XML 17 R18.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.0.8

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND LIQUIDITY | 9 Months Ended
--- | ---
Sep. 30, 2013
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND LIQUIDITY |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND LIQUIDITY | NOTE 10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND LIQUIDITY LK-Four Hickory, LLC In conjunction with its sale of Four Hickory in November 2007, the Company agreed to fund amounts to satisfy its commitment to compensate LK-Four Hickory, LLC for move-in discounts and other concessions to existing tenants at the time of sale. The Company also has various agreements with LK-Four Hickory, LLC related to the funding of projection shortfalls, which, to date, they have not had to provide any additional funding. In addition, related parties of the Company have active lease agreements with LK-Four Hickory, LLC and the Company has since guaranteed amounts related to certain of these leases. On December 17, 2007, both Limkwang Nevada, Inc., the majority owner of LK-Four Hickory, LLC and ARL unconditionally guaranteed the punctual payment when due, whether at stated maturity, by acceleration or hereafter, including all fees and expenses incurred by the bank on collection of a $28.0 million note payable for LK-Four Hickory, LLC which has a current outstanding balance of $23.4 million. The Company’s investment in LK-Four Hickory, LLC at January 17, 2012 was sold and the Company has additional reserves for estimated potential amounts it could be liable for if various related parties are not able to meet their obligations to LK-Four Hickory, LLC. The Company will continue to evaluate these potential estimates and also the likelihood of having to fund any of these and adjust their reserves accordingly. Dynex Commercial, Inc. and Dynex Capital, Inc. On February 13, 2013, the Court of Appeals, Fifth District of Texas at Dallas (the “Fifth Court of Appeals”) rendered an opinion involving Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc. (the “Issuer” or “TCI”) in Case No. 05-04-01358-CV styled Basic Capital Management, Inc., American Realty Trust, Inc., Transcontinental Realty Investors, Inc., Continental Poydras Corp., Continental Common, Inc. and Continental Baronne, Inc. v. Dynex Commercial, Inc. and Dynex Capital, Inc. The case was on appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas, had previously been appealed to the Fifth Court of Appeals and further appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Texas which had remanded the instant case back to the Fifth Court of Appeals to address certain issues. The case had its origin with Dynex Commercial making loans to Continental Poydras Corp., Continental Common, Inc. and Continental Baronne, Inc. (subsidiaries of Continental Mortgage & Equity Trust (“CMET”), an entity which merged into TCI in 1999 after the original suit was filed). Under the original loan commitment, $160,000,000 in loans were to be made to the entities. The loans were conditioned on the execution of a commitment between Dynex Commercial and Basic Capital Management, Inc. (“Basic”). An original trial to a jury resulted in the jury awarding significant damages to Basic for “lost opportunity,” awarding damages in “increased costs” and “lost opportunity” damages to American Realty Trust, Inc. (“ART”) and damages of $960,646.28 in “increased costs” and $11,161,520 for “lost opportunity” damages in favor of TCI and its subsidiaries (a total of $12,122,166.28). The original Trial Court ignored the jury’s findings and entered a “Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict” (“JNOV”) in Dynex’s favor; the Fifth Court of Appeals has now ruled that the JNOV was improper because there was sufficient evidence to support the jury’s findings. As a result, the Fifth Court of Appeals ordered the Trial Court to enter a new judgment consistent with the jury’s original findings. The Fifth Court of Appeals also determined that TCI was entitled to damages for “lost opportunities” relating to tenant improvements and awarded TCI an additional $252,577. Issues relating to attorneys fees were also addressed with the Fifth Court of Appeals ordering the Trial Court to “re-try” the issue of attorney’s fees to determine the amount of fees to which TCI would be entitled on a “breach of commitment” claim. In addition, as a result of the changes in amounts awarded and passage of time, the Fifth Court of Appeals also ordered the Trial Court to recalculate the correct amounts of pre and post-judgment interest owed to Appellants. While the fifteen year old controversy is not yet fully resolved, the Fifth Court of Appeals opinion is favorable to TCI, but TCI expects continued challenges by Dynex to the Fifth Court of Appeals opinion and any ultimate award of damages by the Trial Court. Liquidity. Management believes that ARL will generate excess cash flow from property operations in 2013; such excess, however, will not be sufficient to discharge all of ARL’s obligations as they became due. Management intends to sell land and income- producing real estate, refinance real estate and obtain additional borrowings primarily secured by real estate to meet its liquidity requirements. Partnership Buyouts. ARL is the limited partner in various partnerships related to the construction of residential properties. Aspermitted in the respectivepartnership agreements, ARL intends to purchase the interests of the general and any other limited partners in these partnerships subsequent to the completion ofthese projects. The amounts paid to buyout the non-affiliated partners are limited to development fees earned by the non-affiliated partners, and are set forth in the respective partnership agreements. Litigation. The ownership of property and provision of services to the public as tenants entails an inherent risk of liability. Although the Company and its subsidiaries are involved in various items of litigation incidental to and in the ordinary course of its business, in the opinion of management, the outcome of such litigation will not have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s financial condition, results of operation or liquidity, unless noted otherwise below. The Company is involved in, and vigorously defending against, a number of deficiency claims with respect to assets that have been foreclosed by various lenders. Such claims are generally against a consolidated subsidiary as the borrower or the Company as a guarantor of indebtedness or performance. Some of these proceedings may ultimately result in an unfavorable determination for the Company and/or one of its consolidated subsidiaries. While we cannot predict the final result of such proceedings, management believes that the maximum exposure to the Company and its consolidated subsidiaries, if any, will not exceed approximately $20.0 million in the aggregate and will occur, if at all, in future years. American Realty Trust, Inc (“ART”) and its subsidiary ART Midwest, Inc have been engaged in litigation with a Mr. David Clapper and companies related to Mr. Clapper (“The Clapper Entities”) since 1999. The origins of the matter began in 1998 in a transaction whereby ART Midwest was to acquire eight apartments from the Clapper Entities. Through the years there have been rulings both for and against ART in this matter; however, in October 2011 a final ruling was issued whereby the Clapper Entities were awarded approximately $74.0 million, including $26.0 million in damages and $48.0 million in interest. This ruling was against ART and its subsidiary ART Midwest and not the Company or any other subsidiary of the Company. ART believes there were serious errors in the judge’s ruling and has filed an appeal of the judge’s ruling. ART further believes that should the Clapper Entities ultimately prevail that it has claims against a third party who was involved in this matter. These claims cannot be pursued until the main case with the Clapper Entitiesis ultimately resolved. Should the Clapper Entities ultimately prevail, the only defendants in this matter are ART and ART Midwest, Inc., whose total assets and net worth as of December 31, 2011 were approximately $10.0 million. Neither the Company nor any of its subsidiaries have guaranteed or indemnified either ART or ART Midwest, Inc. In January of 2012, the Company sold all of the issued and outstanding stock of ART for a $10.0 million note. The note is fully reserved by the Company and valued at zero. Subsequent to the sale, ART filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection. ARL, through a foreign subsidiary, is developing a maritime harbor town on the 420 acre site of the former naval base of Olpenitz in Kappeln, Germany. The project is located less than 30 miles from the Denmark border and is contemplated to include a marina offering several thousand moorings, premium vacation homes each with their own landing stage as well as exclusive hotels, restaurants, shops and a range of leisure activities from sailing to golfing to cross country skiing. The development is expected to be the biggest holiday resort in northern Europe. There have been disputes with the local partner related to his mismanagement of the project which resulted in replacing him as the managing partner and led to filing for bankruptcy protection in Germany to completely remove him from the project. An insolvency manager has been put into place in order to protect the creditors and ARL believes that the value of the land and development in process will satisfy the existing creditors and return ARL’s investment. ARL is working in cooperation with the insolvency manager and expects to continue ARL’s involvement in the development of this project. During the third quarter of the fiscal year covered by this Report, no proceeding previously reported was terminated.

X
- Details
Name: | fil_CommitmentAndContingenciesAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | fil_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 210 -SubTopic 10 -Section S99 -Paragraph 1 -Subparagraph (SX 210.5-02.25) -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6877327&loc=d3e13212-122682 Reference 2: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 825 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 1 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6449706&loc=d3e16207-108621 Reference 3: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 460 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 8 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6398077&loc=d3e12565-110249 Reference 4: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -SubTopic 20 -Section 50 -Paragraph 4 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=25496072&loc=d3e14435-108349 Reference 5: http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -SubTopic 10 -Section 50 -Paragraph 2 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/extlink&oid=6394976&loc=d3e25287-109308 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration