# Wixon v Wyndham proposed settlement ( WM BOD law-suite)



## mblosser (Jul 13, 2010)

Have folks checked this out over at 

https://www.worldmarktheclub.com/board/info/pdfs/Trend_2010-07-06_FINAL_.pdf

It purports to settle a major issue many Worldmark owners have with our governing Board, which is that it is run by and beholden to Wyndham.  The settlement doesn't go far enough to fix this issue.

We plan to object to the settlement and encourage all other owners to do likewise.  We need the Board to be immediately free of anyone affiliated with Wyndham and all future Board members must not be affiliated with Wyndham.  

I mean, really, how can it be any other way, and actually be independent and owner-focused (versus Wyndham-profit motivated as it is now)?  

Thoughts?


----------



## joestein (Jul 13, 2010)

Wow, I thought it was a pretty good settlement.

I own Wyndham Fairshare Plus or whatever it is called today, I wish we could have a settlement similar to that.


----------



## ecwinch (Jul 13, 2010)

It is an incredibly poor settlement IMO.

For one, it is a blanket waiver of all claims by all owners - even those who were not members of the class and includes any undiscovered conduct that has not come to light.

And Wyndham will still have majority control of the board. 

The only parties that material benefit from this settlement are the plaintiffs attorney's and the Wyndham affiliated directors that were defendants in the suit. 

And the news gets even worse. Last week the court suspended case mgt on the trial date, as Wyndham filed a motion indicating they are on the verge of settling also. Based on this settlement, I would not hold my breath on that one.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 13, 2010)

*Not for Club Wyndham (WHY do they keep changing all the names!)*



joestein said:


> Wow, I thought it was a pretty good settlement.
> 
> I own Wyndham Fairshare Plus or whatever it is called today, I wish we could have a settlement similar to that.



This settlement would only cover Wyndham WORLDMARK owners NOT Club Wyndham (formerly Fairshare Plus) owners/members. I don't know if there is a similar suit to deg non-Wyndham Directors on the Club Wyndham Board but if there is or is to be the hope would be a majority of owners appointed not a continuation of just a minority that could always be at leastr stalemated or outvoted on any issue. 

I have to agree with ewinch that this settlement is not a good one for Worldmark owners but would be better than nothing. Since to start over again with a new suit it would be far better to get this one to accomplish much more now. If that is just not possible due to the hard nosed stanch of either side than adding one non-Wyndham Director truly representin owners & able to get "inside" information out to all owners is better than what they have now. 

Hopefully it can be made better before full settlement but it doesn't sound like it will.


----------



## joestein (Jul 13, 2010)

I think that you are missing the point of the settlement.  While it is not everything one wants, it is much more than you had before.

- For one thing, there will be at least 2 non-afflilated board members going forward (out of 5)

- They are going to do a review of the contract with 1 afflilated/1 non affiliated person and outside counsel.

- The elections will feature ballets listing if a person is affiliated with Wyndham or independant of them.  Which holds out the possibility that non-affiliated could control the board in the future.


Does anybody think that Wyndham is going to just give over the board ?


----------



## mshatty (Jul 13, 2010)

ecwinch said:


> It is an incredibly poor settlement IMO.
> 
> For one, it is a blanket waiver of all claims by all owners - even those who were not members of the class and includes any undiscovered conduct that has not come to light.
> 
> ...



This may be a poor settlement.  But, honestly, did you expect anything more if the case settled?  Courts favor compromises and settlements.

The settlement is much more than I thought would be given up by the WM BOD.


----------



## ecwinch (Jul 14, 2010)

joestein said:


> I think that you are missing the point of the settlement.  While it is not everything one wants, it is much more than you had before.
> 
> - For one thing, there will be at least 2 non-afflilated board members going forward (out of 5)
> 
> ...



I would respectively disagree. This settlement still leaves Wyndham in control of the board, and beyond the 1.8million that the lawyers get, the benefits are largely illusionary. Sure we get an additional non-affilated director. However the Wyndham dominated board is the one who selects the replacement non-affiliated director. What type of candidate do think they will select?

Review of the mgt agreement? This is just a trojan horse for Wyndham to use this process to modify the mgt agreement in their favor. Their developer rights are well secured by Declaration, and in balance the mgt agreement actually is more in the owners favor then the typically mgt agreement at Hilton, Marriott, Disney, and Starwood. Currently Wyndham gets paid all profits up to 15% of the operating budget. But if Club fails to collect enough in m/f or there is a huge spike in operating expenses, their mgt fee takes that hit. Contrast that to the other developers who get a flat 10-15% of the operating budget and do not suffer if collections lag or expenses spike. 

And who will be the third vote on the committee reviewing the mgt agreement?  The in-house counsel - Paul Draper.  The same in-house counsel who has been advising the Board since the Wyndham take-over. Look for the committee to recommend changes that benefit Wyndham, which are then in turn approved and negotiated by the Wyndham controlled board. This will be a  great "win for the owners". 

Elections will feature ballets listing if a person is affiliated with Wyndham or independent of them?  Another illusionary "win". First it does not require that the ballot list it, only that their candidate statement does. Last year, all the affiliated candidates listed this in their candidate statements. To make this a win, this information should be listed right after their name on the ballot - just like it is if they are an incumbent. That would allow people to quickly identify the affiliated directors. This change achieves nothing.

But the biggest problem is that broad waiver of all past and future claims from the allegations in the lawsuit.


----------



## cotraveller (Jul 15, 2010)

It appears that one of the predictions I posted on January 1 will come to pass.

"_The lawsuits which have been ongoing for several years will finally draw to a close. The winners will be the lawyers who will laugh all the way to the bank with their huge fees. The owners will see few changes of any significance except for the possibility of increased fees to pay the legal bills._"

The insurance company is paying one set of lawyers fees; the other lawyers??


----------



## ecwinch (Jul 19, 2010)

A rather obvious prediction given current trends of regarding civil litigation i.e. that only 10% of lawsuits go to trial, that most class action lawsuits end in settlement, and the lawyers almost always get paid.

But thanks for reminding us of your prediction.


----------



## bigtime380 (May 24, 2011)

*Unfair at best*

I am a Worldmark owner and this settlement benefits only Wyndham, the 4 named plaintiffs and the attorneys involved (mostly the attorneys). If a regular owner who is supposedly being represented in this class wants to re-coup the loss of 481 units we would have to stay at one of the 11 discounted locations for 1 week every year for around 15 years (between 10 & 20 weeks depending on the location) in order to get a 'free' week.  I know that I never was afforded the opportunity to be named as a plaintiff.  The loss of 481 units which all Worldmark owners have paid for has a monetary value which is not satisfied by this BS points discount.


----------



## bigtime380 (May 24, 2011)

I have drafted an objection to this settlement as it seems that will be my only real representation in this matter.  Using "all Worldmark owners" as a cover for the plundering of our units by Wyndham which in turn only benefits the attorneys/named plaintiffs on the side of the class is a travesty.


----------



## LLW (May 25, 2011)

bigtime380 said:


> I have drafted an objection to this settlement as it seems that will be my only real representation in this matter.  Using "all Worldmark owners" as a cover for the plundering of our units by Wyndham which in turn only benefits the attorneys/named plaintiffs on the side of the class is a travesty.



Will you personally present your objection at the August 5, 2011 Settlement approval hearing? Will you have an attorney represent you, or are you an attorney yourself? Why object instead of op-out? Would you recommend that other owners object also?


----------



## DH1 (May 26, 2011)

*Loudest Comment Is To Opt Out!!!*

To those WorldMark owners who care at all about their Club...

Hysterical, angry rants and commentary to the court is a loser's game.

The system is structured to let you vent in that forum so that your objections can be duly recorded and then ANSWERED & DOCUMENTED BY THE PROFESSIONALS before the judge grants APPROVAL of the Settlement.

ALL who VENTED will then be no different than those who sit on their butts and do nothing!  All will be BOUND to the terms of the Settlement!  Just what the players want you to do - 

Your LOUDEST voice will be to OPT OUT - why?

Because, once you opt out, WYNDHAM & the Professionals will have lost control of you.  You are NO LONGER PART OF THE CLASS and CANNOT BE HELD to the terms of the Settlement.

Most importantly - you become an unpredictable and potentially very large threat to come after them for their wrongdoing should they go forward with the settlement.

In sufficient numbers, OPTING OUT will be the very best hope for stopping this travesty of a settlement.  At the very least, if the opt out numbers are significant, then the opportunity for an organized method of redress is preserved by those wise enough to avoid being bound by the terms of the release agreement.

As for me and my house we will OPT OUT!!!

WE hope and pray that ALL owners will do the same.

DH1


----------

