Marriott to Spin Off Timeshare Business [merged]

TJCNewYork · Feb 28, 2011

Cmore said:
I agree mvci owners should largely support what Marriott's vision for the resort is as that is what we are paying for, I think it primarily allows the COA to have input and final control of the annual budget. So the BOD's function IMO is to not let Marriott get competely out of control on costs.

If anyone has a clarification on that point it would be worth knowing. Thx.

Cmore - I agree, the board of directors has a fiduciary role. Controlling costs (read as MF) at a weeks-based resort with an established refurbishment cycle and cash flow tied to healthy reserves is likely to be straightforward. The annual budget is sent to each owner and viewable online. Based upon the budgets for my resorts, it is very clear that the budget is based upon weeks-ownership.

The resorts where I own have been sold out for years. Marriott has done a great job of itemizing budget items and identifying known variances. Based upon a line-by-line comparison, changes in the brand standard (which impact reserves), spikes in the cost of energy, staff turnover, insurance premiums, taxes and to a lesser extent allowance for bad debt are among the transparent variables where reliance on BoD oversight is essential. You are absolutely correct about that.

How a budget is structured for a resort that is not sold out and impacted by points-based ownership is not immediately clear. For example, housekeeping costs. How does that get computed with variable and shorter-than-a-week-stays factored in? I could be wrong, but intuitively, the shorter-than-a-week-stay would contribute to higher housekeeping costs than a weeks-based-stay.

How is bad debt factored in? What processes and assumptions are used to protect the COA when weeks-based or points-based owners default? Typically, the governing docs spell out the aging cycle before foreclosure proceedings kick-in. I do not own at any resorts that have a weeks/points mix (that I am aware), so I'm unable to view the respective budget, governing docs and therefore gleen any additional insights other than what other TUGers feel comfortable sharing/disclosing. This statement is not intended to imply that Marriott or any COA is hiding this information. To the contrary, I believe Marriott has set up an e-mail channel for owners to correspond privately with BoD members (Typically, the BoD e-mail address is listed in the annual budget documents).

Given the financial stake all mvci owners (weeks & points) have, the additional clarity you're asking about would be welcome and helpful.

timeos2 · Feb 28, 2011

Additional costs should be covered

TJCNewYork said:
How a budget is structured for a resort that is not sold out and impacted by points-based ownership is not immediately clear. For example, housekeeping costs. How does that get computed with variable and shorter-than-a-week-stays factored in? I could be wrong, but intuitively, the shorter-than-a-week-stay would contribute to higher housekeeping costs than a weeks-based-stay.

Given the financial stake all mvci owners (weeks & points) have, the additional clarity you're asking about would be welcome and helpful.

If a use period - week or points - has an owner it should pay the fees. The fact that a weeks use value is moved to points doesn't change the need/obligation for the owner to pay. In some ways if a week gets committed to points and then the fees are paid through the points system it might be better for the Association as they have only one place to go to get paid - the points system operator rather than hundred's or thousands of individual owners. Plus if the owner is paying to be in the points system it is far more likely they will also pay the fees due so they can use their points.

As for split weeks additional costs can and should be billed and paid by the points system- not absorbed by the general ownership base. A well run system has provisions for such payments and enforces them.

Cmore · Feb 28, 2011

SueDonJ said:
(All the caps and bolding etc is quoted - it's not me yelling at you or emphasizing something that Marriott didn't. )...

No problem, I am not that email/tech savvy, or hopefully that sensitive that it would matter, but I appreciate the thought.

Regarding the post... I see what you are talking about, but I will review my doc's this eve. and see why I thought that. Could simply be my overly comprehensive view of "my week is still a week, unless I exchange it for points". It is, but maybe I am giving up a little something, even when I don't exchange it for points.

Overall, my immediate intepretation of the sections you list are that this is simply referring to the exchange company and not the overall operating and mgmt of the resort. Although in practicality they are largely the same, since a resort's continued affiliation with MVCI requires maintaining the brand std. So in practicality BoD's are really kind of a 'restrictor plate' on Marriott, but do retain the option (however unlikely) of dropping Marriott as the resort operator, if Marriott's demands were viewed as out of control by the ownership as a whole.

Regarding the whole "Trust/Points" issue in terms of how it relates to resorts is not clear to me either. I assume at sold out resorts or mixed ownership resorts, until Marriott would choose to acquire enough weeks of ownership (and transfer them to the trust) to control the outcome any votes, the BoD's and weeks owners ultimately have the final say, even if that is rubberstamping Marriott's wishes.

In 100% Trust resorts - I don't have any Trust doc's since I am an "exchange member" but I suspect Marriott controls all the cards.

Finally, my weeks are at resorts that are getting older, and I think we can thank Marriott and their continual demands for our money for keeping the properties in top condition. I believe Cypress Harbour is one of the older resorts that was MVCI developed (not acquired), it still looks really good, and gets great ratings. Many times that is not true among many other resort groups. So it is only fair to give them credit for that.

SueDonJ · Feb 28, 2011

Cmore said:
No problem, I am not that email/tech savvy, or hopefully that sensitive that it would matter, but I appreciate the thought.

Regarding the post... I see what you are talking about, but I will review my doc's this eve. and see why I thought that. Could simply be my overly comprehensive view of "my week is still a week, unless I exchange it for points". It is, but maybe I am giving up a little something, even when I don't exchange it for points.

Overall, my immediate intepretation of the sections you list are that this is simply referring to the exchange company and not the overall operating and mgmt of the resort. Although in practicality they are largely the same, since a resort's continued affiliation with MVCI requires maintaining the brand std. So in practicality BoD's are really kind of a 'restrictor plate' on Marriott, but do retain the option (however unlikely) of dropping Marriott as the resort operator, if Marriott's demands were viewed as out of control by the ownership as a whole.

Regarding the whole "Trust/Points" issue in terms of how it relates to resorts is not clear to me either. I assume at sold out resorts or mixed ownership resorts, until Marriott would choose to acquire enough weeks of ownership (and transfer them to the trust) to control the outcome any votes, the BoD's and weeks owners ultimately have the final say, even if that is rubberstamping Marriott's wishes.

In 100% Trust resorts - I don't have any Trust doc's since I am an "exchange member" but I suspect Marriott controls all the cards.

Finally, my weeks are at resorts that are getting older, and I think we can thank Marriott and their continual demands for our money for keeping the properties in top condition. I believe Cypress Harbour is one of the older resorts that was MVCI developed (not acquired), it still looks really good, and gets great ratings. Many times that is not true among many other resort groups. So it is only fair to give them credit for that.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I'm following your train of thought completely, but it seems we agree on many things related to Marriott's management of the resorts. At least, we both appreciate that without Marriott's influence the resorts may not have been kept up as well as they have been. And we both seem to recognize that Marriott doesn't have free reign to do whatever they want and run up the m/f - our Boards serve a function to keep costs reasonable, and our governing docs give us protections that at the least require Marriott to justify any questionable fee increases.

So far there aren't any resorts which are "100% Trust resorts." It may be quite a while before we see one because Marriott doesn't have any brand new developments on the drawing board, and, it will be very surprising if every owner of an existing resort chooses to enroll in the DC. (It simply isn't advantageous for every owner to do so, especially when you consider the low DC Point allocations for lower-demand weeks and/or units.) But like you, again, I think that if/when 100% Trust resorts are in the system, Marriott will have much more leeway with them than with the existing resorts.

At the time of the DC rollout there were only eleven existing resorts which had inventory conveyed to the Trust by Marriott. That number has increased somewhat - TUGger dioxide45 maintains a thread with updates here. I think, though, that the voting stipulation for enrolled Weeks/Exchange Members gives Marriott much more control of the vote than only their Trust conveyances. Marriott's not stupid, though, and they know that as long as the governing docs of the resorts give Weeks owners the right to vote them out as manager, if they play fast and loose with m/f then there's a substantial risk to them losing the income they derive from their successful resorts.

dioxide45 · Feb 28, 2011

There are several (many?) resorts where some board members are MVCI employees. Sure they are owners, but they get their paycheck from MCVI. So how do we know what they consider more important? Their fellow owners or the company?

The owners that get put up for election are selected by a nominating committee that is setup by the board. Sure anyone can put their name in to run for a BOD, but they have to go through the committee and they ultimately decide who is and isn't on the ballot. If enough of the people on the nominating committee are more concerned about the company than the other owners views, they will put people on the ballot that fit their views.

Also note that there are several board members that are what you would consider "career board members". They are on several boards at several resorts and potentially hold president title on one while also serving on another.

Just because a resort is sold out doesn't mean that MVCI doesn't have great influence on the board.

SueDonJ · Feb 28, 2011

dioxide45 said:
There are several (many?) resorts where some board members are MVCI employees. Sure they are owners, but they get their paycheck from MCVI. So how do we know what they consider more important? Their fellow owners or the company?

The owners that get put up for election are selected by a nominating committee that is setup by the board. Sure anyone can put their name in to run for a BOD, but they have to go through the committee and they ultimately decide who is and isn't on the ballot. If enough of the people on the nominating committee are more concerned about the company than the other owners views, they will put people on the ballot that fit their views.

Also note that there are several board members that are what you would consider "career board members". They are on several boards at several resorts and potentially hold president title on one while also serving on another.

Just because a resort is sold out doesn't mean that MVCI doesn't have great influence on the board.

Yep. Even where the governing docs don't stipulate one or more Marriott seats on the Board, it's a huge challenge to vote in a completely owner-sympathetic board. And should your resort manage to beat those odds, the docs still provide for Marriott influence by virtue of the "brand standard" protections given to Marriott in the docs. It's a balancing act for sure, but if you want the Marriott name on the door you have to accept Marriott's control.

Cmore · Feb 28, 2011

SueDonJ said:
...the docs still provide for Marriott influence by virtue of the "brand standard" protections given to Marriott in the docs. It's a balancing act for sure, but if you want the Marriott name on the door you have to accept Marriott's control.

dioxide45 said:
Just because a resort is sold out doesn't mean that MVCI doesn't have great influence on the board.

Agreed to both, now for something interesting....

I recently enrolled our weeks when we were at DSII, and had pretty well decided that we wanted to before we left. I basically just needed to clear up some questions and ended up with some free golf that I wouldn't have received on-line since we needed to visit with a sales rep to get my questions answered. He was actually a very good sales rep (believe it or not) who endured all my "what if's" and my polite, but repetitive, "no thank-you's" to buying more points.

The interesting thing is our MVCEC enrollment agreement does not have provision 1(e) anywhere. 1 a,b,c,d exist and it is not a cut off page as
the pg number and numerous sub-script notations exist below 1(d) at the bottom pg 1, and the top of page 2 starts right out with item 2.
If I am reading this correctly the revision date is 11.15.10.

So after reviewing the whole thing :wall:

I think they dropped it, as the other provisions largely make this a mute point. Basically, if the resort drops the exchange company or it is not maintained to brand standards they can drop the resort, in which case our club membership as it relates to that resort is terminated, they owe us nothing, etc.

My guess is rather than scaring people over some level of voting rights, they figured that the most important control they have, they already possess.... The Marriott name, and all that goes with it.

So that's what I think I know...

TJCNewYork · Feb 28, 2011

SueDonJ said:
At the time of the DC rollout there were only eleven existing resorts which had inventory conveyed to the Trust by Marriott. That number has increased somewhat - TUGger dioxide45 maintains a thread with updates here.

Absolutely fascinating! Great work Dioxide45. I stopped reading, 'Recorded Trust Documents' at GregT's points consolidation post, because the connect-the-dots alarm started ringing in my head:

GregT said:
Total points (largest to smallest)

Timberlodge...............11,022,750
Ko Olina......................9,208,750
Newport Coast Villas.....8,643,000
Crystal Shores.............8,021,250
Oceana Palms..............5,706,000
MOC-Sequel................4,352,070
Kalanipu'u...................3,529,500 (Kauai Lagoons)
Canyon Villas..............3,105,500
Willow Ridge................2,848,500
MOC..........................2,410,750
Shadow Ridge..............1,475,750
Grande Chateau...........1,378,250
Ocean Watch................992,000
Grand Vista...................774,750
DSV II..........................333,750
Harbour Lake.................238,000
Lakeshore Reserve..........153,750
Fairway Villas.................110,000
Cypress Harbour...............90,750
Ocean Point....................71,000
Barony Beach Club............69,750
Mountain Side..................68,500
Summit Watch.................45,000
Sunset Point...................44,250
Sabal Palms.....................39,000
Royal Palms.....................35,000
Manor Club Sequel............32,000
Manor Club.....................30,000
Harbour Club...................17,250
DSV I............................16,000
Doral.............................13,000
Grande Ocean.................. 9,000
Heritage Club.................. 7,500

Note the tie-in of GregT's list to Pool #3 shown in a whiteboard sales presentation seen at Custom House recently:

TJCNewYork · Mar 1, 2011

Continuity and Mentoring is Essential for a COA BoD

dioxide45 said:
Just because a resort is sold out doesn't mean that MVCI doesn't have great influence on the board.

An important point for sure, thanks for bringing it up, Dioxide. 'Great influence' can be positive or negative. Example. Over the past 2 years, we looked at timeshares in the Newport, Rhode Island market and were really astonished. The lack of brand standards was off-putting; the poor quality of design and materials was a turn-off; the lack of workmanship and a total absence of maintenance - let alone refurbishment completely disappointing. The remaining value these units have come from their location in a booming and thriving waterfront community like Newport. Yet, during the peak summer season, some resorts - right on the waterfront - appeared to be ghost towns. That said, where's the fiduciary responsibility by management and the board in retaining the value of such valuable real estate? ConsumerAffairs.com lists Foreclosure Rescue, Ponzi Schemes and Timeshares among the Top 10 Scams of 2010. Based upon what we saw in Newport, Rhode Island; it's easy to see why Timeshares ranks among the top 10.

From that perspective, even though a resort is 'sold out', Marriott's 'great influence' on their boards can be guiding, protective, reassuring and benign in my opinion. Can Marriott's influence be over-protective? Perhaps. Newer BoD may not be able to spend the time to devote to service, so having seasoned, dedicated owners - even if they are 'career' BoD - is important because leadership, continuity, negotiation and mentoring is absolutely essential to the successful operation of a COA.

Cmore · Mar 1, 2011

TJCNewYork said:
... 'Great influence' can be positive or negative.... From that perspective, even though a resort is 'sold out', Marriott's 'great influence' on their boards can be guiding, protective, reassuring and benign in my opinion. Can Marriott's influence be over-protective? Perhaps. Newer BoD may not be able to spend the time to devote to service, so having seasoned, dedicated owners - even if they are 'career' BoD - is important because leadership, continuity, negotiation and mentoring is absolutely essential to the successful operation of a COA.

Could not agree more, overall Marriott largely forces high reserves for top shelf refurbishment, that is why there is a consistently good product for us to enjoy.

The BoD for our HOA of our main residence battles with this all the time. Like the disparity in the overall population, people have different perspectives. Some owners simply want monthly HOA fees as low as possible and would drop what others consider to be essential services and/or lower reserve funding of common elements. These folks try to get on the BoD so they can have a direct vote on that and they simply appeal to the membership at the annual meeting that I am for lower monthly fees and have been a resident here for "x" years.... that is the sum total of their reason they deserve to be on the BoD.

c20854@aol.com · Mar 1, 2011

Will Marriott owners be better represented in the new spin off timeshare company ?

Lets take this opportunity and turn this announcement into a very positive one for every Marriott Vacation Club Owner.

Given the recent article in the WSJ-DumpingTimeshares and Al Lewis's blog http://newswires-americas.com/tellittoal/ does it make sense to buy stock now in Marriott International (MAR) ?

I encourage you to consider doing the following so that your rights as a Marriott Timeshare owner are represented:

1. Purchase Marriott International (MAR) stock (approximately $40 per share) so as a stockholder you will have voting representation in the new company

2. Push for the inclusion of several owner representatives as members of the new Board of Directors in the spin off company

3. Support the creation of an office of Owner Ombudsman within the new company .

4. Let's work together creating the largest Coalition of Timeshare Owners protecting our interests as Marriott creates the worlds largest stand alone time share company.

5. Stay informed as the regulatory process moves forward. We must be aware of the SEC filings as well as any other state requirements to see how the new company will effect our ownership.

Since the Wall Street Journal column of 2/12/11 by Al Lewis WSJ.com - Dumping Timeshares*, my email box has been filled by Marriott Timeshare owners around the world asking how can we make sure that we will be heard as Marriott spins off the timeshare division into a stand alone company?

I have been encouraged in the overwhelming support for seeking owner representation on the new Board of Directors, the creation of an ombudsman office and an owners coalition. Currently, Marriott International has voiced its objections to the SEC on a stockholders resolution creating an office of Owner Ombudsman.

The Marriott Vacation Club International (MVCI) division has been the only negative aspect of the Marriott brand as voiced by stockholders at the last two Marriott International annual meetings with write offs and impairment charges of over $1.2 billions dollars. In its heyday, the MVCI division had been the cash cow, being one of the largest profit center yet one of the smallest divisions within Marriott International. .

Now, I believe both because of the economy and owner concerns with MVCI it has fallen on hard times. The greatest strength and hope for the success of the Marriott brand and the new company is its 400,000+ owners.

As Timeshare owners we already have a vest interest, so buying stock in Marriott International should give us a stronger voice once the spin off is completed.

One of the bright spots of the new company is that it will be under the direction of Bill Shaw, the newly announced Chairman of the Board who is a trusted, hard working and dedicated individual. We want the high standards that Mr. Shaw represents to be carried forward into the new Company.

The challenges ahead can only be successfully overcome with the support of current owners and stockholders. Let’s hope that during this reorganization, under the direction of a new Board of Directors with owner representation, that MVCI will have learned from mistakes in the past and begin to work with Timeshare owners in a more collaborative and transparent fashion.

Lets take this opportunity to protect our interest and move forward in a positive way by establishing a fresh new beginning.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Please contact me at: c20854@aol.com

Thank you, Allan Cohen (301-299-2118)

Tommy_Boy · Mar 1, 2011

Thanks for your posting

I just sent you an e-mail, but just wanted to thank you for the posting. This spin-off, and the WSJ article, are certainly concerning. The spin-off could turn out to be a good thing....though I'd say the potential for it being negative probably outweighs the upside (i.e., if no longer truly associated with Marriott, the benefits of being part of the Marriott brand go away, etc.).

Interested in other information you may have on your initiatives.

TJCNewYork · Mar 1, 2011

Deliver More Value

Cmore said:
Could not agree more, overall Marriott largely forces high reserves for top shelf refurbishment, that is why there is a consistently good product for us to enjoy.

'Forces high reserves' merits commentary.

IMO, high reserves and a periodic Reserve Study go hand-in-hand. Let's also not minimize the importance of Guest Satisfaction Surveys. As management, Marriott's role in overseeing the implementation of ongoing GSS and a periodic Reserve Study is absolutely crucial. The GSS/owner feedback is among the core tools that Marriott can employ to move a BoD to action (aka higher reserves).

In its fiduciary role, the BoD must have something substantive like a Reserve Study or consistently low GSS scores to make a decision about replacing assets x,y,z to enhance the value or respond to owner feedback.

If this is the basis for "consistently good product", perhaps 'benign force' may be more meaningful? In the context of spinco and mixed weeks/points ownership there is the opportunity to sharpen the tools, metrics and feedback processes that Marriott and BoD can use to deliver more value.

SueDonJ · Mar 1, 2011

c20854@aol.com said:
Lets take this opportunity and turn this announcement into a very positive one for every Marriott Vacation Club Owner.

Given the recent article in the WSJ-DumpingTimeshares and Al Lewis's blog http://newswires-americas.com/tellittoal/ does it make sense to buy stock now in Marriott International (MAR) ?

I encourage you to consider doing the following so that your rights as a Marriott Timeshare owner are represented:

1. Purchase Marriott International (MAR) stock (approximately $40 per share) so as a stockholder you will have voting representation in the new company

2. Push for the inclusion of several owner representatives as members of the new Board of Directors in the spin off company

3. Support the creation of an office of Owner Ombudsman within the new company .

4. Let's work together creating the largest Coalition of Timeshare Owners protecting our interests as Marriott creates the worlds largest stand alone time share company.

5. Stay informed as the regulatory process moves forward. We must be aware of the SEC filings as well as any other state requirements to see how the new company will effect our ownership.

Since the Wall Street Journal column of 2/12/11 by Al Lewis WSJ.com - Dumping Timeshares*, my email box has been filled by Marriott Timeshare owners around the world asking how can we make sure that we will be heard as Marriott spins off the timeshare division into a stand alone company?

I have been encouraged in the overwhelming support for seeking owner representation on the new Board of Directors, the creation of an ombudsman office and an owners coalition. Currently, Marriott International has voiced its objections to the SEC on a stockholders resolution creating an office of Owner Ombudsman.

The Marriott Vacation Club International (MVCI) division has been the only negative aspect of the Marriott brand as voiced by stockholders at the last two Marriott International annual meetings with write offs and impairment charges of over $1.2 billions dollars. In its heyday, the MVCI division had been the cash cow, being one of the largest profit center yet one of the smallest divisions within Marriott International. .

Now, I believe both because of the economy and owner concerns with MVCI it has fallen on hard times. The greatest strength and hope for the success of the Marriott brand and the new company is its 400,000+ owners.

As Timeshare owners we already have a vest interest, so buying stock in Marriott International should give us a stronger voice once the spin off is completed.

One of the bright spots of the new company is that it will be under the direction of Bill Shaw, the newly announced Chairman of the Board who is a trusted, hard working and dedicated individual. We want the high standards that Mr. Shaw represents to be carried forward into the new Company.

The challenges ahead can only be successfully overcome with the support of current owners and stockholders. Let’s hope that during this reorganization, under the direction of a new Board of Directors with owner representation, that MVCI will have learned from mistakes in the past and begin to work with Timeshare owners in a more collaborative and transparent fashion.

Lets take this opportunity to protect our interest and move forward in a positive way by establishing a fresh new beginning.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Please contact me at: c20854@aol.com

Thank you, Allan Cohen (301-299-2118)

Allan, I'm sorry, but if you intend to put yourself into the same position of "Concerned Owner" with the spin-off as you did with the Aruba Ocean Club, then it's my opinion that all of our ownerships will suffer tremendously and will cost us far more than if you didn't dispense advice and become involved.

For anyone who is not aware of Allan's contentious history and reputation with MVCI, take a few weeks to browse through this. Be aware that Allan didn't post regularly to the thread but his missives were copied there by TUGger marksue.

Fredm · Mar 1, 2011

SueDonJ said:
Allan, I'm sorry, but if you intend to put yourself into the same position of "Concerned Owner" with the spin-off as you did with the Aruba Ocean Club, then it's my opinion that all of our ownerships will suffer tremendously and will cost us far more than if you didn't dispense advice and become involved.

For anyone who is not aware of Allan's contentious history and reputation with MVCI, take a few weeks to browse through this. Be aware that Allan didn't post regularly to the thread but his missives were copied there by TUGger marksue.

Amen!!!!!!

SueDonJ · Mar 1, 2011

Fredm said:
Amen!!!!!!

The more I think about this, the more terrified I am of what's ahead for all of us if Allan Cohen is able to generate support for whatever cause he champions. This is no joke, and I am not exaggerating when I say "terrified." The man was the catalyst for actions against MVCI which cost all Aruba Ocean Club owners (at last count*) "$189,000 in legal and associated fees." And his efforts were not successful.

(*If you sign in to your my-vacationclub.com account, navigate to the Aruba Ocean Club page and click on the Owners tab, you'll find many other official statements from Marriott and the AOC board which chronicle Allan's missteps.)

One caution specifically because of the way he ended his missive above, "... I look forward to hearing from you. Please contact me at: c20854ATaol.com ..." (link disabled on purpose.) There were allegations in the Aruba Ocean Club lawsuit thread that the personal contact information of owners who had contacted Allan in his role as a board member while he was a member, was later used by the "Concerned Owners" group in various ways which had not been authorized by those owners. I would not encourage anyone to send him private emails or PM's through TUG.

Cmore · Mar 1, 2011

TJCNewYork said:
'Forces high reserves' merits commentary.

Perhaps, I could have used better terminology, I think we agree.

SueDonJ · Mar 1, 2011

Cmore said:
Agreed to both, now for something interesting....

I recently enrolled our weeks when we were at DSII, and had pretty well decided that we wanted to before we left. I basically just needed to clear up some questions and ended up with some free golf that I wouldn't have received on-line since we needed to visit with a sales rep to get my questions answered. He was actually a very good sales rep (believe it or not) who endured all my "what if's" and my polite, but repetitive, "no thank-you's" to buying more points.

The interesting thing is our MVCEC enrollment agreement does not have provision 1(e) anywhere. 1 a,b,c,d exist and it is not a cut off page as
the pg number and numerous sub-script notations exist below 1(d) at the bottom pg 1, and the top of page 2 starts right out with item 2.
If I am reading this correctly the revision date is 11.15.10.

So after reviewing the whole thing I think they dropped it, as the other provisions largely make this a mute point. Basically, if the resort drops the exchange company or it is not maintained to brand standards they can drop the resort, in which case our club membership as it relates to that resort is terminated, they owe us nothing, etc.

My guess is rather than scaring people over some level of voting rights, they figured that the most important control they have, they already possess.... The Marriott name, and all that goes with it.

So that's what I think I know...

You're right, this is very interesting! I just went through the enrollment doc that's on my-vacationclub.com now and section 1(e) is no longer a part of that either. Hmmmm. For some folks that voting restriction is the major reason why they won't consider enrollment.

Dioxide, if I'm remembering correctly you posted a while back about revisions to the online docs that you'd found. I can't remember enough of the details to narrow a TUG search to find your post. But if it was you, do you remember that the removal of the voting restriction was one of the changes you'd found?

Fredm · Mar 1, 2011

SueDonJ said:
The more I think about this, the more terrified I am of what's ahead for all of us if Allan Cohen is able to generate support for whatever cause he champions. This is no joke, and I am not exaggerating when I say "terrified." The man was the catalyst for actions against MVCI which cost all Aruba Ocean Club owners (at last count*) "$189,000 in legal and associated fees." And his efforts were not successful.

Exactly.
This is even more prone to folly and mischief.
There is so much misinformation/misunderstanding about the stock split, etc. it could get support from those that are simply excitable.

The whole thing smacks of manipulation to me.

wof45 · Mar 1, 2011

it figures there would be an ambulance chaser with a class action suit. We can all spend a ton of money in extra MF to cover defending the suit, and get a free t-shirt, while the ambulance chaser gets rich.

OldPantry · Mar 1, 2011

wof45 said:
it figures there would be an ambulance chaser with a class action suit. We can all spend a ton of money in extra MF to cover defending the suit, and get a free t-shirt, while the ambulance chaser gets rich.

Pardon a note of skepticism. How has this ambulance chaser gotten rich? I know you condemn his judgment, but at the very least, this seems a severe exaggeration. Does this really improve the level of discourse?

TJCNewYork · Mar 1, 2011

Now that was exhausting. Spinco is an exciting opportunity for a fresh start. Staying "informed as the regulatory process moves forward" is due diligence. All legacy and points owners have a stake. So keeping this friendly, and not contentious may be in our best interests.

Quoting the "Note on Forward-looking statements" cited in the Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Proposed Transaction:

"Statements in this document about the proposed spin-off of Marriott International, Inc.’s timeshare operations and development business concern anticipated future events and expectations that are not historical facts and are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of federal securities laws. We cannot assure you that the spin-off will occur or take place on schedule, as there remain many risks and uncertainties that could delay or otherwise affect the transaction. These risks include the ability to obtain regulatory approvals; receipt of a favorable letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service; final approval by Marriott’s board of directors; and other risk factors identified in Marriott’s soon to be issued 2010 annual report on Form 10-K. Any forward-looking statements in this document are made as of February 14, 2011 and we undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise."

Progress through these regulatory hoops will be complex. Since the transaction involves deeded real estate and deeded points, what happens at the state level where real estate is subject to statute state-by-state may involve some 'ambulance chasing'. Let's hope not, but it is a possibility to be 'terrified' about because owners (like myself) are unprepared for anymore legal surprises and the 'sticker shock' that goes with it.

TJCNewYork · Mar 1, 2011

OldPantry said:
Does this really improve the level of discourse?

Thank you for raising that question.

lovearuba · Mar 1, 2011

Who is the terror here

SueDonJ said:
The more I think about this, the more terrified I am of what's ahead for all of us if Allan Cohen is able to generate support for whatever cause he champions. This is no joke, and I am not exaggerating when I say "terrified."

This seems to be your personal website, the constant scrutiny over every post and voluminous comments clearly show your unrealistic expectations that only your opinions count. Well contrary to what this means to you but Allan and you are both entitled to your opinion. Recommendations that owners purchase shares should seem reasonable regardless of who's opinion it is. The moderator needs to take a little more time reading your comments and address your disrespectful behavior.

SueDonJ · Mar 1, 2011

--- deleted ---

Marriott to Spin Off Timeshare Business [merged]

TJCNewYork

timeos2

Tug Review Crew: Rookie

Cmore

SueDonJ

dioxide45

TUG Review Crew: Expert

SueDonJ

Cmore

TJCNewYork

TJCNewYork

Cmore

c20854@aol.com

Tommy_Boy

TJCNewYork

SueDonJ

Fredm

SueDonJ

Cmore

SueDonJ

Fredm

wof45

OldPantry

TJCNewYork

TJCNewYork

lovearuba

SueDonJ