XML 38 R17.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v2.4.1.9

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND LIQUIDITY | 3 Months Ended
--- | ---
Mar. 31, 2015
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND LIQUIDITY |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES AND LIQUIDITY | NOTE 9. COMMITMENTS, 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 $22.1 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. Liquidity. Management believes that ARL will generate excess cash flow from property operations in 2015; 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. As permitted in the respective partnership agreements, ARL intends to purchase the interests of the general and any other limited partners in these partnerships subsequent to the completion of these projects. The amounts paid to buy out 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 otherwise noted 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. Disposed of Entities: ART and ART Midwest, Inc. While the Company and all entities in which the Company has a direct or indirect equity interest are not parties to or obligated in any way for the outcome, a formerly owned entity (American Realty Trust, Inc.) and its former subsidiary (ART Midwest, Inc.) have been engaged since 1999 in litigation with Mr. David Clapper and entities related to Mr. Clapper (collectively, the “Clapper Parties”). The matter originally involved a transaction in 1998 in which ART Midwest, Inc. was to acquire eight residential apartment complexes from the Clapper Parties. Through the years, a number of rulings, both for and against American Realty Trust, Inc. (“ART”) and ART Midwest, Inc., were issued. In October 2011, a ruling was issued under which the Clapper Parties received a judgment for approximately $74 million, including $26 million in actual damages and $48 million interest. The ruling was against ART and ART Midwest, Inc., but no other entity. During February 2014, the Court of Appeals affirmed a portion of the judgment in favor of the Clapper Parties, but also ruled that a double counting of a significant portion of the damages had occurred and remanded the case back to the trial court to recalculate the damage award, as well as pre and post-judgment interest thereon. ART was also a significant owner of a partnership interest in the partnership that was awarded the initial damages in this matter. In 2005, ART filed suit against a major national law firm over the initial transaction. That action was initially abated while the principal case with the Clapper Parties was pending, but the abatement was recently lifted and the action against the law firm is expected to move forward. The only defendants in the litigation involving the Clapper Parties are ART and ART Midwest, Inc., which, together, had total assets and net worth, as of December 31, 2012, of approximately $10 million. In January 2012, the Company sold all of the issued and outstanding stock of ART to an unrelated party for a promissory note in the amount of $10 million. At December 31, 2012, the Company fully reserved and valued such note at zero. In August 2014, David M. Clapper and two entities related to Mr. Clapper (all, collectively, the “Clapper Parties”) filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court against the Company, its directors and certain of its officers alleging purported transactions to the detriment of the Clapper Parties and others by transferring assets, cash and diverting property. Management of the Company believes that there is no basis for this action against the Company and its officers and directors and intends to vigorously defend itself. The August 2014 complaint does not allege any facts relating to the Company, except that the named directors and officers are directors and officers of the Company and that the Company is a Nevada corporation, with its headquarters/principal place of business in Dallas, Texas. Management of the Company believes that the Company has no liability for any ultimate judgment in the proceeding involving the Clapper Parties; however, Management of the Company has serious reservations about the current collectability of the $10 million note and, accordingly, continues to maintain a full reservation of the value of such note at zero. Port Olpenitz ARL, through a foreign subsidiary, was involved in developing a maritime harbor town on the 420 acre site of the former naval base of Olpenitz in Kappeln, Germany. Disputes with the local partner related to his mismanagement of the project resulted in his being replaced as the managing partner which was followed by a filing for bankruptcy protection in Germany to completely remove him from the project. An insolvency manager was placed in control of the project in order to protect the creditors and as of December 31, 2013, had sold the vast majority of assets (almost all land) of the project. The Company no longer has any financial responsibility for the obligations of the creditors related to the project and has claims filed for loans relating to our investment in the project. Due to the questionable collectability of these loans from the proceeds of the project, the Company has written off the unreserved balance of $5.3 million in the project. As of December 13, 2013, ARL had filed two lawsuits in Germany to recover funds invested in the project. The lawsuits are against: 1) the former German partner and his company, and 2) against the law firm in Hamburg originally hired to protect ARL’s investment in the project. At this time it is unknown how much can be recovered or how successful the litigation will be. 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 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 ART and damages of $960,646 in “increased costs” and $11,161,520 for “lost opportunity” damages in favor of TCI and its subsidiaries (a total of $12,122,166). 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 attorney’s 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. During the first 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