
Operating and
administrative 7,454 13,938 4,593
124,176 130,676 121,441
Net Income $593,682 $584,542 $595,540
<PAGE>
BRAUVIN GWINNETT COUNTY VENTURE
December 31, December 31,
1998 1997
Land and buildings, net $2,239,254 $2,285,006
Other assets 85,048 75,185
$2,324,302 $2,360,191
Liabilities $ 25,029 $ 24,884
Partners' capital 2,299,273 2,335,307
$2,324,302 $2,360,191
Years Ended December 31,
1998 1997 1996
Rental and other income $275,753 $274,277 $264,475
Expenses:
Depreciation 45,752 45,752 45,752
Management fees 2,640 2,830 2,520
Operating and
administrative 21,394 15,858 5,109
69,786 64,440 53,381
Net Income $205,967 $209,837 $211,094
BRAUVIN BAY COUNTY VENTURE
December 31, 1998 December 31, 1997
Land and buildings, net $1,033,942 $1,051,588
Other assets 17,330 11,989
$1,051,272 $1,063,577
Liabilities $ 4,296 $ 13,820
Partners' capital 1,046,976 1,049,757
$1,051,272 $1,063,577
Period from
October 31, 1996
Year Ended Year Ended (inception) to
December 31, December 31, December 31,
1998 1997 1996
Rental and other income $110,782 $109,985 $ 18,502
Expenses:
Depreciation 17,646 17,689 2,898
Management fees 1,079 1,178 191
Operating and
administrative 5,838 20,014 11,463
24,563 38,881 14,552
Net Income $ 86,219 $71,104 $ 3,950
(8) MERGER AND LITIGATION
Merger
Pursuant to the terms of an agreement and plan of merger dated as
of June 14, 1996, as amended March 24, 1997, June 30, 1997 and
September 30, 1997, December 31, 1997, March 31, 1998 and June 30,
1998 (the "Merger Agreement"), the Partnership proposed to merge
with and into Brauvin Real Estate Funds L.L.C., a Delaware limited
liability company (the "Purchaser"), affiliated with certain of the
General Partners through a merger (the "Merger") of its Units.
Although the Merger will not be consummated, the following text
describes the transaction. Promptly upon consummation of the
Merger, the Partnership would have ceased to exist and the
Purchaser, as the surviving entity, would succeed to all of the
assets and liabilities of the Partnership. The Interest Holders
holding a majority of the Units voted on the Merger on November 8,
1996. The Interest Holders also voted on an amendment to the
Agreement allowing the Partnership to sell or lease property to
affiliates (this amendment, together with the Merger shall be
referred to herein as the "Transaction").
The redemption price to be paid to the Interest Holders in
connection with the Merger was based on the fair market value of the
properties of the Partnership (the "Assets"). Cushman & Wakefield
Valuation Advisory Services ("Cushman & Wakefield"), an independent
appraiser, the largest real estate valuation and consulting
organization in the United States, was engaged by the Partnership
to prepare an appraisal of the Assets, to satisfy the Partnership's
requirements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, as amended. Cushman & Wakefield determined the fair market
value of the Assets to be $23,198,450, or $8.83 per Unit, as of
April 1, 1996. Subsequently, the Partnership purchased a 16%
interest in Brauvin Bay County Venture. Based on the terms of the
Merger Agreement, the fair market value of the Assets will be
increased by the amount of the investment in Brauvin Bay County
Venture, and correspondingly, the Partnership's cash holdings were
reduced by the same amount and, therefore, the total redemption
amount would remain unchanged. The redemption price of $9.31 per
Unit also included all remaining cash of the Partnership, less net
earnings of the Partnership from and after August 1, 1996 through
December 31, 1996, less the Partnership's actual costs incurred and
accrued through the effective time at the filing of the certificate
of merger, including reasonable reserves in connection with: (i)
the proxy solicitation; (ii) the Transaction (as detailed in the
Merger Agreement); and (iii) the winding up of the Partnership,
including preparation of the final audit, tax return and K-1s
(collectively, the "Transaction Costs") and less all other
Partnership obligations. Of the original cash redemption amount,
approximately $0.48 was distributed to Interest Holders in the
December 31, 1997 distribution.
The General Partners were not to receive any payment in exchange
for the redemption of their general partnership interests nor would
they have received any fees from the Partnership in connection with
the Transaction. The Managing General Partner and his son, James
L. Brault, an executive officer of the Corporate General Partner,
were to have a minority ownership interest in the Purchaser.
The Merger was not completed primarily due to certain litigation,
as described below, that was still pending at December 31, 1998.
The General Partners believe that these lawsuits are without merit
and, therefore, continue to vigorously defend against them.
Because of the August 12, 1998 rulings of the District Court in
the Christman litigation, as described below, it is not possible for
the Merger to be consummated.
Distributions of the Partnership's net earnings for the periods
January 1, 1997 to March 31, 1997, April 1, 1997 to June 30, 1997,
July 1, 1997 to September 30, 1997 and October 1, 1997 to December
31, 1997 were made to the Interest Holders on March 31, 1997, July
15, 1997, October 22, 1997 and December 31, 1997, respectively, in
the amounts of approximately $597,600, $529,000, $721,300 and
$1,903,700. In addition, distributions of approximately $2,000 were
paid to various states for income taxes on behalf of all Interest
Holders during 1997.
Distributions of the Partnership's net earnings for the periods
January 1, 1998 to March 31, 1998, April 1, 1998 to June 30, 1998,
July 1, 1998 to September 30, 1998 and October 1, 1998 to December
31, 1998, were made to Interest Holders on May 8, 1998, August 15,
1998, November 15, 1998 and February 15, 1999, respectively in the
amounts of approximately $650,000, $504,000, $812,000 and $762,000.
As detailed in "Litigation" by agreement of the Partnership and
the General Partners and pursuant to a motion of the General
Partners the District Court entered an order preventing the
Partnership and the General Partners from completing the Merger or
otherwise disposing of all or substantially all of the Partnership's
assets until further order of the Court.
Litigation
Two legal actions, as hereinafter described, were pending at
December 31, 1998 against the General Partners of the Partnership
and affiliates of such General Partners, as well as against the
Partnership on a nominal basis in connection with the Merger, with
regard to the Illinois Christman lawsuit, as described below. On
April 13, 1999, all the parties to the litigation reached an
agreement to settle the litigation, subject to the approval by the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
Management believes that the settlement will not have a material
financial impact on the Partnership. The terms of the settlement
agreement, along with a Notice to the Class, will be forwarded to
the Interest Holders in the second quarter. One additional legal
action, which was dismissed on January 28, 1998 had also been
brought against the General Partners of the Partnership and
affiliates of such General Partners, as well as the Partnership on
a nominal basis in connection with the Merger. With respect to
these actions the Partnership and the General Partners and their
named affiliates denied all allegations set forth in the complaints
and vigorously defended against such claims.
A. The Dismissed Florida Lawsuit
On September 17, 1996, a lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court
of the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit in and for Broward County,
Florida, styled Rebecca Scialpi and Helen Friedlander v. Jerome J.
Brault, Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors II,
Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors III, Inc., and Brauvin Realty Advisors
IV, Inc., James L. Brault, and Brauvin Real Estate Funds, L.L.C. and
Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P., Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P. II,
Brauvin Income Plus L.P. III, and Brauvin Corporate Lease Program
IV, L.P., Docket No. 96012807. The Partnership and the other
affiliated partnerships named in this lawsuit (the "Affiliated
Partnerships") that were proposed to be a party to a merger or sale
with the Purchaser, were each named as a "Nominal Defendant" in this
lawsuit. The named plaintiffs were not Interest Holders in the
Partnership. Rather, the named plaintiffs are limited partners in
Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P. II, one of the Affiliated Partnerships.
Jerome J. Brault, the Managing General Partner of the Partnership,
and Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc., the Corporate General Partner of
the Partnership, as well as certain corporate general partners of
the Affiliated Partnerships, were named as defendants in this
lawsuit. James L. Brault, an officer of the Corporate General
Partner and the son of Jerome J. Brault, was also named as a
defendant. This lawsuit was dismissed for want of prosecution on
January 28, 1998.
B. The Illinois Christman Lawsuit
On September 18, 1996, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois,
styled M. Barbara Christman, Joseph Forte, Janet M. Toolson, John
Archbold, and Ben O. Carroll v. Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc.,
Brauvin Realty Advisors II, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors III, Inc.,
Brauvin Realty Advisors IV, Inc., Jerome J. Brault, Brauvin Real
Estate Funds, L.L.C. and Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P., Brauvin High
Yield Fund L.P. II, Brauvin Income Plus L.P. III, and Brauvin
Corporate Lease Program IV L.P., Docket No. 96C6025. The
Partnership and the Affiliated Partnerships are each named as a
"Nominal Defendant" in the lawsuit. Jerome J. Brault and the
Corporate General Partner of the Partnership, as well as the
corporate general partners of the Affiliated Partnerships, are named
as defendants.
The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on October 8, 1996,
which alleges claims for breach of fiduciary duties, breaches of the
Agreement, and violation of the Illinois Deceptive Trade Practices
Act. The amended complaint seeks injunctive relief, as well as
compensatory and punitive damages, relating to the Transaction.
On October 2, 1996, the District Court certified plaintiffs'
proposed class as all of the limited partners of the Partnership and
of the Affiliated Partnerships, and appointed plaintiffs' counsel,
The Mills Law Firm, as counsel for the class. On October 2, 1996,
the District Court also conducted a hearing on plaintiffs' motion
to preliminarily enjoin the special meetings of the limited partners
and the Transaction. The District Court denied plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction at the conclusion of the October 2,
1996 hearing.
On September 27, 1996, counsel for plaintiffs, The Mills Law
Firm, mailed a solicitation to all of the Interest Holders,
requesting that they revoke their previously-mailed proxies in favor
of the Merger. On October 11, 1996, the General Partners filed a
counterclaim against plaintiffs and their counsel, The Mills Law
Firm, alleging that plaintiffs and The Mills Law Firm violated the
federal securities laws and proxy rules by sending their September
27, 1996 letter to the Interest Holders. The plaintiffs and The
Mills Law Firm have moved to dismiss this counterclaim. The
District Court has taken this motion under advisement and has yet
to issue a ruling.
On October 10 and 11, 1996, the District Court conducted an
evidentiary hearing on the motion of the General Partners to
invalidate revocations of proxies procured as a result of The Mills
Law Firm's September 27, 1996 letter. In that evidentiary hearing,
The Mills Law Firm admitted that it violated the proxy rules by
sending its September 27, 1996 letter to the Interest Holders
without filing such letter with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (the "Commission") in violation of the Commission's
requirements. At the conclusion of the hearing on October 10 and
11, the District Court found that the General Partners have a
likelihood of succeeding on the merits with respect to their claim
that the September 27, 1996 letter sent to the Interest Holders by
plaintiffs and The Mills Law Firm is false or misleading in several
significant respects.
Notwithstanding this finding, the District Court did not
invalidate the revocations of proxies resulting from The Mills Law
Firm's September 27, 1996 letter because it did not believe it
possessed the authority to do so under present law. This ruling
was appealed to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The Seventh
Court of Appeals subsequently dismissed this appeal on the grounds
that the appeal was rendered moot by the Interest Holders' approval
November 8, 1996 of the Merger.
On October 16, 1996 and on November 6, 1996, the parties filed
cross-motions for partial summary judgement addressing the
allegation in plaintiffs' amended complaint that the Agreement does
not allow the Interest Holders to vote in favor of or against the
Transaction by proxy. On August 12, 1998, the District Court granted
plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgement, holding that the
Agreement did not allow the Interest Holders to vote in favor or
against the Transaction by proxy.
On April 2, 1997, the Court granted plaintiffs' leave to again
amend their complaint. In their second amended complaint,
plaintiffs named the Partnership as a "Nominal Defendant."
Plaintiffs also added a new claim, alleging that the General
Partners violated certain of the rules of the Commission by making
false and misleading statements in the Proxy. Plaintiffs also
allege that the General Partners breached their fiduciary duties,
breached various provisions of the Agreement, violated the Illinois
Deceptive Trade Practice Act, and violated section 17-305 of the
Delaware Revised Uniform Limited Partnership Act. The General
Partners deny those allegations and will continue to vigorously
defend against these claims.
On April 2, 1997, plaintiffs again requested that the District
Court enjoin the closing of the Transaction. After conducting a
lengthy hearing on May 1, 1997, the District Court denied
plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the closing of the
Transaction. Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the Seventh
Circuit Court of Appeals from the District Court's May 1, 1997 order
denying plaintiffs' motion to preliminarily enjoin the closing of
the Transaction. This appeal was dismissed by the Seventh District
Court of Appeals on January 23, 1998 based on the appellate courts
finding that the District Court's order of January 16, 1998 rendered
the appeal moot.
On January 16, 1998, by agreement of the Partnership and the
General Partners and pursuant to a motion of the General Partners,
the District Court entered an order preventing the Partnership and
the General Partners from completing the Merger, or otherwise
disposing of all or substantially all of the Partnership's assets,
until further order from the Court.
On January 28, 1998, the District Court entered an Order of
Reference to Special Master, designating a Special Master and
vesting the Special Master with authority to resolve certain aspects
of the lawsuit subject to the District Court's review and
confirmation. The Special Master was empowered to determine how the
assets of the Partnership should be sold or disposed of in a manner
which allows the Interest Holders to maximize their financial return
in the shortest practicable time frame. In addition, early in the
second quarter of 1998, the Special Master retained a financial
advisor (the "Financial Advisor"), at the expense of the Partnership
to assist the Special Master. The Financial Advisor has been
engaged to perform a valuation of the properties of the Partnership
as well as a valuation of the Affiliated Partnerships. The cost
to the Partnership for the services of the Financial Advisor was
$135,000.
On August 4, 1998, the Special Master filed a Report and
Recommendation with the District Court, expressing the Special
Master's recommendation the Partnership's properties be disposed of
in an auction conducted by the Financial Advisor under the direction
of the Special Master. The District Court accepted this Report and
Recommendation. On November 4, 1998, the Special Master filed an
additional Report and Recommendation with the District Court,
requesting that the Court withdraw its Order of Reference to Special
Master on the grounds it would be impossible to effect the sale of
the Partnerships in a manner that maximizes the financial return to
Limited Partners in a short time frame, unless certain litigation
issues are resolved. The District Court has accepted this Report
and Recommendation.
On January 21, 1999, plaintiffs filed another amended complaint,
adding additional claims against the General Partners and seeking
class certification under Federal Rule 23 as to the newly added
claims, and as to all other claims in plaintiffs' complaint which
had not been previously certified. The District Court granted
plaintiffs' request for class certification as to all of the claims
not previously certified, and certified all of the claims of the
plaintiffs' complaint under Rule 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2)and 23(b)(3).
In addition, pursuant to the General Partners' motion, the
District Court dismissed as moot certain of plaintiffs' claims,
including plaintiffs' claim that the General Partners violated
certain of the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission by
allegedly making false and misleading statements in the Proxy. The
District Court similarly dismissed as moot a counterclaim that had
been made against class plaintiffs and their counsel for violating
the federal securities laws.
On April 13, 1999, all of the parties reached a Settlement
Agreement encompassing all matters in the lawsuit. The Settlement
Agreement is subject to the approval by the District Court, and the
Interest Holders will be provided with a written notice concerning
its terms. The settlement will not have a material financial impact
on the Partnership.
C. The Scialpi Illinois Lawsuit
On June 20, 1997, another lawsuit was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, styled
Benjamin Siegel, Rebecca Scialpi, Helen Friedlander, and BHS &
Associates, Inc. v. Jerome J. Brault, Brauvin Realty Advisors, Inc.,
Brauvin Realty Advisors II, Inc., Brauvin Realty Advisors III, Inc.,
Brauvin Realty Advisors IV, Inc., James L. Brault, Brauvin Real
Estate Funds LLC, Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P., Brauvin High Yield
Fund II L.P., Brauvin Income Plus L.P. III, and Brauvin Corporate
Lease Program IV, L.P., Docket number 97 C 4450. The Partnership
and the Affiliated Partnerships are each named as "Nominal
Defendant" in the lawsuit. Jerome J. Brault and the Corporate
General Partner of the Partnership, as well as the corporate general
partners of the Affiliated Partnerships, have been named as
defendants in this lawsuit. James L. Brault, an officer of the
Corporate General Partner and the son of Jerome J. Brault, is also
named as a defendant.
Notably, the complaint was filed by two of the same parties,
Scialpi and Friedlander, who were plaintiffs in the Florida lawsuit,
which is described above. As also indicated above, Scialpi and
Friedlander are not limited partners of the Partnership, but are
limited partners in one of the Affiliated Partnerships, Brauvin High
Yield Fund L.P. II. On August 15, 1997, the plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint dropping Benjamin Siegel as a plaintiff. The
plaintiffs are also represented by the same lawyers that represented
them in the Florida lawsuit.
The complaint alleges a putative class action consisting of
claims that certain Commission rules were violated by making false
and misleading statements in the Proxy, the defendants breached
their fiduciary duties and breached the Agreement. The complaint
was consolidated with the Christman lawsuit, which is described
above, pursuant to General Rule 2.31 of the United States District
Court of the Northern District of Illinois.
The General Partners deny these allegations and intend to
vigorously defend against these claims. There have been no material
developments with respect to this lawsuit since it was filed on June
20, 1997; however, management believes that the terms of the April
13, 1999 settlement agreement described above will encompass this
lawsuit.
(9) RESERVE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION
In connection with the Merger (see Note 8), the Partnership has
undertaken environmental studies of potentially affected properties.
One of the Partnership's properties has been identified by the
environmental study as having a potential environmental issue. A
remedial investigation and feasibility study has been completed, and
the results of that study have been forwarded to the appropriate
authorities. The study indicates a range of viable remedial
approaches, but agreement has not yet been reached with the
authorities on the final remediation approach. The Partnership has
accrued its best estimate of the costs that will be incurred to
complete the environmental remediation at this property.
In connection with the purchase of the above property by the
Partnership, the Partnership was to be reimbursed by the former
owner for environmental clean-up. The Partnership will therefore
seek reimbursement of the costs from this former owner. No estimate
of the collectibility of this reimbursement can be made at this
time.
<PAGE>
<TABLE>
SCHEDULE III
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P.
(a Delaware limited partnership)
REAL ESTATE AND ACCUMULATED DEPRECIATION
DECEMBER 31, 1998
<CAPTION> Gross Amount at Which Carried
Initial Cost (a) at Close of Period (b)
Buildings, Buildings,
Personal Cost of Personal
Property and Subsequent Property and Accumulated Date
Description Encumbrances(c) Land Improvements Improvements Land Improvements Total(a) Depreciation Acquired
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Taco Bells $0 $2,245,312 $5,239,062 $0 $2,093,512 $ 4,884,862 $ 6,978,374 $1,629,334 12/87-2/88
Ponderosas 0 3,167,168 7,390,057 0 2,975,468 6,942,757 9,918,225 2,133,581 9/88-11/89
Children's World
Learning Centers 0 356,288 831,338 0 356,288 831,338 1,187,626 216,106 7/89
Unallocated additional
Acquisition Fee 0 0 93,750 0 0 93,750 93,750 24,885 11/90-12/90
$0 $5,768,768 $13,554,207 $0 $5,425,268 $12,752,707 $18,177,975 $4,003,906
<FN>
<F1>
NOTES:
(a) The cost of this real estate is $19,322,975 for tax purposes (unaudited). The buildings are depreciated over approximately
35 years using the straight line method. The properties were constructed between 1969 and 1986.
(b) The following schedule summarizes the changes in the Partnership's real estate and accumulated depreciation balances:
</FN>
<CAPTION>
Real estate 1998 1997 1996
<S> <C> <C> <C>
Balance at beginning of year $19,322,975 $19,322,975 $19,322,975
Subtractions-land, buildings and improvements(d) 1,145,000 0 0
Balance at end of year $18,177,975 $19,322,975 $19,322,975
Accumulated depreciation 1998 1997 1996
Balance at beginning of year $ 3,625,393 $ 3,238,758 $ 2,852,122
Provision for depreciation 378,513 386,635 386,636
Balance at end of year $ 4,003,906 $ 3,625,393 $ 3,238,758
(c)Encumbrances - Brauvin High Yield Fund L.P. did not borrow cash in order to purchase its properties. 100% of the land and
buildings were paid for with funds contributed by the Interest Holders.
(d) The 1998 amount reflects a provision for impairment on land of $343,500 & building of $801,500(Taco Bell & Ponderosas)
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
EXHIBITS
TO
BRAUVIN HIGH YIELD FUND L.P.
FORM 10-K ANNUAL REPORT
FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT INDEX
Exhibit (21) Subsidiaries of the Registrant
Exhibit (27) Financial Data Schedule
<PAGE>
Exhibit 21
Name of Subsidiary State of Formation
Brauvin High Yield Venture Illinois
Brauvin Funds Joint Venture Illinois
Brauvin Gwinnett County Venture Illinois
Brauvin Bay County Venture Illinois
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>
<ARTICLE> 5
<S> <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE> 12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END> DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END> DEC-31-1998
<CASH> 1,478,616
<SECURITIES> 3,132,752 <F1>
<RECEIVABLES> 0
<ALLOWANCES> 0
<INVENTORY> 0
<CURRENT-ASSETS> 0
<PP&E> 18,177,975 <F2>
<DEPRECIATION> 4,003,906
<TOTAL-ASSETS> 18,802,917
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES> 431,973
<BONDS> 0
0
0
<COMMON> 18,370,944 <F3>
<OTHER-SE> 0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY> 18,802,917
<SALES> 0
<TOTAL-REVENUES> 2,564,708 <F4>
<CGS> 0
<TOTAL-COSTS> 2,102,291 <F5>
<OTHER-EXPENSES> (354,319) <F6>
<LOSS-PROVISION> 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE> 0
<INCOME-PRETAX> 0
<INCOME-TAX> 0
<INCOME-CONTINUING> 0
<DISCONTINUED> 0
<EXTRAORDINARY> 0
<CHANGES> 0
<NET-INCOME> 816,736
<EPS-PRIMARY> 0
<EPS-DILUTED> 0
<FN>
<F1> "SECURITIES" REPRESENTS INVESTMENTS IN JOINT VENTURE
<F2> "PP&E" REPRESENTS INVESTMENT IN REAL ESTATE [LAND AND
BUILDING]
<F3> "COMMON" REPRESENTS TOTAL PARTNERS CAPITAL
<F4> "TOTAL REVENUES" REPRESENTS RENTAL, INTEREST, AND OTHER
INCOME
<F5> "TOTAL COSTS" REPRESENTS TOTAL EXPENSES
<F6> "OTHER EXPENSES" REPRESENTS EQUITY INTEREST IN JOINT
VENTURES' NET INCOME
</FN>
</TABLE>
