# UPDATE: RCI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - must read for all RCI members [Includes Results]



## Jennie

*Please click here for a summary and the form to object. - RCI Class Action Lawsuit*


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


A hearing was held on June 16th at the Federal Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey. There were four attorneys representing each side.

Shep Altshluler, editor of Timesharing Today Magazine, spoke eloquently on behalf of timeshare owners re: complaints about difficulty obtaining fair exchanges, rental of timeshare weeks to the general public, lack of transparency and oversight of the methods used to determine trading value of deposited weeks, etc... He expressed dissatisfaction with many aspects of the proposed settlement. And he particularly emphasized the lack of proper notice to RCI members. 

A very passionate, articulate, and well informed attorney, Susan B. Collins, came all the way from West Seneca, N.Y. (400 miles-she flew in and rented a car) to address these issues and concerns--not as an attorney but as a timeshare owner. Sadly, there were no other RCI members present except for Yours truly and spouse. I spoke for about 25 minutes. 

The Judge seemed to be very fair. He is a dignified, calm gentleman who listened carefully to each speaker and asked excellent questions. The RCI attorneys were given ample time to respond and explain their positions. The judge made some remarks indicating skepticism about some of their well-rehearsed rhetoric.

The main purpose of this hearing was to determine if RCI members had received adequate notice of the proposed settlement so that they would have had an opportunity to send letters to the Court expressing their approval or objection to the terms.  RCI proudly stated that 15,500 members had submitted the required form by the April 6th deadline requesting one of the token "peace offerings". The Judge said that he considered that to be a rather low response considering that there are 1,500,000 weeks members. And more than 15,500 should have stepped up to claim freebies worth up to $100. if they had known about it. 

An RCI attorney went on an on about how notice was given to members through publication in the Endless Vacations Magazine.

Miss Collins handed the Judge a copy of the EV issue and challenged him to find the notice. While he was searching, someone blurted out that is was on page 94. The RCI attorney volunteered that it was also listed in the Table of Contents. Miss Collins pointed out that it was in print much smaller than the other topics listed and could be easily overlooked. She suggested that it should have been prominently displayed on the cover of the magazine. The Judge seemed to agree.

When the RCI attorneys stated that the RCI web site also contained a link to information of the proposed settlement, Miss Collins handed the judge over 100 pages of "legalese" that she had printed out from the link. She said that even though she is an attorney, it was a daunting task for her to read through it all and try to comprehend what was being proposed as the settlement.  I later pointed out that many timeshare owners are older folks who are not computer literate and do not visit the RCI web site.

When the Judge asked if RCI had sent Email notices to members, the attorneys said that they only had Email addresses for less than 50% of the members. I later pointed out that they sure bother me enough with Emails trying to sell something. Yet I never received an Email about the settlement. The Judge asked point blank if they had sent Emails about the settlement to *any* of the members and they conceded that they had not. 

One issue in which the Judge seemed to have a particular interest was why the proposed settlement changes would last for only two years. The RCI attorneys spoke in general terms about how their busines model requires flexibility to adjust to changing conditions in the world (e.g "911" and the economy and gas prices, etc...). Their vague answers didn't make much sense to me. I don't think the Judge bought it either. 

The attorneys who brought the suit were asked the same question. They said that RCI had convinced them that it would take so much time and trouble and expense to make the changes that they felt certain RCI would then leave the changes in place indefinitely. I doubt that anyone in the courtroom believed that one. The Judge asked about it again and again and said that if changes are needed they should become permanent so as not to have more lawsuits brought after the 2 year period expired.

One other issue the Judge questioned was why so many members seem dissatisfied about the exchange process. The RCI attorneys blamed the developers for over-promising during the sales presentation. They kept saying that they have no control over what the salespeople say and do. They even had the nerve to say that they would be addressing that issue as part of the changes that would be implemented as a result of this settlement. (Yeah, right!). There is not a word about that in the settlement. The Judge asked how they would do it and they made vague statements about holding some training sessions.  

When I spoke, I discussed the "incestuous relationship" between RCI and the resort developers and sales teams. I said that most people attend a presentation to obtain a free gift. They did not do prior research and did not plan to buy a timeshare. The main selling point is usually the promise that they will be able to exchange their week if they buy one. They are shown the RCI "wish book" and led to believe it will be easy to just pick up the phone and make a reservation anywhere in the world they want to go. Most are led to believe that the week they are being offered has great trading power, even if it is a mud week in an undesirable location.  This would not happen if there was some way for them to obtain an objective valuation of the week and its exchange potential before buying it or within the recission period, which by the way, should be much longer. 

I mentioned how Redweek.com assigns a point value to a week before you deposit it. You are able to look through their inventory of already deposited weeks and determine what you will be able to obtain as an exchange. And you can purchase additional points, if necessary, to obtain a desired week that has greater trading power than yours. Redweek does not remove any of these weeks and sell them elsewhere. (Of course I'm aware of other problems with their system but I was trying to keep things simple). I observed the Judge jot down Redweek on his notepad.

But honestly, if RCI did not exist and most people deposited with Redweek (or a similar company), AND Redweek did a better job of properly valuing the weeks, and did not become beholden to developers and resorts, I think it would provide a far better outcome than the way RCI now operates. Redweek would be satisfied making a reasonable profit running an honest business. I'm afraid RCI will never be satisfied. They will always try to come up with new ways to make more and more money, no matter what tactics they have to use, and no matter how unfair or dishonest it may be to their members. When will companies stop letting GREED be their driving force. Hasn't enough damage already been done to the economies all over the world? 

Both sides were directed to submit briefs by 4:00 p.m. June 23rd re: the matter of sending first class mail notices to members of the class action lawsuit. Thereafter the Judge will render a decision. STAY TUNED!


----------



## vacationhopeful

Thank you for this informative update and for taking the time & trouble to attend this hearing and speaking.

All of us RCI members are directly impacted and all timeshare owners in the long run.


----------



## wackymother

Jennie, thank you for this clear, vivid update and for appearing in court. I really appreciate your hard work.


----------



## Nancy

Jennie,

Thank you.

Nancy


----------



## Timeshare Von

Nicely done Jennie!  I too appreciate your time and effort on behalf of everyone!


----------



## Simoncc

It sounds that between you and Shep Alshluler as strong a case as possible has been put on behalf of RCI members - thank you for your efforts.

I hope the judge is as solid as appears and that maybe some more meaningful settlement can be reached.


----------



## Lakesgal

*RCI Class Action Suit*



Jennie said:


> A hearing was held on June 16th at the Federal Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey. There were four attorneys representing each side.
> 
> Shep Alshluler, editor of Timesharing Today Magazine, spoke eloquently on behalf of timeshare owners re: complaints about difficulty obtaining fair exchanges, rental of timeshare weeks to the general public, lack of transparency and oversight of the methods used to determine trading value of deposited weeks, etc... He expressed dissatisfaction with many aspects of the proposed settlement. And he particularly emphasized the lack of proper notice to RCI members.
> 
> A very passionate, articulate, and well informed attorney, Susan B. Collins, came all the way from Seneca, N.Y. to address these issues and concerns--not as an attorney but as a timeshare owner. Sadly, there were no other RCI members present except for Yours truly and spouse. I spoke for about 15 minutes.
> 
> The Judge seemed to be very fair. He is a dignified, calm gentleman who listened carefully to each speaker and asked excellent questions. The RCI attorneys were given ample time to respond and explain their positions. The judge made some remarks indicating scepticism about some of their well-rehearsed rhetoric.
> 
> The main purpose of this hearing was to determine if RCI members had received adequate notice of the proposed settlement so that they would have had an opportunity to send letters to the Court expressing their approval or objection to the terms.  RCI proudly stated that 15,500 members had submitted the required form by the April 6th deadline requesting one of the token "peace offerings". The Judge said that he considered that to be a rather low response considering that there are 1,500,000 weeks members. And more than 15,500 should have stepped up to claim freebies worth up to $100. if they had known about it.
> 
> An RCI attorney went on an on about how notice was given to members through publication in the Endless Vacations Magazine.
> 
> Miss Collins handed the Judge a copy of the EV issue and challenged him to find the notice. While he was searching, someone blurted out that is was on page 94. The RCI attorney volunteered that it was also listed in the Table of Contents. Miss Collins pointed out that it was in print much smaller than the other topics listed and could be easily overlooked. She suggested that it should have been prominently displayed on the cover of the magazine. The Judge seemed to agree.
> 
> When the RCI attorneys stated that the RCI web site also contained a link to information of the proposed settlement, Miss Collins handed the judge over 100 pages of "legalese" that she had printed out from the link. She said that even though she is an attorney, it was a daunting task for her to read through it all and try to comprehend what was being proposed as the settlement.  I later pointed out that many timeshare owners are older folks who are not computer literate and do not visit the RCI web site.
> 
> When the Judge asked if RCI had sent Email notices to members, the attorneys said that they only had Email addresses for less than 50% of the members. I later pointed out that they sure bother me enough with Emails trying to sell something. Yet I never received an Email about the settlement. The Judge asked point blank if they had sent Emails about the settlement to *any* of the members and they conceded that they had not.
> 
> One issue in which the Judge seemed to have a particular interest was why the proposed settlement changes would last for only two years. The RCI attorneys spoke in general terms about how their busines model requires flexibility to adjust to changing conditions in the world (e.g "911" and the economy and gas prices, etc...). Their vague answers didn't make much sense to me. I don't think the Judge bought it either.
> 
> The attorneys who brought the suit were asked the same question. They said that RCI had convinced them that it would take so much time and trouble and expense to make the changes that they felt certain RCI would then leave the changes in place indefinitely. I doubt that anyone in the courtroom believed that one. The Judge asked about it again and again and said that if changes are needed they should become permanent so as not to have more lawsuits brought after the 2 year period elapsed.
> 
> One other issue the Judge questioned was why so many members seem dissatisfied about the exchange process. The RCI attorneys blamed the developers for over-promising during the sales presentation. They kept saying that they have no control over what the salespeople say and do. They even had the nerve to say that they would be addressing that issue as part of the changes that would be implemented as a result of this settlement. (Yeah, right!). There is not a word about that in the settlement. The Judge asked how they would do it and they made vague statements about holding some training sessions.
> 
> When I spoke, I discussed the "incestuous relationship" between RCI and the resort developers and sales teams. I said that most people attend a presentation to obtain a free gift. They did not do prior research and did not plan to buy a timeshare. The main selling point is usually the promise that they will be able to exchange their week if they buy one. They are shown the RCI "wish book" and led to believe it will be easy to just pick up the phone and make a reservation anywhere in the world they want to go. Most are led to believe that the week they are being offered has great trading power, even if it is a mud week in an undesirable location.  This would not happen if there was some way for them to obtain an objective valuation of the week and its exchange potential before buying it or within the recission period, which by the way, should be much longer.
> 
> I mentioned how Redweek.com assigns a point value to a week before you deposit it. You are able to look through their inventory of already deposited weeks and determine what you will be able to obtain as an exchange. And you can purchase additional points, if necessary, to obtain a desired week that has greater trading power than yours. Redweek does not remove any of these weeks and sell them elsewhere. (Of course I'm aware of other problems with their system but I was trying to keep things simple). I observed the Judge jot down Redweek on his notepad.
> 
> But honestly, if RCI did not exist and most people deposited with Redweek (or a similar company), AND Redweek did a better job of properly valuing the weeks, and did not become beholden to developers and resorts, I think it would provide a far better outcome than the way RCI now operates. Redweek would be satisfied making a reasonable profit running an honest business. I'm afraid RCI will never be satisfied. They will always try to come up with new ways to make more and more money, no matter what tactics they have to use, and no matter how unfair or dishonest it may be to their members. When will companies stop letting GREED be their driving force. Hasn't enough damage already been done to the economies all over the world?
> 
> Both sides were directed to submit briefs by 4:00 p.m. June 23rd re: the matter of sending first class mail notices to members of the class action lawsuit. Thereafter the Judge will render a decision. STAY TUNED!





Hi Jennie-I just heard about the Class Action suit last week and it said I could file the forms by clicking a link on the original website. Needless to say, I couldn't find it. I was NEVER informed of any Class Action suit.


----------



## stevedmatt

Heck of a job. Thank you for your hard work.


----------



## jdetar

Yes thank you for your hard work and keeping us informed!


----------



## Jennie

Lakesgal said:


> Hi Jennie-I just heard about the Class Action suit last week and it said I could file the forms by clicking a link on the original website. Needless to say, I couldn't find it. I was NEVER informed of any Class Action suit.



Well, the RCI attorneys wanted the court to believe that all RCI members should have seen it buried on page 94 of Endless Vacations magazine. You mean you didn't see it there? :hysterical: 

I let the Judge know that many timeshare owners hate that magazine, myself included, and toss it in the recycling bin unopened. I further told him that several years ago many of us notified RCI that we did not wish to receive the free magazine but we were told that there was no way to opt out, that receiving it was a* requirement* of our RCI membership! 

And if you saw the link on the RCI web site, you would have had to read over 100 pages of legal mumbo jumbo to try and figure out what was being proposed. 

I also told the Judge that the lawsuit had been pending for so many years that a lot of people assumed it had "died." Rumors would surface from time to time but they usually proved false. I told him that even if I had noticed the link on the RCI website, or saw the notice in the magazine, I wouldn't have trusted anything that came from RCI. I was awaiting some sort of official notification from the Court or the plaintiff's attorneys to let me know what was going on.


----------



## kjsgrammy

A BIG thank you for all the hard work you are putting into this!


----------



## Tia

Jennie your  to be commended and all RCI members owe you, they just don't know it more than likely.


----------



## suzanne

Thank you for both your update and attending the hearing. So many of us live so far away that we could not go to the hearing. All of your hard work on behalf of all of us is greatly appreaciated.

Suzanne


----------



## lgreenspan

Thank you for the well written notice. Sounds like you were somewhat impressed with the judges responces. Hope some good comes from this.


----------



## TUGBrian

fantastic update, ill include a link to this thread in mondays newsletter!


----------



## vacationdoc

*Thanks*

Thank you.


----------



## JPD

*lawsuit*

Outstanding update Jennie. From what you witnessed, do you believe the court will open the class action lawsuit to members who were unaware of this lawsuit. I also didn't know about this until last month, by then, it was too late.

Last month, someone showed me a website where the military could go and rent time shares for a week. it looked very silimier to an rci web page. No deposit was required. All you had to do was verify you are military, and pay the fee for the week. Don't quote me but I think the website is;

afvclub.com    (armed forces vacation club)


----------



## DaveNV

JPD said:


> Outstanding update Jennie. From what you witnessed, do you believe the court will open the class action lawsuit to members who were unaware of this lawsuit. I also didn't know about this until last month, by then, it was too late.
> 
> Last month, someone showed me a website where the military could go and rent time shares for a week. it looked very silimier to an rci web page. No deposit was required. All you had to do was verify you are military, and pay the fee for the week. Don't quote me but I think the website is;
> 
> afvclub.com    (armed forces vacation club)




If you dig in a little to that website, you'll read it is not affiliated or paid for in any way by the U.S. Government.  And in fact, the "About Us" page shows an address of "Resort Rental, LLC, 7 Sylvan Way, Parsippany, NJ 07054."  A Google search of that address returns the Endless Vacations portion of RCI/Wyndham.  So the site in whole is operated by RCI.

Dave


----------



## BocaBum99

Jennie,

Nice report.  Thanks for doing this.

I guess the only comment I have is comparing RCI to Redweek.  I think that is not a fair comparison.  The Redweek exchange network can't be declared a success yet.  It may prove to be a good model, but until it reaches some level of critical mass, it's only an experiment.

To me, it would be like comparing a coin collection business to a vendor who was actively selling quarters for a dime.  Early on, it would look like the vendor selling quarters for a dime had a heck of a growth business.  But, as we all know, that is an unsustainable business model.  Until a business becomes successful in a large scale way, you can't compare that business model to another one that has been in business for decades.


----------



## Jon77

*Well Done!*

I want to echo what everyone else has already said.  That is a very well written and detailed report.  Thanks again for keeping us all informed.  I for one was one of the many that missed seeing the notice in Endless Vacation.


----------



## MuranoJo

Jennie,

Add me to the list of those thankful for your initiative.  Heck, as someone else wrote, many don't even bother reading Endless Vacations and we would never have seen it.  
However, some time ago, there were numerous threads about this lawsuit--and follow-up articles of people going out and getting the so-called 'settlement,' something like $25 in value, whatever it was, but certainly not worth the trade-off.  What a farce this whole thing has been, and I'm so glad someone was there to represent us--just wish more from your area could have been there.  (Or maybe they felt it was a waste of energy, given how things have gone to date.)


----------



## Jennie

JPD said:


> Jennie, From what you witnessed, do you believe the court will open the class action lawsuit to members who were unaware of this lawsuit. I also didn't know about this until last month, by then, it was too late.



It's difficult to gauge what will happen. As in many court proceedings, there's a lot of "behind the scenes" issues that are not discussed in the courtroom. The attorneys (plaintiff) who brought the lawsuit seem to indicate that they feel it's better to settle for "half a loaf" rather than to go to trial and risk losing everything. RCI ( the defendant) has deep pockets to defend against the charges.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is asking for $4,000,000. as part of the settlement. This could be a powerful motive to not fight on. 

The Judge did comment about how large a sum this is compared to the paltry  amount being offered to RCI members. 

He asked what I thought about the $100. cruise vouchers offer and I told him that in my opinion, they are worthless.  They have been offered liberally to members for depositing a week, reserving a week, booking a "Last Call" vacation, etc..--things members do anyway without needing a coupon incentive.  I consider them to be just a ploy to encourage members to book cruises through RCI which, of course, results in a commission for RCI. Anytime I have compared prices with RCI versus other popular cruise discount web sites, even using the $100. RCI voucher has not yielded a better price. 

The judge nodded his head in agreement and said, "That's what I thought."     

Our hope is that the Judge will decide that adequate notice has not been given to class members, and that he will order additional notification by first class mail. This will give time for more people to become informed about the issues and express their opinion about the proposed settlement.


----------



## ecwinch

Thanks for taking the time to see this through. Hopefully the court will see this for what it is.


----------



## Jennie

BocaBum99 said:


> Jennie,I guess the only comment I have is comparing RCI to Redweek.  I think that is not a fair comparison.  The Redweek exchange network can't be declared a success yet.  *It may prove to be a good model*, but until it reaches some level of critical mass, it's only an experiment.



Boca, I agree totally. I love Redweek for their rental and sale ads but I have not used their Exchange program. I didn't think their point valuation of the weeks we own correctly reflected their trading power when compared to what I routinely obtain when exchanging through RCI or I.I. or SFX, etc...

And, yes, Redweek does not yet have the quality, quantity, or variety of weeks in their inventory necessary to make the program a big success. But the point I was trying to make is that IF RCI did not exist, and huge numbers of weeks were deposited with Redweek, *or a similar company,* their *model* would allow members to see *everything* available at a given time, and to know how many points would be needed to book something they liked. 

If the valuation seems inaccurate, and enough members complain, Redweek would be able to revisit the issue and make an adjustment. Who knows, maybe there was a typo while inputting the information. 

People with low value weeks would learn the harsh reality and not count upon receiving exchanges from RCI that will never happen. 

With Redweek (or a company operating in a similar way) the poor trusting owner who was duped into buying a "junk" week will at least have the ability to buy enough extra points to obtain a decent Redweek exchange. He's probably paying much lower maintenance fees so adding money to the pot, as needed, should not be a burden. As it stands now, his main option would to be to convert to RCI Points at a rip-off price (if available at his resort) and then buy more points to add to his low count. Or he could remain an unhappy, frustrated owner telling everyone he knows what a terrible thing it is to own a timeshare. And maybe join the growing ranks of disillusioned owners who are "walking away" from paying their fair share of maintaining their home resort, causing maintenance fees to rise for the rest of us. 

The guy deserves a break. Letting him trade-up once in awhile won't have much impact upon owners of better weeks. And the small profit that Redweek (or a similar company) derives from selling the one time points needed to accomplish the exchange will help keep the exchange company profitable without entering into unholy alliances with developers, or renting deposited weeks to the general public.      

Another huge benefit of transparent valuations is that inexperienced people attending a sales presentation will be able to check and see the approximate trading power of a week they are planning to buy, or have just bought and can still rescind. I believe that RCI's too cozy relationship with developers is one of their main reasons for fighting so hard to maintain secrecy.   

As it stands now, no one has a clue how RCI determines anything. Try complaining and it falls on deaf ears. 

The Judge, like most non-timeshare owners, does not know the nuances. To explain too much could cause confusion. 

I was merely trying to cite a different, more transparent way of informing members of what an exchange company has in inventory and what it takes to receive a desired week. I wanted the Judge to know that there is a smaller exchange company out there that manages to serve the needs of its members, and still make a profit (I hope!) without "stealing" deposited weeks that members have paid all the fees on, and renting them to the general public, without in any way compensating the owner, while at the same time creating unfair competition to owners who are trying to rent their own weeks.

The crux of this lawsuit is to challenge RCI's rental of space-banked weeks. I wanted to point out that another exchange company does not do this.


----------



## Kaiopect8

*Submissions to Court?*

Thanks! News to me, too!  Does anyone know if it's possible to submit comments to the court?  A mailing address seems too late, since it's already June 21.  But, how about an e-mail address?  (Maybe I'm asking too much!)


----------



## Bigbird130

*RCI*

As many others have said
Thank you for all your hard work and taking the time to be there and posting what is going on


----------



## Jennie

The Judge should render a decision this week. The main issue now is whether RCI members received sufficient notice of the proposed settlememt. If the Judge decides that they did not, then he will probably order that a first class letter be sent to all RCI weeks members (not RCI Points members). There will be some deadline set for recipients to respond.

If that happens, a group of us are planning to spread the word about how to send comments to the court. 

Timesharing Today Magazine has been very involved in the case. They will be sending an Email to its registered Email subscribers and I will post it here in the TUG Lounge when it arrives.

Thanks everyone for your kind comments. I have been passionate for years about the increasing trend of RCI to place greed above their members' best interests.


----------



## Jimster

*thanks and...*

I appreciate your efforts.  As an attorney myself, I can just visualize the court room and what went on.  I hope someone took the time to explain how greedy RCI really is:

1.  You pay a hefty price to join RCI.
2.  You keep paying each year
3.  You deposit your week with them for free
4.  They skim off many good weeks and sell the weeks they got for free.  How in the world can that be reasonable?   If I lent you my car I would never expect that sometimes you would sell it to make money and only sometimes return it to me.
5.  If you find a reasonable exchange you pay more money
6   If  you want a friend to use YOUR week- you pay money
7.  If you don't use all your points in one year- you pay money and risk losing your asset
8.  If you talk to a vacation guide to book it- you pay money.
9.  If the resort decides they havent skimmed enough off the owners, they charge you utiliity fees, etc. So you pay more money.
10. If you decide to change your reservation- You pay money or lose money and/or the week or points involved in some cases.

Viewed this way.  It is obvious that their own purpose is to greedily deprive the owner of as much as possible.  No where have they justified any of these fees and frankly they are not justifiable.  Recent fee increases are totally without merit.  I am particularly upset when they call to ask me to deposit a prime week.  I know that week is not going to another RCI member but is used as fodder to make more money in rentals.  I know they point to the number of resorts overall available to trade into.  Like I want to stay at Swamp City River Basin and Resort in the middle of LA 100 miles from civilization and during the winter- oh but the guide says its available!!  These don't count!  What about staying at Residences of the Crane or a Hilton Grand Vacation Club or another prime resort- you don't see those often for exchange- -- but they are for rent!!  If you get tired of attacking just that aspect of the program, take a look at RCI partners now.  Their recent changes have gutted that program entirely.  As far as cruises are concerned, if the cost of the cruise is $3,000 and RCI charges $5,000 but gives you a $1,000 discount or consideration for your unit, then ... The only difference between RCI and Bernie Madoff is . . . oh I can't think of what it is.


----------



## Jimster

*submit*

And your status is.....    You have to have standing to deal with the court.  About the best that can be asked for is if the judge will take judicial notice of whatever is made available.


----------



## kohokid

Lakesgal said:


> Hi Jennie-I just heard about the Class Action suit last week and it said I could file the forms by clicking a link on the original website. Needless to say, I couldn't find it. I was NEVER informed of any Class Action suit.



Hi as an owner since 1977 I remember when RCI was a little house on the plains!!!
I had my week back if no one took it 3 weeks before my week started!!!
then RCi strated rented these weeks!!!
The service stinks now, they rent the extra less then my low 414 maintenance fee!!!
Kohokid
BR
BC NEVER HEARD OF A LAWSUIT OU MONKEY SUIT
the articel is good thanks


----------



## dgdbloe

Thank you for attending,speaking and informing.
I also knew nothing of the class action suit.


----------



## Jennie

Jimster said:


> And your status is.....    You have to have standing to deal with the court.  About the best that can be asked for is if the judge will take judicial notice of whatever is made available.



This was apparently a "fairness" hearing. I think the Judge was to decide if the settlement worked out between the attorneys who brought the class action lawsuit and RCI's attorneys was "fair." Shep and Ray (editor/owner) of Timesharing Today Magazine wrote a a scathing article in their magazine about the inadequacy of the terms being proposed, and they were very critical about the lack of notification to RCI members. Many readers sent letters to the magazine complaining about RCI's practises. Shep and Ray forwarded the letters to the court and the Judge was asked to consider whether adequate notification was given to RCI members.

Shep Altshuler, and an attoeney/timeshare owner from West Senaca, NY, and myself were able to appear and testify as "objectors."


----------



## theo

*Thanks!*



Jennie said:


> A hearing was held on June 16th at the Federal Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey.



Sincere thanks --- both for your actual participation in the fairness hearing and for taking the time to provide a first hand account of the proceedings. 

As expected, RCI used the meager number of "trinket collectors" as a feeble form of statistical support of both adequate notice and actual acceptance by RCI members. Hopefully the judge will see that number as (in my opinion, anyhow) nothing more than a list of 15,000 short sighted individuals eager to claim their near-worthless "freebie".

It is hard to imagine that a judge with smarts and / or objectivity could accept this complete farce of a proposed settlement as anything even remotely resembling "fair". I guess we shall see....


----------



## 447185

My most sincere thanks to Jennie.  I am a 65 year old male who peruses the EV magazine.  I did not see any info on a class action lawsuit.  This is the first I have heard of a lawsuit.  I have been a silent critic of RCI for some time due to the problems enumerated in earlier comments.  I hope some changes are made that cause the scale to tip a little closer to being level for the timeshare owners.


----------



## wandering gnome

*RCI class action benefits*

Has any one used there benefits?  I would like to book a free nightly stay.  How do I go about doing this?


----------



## TUGBrian

back to the top!


----------



## Carolinian

wandering gnome said:


> Has any one used there benefits?  I would like to book a free nightly stay.  How do I go about doing this?



The ridiculous trinkets that the shyster class action attorneys negotiated for their ''clients'' while lining up a $4 million fee for themselves is nothing but an insult to the class members, most particularly because their is no effective continuing injunctive relief.  I opted out of the class rather than accept the insult.  I am also planning to file an ethics complaint against the sellout lawyers.


----------



## KarenLK

Thanks, Jennie, for all your information.

The lawyer lives in my area...West Seneca is another suburb of Buffalo. I wonder how she got involved with all of this.


----------



## Jennie

KarenLK said:


> Thanks, Jennie, for all your information.
> 
> The lawyer lives in my area...West Seneca is another suburb of Buffalo. I wonder how she got involved with all of this.



Ms. Susan Collins is a long-term timeshare owner who read the articles in Timesharing Today Magazine. TST subsequently sent an Email message to subscribers notifying them of a change in the location where the hearing would be held (Newark instead of Trenton) and encouraging RCI members to attend if possible. They suggested that anyone planning to attend should contact Shep (the editor). 

When Ms Collins spoke with Shep and learned that he had received very few responses from people planning to come to the hearing, she decided to make the long trip to be there. I'm so glad she did, She spoke very knowledgably about the general issues and, being an attorney, was able to challenge many of the esoteric legal  points being made by the attorneys of record. I'm really glad she was there. The Judge was very attentive and asked her several questions, which she answered clearly and convincingly.

Stay tuned for more information re: this battle between Samson and Goliath!


----------



## Jennie

*Good News!*

TimeSharing Today Magazine has learned that the Judge in the RCI Class Action suit has ordered the attorneys for the  Plaintiffs and for the Defendants to submit a revised plan for notifying the members of the class about the proposed settlement agreement. 

The Judge determined that the notices used were inadequate.  

The revised plan is to be sent to the court by July 7th. 

Once the details of the revised notification plan become available, I'll post information here. Hopefully a huge number of RCI members can be rallied to espress their opinion to the Court re: the fairness of the proposed settlement.


----------



## geekette

Very good news, indeed!  Thank you for the update!


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, I am going to take this opportunity to introduce myself.  I am Susan Collins, the attorney from West Seneca (actually, Bufffalo -- it's a continguous suburb), who attended the RCI Class Action Fairness Hearing in Newark last month.  I've been busy -- REALLY BUSY -- trying to work on this lawsuit, and plan the next steps, but I have a moment, and want to respond here to this thread.  

Yes, the objectors won.  To quote Judge Sheridan's Order, "The objectors arguments are correct.  The Notice was not prominent and conspicuous.  As a result, the Court directs the parties to confer and submit to the Court a more conspicuous and prominent Notice which will be forwarded to RCI members (within Endless Summer [sic] or otherwise)."  

IMO, this is a big win.  This should give RCI members a new opportunity to opt out or object, so that everyone who missed the first notice will have a second chance.    

The proposed new Notice must be sumbitted for approval to the Court by July 7, but I am taking no chances on "our" attorneys doing a sufficient job.  I am not at all confident that the attorneys for the Plaintiff class are zealously representing our (RCI members') interests.   Therefore, I am taking the incentive of writing to the Court on behalf of the objectors and RCI members, and asking that the new Notice actually summarize what the settlement offers.  (The prior notice said RCI was instituting "certain programmatic changes," but didn't say what those changes actually are, and are not.  TSToday had a good summary in the March/April issue.)  

I am also asking that the new Notice quote in bold letters the wording in the "terms and conditions" that RCI relies on as a "contract term" which allows it to rent, sell, use, or otherwise dispose of weeks deposited for exchange.  I think this is essential because the RCI guides continue to deny that RCI rents deposited weeks.  (I think the RCI Guides just aren't told the truth.)  At the Hearing RCI defended the practice of renting out deposited weeks as a basic part of their business strategy.  And I don't even know whether anyone even really brought up the issue that RCI transfers some weeks to different exchange systems.  

I am also requesting that the Judge order RCI to send notice via all the methods that RCI regularly uses to promote itself and its services:  Telephone menu option when people call in to talk to RCI, a link PROMINENTLY PLACED on the RCI Website that doesn't disappear after the member logs in, direct mail with forms and instructions to opt out or object, email, and -- since RCI will likely insist -- publication in Endless Vacation magazine with a prominent announcement on the cover of the magazine that the settlement notice is inside.  (And by the way, I am also asking that the forms be printed in the magazine, rather than requiring members to make a telephone call to get the forms, and that a detachable postcard be inserted so that members can request the full text of the proposed settlement.)  

It would be highly unusual for the judge to even consider a proposal made in a letter such as mine, but then it's extremely unusual for a judge to side with the Objectors against the attorneys for both Plaintiffs and Defendfants.  (Both submitted arguments that the prior Notice was perfectly adequate.)  So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.  

BTW, when I went to Court I had with me 100 emails from subscribers to TSToday who asked me to speak on their behalf as well as on my own, in response to Letter to the Editor.  I had sent copies of the first 90 to the court and to the attorneys involved.  I think that had a great deal on influence on the judge, even though they were not tehcnically timely-filed objections.  I would therefore welcome comments from TUG members, as this might help down the road.  I have also asked the court to allow me access to the electronic filing system, and to be involved in the negotiations.  Like I said, that would be very unusual, but this is an unusual situation. 

One question I have:  To object to the settlment, it was necessary to identify oneself by name and with the RCI membership number, names of resorts owned, etc.  I received emails from people who were concerned about identifying information being sumitted to RCI, fearing retaliation.  Of course, the more people who object or opt out, the harder it would be for RCI to retaliate.  ("Unity gives strength, after all.)  But I would like to ask:  "Are members concerned about objections or opt-outs leading to retaliation?


----------



## TUGBrian

thank you so much for the update on the update!  ill put a reminder in mondays newsletter as well!


----------



## Vodo

I was clueless about the class action suit and the claims process until AFTER the filing deadline had passed.  When I inquired, I received the response below.  There is no good excuse for RCI to NOT have individually contacted all of its members.  Its efforts were clearly the minimum it thought it could get by with.  Hopefully, it's been busted for it now.

Text of claim inquiry response:

*Thank you for your email.  We will add your name and contact information to our database. 

Pursuant to the Order entered on December 17, 2008 by the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan of the United States District Court, notice was published in USA Today, notice was published in Endless Vacation, and notice was posted on the RCI website home page. In addition, although not required by the Order, notice was also posted on our web site and the web site of lead counsel Green Welling LLP. 

The deadline for filing a claim was April 6, 2009. As local counsel, we do not have the authority to modify the Order that was entered by the Court regarding this deadline. 

On the other hand, we wanted as many claimants as possible to receive the benefits that are offered by the Settlement. Therefore, while we do not have the authority by ourselves to extend the deadline, you may mail a claim form to Rust Consulting, Inc., and ask RCI consider your request to accept a late claim. If you decide to make this request, you should mail your written request to Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 1966, Faribault, MN 55021-6162, USA.  If you have not already printed the claim form, a copy can be printed by visiting www.njlawyer.com and clicking on the link on the left side of the screen entitled “RCI Settlement”, under the paragraph entitled “When can I submit a claim form?” you may access the claim form. 

In order for us to monitor the acceptance or rejection of your late claim, you should also mail us and RCI's attorney a copy of your request and claim form. Copies should be mailed to:

DAVID C. BERMAN                                             David Sager, Esq.
A Professional Corporation                                  Day Pitney, LLP
P.O. Box 111                                                   P.O. Box 1945
Morristown, NJ 07963-0111                                Morristown, NJ 07962

You may not receive an immediate answer to your request as this may take some months to sort out.  As stated at the above, there is no grace period or automatic right to file a late claim. Nonetheless, please be assured that we will consider the request and urge RCI to take all reasonable steps to accept late claims. 

Finally, please note that the claim form and the deadline for the claim form relate only to a member choosing from one of the so-called “Special Benefits.” The Special Benefits include: making an exchange request prior to depositing; a 2 month extension of their membership; a $20 credit towards a membership renewal or exchange; a prorated refund of membership fees if the member elects to terminate their membership; or, one free night at any RCI rental in conjunction with at least one paid night, or a $100 credit towards the purchase of a cabin on a cruise offered by RCI.  Regardless of whether your claim for a Special Benefit is accepted late, unless you have opted out you are automatically deemed a member of the class and automatically entitled to the programmatic benefits that are described in Section II of the Settlement Agreement. Those programmatic changes are a significant component of the Settlement and include disclosing trading power prior to depositing, balancing deposits and rentals whereby the quantity of member deposits rented by RCI must be less than the quantity of weeks deposited by RCI, the disclosure of statistical information regarding historical and average trading power based on the region, and exclusivity of member exchanges based on the date of deposit and the starting date of the week. 

Thank you. 

Plaintiffs' Local and Liaison Counsel 
DAVID C. BERMAN
A Professional Corporation 
71 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111

Email: RCISettlement@NJLawyer.com
www.NJLawyer.com*


----------



## ecwinch

Susan2 said:


> Hello, I am going to take this opportunity to introduce myself.  I am Susan Collins, the attorney from West Seneca (actually, Bufffalo -- it's a continguous suburb), who attended the RCI Class Action Fairness Hearing in Newark last month.  I've been busy -- REALLY BUSY -- trying to work on this lawsuit, and plan the next steps, but I have a moment, and want to respond here to this thread.
> 
> Yes, the objectors won.  To quote Judge Sheridan's Order, "The objectors arguments are correct.  The Notice was not prominent and conspicuous.  As a result, the Court directs the parties to confer and submit to the Court a more conspicuous and prominent Notice which will be forwarded to RCI members (within Endless Summer [sic] or otherwise)."
> 
> IMO, this is a big win.  This should give RCI members a new opportunity to opt out or object, so that everyone who missed the first notice will have a second chance.
> 
> The proposed new Notice must be sumbitted for approval to the Court by July 7, but I am taking no chances on "our" attorneys doing a sufficient job.  I am not at all confident that the attorneys for the Plaintiff class are zealously representing our (RCI members') interests.   Therefore, I am taking the incentive of writing to the Court on behalf of the objectors and RCI members, and asking that the new Notice actually summarize what the settlement offers.  (The prior notice said RCI was instituting "certain programmatic changes," but didn't say what those changes actually are, and are not.  TSToday had a good summary in the March/April issue.)
> 
> I am also asking that the new Notice quote in bold letters the wording in the "terms and conditions" that RCI relies on as a "contract term" which allows it to rent, sell, use, or otherwise dispose of weeks deposited for exchange.  I think this is essential because the RCI guides continue to deny that RCI rents deposited weeks.  (I think the RCI Guides just aren't told the truth.)  At the Hearing RCI defended the practice of renting out deposited weeks as a basic part of their business strategy.  And I don't even know whether anyone even really brought up the issue that RCI transfers some weeks to different exchange systems.
> 
> I am also requesting that the Judge order RCI to send notice via all the methods that RCI regularly uses to promote itself and its services:  Telephone menu option when people call in to talk to RCI, a link PROMINENTLY PLACED on the RCI Website that doesn't disappear after the member logs in, direct mail with forms and instructions to opt out or object, email, and -- since RCI will likely insist -- publication in Endless Vacation magazine with a prominent announcement on the cover of the magazine that the settlement notice is inside.  (And by the way, I am also asking that the forms be printed in the magazine, rather than requiring members to make a telephone call to get the forms, and that a detachable postcard be inserted so that members can request the full text of the proposed settlement.)
> 
> It would be highly unusual for the judge to even consider a proposal made in a letter such as mine, but then it's extremely unusual for a judge to side with the Objectors against the attorneys for both Plaintiffs and Defendfants.  (Both submitted arguments that the prior Notice was perfectly adequate.)  So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.
> 
> BTW, when I went to Court I had with me 100 emails from subscribers to TSToday who asked me to speak on their behalf as well as on my own, in response to Letter to the Editor.  I had sent copies of the first 90 to the court and to the attorneys involved.  I think that had a great deal on influence on the judge, even though they were not tehcnically timely-filed objections.  I would therefore welcome comments from TUG members, as this might help down the road.  I have also asked the court to allow me access to the electronic filing system, and to be involved in the negotiations.  Like I said, that would be very unusual, but this is an unusual situation.
> 
> One question I have:  To object to the settlment, it was necessary to identify oneself by name and with the RCI membership number, names of resorts owned, etc.  I received emails from people who were concerned about identifying information being sumitted to RCI, fearing retaliation.  Of course, the more people who object or opt out, the harder it would be for RCI to retaliate.  ("Unity gives strength, after all.)  But I would like to ask:  "Are members concerned about objections or opt-outs leading to retaliation?



Susan,

Thanks for taking the time to address this issue. What would be the best strategy for like-minded RCI members to add their support to your petition with the recommendations outlined above?

Should we separately send a letter to the court, or would it be equally effective to provide you with a letter indicating our support.

Thanks


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for responding.  Once a new settlement notice is approved, I think that the best stratgey would be to publicize the information to other members, perhaps including through the owners' associations.  The more response we get, the better, especially if we want to fight the lawsuit.  

The judge was very impressed with the number of objections he received.  He said it is normal to receive two or three objections to a class action settlement against a nationwide retailer, rather than hundreds, as he received in this case.  I believe that he was including the 100 emails I got from subscribers to TSToday.   

Now that there will be new notice, I'd like to see an even greater reponse.  My goal would be to get over 1,000 objections or opt-outs.  The requirements for filing objections under the prior notice seemed rather onerous to me.  I have discussed with both TUG and TSToday the idea of publishing a form (which would be downloadable and also available to complete online) which would simplify the process of objecting or opting out of the settlement.  I think the easier we make it, the more people will respond.  

I believe that over 1,000 objections would likely influence the judge not to approve the proposed settlement, despite the agreement between RCI's attorneys and the class-action attorneys.  

Contrarily (or in conjunction with this) a substantial number of opt-outs might cause the class to be "decertified" as a class, thus derailing the entire lawsuit.  That might give RCI members an opportunity to bring a new lawsuit entirely.  Don't ask me which would be better.  I don't know at this point.  Please forgive my ignorance.  I am not a class-action attorney, and I do not ANY experience in this class-action suits except for this case.  (It's sort of a "baptism by fire.")  On the other hand, I know enough about timeshares and exchanges to impress the judge, and he told the Plaintiffs' attorneys that I "did most of [their] work for [them]."  Together with Shep and "Jennie," and the other members who objected in writing, we have achieved an impressive victory for people who are unfamiliar with the process.  However, if anyone out there is more experienced, or knows someone who is, I would really appreciate any advice and/or help they can give me.  

In either case, I am also toying with the idea of bringing a lawsuit (which would hopefully be accepted as a class-action suit) to "reform the contract" with RCI.  That is, most members, including me, feel that RCI should not be allowed to rent out weeks deposited for exchange -- or to dispose of them in any other manner -- without agreement by the members, or at least without very good reason to know that the members will not be adversly affected.  

Contracts are supposed to be negotiated agreements, but we members not only didn't get to negotiate, OUR OWN ATTORNEYS (or the attorneys who are supposed to be representing us) told the court that RCI "needs" to be able to rent out weeks that remain unused 90 days before the start date because otherwise the weeks will "spoil" -- that is, go unused.  I told the judge that timeshare owners would not suffer if the weeks went unused -- in fact, we'd benefit from a slight decrease in maintenance fees, because of less cleaning and laundry, and less wear and tear on the furnishings.  I also told him that we LIKE having lots of weeks available at the last minute, and that there are important exchange reasons why we would want them, such as the rule that all trading power requirements are dropped within 45 days.  

From my research, it seems that there is no reason why an action to reform a contract would not be certifiable as a class-action suit.  However, I simply do not know enough about the process to do this on my own.  Anyone who does TALK TO ME!

As for the current suit, I most want to be involved in the negotiations because I strongly feel that we need someone to represent the members' interestsm and IMO we don't have that.  This would be a very unusual step, and I don't see how that could be done unless the Plaintiffs' attorneys would hire me to work with them, which is not something I consider likely.  (The phrase "snowball in hell" comes to mind.)  

If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.     

Susan


----------



## ecwinch

Susan2 said:


> As for the current suit, I most want to be involved in the negotiations because I strongly feel that we need someone to represent the members' interestsm and IMO we don't have that.  This would be a very unusual step, and I don't see how that could be done unless the Plaintiffs' attorneys would hire me to work with them, which is not something I consider likely.  (The phrase "snowball in hell" comes to mind.)
> 
> If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.
> 
> Susan



Just brainstorming the possibilities, it would appear that the current Plaintiff's attorneys made a business decision to take the first settlement offered, and cash out. Ideally they (or one of the plantiff's) would have tried to drive a harder bargain. 

So the strategy is either to try work within the context to the current class action, or attempt to kill it. If enough opposition was raised to current settlement, you would hope that the current Plaintiff's attorneys would see the handwriting on the wall, and attempt to obtain a better settlement. If they were faced with losing the entire action and getting nothing, you would hope that they would see the benefit of being more diligent in their representation of the class.

I do agree that we need another voice in the process. Would not providing you with a letter of support, be more effective than opting out of the settlement and attempting to file another lawsuit.

My concern with latter strategy is that RCI might be more inclined to aggressively defend their rights. See the Wixon v. Wyndham Resort Development in the US District Court - Northern District of California ( Case# C07-2361) for how willing the parent corp is to litigate class action suits that might impede their business model.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you, Eric, that the current Plaintiffs' attorneys made a business decision.  They naturally want to protect their $4 million fee request.  

I had hoped that they would show a change of heart when the judge made it clear that this wouldn't be a cakewalk.  No dice, however.  

So the choices may be to accept what we all know is a really bad settlement, or fight the settlement.  

The real question is which way would be the most effective to fight the settlement.  Obviously, if we could convince our attorneys that they need to fight for us -- hard -- or risk losing their fees, that might be the most effective.  The question is whether we can convince them of that.  

I wish I were more confident that we could do that.  

In the meantime, I don't see that what they settled for in any way is worth fees of $4 million!


----------



## ecwinch

Susan2 said:


> I agree with you, Eric, that the current Plaintiffs' attorneys made a business decision.  They naturally want to protect their $4 million fee request.
> 
> I had hoped that they would show a change of heart when the judge made it clear that this wouldn't be a cakewalk.  No dice, however.
> 
> So the choices may be to accept what we all know is a really bad settlement, or fight the settlement.
> 
> The real question is which way would be the most effective to fight the settlement.  Obviously, if we could convince our attorneys that they need to fight for us -- hard -- or risk losing their fees, that might be the most effective.  The question is whether we can convince them of that.
> 
> I wish I were more confident that we could do that.
> 
> In the meantime, I don't see that what they settled for in any way is worth fees of $4 million!



No, it clearly is a settlement designed to make this go away.

So if there is no strategy that allows a third party to suggest an alternate settlement, then perhaps the next best option is a letter campaign to the plaintiffs attorney's outlining why the settlement is unacceptable - ie. that it allows RCI to resume their illegal practices after three years. Then if they remain unresponsive, a similar letter can be provided to the court.


----------



## ecwinch

Just read Lead Counsel's (David Berman) letter attacking the four objector's motives for appearing at the fairness hearing. Classic....


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

ecwinch said:


> Just read Lead Counsel's (David Berman) letter attacking the four objector's motives for appearing at the fairness hearing. Classic....


Is there a link to the letter?


----------



## london

*Submitted My Option*

I went on line, and opted to accept a $20.00 credit on a future exchange.

I did this a few months ago.

Do you think this will change?


----------



## ecwinch

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Is there a link to the letter?



Not a public link. I got it off the PACER court system. It basically just says that all the objector's have hidden agenda's and they do not realize how difficult it was to negotiate the settlement that was obtained.

And that the settlement only need to be fair, and that they feel the one presented is fair.

PM me and I will send you a copy.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

ecwinch said:


> Not a public link. I got it off the PACER court system. It basically just says that all the objector's have hidden agenda's and they do not realize how difficult it was to negotiate the settlement that was obtained.
> 
> And that the settlement only need to be fair, and that they feel the one presented is fair.
> 
> PM me and I will send you a copy.



If you've got a copy why don't you just post it in the thread?  It's a public document so there isn't any reason why it can't be posted publicly. Further, the PACER policies don't prohibit distributing or reposting information.


----------



## ecwinch

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> If you've got a copy why don't you just post it in the thread?  It's a public document so there isn't any reason why it can't be posted publicly. Further, the PACER policies don't prohibit distributing or reposting information.



It is a four page document, and I am not aware of any way to post it publicly like a file attachment as TUG limits attachments to 100kb, and the document is 221kb.

You would like me to cut and paste it into multiple posts?


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

ecwinch said:


> It is a four page document, and I am not aware of any way to post it publicly like a file attachment as TUG limits attachments to 100kb, and the document is 221kb.
> 
> You would like me to cut and paste it into multiple posts?



If the file format allows you to copy-and-paste text that's what I would do.


----------



## TUGBrian

email me the letter and ill host it for you for public download

tugadmin@tug2.net


----------



## ecwinch

TUGBrian said:


> email me the letter and ill host it for you for public download
> 
> tugadmin@tug2.net



Copy sent by e-mail.


----------



## ecwinch

*RCI Class Action - Letter*

This is the Plaintiffs Attorney's letter filed on PACER regarding the objector's scheduled to appear at the fairness hearing held on June 16, 2009.

http://tug2.net/RCI/RCILetter.pdf 

TUG has been kind enough to host this PDF file.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

It's an interesting argument.  In essence, his argument is that notice was clearly adequate because had those people not received adequate notice they wouldn't have registered objections.

Under that logic there can't be any such thing as inadequate notice.  Case A: no objections received.  _Ipso facto_, notice was adequate because no one objected to the notice provided.  Case B: objections received.  The objectors wouldn't have objected if they hadn't received notice. _Ergo_ notice was clearly adequate.


----------



## TUGBrian

posted at the request of susan collins:



> Hon. Peter G. Sheridan, U. S. D. J.
> United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
> Clarkson Fisher Court House
> 402 East State Street
> Trenton, NJ 08608
> 
> RE:     In re Resort Condominiums International. LLC
> Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)
> 
> 
> Dear Judge Sheridan:
> 
> In your recent ruling requiring the parties to confer and submit a more conspicuous and prominent Notice, no mention was made requiring the parties to confer with the Objectors.  However, as you are aware, the Objectors have grave concerns regarding the adequacy and clarity of the prior Notice and ask the Court’s indulgence in allowing us to speak to this issue.  For judicial convenience, the Objectors who were present at the Fairness Hearing have agreed that I will speak on behalf of myself, the other Objectors, and the members of the organizations they represent.
> 
> FORM OF NOTICE
> 
> The Notice should contain a summary, such as the one attached, which was prepared by Ray Jacobs, the editor of TimeSharing Today. advising members of the terms of the proposed settlement.  Inclusion of a summary of the proposed settlement terms is absolutely essential to enable the RCI membership to make an informed decision.
> 
> The new Notice should also clearly provide an opportunity for members to choose to either object or to opt out of the proposed settlement, with specific instructions on how to do so contained within the pages of the Notice, rather than requiring members to make a telephone call or visit a website to learn how to do so.
> 
> The new Notice should also provide a form allowing members to request the various settlement benefits, rather than requiring them to visit a website or to make a telephone call to request such a form.  Inclusion of forms to request benefits is typical of first-class Notice mailings, and should not be excluded just because the Notice might be published within a magazine.  Certainly the printing and mailing costs would be manageable.
> 
> The new Notice should be in the type size and font in which RCI’s magazine articles are typically printed, rather than in the fine print used in the Terms and Conditions.
> 
> METHOD OF NOTICE:
> 
> The Court did not ask for proposals on the method of new Notice to be sent to RCI Members, but obviously the issue will need to be addressed.  The Objectors therefore propose that Notice be sent via each of the multi-media methods that RCI uses to advertise its services, to wit:
> 1.  Via recorded telephone message to be included with the menu of telephone options one selects from when one calls RCI’s main telephone number to speak to a representative, make a reservation, make a deposit, rent a car, renew membership, book a cruise, make travel plans, etc.  One listens first to standard messages that include what I would consider RCI’s advertisements of itself, and to a menu of options.  The last item on the menu is to press “0" to speak to an RCI representative.  I am asking the Court to require RCI to include an option to allow members to obtain information on the RCI Weeks Class Action Settlement, which option should be given before the option to speak to a representative, and to include an initial request to “please listen carefully before making your selection, as our menu of options has changed.”
> 
> 2.  Via prominent placement on the RCI website homepage, with the link to be visible without scrolling up or down on the initial screen.  Also, since most members ignore the homepage except to log in, the link should also be available after members log in.  Currently, the link is only available on the homepage, but is not visible within the automatic screen without scrolling down.  Once a member logs in, the link is no longer available.  RCI has many advertisements on the homepage and other pages available after a member logs in, many of which flash (that is, change color and content) to gain the user’s attention.  The Notice of the settlement should be equally prominent.
> 
> Once a member links to the RCI Settlement Notice and documents, there should be separate links to various parts of the settlement, so that a member can print out the actual 38-page proposed settlement without having to print 281 pages, which is currently the case.  There should be consistency regarding the procedures for objecting or opting out, also downloadable on a separate, prominent link.
> 
> 3.  Via direct mail.  If RCI did not feel that direct mail was an important method of getting the members’ attention, it would not send the high number of direct mailings to members that it does.  These direct mail solicitations include encouragements to deposit time, make vacations, use rental inventory, and most recently a rather curious mailing with a detachable “coupon” to obtain a guest certificate.  This “coupon” was purportedly redeemable for a guest certificate, but the member was nevertheless required to pay the usual full price to obtain the certificate.  When asked about this curious mailing, RCI Vacation Guides explained it as a “way to inform members who may not be aware of the availability of guest certificates, that there is such an option.”  Since guest certificates have been available for many years, and the option to purchase one is prominently available upon the booking of any exchange or rental vacation on the RCI website, and since their existence and use is promoted on recorded messages when on hold waiting to speak to an RCI representative, and since mail and email messages are sent to members advise or remind members of their availability, it appears that RCI does not actually consider these methods sufficient to advise its members of the existence of these “guest certificates” absent a direct mailing.  Therefore, I propose that RCI has in effect conceded that a direct mailing is necessary to keep members informed, and that therefore a direct mailing of the Weeks class action settlement should be required.
> 
> 4.  Via email.  Defendant’s lead attorney stated to the Court that RCI has only 500,000 email addresses for its members, but RCI nevertheless uses this method as a frequent tool to communicate various messages to members.  This is an inexpensive form of communication, and should be used to supplement any and every other form of Notice used, as it is of nominal cost and is very effective for a certain group of RCI members.  Since, by definition, RCI members are travelers, this allows members who are away from home to access information in a timely manner.
> 
> 5.  Via Endless Vacations magazine.  From the papers submitted by Defendant’s attorney, publishing a notice in Endless Vacation magazine appears to be RCI’s choice.  However, the previous Notice published therein was difficult to find, even for those who were aware that it was published in the magazine.  Interestingly, Mr. Sager included a letter defending the use of Endless Vacation magazine from the CEO of RCI, saying that members rated the magazine as “5 or higher” on a scale of 1 - to 10.  However, on a scale consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, a “5" is in the lower half of the ratings.
> 
> That being said, since it is likely that RCI will push for the notice to be published in the magazine in lieu of direct mailing, the following restrictions should be imposed so as not to allow the notice to be once again buried:
> 
> A.  The words “RCI Class Action Settlement” should be emblazoned on the cover of Endless Vacation Magazine, in a size similar to the lettering and contrast coloring use to  announce the lead articles in the May/June and the July/August issues of Endless Vacation magazine.
> 
> B.  In the table of contents of the March/April issue, the notice of the settlement was not prominent, displayed instead in a box at the bottom of the left-hand column.  The new Notice should be listed at the top of the column in type size not smaller than the typical size of the word “departments.”
> 
> C.  The article itself should no smaller, and in the same type style as the typical articles are published.
> 
> D.  There should be a separately-printed form within the magazine for people to remove and fill out to select and obtain the settlement benefits, instead of requiring members to call another number, or search the website.
> 
> E.  There should be a detachable postcard inserted on the same page as the settlement notice, allowing members to check boxes to obtain additional documents, such as the full text of the RCI settlement, instead of requiring them to call a telephone number.  (The typical issue of Endless Vacations has at least one, and usually more, such postcards.)
> 
> F.  There should be separate, printed instructions on how to opt out of the settlement or how to object to the settlement (preferably with a form printed for each).
> 
> Lastly, I would like to bring to the Court’s attention the fact that, despite the Court’s instructions, I never received a copy of Mr. Sager’s letter to the Court regarding the adequacy of notice from Mr. Sager.  I did eventually get a copy from Mr. Altshuler, as a copy had been sent to him via overnight delivery.  My name was included under “courtesy copies” with the information that a copy was being sent to me via overnight delivery, but although I got a copy of Mr. Berman’s letter via that method, I did not receive a copy of Mr. Sager’s letter.  I am sure this was an oversight, but nevertheless I am requesting that another method of viewing documents be made available to me.
> 
> I understand that the Court has an electronic case filing system to which I do not have access, and I am requesting access to that system, and to be notified of upcoming court appearances, including settlement conferences.  If this would require my being admitted to this Court for this case, I will submit the necessary paperwork.  I have been in communication with the other Objectors who spoke in Court, and we have agreed that, if the Court grants my request, I would be the one to make communications with the Court and to keep them informed of developments, submissions, and court dates.
> 
> I understand that is an unusual request, but I believe these are unusual circumstances.
> 
> Thank you for your attention to this matter.  I look forward to the Court’s response.
> 
> Respectfully.	Susan B. Collins


----------



## TUGBrian

also posted at the request of susan collins



> SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RCI SETTLEMENT TERMS
> 
> Priority for exchanges
> For a period of two years commencing no later than August 31, 2010, all weeks deposited will be used to satisfy active exchange requests pending at the time of deposit, subject to Trading Power criteria.
> During the two year period, each week deposited more than one year in advance of the starting date of the week shall, for a period of 31 days from date of deposit, be available exclusively for exchange and not for any other purpose including rental. After this 31-day period, and at any time for weeks deposited within one year of the starting date of the week, deposited weeks can be used for other purposes, including rental.
> 
> 
> Trading Power
> Prior to a Member’s actual deposit of a week, RCI will disclose the Trading Power for that week, so long as the request for disclosure is made more than 14 days and less than two years prior to the starting date of the week.
> Provided a Member submits to RCI the information that would be required for a deposit, RCI will disclose all currently available inventory for which the Member’s week has sufficient Trading Power.
> These disclosures will be made for a period of two years beginning no later than August 31, 2010.  RCI is not required to disclose its methodology for calculating Trading Power.
> 
> Balancing deposits and rentals
> On a calendar year basis, the aggregate quantity of Member-deposited weeks which are rented by RCI must be less that the aggregate quantity of weeks deposited by RCI or others.
> 
> Disclosure of activity
> For the calendar year 2008 and at least two years thereafter, RCI will make available to Members statistical information regarding activity in the Weeks Exchange Programs.
> 
> Other benefits
> Certain other benefits of the settlement are available only to qualified Members upon submission of a claim form,  Claim forms must be filed prior to April 6, 2009. (A claim form is available at www.tstoday.com/claimform.pdf)
> Members who had deposited weeks with starting dates between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2008, who paid to extend the exchange period for at least six months and never got an exchange despite having an active exchange request pending, will receive a $30 credit towards the Member’s next exchange.
> In addition, Members may choose one benefit from among the following:
> •	For a period of two years after the settlement is approved by the court, a Member can search available inventory before making a deposit for exchange.
> •	Two months extension of membership.
> •	For Members whose membership expires more than two years after the settlement is approved, a $20 credit towards membership renewal or an exchange.
> •	Prorated refund of membership fee is a Member elects to terminate membership and a full refund of fees paid for pending exchange requests.
> •	One free night’s stay at any RCI rental added to a rental of at least one night, to be reserved within one year.
> •	A $100 credit towards the purchase of each cabin (up to four) on a cruise offered by RCI, to be booked within one year.


----------



## Emily

Maybe it is the way I see the RCI settlement but it seems to me more like a marketing scheme to enhance business rather than some type of settlement.  

Most of the settlement items generate extra monies for RCI with a few exceptions.

I'm missing the settlement?


----------



## apopo

*Thank you!*

Thank you for your work and for letting us know about this.  We often do not even read the magazine when it comes unless we see something on the cover that catches our eye.  We haven't been very happy with RCI for a long time.


----------



## Carolinian

I believe that the ''plaintiffs attorneys'' have a huge conflict of interest and perhaps an ethics complaint against them may be in order.  Maybe we need the address of the State Bar to address such an ethics complaint to.  They are totally selling out the interest of their clients.

Also what about the lead plaintiffs?  One of them, Aldo, used to post here and on other timeshare boards and is clearly personally committed to reform.  I wonder if he could be gotten to denounce the sellout by these attorneys?

I appreciate all you are doing.  Please also post this info at www.timeshareforums.com and www.timesharetalk.co.uk to reach others who may not read it here.

If wonder if any resort HOA's would have the guts to take a stand.




Susan2 said:


> I agree with you, Eric, that the current Plaintiffs' attorneys made a business decision.  They naturally want to protect their $4 million fee request.
> 
> I had hoped that they would show a change of heart when the judge made it clear that this wouldn't be a cakewalk.  No dice, however.
> 
> So the choices may be to accept what we all know is a really bad settlement, or fight the settlement.
> 
> The real question is which way would be the most effective to fight the settlement.  Obviously, if we could convince our attorneys that they need to fight for us -- hard -- or risk losing their fees, that might be the most effective.  The question is whether we can convince them of that.
> 
> I wish I were more confident that we could do that.
> 
> In the meantime, I don't see that what they settled for in any way is worth fees of $4 million!


----------



## Jennie

Carolinian said:


> I wonder if any resort HOA's would have the guts to take a stand.



I have already spoken with officials at two of the smaller resorts where we own timeshare weeks. Each enthusiastically expressed willingness to support whatever efforts are devised to inform owners of the issues, and the actions they can take to try to bring about a better resolution of the problems. 

They seem to have their owners best interests at heart and want to see them have better results when they choose to deposit a week and/or seek a comparable exchange. 

For purely selfish reasons, the resorts would rather have timeshare owners occupy the units because they tend to be mature, responsible people who understand and respect the rules, and leave the unit in better condition than a group of "unknown quantities" renters sent in by RCI (e.g unruly "party-hearty teens or college students without proper adult supervison, family groups that exceed the maximum number of occupants permitted, people who do not wash the dishes or take out the trash, steal towels. etc...). The latter group requires more security staff, more time spent billing guests for damages and then fighting credit card disputes, and sometimes fear of malicious retaliation.  

TUGgers could print out information about the RCI class action lawsuit and distribute it to other owners when they are staying at a resort. Hopefully they may be allowed to leave copies at the Front Desk.

Once the Court rules on the method(s) of providing better notification to RCI members of the proposed terms of the settlement, and once the next court date is set, we can work together on many fronts to "get the word out" and encourage members to express their views to the Judge. 

We plan to develop optional "fill in the blanks" forms for people who might not otherwise take the time or effort to compose personal messages, while encouraging folks to write personal messages if at all possible (because these are almost always read and considered).  

We will determine the best way or ways to convey the messages to the Court e.g. through Timesharing Today Magazine staff, Susan Collins, TUG, and/or directly from each owner via regular mail or Email.

We have been complaining for years about the brazen way in which RCI "steals" space-banked weeks to sell to the general non-timeshare owner public, thus making these weeks unavailable to RCI members to receive as exchanges. We finally have a way to protest this accelerating activity and seek legal intervention to prevent or lessen it. We did not buy our weeks and pay all the maintenance fees, real estate taxes, Special Assessments, and RCI member fees to enrich RCI's bottom line. 

If RCI cannot make a decent profit on the fees paid by almost 3,000,000 members, incluing RCI Points members, (many of whom own multiple weeks) without renting weeks to the general public, then they should sell the business to a company that can do so. 

We may be able to get media coverage in some major newspapers. I have some contacts in the field who may be interested in assisting in this endeavor.


----------



## Tia

Jennie said:


> ...If RCI cannot make a decent profit on the fees paid by almost 3,000,000 members, incluing RCI Points members, (many of whom own multiple weeks) without renting weeks to the general public, then they should sell the business to a company that can do so. ...



Trouble is businesses want to not just make a profit but an obscene one, bigger is better, and anyway they can do it seems to be the order of the day.


----------



## Carolinian

We need to get this word out as far as possible.  I have posted links to this thread on Timeshare Forums and Timeshare Talk (UK site).  RCI members need to be educated to opt out of the lawsuit rather than accepting their stupid and insulting trinkets.  Even better, file your own objections next time around and demand meaningful injunctive relief, and NO PAY to these lawyers unless they achieve meaningful injunctive relief.


----------



## DaveNV

Reading this fascinating thread makes me wonder whether Wyndham owning RCI is a factor in all this?  If they own or manage the timeshares, and they own the company that exchanges and rents timeshares, and they make even more money directly renting timeshares, where does their conflict of interest end?  

I'm starting to feel like a sheep.

Dave


----------



## timeos2

Carolinian said:


> I believe that the ''plaintiffs attorneys'' have a huge conflict of interest and perhaps an ethics complaint against them may be in order.  Maybe we need the address of the State Bar to address such an ethics complaint to.  They are totally selling out the interest of their clients.
> .



Huh? Since this bogus suit was filed & some of us kept saying it was a lawyers play only unlikely to give any benefit to owners you and a few others kept saying "This group isn't the usual shysters - they are in it for the common owner". 	

So what happened - did that group suddenly sell out to a bunch of shysters or did your opinion change when, as predicted, they showed exactly why they took the case. Millions of $ and nothing else. Exactly as predicted from the first breathless post touting the great fall of evil RCI's procedures.  Not what you wanted so now its the lawyers fault? Give us a break. That's all  anyone could ever expect. Read the reply to the protests. They meet the bare minimum to the letter of the law & everything else is ignored. 

That's how the law works. Short, sweet and unlikely to entertain " they are doing bad" type anecdotal  complaints when all the complainant has to do is stop giving them the product. Problem solved. That's what courts like. Short simple self protection.


----------



## Carolinian

The issues are not bogus, but the lawyers involved turned out to be, in spite of one Tugger's info who knew one of the lawyer and said he was the real deal, a timesharer himself who was committed to reform of RCI's malpractices.
TUGS own Aldo was one of the lead plaintiffs, and he is certainly no RCI ringer.

Of course, I have always taken the position that a consumer protection lawsuit by a state Attorney General was the best bet, but had kept my fingers crossed that the info on some of those involved in the class action was real.

I wish Aldo would come on and try to explain the sellout.




timeos2 said:


> Huh? Since this bogus suit was filed & some of us kept saying it was a lawyers play only unlikely to give any benefit to owners you and a few others kept saying "This group isn't the usual shysters - they are in it for the common owner".
> 
> So what happened - did that group suddenly sell out to a bunch of shysters or did your opinion change when, as predicted, they showed exactly why they took the case. Millions of $ and nothing else. Exactly as predicted from the first breathless post touting the great fall of evil RCI's procedures.  Not what you wanted so now its the lawyers fault? Give us a break. That's all  anyone could ever expect. Read the reply to the protests. They meet the bare minimum to the letter of the law & everything else is ignored.
> 
> That's how the law works. Short, sweet and unlikely to entertain " they are doing bad" type anecdotal  complaints when all the complainant has to do is stop giving them the product. Problem solved. That's what courts like. Short simple self protection.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm reading the posts on this thread, and I am very pleased that so many people care.  Justice is almost never done when those who are treated unjustly don't demand it.  

Unfortunately, I can't say that justice is always done (or even done most of the time) when those who are treated unjustly DO demand it.  But it's a better shot.  

Earlier today, I talked to the Judge's law clerk to find out whether the judge had reviewed and considered my letter (with the attachment summarizing the terms of the proposed settlement). Both were posted for me by Brian.  

After speaking with the law clerk, I decided to request appointment as "lead counsel for the objectors."  This is apparently done sometimes in class actions suits.  I am an attorney (admitted in New York and Hawaii), but I don't do class action suits.  (Or at least I haven't so far!)  But I do know timeshares, and I do know RCI, and I can recognize when RCI is spinning tales.  I was told by one fellow objector that he was told by a person who shall remain nameless that "RCI has to rent out deposited weeks to cover their expenses of paying maintenance fees for which RCI is liable when a member deposits a week but doesn't pay the maintenance fees."   (Or words to that effect.)  What a scream!  Like RCI would do that!!  What a wonderful benefit fo the resorts:  No more delinquent accounts.  Just deposit the weeks and RCI will pay the maintenance fees!  (As if!)  

Anyhow, I hope the judge lets another voice in to the discussions.  I'll keep my fingers crossed!


----------



## rickandcindy23

Hey, I didn't know RCI would pay my maintenance fees.   That is hilarious, absolutely a lie.


----------



## Carolinian

Thank you, Susan!  You are a true timeshare hero!

One question.  I saw a discovery schedule some time ago.  Is it correct that no discovery on the merits of the case had even been started at the time this ''settlement'' was agreed to, and that only discovery on the issue of class certification had been done?  It is absolutely incredible if that is so that any attorney would agree to a settlement without doing that discovery.




Susan2 said:


> I'm reading the posts on this thread, and I am very pleased that so many people care.  Justice is almost never done when those who are treated unjustly don't demand it.
> 
> Unfortunately, I can't say that justice is always done (or even done most of the time) when those who are treated unjustly DO demand it.  But it's a better shot.
> 
> Earlier today, I talked to the Judge's law clerk to find out whether the judge had reviewed and considered my letter (with the attachment summarizing the terms of the proposed settlement). Both were posted for me by Brian.
> 
> After speaking with the law clerk, I decided to request appointment as "lead counsel for the objectors."  This is apparently done sometimes in class actions suits.  I am an attorney (admitted in New York and Hawaii), but I don't do class action suits.  (Or at least I haven't so far!)  But I do know timeshares, and I do know RCI, and I can recognize when RCI is spinning tales.  I was told by one fellow objector that he was told by a person who shall remain nameless that "RCI has to rent out deposited weeks to cover their expenses of paying maintenance fees for which RCI is liable when a member deposits a week but doesn't pay the maintenance fees."   (Or words to that effect.)  What a scream!  Like RCI would do that!!  What a wonderful benefit fo the resorts:  No more delinquent accounts.  Just deposit the weeks and RCI will pay the maintenance fees!  (As if!)
> 
> Anyhow, I hope the judge lets another voice in to the discussions.  I'll keep my fingers crossed!


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's great, Jennie!  Better luck than I've had.  At one resort, I talked to the manager, who told me that RCI certainly should have the right to rent deposits.  (Such a shame.  It's a small resort, and I don't think she really understands.  I'll try the board members instead, eventually.)  At another resort, I did not get a definite answer to my request that they include an article about the settlement in the next newsletter.  

Maybe if everyone who regularly reads this thread asks their owners' associations to help disseminate information, we can really get something going!  

Susan


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> Thank you, Susan!  You are a true timeshare hero!
> 
> One question.  I saw a discovery schedule some time ago.  Is it correct that no discovery on the merits of the case had even been started at the time this ''settlement'' was agreed to, and that only discovery on the issue of class certification had been done?  It is absolutely incredible if that is so that any attorney would agree to a settlement without doing that discovery.



Thanks, Carolinian!  

I would think that some discovery had to have been made, but I have not [yet] been granted access to the filings, so I only know what I hear.  

I did hear verbally from some of the Plaintiffs' attorneys that discovery was *limited* by another judge very early on in the case.  That would have had a serious impact on the eventual outcome.  I asked why, and was pretty much shrugged off.  (Sort of a "s**t happens" answer.)  I could not say how hard the Plaintiffs' attorneys fought for discovery.  They could have fought really hard, but then too, discovery can be an expensive process, and they might not have been eager to take on the expense.  Or they might have spent vast amounts of money already.  I just couldn't say.       

It would be extraordinary, but I'm guessing not completely impossible (as opposed to "partially impossible," I suppose -- don't you love how we lawyers make up terms?) for this judge to allow discovery at this stage of the proceedings.  For him to allow it, though, he would have to have a really good reason.  

To me, it still comes down to the fact that RCI insists it has the right to rent out weeks deposited for exchange (not just the ones used for "Points," partners or cruises).  I just don't see where RCI can grant itself that right *especially* when the RCI representatives who deal with the public deny that they do it.  I'd love to see RCI be forced to disclose that they ARE doing it, and how often, and how much money they're making on it.  (It's not like they're reducing exchange, membership and guest certificate fees because they're making money on rentals!)  

I honestly do not understand why the Plaintiffs' attorneys have conceded that RCI has the right to rent out deposited weeks unless they already brought the issue to the judge, and the judge ruled that the contract stands.  And I don't see that issue as lost yet.  And, frankly, from the judge's demeanor in the courtroom, I really don't think he ruled that way.  RCI's attorney would have said so, the Plaintiffs' attorneys would have said, and I think the judge would have said so.  Judges have the right to rule that a contract term is unconscionable and unenforceable.  This judge didn't dismiss my arguments, or say anything that would indicate to me that he would rule that way.  On the contrary, he told the Plaintiffs' attorneys flat out that I had done most of their work for them, and invited them to respond.  (They didn't have much of a response.)  

Anyhow, I have a request:  I have noticed that the wording in the Terms and Conditions of the 2008 catalog differs from the wording in the 2006 catalog, regarding relinquishment of rights.  Does anyone have any older catalogs hanging around?  If RCI has been gradually changing the terms, it could be very important at some point.  (I could probably request the Terms and Conditions from Plaintiffs' local counsel -- he promised me he'd bring the 2000 version to me in court, but he didn't.  But I'd rather not rely on his good faith, if I don't have to.)


----------



## vasselle

*My letter to the judge...and I was being NICE*

Dear Honorable Sir or Madam,

We would like to file an objection to the settlement proposed in the action against RCI LLC. The reasons for our objection are as follows:

1. The settlement amount is insufficient to dissuade the defendant from committing future actions similar to those alleged in the claim. The defendant may have profited 100’s if not 1000’s of dollars from the rental of the deposited properties per resort timeshare owner over the period of time this action covers, but the settlement only amounts to approximately $20 per claimant. We propose a settlement of $100 per claimant per year (see #2).

2. The settlement offers the same amount of compensation per claimant, not withstanding the fact that some claimants may have been RCI Weeks members for ¬years while others may have only been RCI Weeks members for days. This is blatantly unfair to longer term members who are a part of this class and who may have been affected to a greater extent by the defendant’s actions. We suggest compensation be based on the number of full or part years of membership, rather than a one-size-fits-all standard of compensation.

While we do not want to see the amount awarded lead to RCI’s insolvency, we would like to ensure that claimants are properly compensated. We trust that the court will decide on a fair and equitable settlement in the event that this suit is successful. Thank you very much for your consideration.


----------------------------

Not only was I being too nice, I should have paid better attention to the 2-year limit. I don't agree with it being a temporary fix, nor do I agree with them only holding deposited weeks for 31 days before it is up for grabs for rental. I have been trying to find a decent exchange for Australia and have come up with only so-so places for exchange. When I try to look up one of the Gold Crown resorts, there is nothing available.

I would like to know how they classify resorts, because when we bought (3 years ago), ours was a Gold Crown, and now it is nothing (plain). I guess that limits our "trading power".


----------



## JPD

Today I looked for an exchange for Apr 2010 in the Orlando Fl area . I have been looking for the last few months. There were only a few openings. There was one at Orange Lakes CC, They had an opening on the date I needed, but not for exchange, The going rate was $1200. I'm looking at not renewing my rci membership next year. My wife and I really enjoy exchanging, but we don't enjoy getting only the rci scraps. I think if enough of us vacation at our home resorts instead of depositing our weeks, rci might get the message. We pay our maint fees, our rci dues, and the fee to exchange. Who is the winner here.


----------



## Tia

When pigs fly as they say, but if you find out this is true, choking, I know some people at my resort that would be very interested in this option!! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: 




Susan2 said:


> ...I was told by one fellow objector that he was told by a person who shall remain nameless that "RCI has to rent out deposited weeks to cover their expenses of paying maintenance fees for which RCI is liable when a member deposits a week but doesn't pay the maintenance fees."   (Or words to that effect.)  What a scream!  Like RCI would do that!!  ....!


----------



## Santina

*Weeks class action settlement*

Boy, am I ever out of the loop! I scrolled down to the bottom of the page on RCI and read about this. I guess I missed the boat because I didn't put a claim in.


----------



## Carolinian

Susan,

I once saw a discovery schedule that said that the limitation on the first round of discovery was that it was restricted to the issue of class certification.  It would appear that this was all of the discovery that was ever done.  If there was no discovery at all on the merits of the claim, then the plaintiffs attorneys of record are not representing plaintiffs interest when they jump on a settlement without fully exploring the merits of the case.

Some discovery methods are indeed expensive, but others less so.  If funds are limited, then using a written set of interrogatories, written requests for production of documents, and written requests for adminissions saves money over a deposition.

If the attorneys of record are cagey about discovery, that seems to be indicative that they did not fullfill their duties to their clients in this area.

I think another issue of how diligently they represented their ''clients'' is whether they attempted to make use of RCI whistleblowers who offered to use their access to RCI computers to provide information.  There were two or three such offers on www.timesharetalk.co.uk, for instance.  The main whistleblower on TUG, Bootleg, never made that offer, but if I had been in the shoes of the attorneys of record, I would have at least tried to see if he would provide the smoking gun that he posted here that he was aware of.

I would also suggest contacting the Timeshare Consumers Association in the UK to ask that they help get some objections in from members there, or perhaps encourage them to file suit in the UK.  They have been involved with timeshare litigation before, having brought down John ''Goldfinger'' Palmer in the UK / Canary Islands and brought in a law firm to start work on a class action (or whatever they call it there) on Sunterra, one of the factors that helped Sunterra decide to exit the timeshare business.





Susan2 said:


> Thanks, Carolinian!
> 
> I would think that some discovery had to have been made, but I have not [yet] been granted access to the filings, so I only know what I hear.
> 
> I did hear verbally from some of the Plaintiffs' attorneys that discovery was *limited* by another judge very early on in the case.  That would have had a serious impact on the eventual outcome.  I asked why, and was pretty much shrugged off.  (Sort of a "s**t happens" answer.)  I could not say how hard the Plaintiffs' attorneys fought for discovery.  They could have fought really hard, but then too, discovery can be an expensive process, and they might not have been eager to take on the expense.  Or they might have spent vast amounts of money already.  I just couldn't say.
> 
> It would be extraordinary, but I'm guessing not completely impossible (as opposed to "partially impossible," I suppose -- don't you love how we lawyers make up terms?) for this judge to allow discovery at this stage of the proceedings.  For him to allow it, though, he would have to have a really good reason.
> 
> To me, it still comes down to the fact that RCI insists it has the right to rent out weeks deposited for exchange (not just the ones used for "Points," partners or cruises).  I just don't see where RCI can grant itself that right *especially* when the RCI representatives who deal with the public deny that they do it.  I'd love to see RCI be forced to disclose that they ARE doing it, and how often, and how much money they're making on it.  (It's not like they're reducing exchange, membership and guest certificate fees because they're making money on rentals!)
> 
> I honestly do not understand why the Plaintiffs' attorneys have conceded that RCI has the right to rent out deposited weeks unless they already brought the issue to the judge, and the judge ruled that the contract stands.  And I don't see that issue as lost yet.  And, frankly, from the judge's demeanor in the courtroom, I really don't think he ruled that way.  RCI's attorney would have said so, the Plaintiffs' attorneys would have said, and I think the judge would have said so.  Judges have the right to rule that a contract term is unconscionable and unenforceable.  This judge didn't dismiss my arguments, or say anything that would indicate to me that he would rule that way.  On the contrary, he told the Plaintiffs' attorneys flat out that I had done most of their work for them, and invited them to respond.  (They didn't have much of a response.)
> 
> Anyhow, I have a request:  I have noticed that the wording in the Terms and Conditions of the 2008 catalog differs from the wording in the 2006 catalog, regarding relinquishment of rights.  Does anyone have any older catalogs hanging around?  If RCI has been gradually changing the terms, it could be very important at some point.  (I could probably request the Terms and Conditions from Plaintiffs' local counsel -- he promised me he'd bring the 2000 version to me in court, but he didn't.  But I'd rather not rely on his good faith, if I don't have to.)


----------



## Carolinian

JPD said:


> Today I looked for an exchange for Apr 2010 in the Orlando Fl area . I have been looking for the last few months. There were only a few openings. There was one at Orange Lakes CC, They had an opening on the date I needed, but not for exchange, The going rate was $1200. I'm looking at not renewing my rci membership next year. My wife and I really enjoy exchanging, but we don't enjoy getting only the rci scraps. I think if enough of us vacation at our home resorts instead of depositing our weeks, rci might get the message. We pay our maint fees, our rci dues, and the fee to exchange. Who is the winner here.



You might see if one of the independent exchange companies can find you a week:

www.daelive.com
www.platinuminterchange.com
www.tradingplaces.com
www.htse.net
www.sfx-resorts.com


----------



## MuranoJo

Susan2 said:


> Anyhow, I have a request:  I have noticed that the wording in the Terms and Conditions of the 2008 catalog differs from the wording in the 2006 catalog, regarding relinquishment of rights.  Does anyone have any older catalogs hanging around?  If RCI has been gradually changing the terms, it could be very important at some point.  (I could probably request the Terms and Conditions from Plaintiffs' local counsel -- he promised me he'd bring the 2000 version to me in court, but he didn't.



Susan, and others,

I have a 2002-2003 'Disclosure Guide' which I got shortly after joining RCI in   '02.  I've skimmed through it late tonight, but cannot find any reference to renting.  Anyone else have this copy and can find any reference?

They do, however, warn up front that 'your decision to purchase vacation time should be based primarily on the use, benefit and enjoyment of your vacation time at the affiliated resort and not upon the anticipated benefits of the RCI...'  As if we haven't heard this over and over, LOL.  Too bad this isn't a required spew of the sales presentation.

Skimming through again, I found on page 4:  "An RCI weeks Member relinquishes all rights to the use of his/her Vacation Time when it is deposited into the RCI Spacebank."  But that's all I've found so far.  'Relinquishes rights to use' is quite different from acknowledges the unit may be rented.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

muranojo said:


> Skimming through again, I found on page 4:  "An RCI weeks Member relinquishes all rights to the use of his/her Vacation Time when it is deposited into the RCI Spacebank."  But that's all I've found so far.  'Relinquishes rights to use' is quite different from acknowledges the unit may be rented.



I don't know, Jo.  Personally, I think there is a big difference between "relinquishes all rights to use" and "relinquishes all rights to use except the right to rent".

It seems to me that if I have a right to rent a timeshare, and I relinquish *all *of my rights to that unit, I would certainly be relinquishing my right to rent the unit.  Because otherwise I wouldn't be relinquishing all rights, would I??


----------



## rod

For what it is worth, I have some old directories, and the appropriate paragraphs are shown below:

*RCI Directory - 1991*

*Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership* (page 24)

10. By depositing Vacation Time in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, an RCI Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Time.  Deposited Vacation Time ay be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and other purposes at RCI's discretion.  Some Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool may be rented by RCI through its travel division, Endless Vacation Travel ("EVT").  EVT replaces Vacation Time withdrawn from the RCI SPACEBANK Pool with inventory purchased from participating resort developers.  Because RCI members relinquish the right to use Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, they do not receive the proceeds of rentals arranged by EVT.

*RCI Directory - 1993*

*Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership* (page 509)

9. By depositing Vacation Time in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, an RCI Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Time.  Deposited Vacation Time ay be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and other purposes at RCI's discretion.

*RCI Directory - 1997*

*Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership* (page 578)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting an Exchange

3) By depositing Vacation Ownership in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.

*RCI Directory - 2001*

*Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership* (page 570)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting An Exchange

C) By depositing Vacation Ownership in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.  RCI reserves the right to charge and collect an additional fee for a Member who deposits their Vacation Ownership outside the published guidelines.

*RCI Directory - 2003*

*Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership* (page 473)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting an Exchange

C) By depositing Vacation Ownership in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.

*RCI Directory - 2006*

*Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership* (page 499)

6. Depositing Vacation Ownership and Requesting an Exchange

(c) By depositing Vacation Ownership with RCI, you relinquish all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agree that such deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions, rentals, and for other purposes at RCI's discretion.

*RCI Directory - 2008*

*Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership* (page 396)

23.0 Assignment of Rights
By Depositing Vacation Ownership with RCI, each Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Ownership and agrees that such Deposited Vacation Ownership may be used by RCI to satisfy Exchange Requests, for inspection visits, promotions, rental, sale, marketing and for other purposes at RCI's discretion, including use in other exchange or accomodation programs.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*When The Horse Is Dead, It Is Advisable To Dismount.*

"Other purposes at RCI's discretion" pretty much covers it, no ? 

Case closed. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2

*The rentals are long before points or the Internet came along*



rod said:


> *RCI Directory - 1991*
> 
> *Terms and Conditions of RCI Membership* (page 24)
> 
> 10. By depositing Vacation Time in the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, an RCI Member relinquishes all rights to use that Vacation Time.  Deposited Vacation Time ay be used by RCI to conduct exchanges, inspection visits, promotions and other purposes at RCI's discretion.  Some Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool may be rented by RCI through its travel division, Endless Vacation Travel ("EVT").  EVT replaces Vacation Time withdrawn from the RCI SPACEBANK Pool with inventory purchased from participating resort developers.  Because RCI members relinquish the right to use Vacation Time deposited into the RCI SPACEBANK Pool, they do not receive the proceeds of rentals arranged by EVT.
> 
> *RCI Directory - 1993*



So way back in what still may have been deemed the "Golden Years" of RCI Weeks trades (predates our use by 2 years) the agreement specifically states that RCI can rent the deposits. It actually disappears for awhile after that (but as Alan notes the "at RCI Discretion" pretty much says it all).  So the cry's that Points or a sudden, recent change in direction by RCI regarding renting rings extremely hollow. It does back up the oft stated view that the rise of the Internet and the subsequent ability to find all the rental offers easily from whatever source is the true reason behind the so-called shift toward renting timeshares vs week for week exchange.  The golden age wasn't as gilded as some would have you believe as has also often been pointed out. TUG itself was born out of frustration with the exchange companies in that period. Memories tend to smooth over the problems after awhile.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



timeos2 said:


> So way back in what still may have been deemed the "Golden Years" of RCI Weeks trades (predates our use by 2 years) the agreement specifically states that RCI can rent the deposits. It actually disappears for awhile after that (but as Alan notes the "at RCI Discretion" pretty much says it all).  So the cry's that Points or a sudden, recent change in direction by RCI regarding renting rings extremely hollow. It does back up the oft stated view that the rise of the Internet and the subsequent ability to find all the rental offers easily from whatever source is the true reason behind the so-called shift toward renting timeshares vs week for week exchange.  The golden age wasn't as gilded as some would have you believe as has also often been pointed out. TUG itself was born out of frustration with the exchange companies in that period. Memories tend to smooth over the problems after awhile.



I disagree strongly.  There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.    

Also, bear in mind that the Vacation Guides CONSISTENTLY DENY that RCI takes weeks deposited for exchange and rents them out or transfers them to another spacebank.  

It's not a matter of memory "smoothing over the problems after a while," and I think it's disrepectful to claim so.  We see what we see, and we're not stupid!  Many of us who have noticed the drying up of the good inventory can cite facts and figures.  Can you?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Shux, I Should Have Gone To Law School.  (Like I Could Ever Get In.)*




Susan2 said:


> I disagree strongly.  There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.


You don't think that _"other purposes at RCI's discretion" _ covers it ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> Susan,
> 
> I once saw a discovery schedule that said that the limitation on the first round of discovery was that it was restricted to the issue of class certification.  It would appear that this was all of the discovery that was ever done.  If there was no discovery at all on the merits of the claim, then the plaintiffs attorneys of record are not representing plaintiffs interest when they jump on a settlement without fully exploring the merits of the case.
> 
> Some discovery methods are indeed expensive, but others less so.  If funds are limited, then using a written set of interrogatories, written requests for production of documents, and written requests for adminissions saves money over a deposition.
> 
> If the attorneys of record are cagey about discovery, that seems to be indicative that they did not fullfill their duties to their clients in this area.
> 
> I think another issue of how diligently they represented their ''clients'' is whether they attempted to make use of RCI whistleblowers who offered to use their access to RCI computers to provide information.  There were two or three such offers on www.timesharetalk.co.uk, for instance.  The main whistleblower on TUG, Bootleg, never made that offer, but if I had been in the shoes of the attorneys of record, I would have at least tried to see if he would provide the smoking gun that he posted here that he was aware of.
> 
> I would also suggest contacting the Timeshare Consumers Association in the UK to ask that they help get some objections in from members there, or perhaps encourage them to file suit in the UK.  They have been involved with timeshare litigation before, having brought down John ''Goldfinger'' Palmer in the UK / Canary Islands and brought in a law firm to start work on a class action (or whatever they call it there) on Sunterra, one of the factors that helped Sunterra decide to exit the timeshare business.



First of all, let me say I absolutely agree with your comment on discovery.  I just don't want to make claims that I can't support.  If you are right, then it absolutely does seem that more should have been done.  

Second, I am (and have been) in contact with Jay in the UK regarding the suit over there.  He tells me that the UK has a different system, with a "representative plaintiff," rather than a "class action."  That means that the expenses must be paid up front, but that a "funder" can put up the expenses and then get reimbursed if the case is won.  The last I heard, they were meeting with a potential "funder," and Jay said he'd let me know how that went.  I haven't heard anything in almost a week, so hopefully he'll have a good answer soon.


----------



## Carolinian

Even this ''excess'' issue is a slippery slope.  They can manipulate the trading power to make anything they want ''excess''.

There are simply two sides to this issue, the consumers side, and the company can do no wrong side.  It is easy to tell which side particularly posters line up on!

And something being buried in the fine print does not make it legal or right.  The fine print may be determined to itself be the ''unfair or deceptive practice in or affecting commerce'' (to quote the NC law) which is then statutorily declared ''unlawful''.  As was discussed at length on the Street Talk site, the RCI contract may well itself be a contract of adhesion and unenforcible as to some of these pro-company terms.

Susan, Alan thinks he gets great trades when he finds something at the last minute into one of the overbuilt areas.




Susan2 said:


> I disagree strongly.  There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.
> 
> Also, bear in mind that the Vacation Guides CONSISTENTLY DENY that RCI takes weeks deposited for exchange and rents them out or transfers them to another spacebank.
> 
> It's not a matter of memory "smoothing over the problems after a while," and I think it's disrepectful to claim so.  We see what we see, and we're not stupid!  Many of us who have noticed the drying up of the good inventory can cite facts and figures.  Can you?


----------



## bnoble

> There is a HUGE difference between renting "excess inventory," defined as weeks unlikely to be requested as exchanges for $99 per week, and taking the best, most desirable weeks and renting them to make hundreds of dollars -- OR taking them out of the RCI exchange spacebank and putting them in another program entirely.



Those are different, sure. But, by my reading of the subscriber agreement, both are allowed---and apparently have been since at least 1991.

This is really simple.  RCI is going to to what it can, as a business, to be as profitable as possible.  If they can also deliver me value for what I pay them and deposit, I am happy to make use of their services.  If they can't deliver that value to me (or someone delivers better value) then I won't.   So far, RCI is still delivering value, so I'm still happy to use them.  

Ultimately, that can't last forever---the only way for everyone to get value is for everyone to get a week worth more than the week they put in (to account for the exchange fee).  In a barter system, worth is relative to perspective, and so it would be possible for both parties in a trade to "win".  But, as the rental market becomes more effiicient and more transparent, there is increasingly a standard objective value for every week---as that happens, it becomes clear that one party in a trade is losing.  That person isn't likely to deposit again, withdrawing a high-value week from the system.

But, until that day comes, I'm happy to continue to extract some value from the system.  Would I prefer it if they made less money and delivered me more value?  Sure!  Who wouldn't?  But I honestly do not understand this idea that RCI _owes it to me_ to make less money and deliver me more value.

Edited to add:



> There are simply two sides to this issue, the consumers side, and the company can do no wrong side.


This over-simplifies things.  Or, to put it better, attributes "morality" to a business, when no such thing ever really exists.  Business is simply buisness---there is no "right" or "wrong".  It's either profitable or not.  The trick for a company is to make money while still somehow delivering value to the people to whom it sells its services.  If the company can't do that, it fails---either becuase it dellivers value but makes no profit, or it would be profitable but customers get no value, and so do not patronize it.

You can wish that a company would do what you want it to do so that you get more value.  But, that's not going to happen unless that action also pads the company's bottom line.  No company ever has your best interests at heart---only its own.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*There You Go Again.*




Carolinian said:


> There are simply two sides to this issue, the consumers side, and the company can do no wrong side.


Citing the broad language in the agreement ("...other purposes at RCI's discretion...") is not exactly the same as saying that RCI can do no wrong*,* now is it ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> This over-simplifies things.  Or, to put it better, attributes "morality" to a business, when no such thing ever really exists.  Business is simply buisness---there is no "right" or "wrong".  It's either profitable or not.  The trick for a company is to make money while still somehow delivering value to the people to whom it sells its services.  If the company can't do that, it fails---either becuase it dellivers value but makes no profit, or it would be profitable but customers get no value, and so do not patronize it.
> 
> You can wish that a company would do what you want it to do so that you get more value.  But, that's not going to happen unless that action also pads the company's bottom line.  No company ever has your best interests at heart---only its own.



Yeah, and Al Capone's business was VERY profitable!

The fact is that there are other standards for business.  Every state has a consumer protection law, most of which are very broad.  It is the New Jersey consumer protection law that this lawsuit is brought under.  The North Carolina version provides ''*an unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful*''  It doesn't make the slightest difference whether or not it is in the T&C.  The test is whether it is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.  Something buried in the T&C that is contrary to what the company projects to its customers can very easily be the basis for something that is determined to be unfair or deceptive.   RCI's practices meet both tests, when only one is required, and they deserve to be hammered until they restore honesty to their business practices.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AwayWeGo said:


> "Other purposes at RCI's discretion" pretty much covers it, no ?
> 
> Case closed.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Actually, not necessarily "case closed."  Anyone can put whatever they want in a contract, but that doesn's mean it is enforceable.  Any contract clause that is found by the court to be unconscionable, for example, can get thrown out by the judge.  

Also the Attorney General can (and do) look into contracts and when they find something that isn't right, they often take action.  

IMO, There is more here than just the "four corners of the contract."


----------



## bnoble

> Al Capone's business was VERY profitable!


Not only that, but people were _very _happy to patronize it.  They got a lot of (ahem) value.

Of course there are limits to what a company can do---a company must follow the law, and act in a straightfoward manner.  You can claim that renting deposits is not straightforward, except that anyone who actually bothers to read the agreement is fully aware of it.

If you are so sure that it is deceptive, perhaps you should sue under North Carolina law.  It certainly doesn't look deceptive to me---the language in the current agreement is pretty plain.  What's more, continuing to whinge about it here---while the next minute _praising them_ for the good rental deals you see there---is doing no one any good at all.

Edited to add:


> Any contract clause that is found by the court to be unconscionable, for example, can get thrown out by the judge.


I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, such clauses are generally found to be unenforceable because they violate the law in some way---for example, even if you sign a timeshare sales contract that waives your recission period in a state in which mandates one, you still have that recission period.

If you can find me any state or federal statute that says units deposited for exchange can only be obtained in exchange, I'll line right up behind you to say that the current Subscriber Agreement does not actually allow RCI to rent deposits.


----------



## Carolinian

AwayWeGo said:


> Citing the broad language in the agreement ("...other purposes at RCI's discretion...") is not exactly the same as saying that RCI can do no wrong*,* now is it ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



Yes, blindly agreeing that a company should be able to place unfair or deceptive provisions in its T&C and then enforce them to the detriment of customers is indeed saying a company can do no wrong.

Do you really think it is any coincidence that RCI's ''enhancement'' that whacked trading power and removed a lot of the better inventory from the system just happened to occur right about the time they thought they had a done deal to kill the class action lawsuit?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*That's Just The Kind Of Doofus I Am.*




Carolinian said:


> Alan thinks he gets great trades when he finds something at the last minute into one of the overbuilt areas.


If I were a more, uh -- um, er, ah *. . .* _discriminating_ vacationer, perhaps snagging great last-minute _Instant Exchange_ reservations would leave me so dissatisfied that I would try to get some state attorney general to take RCI to court. 

Wouldn't that be something ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## BocaBum99

Carolinian said:


> I believe that the ''plaintiffs attorneys'' have a huge conflict of interest and perhaps an ethics complaint against them may be in order.  Maybe we need the address of the State Bar to address such an ethics complaint to.  They are totally selling out the interest of their clients.
> 
> Also what about the lead plaintiffs?  One of them, Aldo, used to post here and on other timeshare boards and is clearly personally committed to reform.  I wonder if he could be gotten to denounce the sellout by these attorneys?
> 
> I appreciate all you are doing.  Please also post this info at www.timeshareforums.com and www.timesharetalk.co.uk to reach others who may not read it here.
> 
> If wonder if any resort HOA's would have the guts to take a stand.



Maybe the plaintiffs are just wrong and their attorney's figured it out in the process.  

I hope there is no settlement.  I want this thing to be judged and a jury to come to a verdict one way or another.  Then, I want it appealed up to the Supreme Court so that we know one way or another if the facts suggest wrong doing by RCI.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*The Ultimate Authority.*




BocaBum99 said:


> I want it appealed up to the Supreme Court so that we know one way or another if the facts suggest wrong doing by RCI.


After that, I want it appealed to the United Nations & the World Court. 

(If somebody else is paying attorney fees & court costs, that is.) 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> Not only that, but people were _very _happy to patronize it.
> 
> Of course there are limits to what a company can do---a company must follow the law, and act in a straightfoward manner.  You can claim that renting deposits is not straightforward, except that anyone who actually bothers to read the agreement is fully aware of it.
> 
> If you are so sure that it is deceptive, perhaps you should sue under North Carolina law.  But, continuing to whinge about it here---while the next minute _praising them_ for the good rental deals you see there---is doing no one any good at all.



If we ever get an NC Attorney General of my party whom I can approach, I will see that something gets cranked up on this matter in NC.  Unfortunately a politically active person in one political party, such as myself, is not going to have any clout on something like this when the AG is from the other party.

The AG has lots of advantages, too.  He doesn't have to go through a lot of antics to certify a class.  He automatically has standing to represent consumers, which saves a lot of time and effort.  He also has a lot of pre-litigation tools that private attorneys do not have, like pre-litigation subpoenas to investigate the matter.  He is also going to be able to bring the action on his own turf instead of having to litigate in New Jersey.

I have not ''praised'' RCI for their rentals.  I have simply pointed out the obvious, that they are now a rental company instead of an exchange company.  If someone is fool enough to deposit a timeshare week with them, that is the depositor's problem.  The smart member does something else with his timeshare week and uses RCI for the cheap rentals while they exist.  Of course, the best outcome is for their chain to be jerked real hard in court and they be compelled to operate as an ethical exchange company once again, but until that happens, we simply have to treat them as what they are, a rental company.

A bank has a fiduciary responsibility for its depositors money, and there has been some discussion at The Timeshare Beat that this concept should apply to RCI as well, that it has a fiduciary or quasi-fiduciary responsibility to its depositors in handling their exchange deposits.

Fine print is the essence of a contract of adhesion, which when it gets to court suddenly becomes no contract at all.  Yes, there are some other elements, but all of them are in place with RCI's T&C, which are a contract of adhesion.

You may not understand it, but it will do timesharing a whole lot of good to be able to stop RCI's dishonest rental tactics dead in their tracks.  Do you think their regular and repeated denials to members that they are renting exchange deposits is an honest business practice??????


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> Even this ''excess'' issue is a slippery slope.  They can manipulate the trading power to make anything they want ''excess''.



That brings up an interesting issue.  RCI is, on at least some demonstrable occasions, assigns trade power to weeks that is insufficient to pull up that same week!  

I have seen this at two of my resorts.  Using the "points" values of the weeks, it is possible to see "different shades of red."  So, if a particular week, say week 52, is assigned the highest point value, then surely it should be able to pull up weeks of the same or smaller size at the same resort which have lower point values assigned.  

However, this is not always the case, yet the weeks are available via the Points program.  (I called RCI on this, and got no satisfaction, so I referred it to the people at my resort who are in charge of dealing with RCI currently.)

I also noted that at another resort, my white week (deposited 13 months in advance, which should have given it "full trade power") could not pull itself up.  I could pull it up with my red week AT THE SAME RESORT, so I knew the week was avaliable.  I called RCI to ask about this, and was told that "the system is set up to block exchanges at the home resort" and that "RCI Guides can see the weeks, but the consumer can't."  I talked to both a vacation guide and a supervisor about this and got the same answer.  So then I asked why, then, could I pull it up home resort weeks with a RED week at that same resort, which weeks included that white week.  I was told that since I had an ongoing search against the red week, that week didn't appear on their (RCI's) screen, so they didn't realize I had it on deposit.  

So, in other words, they were making up a story and didn't realize that they would get caught!!!   

RCI must be an awful place to work sometimes.  They treat their own employees like mushrooms!  

What can be done is to shed some light on the process.  DISCLOSE THE TRADE POWER for both deposits and inventory, the way Red Week does.  Then people would know why they can or can't get a week.  That wouold force honesty.  

Also, it would seriously clean up many of the lies that give the timeshare industry a bad name.  That is, resorts still lead potential buyers ("marks"?) to believe that red is red is red, so the week 40 in Orlando is as good as a spring break week.  But I suspect that at least some of the salespeople are also given false or misleading information.  If RCI had to disclose the actual trade power of weeks to both owners AND SELLERS, and the buyers could get that information, then people couldn't be rooked into paying full price for a fall week in Orlando!  

Lights, please!


----------



## Carolinian

bnoble said:


> Edited to add:
> 
> I'm not a lawyer, but as I understand it, such clauses are generally found to be unenforceable because they violate the law in some way---for example, even if you sign a timeshare sales contract that waives your recission period in a state in which mandates one, you still have that recission period.
> 
> If you can find me any state or federal statute that says units deposited for exchange can only be obtained in exchange, I'll line right up behind you to say that the current Subscriber Agreement does not actually allow RCI to rent deposits.



''An Unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful''

What part of ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' do you not understand?


----------



## Kaye

I'm a lifetime member here, but haven't been active for a long time.  I read Endless Vacations - almost page by page.  I'm on the RCI webpage a considerable amount.  I knew nothing of this. 

Thanks for bringing me back to the two most reliable sources of information - TUG and tstoday.  My subscription will be in the mail this week.


----------



## "Roger"

Susan2 said:


> ...What can be done is to shed some light on the process.  DISCLOSE THE TRADE POWER for both deposits and inventory, the way Red Week does.  Then people would know why they can or can't get a week.  That wouold force honesty...


Just so that you know, I have had a long standing argument with Carolinian on just this issue.  He claims that keeping trading power secret helps make the system more honest, more fair.  His contention is that by revealing trading power, developers would manipulate the values in their favor and owners would be ripped off. 

Hurray for some common sense on your and Jennie's part.  Nothing, nothing would help make the whole timeshare business fairer than giving the consummer more information on the actual worth of his unit. Salespeople wouldn't be able to misrepresent the value of their units; people could make educated decisions about what to buy, what to trade for, etc.  The whole theme of TUG is "Knowledge is Power"  but Carolinian has been arguing that ignorance helps us.

On a second note, there is an easy explanation as to how you can't pull your own unit.  Trading power is set at the time you deposit.  If you deposit right after a bulk spacebank, after many other people have deposited because maintenence fees have been set, etc. and demand at the point is low, you are given low trading power due to the supply and demand.  When demand heats up, the trading power required for your unit rises, but your trading power is fixed at a lower level. 

This hits squarely upon another long standing dispute that I have had with Carolinian.  He argues that the Weeks system is better because it uses the dynamic powers of supply and demand (or some similar phrase). Points are bad because they use a Communistic system of fixed prices.

I am glad that people like you and Jennie are arguing for the improvements in RCI.


----------



## BocaBum99

Carolinian said:


> ''An Unfair or deceptive act or practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful''
> 
> What part of ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' do you not understand?



The part where any judge or jury agreed with you that RCI did anything wrong.  Please show me the document or link that explains the verdict.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



BocaBum99 said:


> The part where any judge or jury agreed with you that RCI did anything wrong.  Please show me the document or link that explains the verdict.



Okay, how about the RCI Vacation Guides (and other RCI representatives) claiming FOR YEARS, INCLUDING TO THIS DAY, that RCI NEVER takes weeks deposited for exchange, and rents or disposes of them to other inventories not available to RCI members.    

If that isn't deceptive, then perhaps I should go back to law school???  After all, I thought that putting something in the fine print and then lying about it was misrepresentation or deception at the very least!  

And here's another thing:  If RCI is really convinced that this is a fair business practice, then why aren't they freely admitting that they do it, even to their own employees.  (Or do they merely happen to hire only people who lie for the fun of it?)


----------



## timeos2

*Maybe if we had a contract of super glue it would stick?*



AwayWeGo said:


> If I were a more, uh -- um, er, ah *. . .* _discriminating_ vacationer, perhaps snagging great last-minute _Instant Exchange_ reservations would leave me so dissatisfied that I would try to get some state attorney general to take RCI to court.
> 
> Wouldn't that be something ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



If you were really a discriminating timeshare consumer you would have to immediately stop enjoying beautiful Orlando timeshares and instead become a big holder of small, non-ranked,off season, ocean side weeks. Why? Because they need the fees and, after all, those are at least as good. Everyone knows that - right? They are ON THE BEACH after all - what does it matter that its in freezing weather that penguins avoid? Then you too could complain that RCI wasn't properly inflating the value of your worthless time by giving you desirable time in much nicer (and warmer year round) resorts!.  

Really, it's a lifestyle and one can really get into it if you try.  In that world there is no off season for your dog weeks, only those others own (and that strangely enough DO have year round demand!) And it is up to the evil exchange companies to ensure you that value no matter what it costs them or the owners of the far better and in demand resort time. And should you suggest that the very limited, highly seasonal weeks at those surf side locations that really ARE in demand should pay more while the dredge weeks pay less you will be roundly beaten down. It is the right of those few prime week owners to be subsidized by the other 40+ weeks per year, and of course the exchange giants, because - well, just because. That's the way it is. You'll have a whole new, if slightly off kilter, world view of timesharing once you buy in.  And it will fan your love of the ever-so-effective class action as well. Another worthwhile endeavor to fix all that is wrong in timeshare.  

This whole thread is a revisit to the same arguments when the meaningless suit was filed 5 years ago and the end result, despite the herculean and laudable efforts of Susan and Shep from TST, who really have gone to bat like few others for the owners, will in all likelihood still be a cave in to RCI.  And the true answer still is to not use them or II if they are doing the wrong thing. No amount of notice to the owners about the pending settlement is going to get thousands and certainly not the tens of thousands needed up in arms over it as they often can't even figure out how to deposit or exchange their week(s).  It is a non-issue to most contract adhesion or not.


----------



## bnoble

> What part of ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' do you not understand?


I believe I understand both of those terms.  It's certainly not deceptive, because the practice is spelled out very clearly in the Subscriber Agreement.  Only a fool or an idiot would think that somehow RCI could not rent out deposits after reading that language.  So, let's dispense with "deceptive".

As to "fair"---if RCI does as they say they do, substituting weeks of "comparable" value that they obtain in other ways---then it seems pretty darn fair to me.  Even if they simply rely on bulk spacebanks of developer inventory of the proper size and season to replace deposits that are rented out, they're probably on pretty solid footing.

This, as it happens, is one of my pet peeves.  Something that you do not like is not necessarily "unfair".  You just don't like it.  Unpleasant is not the same as unfair.

Finally, I see that I've upset you, so I'm afraid that this will be the end of my contribution to the conversation.  If you wish to have the last word, you may be my guest.


----------



## Carolinian

This is a seperate issue, but as usual you misstate my position.

Developers DO manipulate the values of a published system like RCI Points. A good example was BIS on the OBX, which at one point said if RCI was going to points, they were going to II, then groused about how many points RCI would give them, then told people (and I heard it directly from the lips of one of their execs) that they had joined a group of gold crown resorts to demand more points from RCI if they were to join the system, then got what they wanted from RCI and joined. Points are also frozen and cannot adjust easily to changes in supply and demand if they are based on paper and ink publication.  They cannot even adjust to expected variances like whether Thanksgiving is week 46 or 47.  Points always gives the high value to week 47, even years that it is not Thanksgiving, and as the week after turkey day is a real dud of a week.

To maintain the integrity of a true market based system like Weeks, however, it is absolutely necessary that the entity running the system not have a conflict of interest that gives them a motive to put their thumb on the scales.  I have ALWAYS made that point, and your ALWAYS seem to leave it out.  Such conflicts of interest destroy the integrity of the system.  Rentals are a massive conflict of interest, and a market based system cannot be run honestly with such a conflict of interest.

The whole corrupt points system is full of rigged values.  My favorite is how one can trade a blue week in overbuilt New Bern for a prime summer week on the Outer Banks WITHIN RCI Points and even have ''change'' left over.  It is even worse when using the rigged generic points grids for crossover exchanges.

But Roger, I really see what you are trying to do.  You are running interference for your buds at RCI by trying to change the subject of this thread to points vs. weeks.  Lets get back to topic on the corrupt rentals from RCI.  If you want to talk points vs weeks, that belongs in another thread.  Do not hijack this one.





"Roger" said:


> Just so that you know, I have had a long standing argument with Carolinian on just this issue.  He claims that keeping trading power secret helps make the system more honest, more fair.  His contention is that by revealing trading power, developers would manipulate the values in their favor and owners would be ripped off.
> 
> Hurray for some common sense on your and Jennie's part.  Nothing, nothing would help make the whole timeshare business fairer than giving the consummer more information on the actual worth of his unit. Salespeople wouldn't be able to misrepresent the value of their units; people could make educated decisions about what to buy, what to trade for, etc.  The whole theme of TUG is "Knowledge is Power"  but Carolinian has been arguing that ignorance helps us.
> 
> On a second note, there is an easy explanation as to how you can't pull your own unit.  Trading power is set at the time you deposit.  If you deposit right after a bulk spacebank, after many other people have deposited because maintenence fees have been set, etc. and demand at the point is low, you are given low trading power due to the supply and demand.  When demand heats up, the trading power required for your unit rises, but your trading power is fixed at a lower level.
> 
> This hits squarely upon another long standing dispute that I have had with Carolinian.  He argues that the Weeks system is better because it uses the dynamic powers of supply and demand (or some similar phrase). Points are bad because they use a Communistic system of fixed prices.
> 
> I am glad that people like you and Jennie are arguing for the improvements in RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

BocaBum99 said:


> The part where any judge or jury agreed with you that RCI did anything wrong.  Please show me the document or link that explains the verdict.



You will see that when the case gets to court.  We have to stop the sellout by the self-seeking shyster attorneys of record to get to that point.

Wow, Susan must have really rattled the cage.  The usual suspects who pinch hit for RCI are out in force in this thread.


----------



## Carolinian

RCI took that language of subsituting weeks out of their T&C many years ago.  They have used that same language more recently on the Points/Weeks crossover trades, but RCI whistleblowers at TimeshareTalk have revealed that this is a lie by RCI and it in fact does not subsitute anything.

RCI's attorneys must not have believed that the vague language you cite covers their rear end on rentals.  Otherwise they would not have secretly, without announcing it, substituted new language in the fine print that explicitely included rentals.

Burying something in the fine print of T&C that contradicts the image that a company is otherwise giving to its clients, that of being an exchange company, is deceptive, and deceptive in the extreme.  Why hide it?  Why not put it promininently in RCI materials if they are so proud of it?  They hide it only to cheat and deceive their members.

I can see I have upset you, and I hope I haven't rattled your faith in the Great and Powerful RCI.



bnoble said:


> I believe I understand both of those terms.  It's certainly not deceptive, because the practice is spelled out very clearly in the Subscriber Agreement.  Only a fool or an idiot would think that somehow RCI could not rent out deposits after reading that language.  So, let's dispense with "deceptive".
> 
> As to "fair"---if RCI does as they say they do, substituting weeks of "comparable" value that they obtain in other ways---then it seems pretty darn fair to me.  Even if they simply rely on bulk spacebanks of developer inventory of the proper size and season to replace deposits that are rented out, they're probably on pretty solid footing.
> 
> This, as it happens, is one of my pet peeves.  Something that you do not like is not necessarily "unfair".  You just don't like it.  Unpleasant is not the same as unfair.
> 
> Finally, I see that I've upset you, so I'm afraid that this will be the end of my contribution to the conversation.  If you wish to have the last word, you may be my guest.


----------



## Carolinian

John, you still don't get how trading power works, do you?  It is based on *supply* and *demand*.  Orlando is indeed a nice place to visit, and outside of hurricane season tends to have nice weather.  However, it is massively overbuilt which kills its trading power on the supply side.  It is much like the warm-all-year Canary Islands in that regard.  Nice place but way overbuilt in timeshare.

When you look at supply and demand, Florida is indeed seasonal.  RCI's own availibility tables published in the European version of its directory clearly show that.  They show that for Florida 3 months of the year have very good availibility, 4 months have good availibility, 3 months have limited availibility, and 2 months have very limited availibility.  That is about as seasonal as one can get.  It contrasts with, say, South Africa, where all 12 months show very limited availibility.  Get an RCI European directory and look on page 240, and you might learn something.

But, John, lets get back on subject.  This thread is about the threat posed to the system by rentals, not your Orlando-is-best soapbox.  IF you want to debate the merits of Orlando, please start another thread.





timeos2 said:


> If you were really a discriminating timeshare consumer you would have to immediately stop enjoying beautiful Orlando timeshares and instead become a big holder of small, non-ranked,off season, ocean side weeks. Why? Because they need the fees and, after all, those are at least as good. Everyone knows that - right? They are ON THE BEACH after all - what does it matter that its in freezing weather that penguins avoid? Then you too could complain that RCI wasn't properly inflating the value of your worthless time by giving you desirable time in much nicer (and warmer year round) resorts!.
> 
> Really, it's a lifestyle and one can really get into it if you try.  In that world there is no off season for your dog weeks, only those others own (and that strangely enough DO have year round demand!) And it is up to the evil exchange companies to ensure you that value no matter what it costs them or the owners of the far better and in demand resort time. And should you suggest that the very limited, highly seasonal weeks at those surf side locations that really ARE in demand should pay more while the dredge weeks pay less you will be roundly beaten down. It is the right of those few prime week owners to be subsidized by the other 40+ weeks per year, and of course the exchange giants, because - well, just because. That's the way it is. You'll have a whole new, if slightly off kilter, world view of timesharing once you buy in.  And it will fan your love of the ever-so-effective class action as well. Another worthwhile endeavor to fix all that is wrong in timeshare.
> 
> This whole thread is a revisit to the same arguments when the meaningless suit was filed 5 years ago and the end result, despite the herculean and laudable efforts of Susan and Shep from TST, who really have gone to bat like few others for the owners, will in all likelihood still be a cave in to RCI.  And the true answer still is to not use them or II if they are doing the wrong thing. No amount of notice to the owners about the pending settlement is going to get thousands and certainly not the tens of thousands needed up in arms over it as they often can't even figure out how to deposit or exchange their week(s).  It is a non-issue to most contract adhesion or not.


----------



## timeos2

*Total revamp needed*



Carolinian said:


> But, John, lets get back on subject.  This thread is about the threat posed to the system by rentals, not your Orlando-is-best soapbox.  IF.



Fair enough. First I stand 100 percent with the anti-rental of owners deposits view. I feel it is against the betterment of those looking for a fair trade and subject to easy manipulation that also tends to harm members.

Second I'm in agreement with the companies that due to the wide variations in value - which includes unit size & quality, use date, location & more - it is rare and nearly impossible to get a fair and equal match very often. So the concept of trade power and value creeps in. I disagree that those should be hidden as that means the buyer/owner is in the dark & at the mercy of the exchange co's. There needs to be a better way to adjust to equal value unequal deposits. Currently that means rental if the weeks aren't close enough to equal. That is opening the door far too wide to abuse. 

The answer, IMO, is a better method or methods of equalization between unequal deposits. A point system and/or the ability to pay for upgrades - which should also mean credits for downgtades - seems to fit the bill. 

I would prefer to see the whole system closed to non-owners (leave renting solely as an option for owners NOT exchange co's) and the systems changed to inform what the values are and provide a way to easily equalize them. While that means the days of upgrades for the savy disappear no one should feel they win or lose but simply get a fair and equal value out for what they put in.  Impossible to do under the present week for week model. Doing away with that & installing a closed, identifiable system would allow the end of rentals except for the true unwanted leftovers at the 45-90 day timeframe. Until there is a method to be able to adjust the week for week model - maybe two weeks for one of higher value or a cash difference for a trade up - a refund for a trde down - the need to declare an easy 1 for 1 trade unequal & thus leaving a highly demanded week with no equal taker will continue. That's whats generates all the rentals which do nothing to benefit traders - in fact hurts them - but does benefit the Exchange Co's. However, short of just saying anything gets anything - and the opening that gives the savy to take advantage of unfair trades as used to be the norm - there is no way under the current set up to fairly equalize the trades. So disposing of them as rentals becomes vable and a worst case for those who just want to trade and receive fair value.  

The current settlement does zero to fix the problems and may make it worse.


----------



## bnoble

> I can see I have upset you


I'm not upset in the least.  It's just not worth my time to have discussions with people who believe that "shouting" lends weight to their point.


----------



## "Roger"

Carolinian said:


> This is a seperate issue, but as usual you misstate my position.
> ....
> 
> But Roger, I really see what you are trying to do.  You are running interference for your buds at RCI by trying to change the subject of this thread to points vs. weeks.  Lets get back to topic on the corrupt rentals from RCI.  If you want to talk points vs weeks, that belongs in another thread.  Do not hijack this one.


Personally, I don't see where I have misstated your position.  

For the record, I never had said that developers would not try to get the best deal that they can.  This is much akin the suggestion that HOA's should try to pressure RCI into restoring prior levels of trading power.  (That is within the Weeks system.) In a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can.  What makes it work is that there are also pressures that go the other way (toward not overpricing a resort).  If a resort is overpriced (overpointed), users will not trade for it.  Given that RCI has given the owners of the overpriced units points to spend, they end up taking a loss. 

This is an abbreviated explanation for what would happen.  The main point is that in a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can.  A free market system breaks down when the players are not given the information needed to make informed decisions.  That is why saying that the Weeks system operates according to supply and demand is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term means. Supply and demand cannot operate with hidden prices.

So back to my main point in my original post.  I wanted to congratulate Jennie and Susan for speaking up for timesharing becoming a more open system during the RCI court hearings.  More openess would do wonders toward making timesharing fairer.

Finally, I do not know a single person who works for RCI much less being buddies with them.  Your comment did accomplish one thing in that I was forced to respond to a post that I would have totally ignored otherwise - I felt compelled to clear the record.


----------



## Carolinian

We agree on the rental aspects, even if we disagree on some other issues.  I won't point out where you are wrong on your trade power arguments; that belongs in another thread.





timeos2 said:


> Fair enough. First I stand 100 percent with the anti-rental of owners deposits view. I feel it is against the betterment of those looking for a fair trade and subject to easy manipulation that also tends to harm members.
> 
> Second I'm in agreement with the companies that due to the wide variations in value - which includes unit size & quality, use date, location & more - it is rare and nearly impossible to get a fair and equal match very often. So the concept of trade power and value creeps in. I disagree that those should be hidden as that means the buyer/owner is in the dark & at the mercy of the exchange co's. There needs to be a better way to adjust to equal value unequal deposits. Currently that means rental if the weeks aren't close enough to equal. That is opening the door far too wide to abuse.
> 
> The answer, IMO, is a better method or methods of equalization between unequal deposits. A point system and/or the ability to pay for upgrades - which should also mean credits for downgtades - seems to fit the bill.
> 
> I would prefer to see the whole system closed to non-owners (leave renting solely as an option for owners NOT exchange co's) and the systems changed to inform what the values are and provide a way to easily equalize them. While that means the days of upgrades for the savy disappear no one should feel they win or lose but simply get a fair and equal value out for what they put in.  Impossible to do under the present week for week model. Doing away with that & installing a closed, identifiable system would allow the end of rentals except for the true unwanted leftovers at the 45-90 day timeframe. Until there is a method to be able to adjust the week for week model - maybe two weeks for one of higher value or a cash difference for a trade up - a refund for a trde down - the need to declare an easy 1 for 1 trade unequal & thus leaving a highly demanded week with no equal taker will continue. That's whats generates all the rentals which do nothing to benefit traders - in fact hurts them - but does benefit the Exchange Co's. However, short of just saying anything gets anything - and the opening that gives the savy to take advantage of unfair trades as used to be the norm - there is no way under the current set up to fairly equalize the trades. So disposing of them as rentals becomes vable and a worst case for those who just want to trade and receive fair value.
> 
> The current settlement does zero to fix the problems and may make it worse.


----------



## Carolinian

I did not mean to imply that you are personal friends with anyone at RCI, and I apologize if you took it that way.  My point was that you are a regular defender of RCI on these boards, which of course you have an absolute right to do.

Rigged and frozen point values a ''free market''? LOL.  That makes as much sense as saying rent control is a free market.  Supply and demand cannot operate with rigged and frozen prices.

Developers also screw some of their membes to line their own pockets in point values.  Barrier Island Station is a good example.  Their sold out beachfront resorts at Duck are much higher demand resorts than their inland drive-to-the-beach resort at Kitty Hawk, where they are still in sales.  Does it take a rocket scientist to figure out which one got the most points in their rotten insider deal with RCI? Clue - it wasn't the higher demand resorts.  That sort of pure corruption is the essense of RCI Point values.

But, again, you are trying to sidetrack this thread away from the lawsuit and rentals.  Lets get back to the issue at hand.




"Roger" said:


> Personally, I don't see where I have misstated your position.
> 
> For the record, I never had said that developers would not try to get the best deal that they can.  This is much akin the suggestion that HOA's should try to pressure RCI into restoring prior levels of trading power.  (That is within the Weeks system.) In a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can.  What makes it work is that there are also pressures that go the other way (toward not overpricing a resort).  If a resort is overpriced (overpointed), users will not trade for it.  Given that RCI has given the owners of the overpriced units points to spend, they end up taking a loss.
> 
> This is an abbreviated explanation for what would happen.  The main point is that in a free market system, everyone tries to get the best deal they can.  A free market system breaks down when the players are not given the information needed to make informed decisions.  That is why saying that the Weeks system operates according to supply and demand is a fundamental misunderstanding of what the term means. Supply and demand cannot operate with hidden prices.
> 
> So back to my main point in my original post.  I wanted to congratulate Jennie and Susan for speaking up for timesharing becoming a more open system during the RCI court hearings.  More openess would do wonders toward making timesharing fairer.
> 
> Finally, I do not know a single person who works for RCI much less being buddies with them.  Your comment did accomplish one thing in that I was forced to respond to a post that I would have totally ignored otherwise - I felt compelled to clear the record.


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Rigged and frozen point values a ''free market''? LOL.  That makes as much sense as saying rent control is a free market.  Supply and demand cannot operate with rigged and frozen prices.


RCI points is only frozen in the sense that it is not updated on as frequent a basis as one might like.  RCI has given us the choice of temporarily frozen - but published - point values, that would be updated on an annual basis (or on some other "slow" schedule), or fluid values that are not published.

The ideal system would be something like a true "market" where the values are fluid, much as they appear to be in the "weeks" system, but where we could always look to see the current values.  In such a system, you could offer your week up for whatever "value" you seek, and those wanting to trade in would "offer" whatever value they are willing to pay.  But for such a system to work, you need a "buyer" for your week before you can exchange it for something else - how else will you know if you will have enough currency to pay for the week you exchange into?

Part of the value of RCI's system is the ability to deposit your week, and exchange for something else BEFORE somebody else takes your week.

And part of the problem with a "free market" exchange system would be a similiar situation to what we see in the resale market - many people who think their week is worth far more than it really is, who at the last minute give up, and let go of their weeks for far less then their true value.  For savvy timeshare owners, this might not be such a problem - they will look at the price being offered for the weeks they own, and set their asking price accordingly, and move on.  For everyone else it will be a question of who is willing to hold out longer - those who own the moderately-desireable weeks, or those who want to exchange into them.

As for the settlement being offered, it doesn't do anything to change the system overall.  It is fluff, and should be rejected.  Perhaps if there were no timeframe associated with the "look first" feature, it might be better.  But even so, it's really no better than II's search first feature, and it may backfire, if it results in even fewer deposits.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



timeos2 said:


> Fair enough. . .
> 
> The answer, IMO, is a better method or methods of equalization between unequal deposits. A point system and/or the ability to pay for upgrades - which should also mean credits for downgtades - seems to fit the bill.
> 
> . . . Until there is a method to be able to adjust the week for week model - maybe two weeks for one of higher value or a cash difference for a trade up - a refund for a trde down - the need to declare an easy 1 for 1 trade unequal & thus leaving a highly demanded week with no equal taker will continue. That's whats generates all the rentals which do nothing to benefit traders - in fact hurts them - but does benefit the Exchange Co's. . .
> 
> The current settlement does zero to fix the problems and may make it worse.



I agree with much of what you say, but there IS (or at least WAS) a method of doing 2-for-1 exchanges.  For a long time, RCI gave "bonus weeks" to depositers of the most desirable weeks, such as Hawaii.  This made it sting less not to have too many options of fair trades for the most desirable weeks.  (Interval still does this.)  

Certainly, this is a far superior (and more fair) way of treating Hawaii deposits, when compared to the current model of withdrawing the best weeks and putting them in another pool, or renting them to make more money.  This is precisely what happened with the Hawaii deposits over that infamous weekend at the end of May when the network went down.  (Come on, you pundits.  Some one come out with a clever title for that weekend!)  

Yes, this is yet another suggestion that we "turn the clock back."  Why not?  Not everything new is better!


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Mel said:


> RCI points is only frozen in the sense that it is not updated on as frequent a basis as one might like.  RCI has given us the choice of temporarily frozen - but published - point values, that would be updated on an annual basis (or on some other "slow" schedule), or fluid values that are not published.



I agree, Melanie, that a "points" system would be a fairer system than the current "weeks" system, if it were honestly handled.  However, the problems with the original points programs are legion.

One huge problem is that the Points values for weeks resorts were absurdly weighted in favor of Points resorts and against "weeks" resorts.  I can give you a personal example:  My resort in Arkansas went to Points, and my 1BR week 50 (SOLIDLY "BLUE" time) was assigned a value of 23,500.  Yes, it's a Gold Crown resort, but it's also the week BEFORE Xmas.  (Not the most popular vacation time!)

Compare that to the point values originally assigned to Weeks resorts in Hawaii and NYC:  a Gold Crown 1BR in Hawaii was assigned a value of 31,500 points, as was the Manhattan Club.  

Think of that!  I could have deposited my blue week 50 for four years (94,000 total points) added $10 for another 500 "borrowed" or "rented" points (at 2 cents per rented point) and received in exchange three weeks in NYC or Hawaii (94,500 total points)! 

How ridiculous is that?  It's beyond ridiculous IMO.  In fact, I got the week 50 for free, paying only closing costs because the resort had a bunch of unsaleable weeks and wanted to generate maintenance fees. 

I spent months on a BBS and other forums railing against the unfairness of the Points system as it was, but eventually gave up and converted to Points on my Arkansas week to increase my exchange options.  Some might say I "sold out," but I figured I couldn't beat 'em, so I may as well join 'em.  (I paid $1500 to convert, so it was a reasonable investment.)  

The other problem I see with Points is that RCI tried to make it work for alternate types of services:  hotels, airfares, rental cars, etc.  IMO, this was a really bad business decision, founded in the greed of company executives all over the travel industry (who wanted to take entirely free vacations and could only do that if their companies offered all the products), and will haunt RCI for years to come.  The economy went south soon after that.  Already, RCI has had to vastly scale back the number of points that can be used on such alternatives, and the actual value received on "points partners" has become pitiful.  

None of that means that Points could not be used to equalize trades, though.  Let's face it, when RCI was founded, there were no seasonal or quality (Gold Crown, Silver Crown) variations.  (Just like TPI works now.)  Used appropriately, with fair values assigned, it would be a superior system.  (And BTW, I think that instead of constant re-rating the resorts, there could be "sales" now and then -- just like EVERY industry uses to unload inventory that proved to be less popular than predicted.)


----------



## timeos2

*Lawsuits won't solve it - new approaches will*



Susan2 said:


> I agree with much of what you say, but there IS (or at least WAS) a method of doing 2-for-1 exchanges.  For a long time, RCI gave "bonus weeks" to depositers of the most desirable weeks, such as Hawaii.  This made it sting less not to have too many options of fair trades for the most desirable weeks.  (Interval still does this.)
> 
> Certainly, this is a far superior (and more fair) way of treating Hawaii deposits, when compared to the current model of withdrawing the best weeks and putting them in another pool, or renting them to make more money.  This is precisely what happened with the Hawaii deposits over that infamous weekend at the end of May when the network went down.  (Come on, you pundits.  Some one come out with a clever title for that weekend!)
> 
> Yes, this is yet another suggestion that we "turn the clock back."  Why not?  Not everything new is better!



You are on the right track but the idea to turn back to a system that failed isn't going to make things better. Looking at one area - be it Hawaii or Orlando or OBX - and trying to fix that isn't fixing the system. The problem of non-comparable values is universal. The need to quantify values upfront for deposits and ongoing for searches is critical. Otherwise the member is taking leaps of faith and we know that they aren't warranted. While there is a value being assigned - the secret trade value - having it hidden makes it even worse. No one knows what they have, what they can get and are left at the mercy of what has proved to be a money grubbing industry that uses the lack of information to bamboozle the very paying members they court. I'm certainly not saying Points is perfect but it is an attempt to reveal the ugly truth that there is a big difference in desirability based on many factors. 

Whatever the owners favorite area/resort may be you can be sure they will feel they are being shortchanged and that some area they don't care for is being overvalued. In fact it is in the best interest of the exchange systems to have things so perfectly valued that it all gets taken without waste. To do that really is an art and no system comes close now. The closest is the free market of rentals (although still tainted by unrealistically low offers by desperate owners and overly subsidized exchange companies paying nothing for inventory thus willing to give it away for loose change) which requires users to reach into their pockets in a currency they understand - dollars - to reflect the real value of a given week/resort/location. Doesn't rent? You're too high priced. Too many takers not enough inventory? You are underpricing. Nothing else comes close to revealing true market value.

Leaving RCI/II etc and simply running rentals would quickly reveal the real value - or lack thereof - of most ownerships. Once that was done then an enterprising group such as the original RCI could offer to do the dirty work for a fee and base it on real world values. What a concept. Never happen.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



timeos2 said:


> You are on the right track but the idea to turn back to a system that failed isn't going to make things better. . . enterprising group such as the original RCI could offer to do the dirty work for a fee and base it on real world values. What a concept. Never happen.



Wow!  I used to consider myself cynical.  I am bested, however, and I admit it. 

First of all, who says RCI "failed"?  Cendant would not have bought it if it wasn't a going concern!  That, too, is the way of the business world.  And Cendant decided they could milk it (us!) even further to make greater profits.  

So why shouldn't another company step in and take over what RCI used to do?  One reason is that RCI has a "exclusive" contract with most of its affiliated resorts, but it is unlikely that such a contract clause would be enforced.  But the real point of including such clauses isn't to enforce them; it's to intimidate the other parties from getting to that point.  Works well, too, for the most part.  But at some point, someone pushes the issue.  Eventually.  

This, too, will come to pass.


----------



## "Roger"

Susan2 said:


> I agree with much of what you say, but there IS (or at least WAS) a method of doing 2-for-1 exchanges.  For a long time, RCI gave "bonus weeks" to depositers of the most desirable weeks, such as Hawaii.  This made it sting less not to have too many options of fair trades for the most desirable weeks...


Just a quick note.  

You are pointing a far too rosy picture of how the Hawaiian owners were treated.  When you tried to use the bonus weeks, the only things available was left over inventory.  The same inventory was available to every RCI member under some other program (I forgot the name) that allowed them to buy the very same weeks for under $200.  By the time the Hawaiian owner paid the exchange fee, what the bonus weeks amounted to was about a $75 ot $100 discount on junk inventory.

There was one way to get good inventory with the bonus weeks (described on TUG). That was to call less than ten days out and see if someone cancelled on a Gold Crown unit somewhere.  A few people did this with success, but most of us were not willing to sit around with bags packed, hope we could find a last minute low airfare for who knows where, etc. 

The general consensus on TUG at the time was that the bonus week was a sham instituted to help developers add to their sales pitch.


----------



## Carolinian

A market based system can only be honest, however, if the entity running it has no conflict of interest that would encourage it to put its thumb on the scales and distort values for its own benefit.  Any time that entity rents inventory from the exchange pool for its own benefit, it has a massive conflict of interest.  Hopelfully, with the help of heros like Susan, and no thanks to the shyster Attorneys of Record, maybe this class action can still be a tool to bring RCI's rental conflict of interest to a screeching halt.  The whole points vs. weeks issue is extremely complex and perhaps we need to start another thread for yet another debate on that.  This threat is on too important an issue to timesharing to bog it down in that side issue, however. Your simplistic argument is, however, wrong as to that side issue.




Mel said:


> RCI points is only frozen in the sense that it is not updated on as frequent a basis as one might like.  RCI has given us the choice of temporarily frozen - but published - point values, that would be updated on an annual basis (or on some other "slow" schedule), or fluid values that are not published.
> 
> The ideal system would be something like a true "market" where the values are fluid, much as they appear to be in the "weeks" system, but where we could always look to see the current values.  In such a system, you could offer your week up for whatever "value" you seek, and those wanting to trade in would "offer" whatever value they are willing to pay.  But for such a system to work, you need a "buyer" for your week before you can exchange it for something else - how else will you know if you will have enough currency to pay for the week you exchange into?
> 
> Part of the value of RCI's system is the ability to deposit your week, and exchange for something else BEFORE somebody else takes your week.
> 
> And part of the problem with a "free market" exchange system would be a similiar situation to what we see in the resale market - many people who think their week is worth far more than it really is, who at the last minute give up, and let go of their weeks for far less then their true value.  For savvy timeshare owners, this might not be such a problem - they will look at the price being offered for the weeks they own, and set their asking price accordingly, and move on.  For everyone else it will be a question of who is willing to hold out longer - those who own the moderately-desireable weeks, or those who want to exchange into them.
> 
> As for the settlement being offered, it doesn't do anything to change the system overall.  It is fluff, and should be rejected.  Perhaps if there were no timeframe associated with the "look first" feature, it might be better.  But even so, it's really no better than II's search first feature, and it may backfire, if it results in even fewer deposits.


----------



## Carolinian

Susan, you have hit the nail on the head to the solution if the lawsuit doesn't work.  RCI used to be a vital partner of resort affiliates, and each had mutually beneficial policies.  After Cendent took over RCI, they have gradually been planting a knife in the back of their resort affiliates.  Their changes in the exchange mechanisms are already causing bailouts by exchanger owners for HOA's and it is only going to get worse.  HOA's need to start now in actively migrating their exchanger members to other exchange programs, and they need to do that for their own survival.

The ''exclusive'' provisions of the RCI (and II) contracts violate anti-monopoly laws and would certainly not be enforced.  Indeed, in reality, if a resort with such a clause wants to dual affiliate, as a practical matter, the new exchange company asks the resort to get a waiver from the existing exchange affiliate, which is freely granted.

All of us in RCI-only resorts should be insisting to our resorts that they immediately dual affiliate with II and spead the word on independent exchange companies.  Even better, we could take the action that the Seasons chain in Europe did, and completely jump ship from RCI to II and tell members the whole sordid story of how points and rentals is destroying the RCI exchange system, just as Seasons did in their newsletter.





Susan2 said:


> Wow!  I used to consider myself cynical.  I am bested, however, and I admit it.
> 
> First of all, who says RCI "failed"?  Cendant would not have bought it if it wasn't a going concern!  That, too, is the way of the business world.  And Cendant decided they could milk it (us!) even further to make greater profits.
> 
> So why shouldn't another company step in and take over what RCI used to do?  One reason is that RCI has a "exclusive" contract with most of its affiliated resorts, but it is unlikely that such a contract clause would be enforced.  But the real point of including such clauses isn't to enforce them; it's to intimidate the other parties from getting to that point.  Works well, too, for the most part.  But at some point, someone pushes the issue.  Eventually.
> 
> This, too, will come to pass.


----------



## Jennie

Carolinian said:


> Even better, we could take the action that the Seasons chain in Europe did, and completely jump ship from RCI to II and tell members the whole sordid story of how points and rentals is destroying the RCI exchange system, just as Seasons did in their newsletter.



Is there a way we can obtain a copy of this newsletter? Is the article posted anywhere on the Internet where we could read it and print it out? It is so germaine to the issues being litigated in the RCI class action lawsuit. 

The average timeshare owner is oblivious to how RCI operates, and they have a vested interst in learning. It must be even more difficult for a Federal Judge to grasp all the nuances, especially when the plaintiffs have been doing such a poor job of fighting for meaningful change. 

Reading an article prepared by a major European chain fed up with RCI's nonsense could shed much needed light on this complex subject.


----------



## "Roger"

Long post (sorry) ...

Jennie,

I would love to see the original article by the head of Seasons myself, out of historical interest.  As far as I know, the only way that you will find it is if someone copied it and saved it on their hard drive.

Just so that you know, the whole history of the Seasons and its relationship with RCI is tangled.  I am admittedly fuzzy on parts of it (and willing accept amendments and corrections to this post), but here is what I recall ...

Carolinian is correct - when Points was created, the Seasons pulled out of RCI and the President (or some such officer) blasted the program in a newsletter to owners.  The story of the Seasons gets more complicated, however.

They not only pulled of RCI, but refused to allow anyone with an existing reservation via RCI to use the unit that they had reserved.  At the time, Crimeshare (no friend of RCI) claimed that the real reason that the Seasons pulled out (and why RCI didn't try to sue them for breach of contract) was that they were broke.  There were many posts in Crimeshare about the disreputable practices of the Seasons and how some of their employees were not being paid.  Then again, all this might well be false in that the person who ran Crimeshare was successfully sued for libel (not by the Seasons).

Getting back to the Seasons themselves, there were articles in British newspapers about how owners of units at the Seasons resorts who bought their units prior to the Seasons takeover of the resorts were unhappy in that the Seasons was denying some sort of basic use of their units (fuzzy here) unless they joined the Seasons vacation club.

Ultimately, matters took another turn in that the Seasons added Clowance  Estates to their vacation club.  Clowance was and still is a RCI Points resort.  (There must have been at least some sort of kiss and make up.)  The Seasons also has some sort of alliance with GeoHolidays - a vacation club whose US affiliations are a sizable number of RCI resorts.

As best as I can remember, the dissatisfaction (very heated) with the RCI Points program expressed in the newsletter was that outsiders in Points were going to be able to get into a Seasons resort for too little. The Seasons resorts were going to be undervalued.

What do I personally make of all this?  Personally (obviously opinion), the whole business exemplifies to me how sordid and murky timesharing is.  It is not a clean industry (and not because of the existence of Points - it has always been a nasty industry). While the Seasons was probably on the financial edge, I suspect (opinion again) that was not the real reason for the Seasons pullout.  Rather, the Seasons was trying to establish a points based vacation club and felt betrayed that RCI was setting up a competing alternative.   Worldmark (points) and Bluegreen (points) pulled out at about the same time and I suspect for the same reason (they did not want something competing with their own points program).  The Seasons did so too, but in a more stormy fashion.

Finally, Googling the Seasons is not easy.  Their webpage is under Seasonsholidays.  Likewise, if you want to learn more about GeoHolidays that is the name to look for.


----------



## Carolinian

The newsletter was online for a year or so on the Seasons website, then cycled off.  Unfortunately I did not think to save a copy on my computer, and I had tried to print it a time or two but the online version was not printer friendly.  If I had known it would cycle off as newer issues of the newsletter came out, I would certainly have saved it.

Your best bet to find a copy is probably to contact Seasons and ask if they can provide you with one.  They probably have it in some format.

Another possibility is that someone at the Timeshare Consumers Association may have saved a copy.  They tend to keep up with things pretty closely in the timeshare world in the UK.

Someone at another one of the exchange companies may also have saved a copy for their own purposes, and that might be another source.

As to Crimeshare, the only ''success'' in the liable suit was establishing that a TCA leader was the manager of the site before the case was dismissed.  It never made it to being heard on the merits.  The counterattack on Seasons in Crimeshare could have originated anywhere, since much of their material was anonymous.  There was a fair amount of solid information on Crimeshare but also some that one had to take with a grain of salt.

As far as Seasons being ''broke'', they are still in business.  Indeed I have an exchange, arranged through DAE, into one of their resorts for next year.

The Seasons article took aim at two distinct issues.  One was the interface between Points and Weeks, and the second was the Rentals.  They were hard on RCI on both seperate issues, and even cited a number as to how many rentals from the spacebank RCI was doing at that very early stage of their rental game, which was before RCI had even opened many of the rental channels they are now using.






Jennie said:


> Is there a way we can obtain a copy of this newsletter? Is the article posted anywhere on the Internet where we could read it and print it out? It is so germaine to the issues being litigated in the RCI class action lawsuit.
> 
> The average timeshare owner is oblivious to how RCI operates, and they have a vested interst in learning. It must be even more difficult for a Federal Judge to grasp all the nuances, especially when the plaintiffs have been doing such a poor job of fighting for meaningful change.
> 
> Reading an article prepared by a major European chain fed up with RCI's nonsense could shed much needed light on this complex subject.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Pouring Cold Water On R. C. I. Points.*




"Roger" said:


> While the Seasons was probably on the financial edge, I suspect (opinion again) that was not the real reason for the Seasons pullout.  Rather, the Seasons was trying to establish a points based vacation club and felt betrayed that RCI was setting up a competing alternative.


I am sure you're right that timeshare companies hate competition -- specially on-site competition. 

That's why I doubt my Orlando timeshares, which both are part of the DRI "club" chain & which both are cross-affiliated with both RCI & I-I, will ever move to RCI Points.  

DRI's "club" operates on its own internal proprietary points system & surely would not welcome RCI's points system operating right alongside DRI's. 

Although DRI does not call the shots at those owner-controlled timeshares, DRI nevertheless is _Developer Of Record_ & as such is represented on the HOA-BODs.  No doubt they will be able to make a persuasive case why RCI Points is a bad idea if either HOA-BOD ever considers taking the points plunge. 

_Full Disclosure*:*_  I have no reason to believe (or even suspect) that anybody on either of the 2 owner-controlled HOA-BODs is interested in going with RCI Points. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Roger" said:


> Just a quick note.
> 
> You are pointing a far too rosy picture of how the Hawaiian owners were treated.  When you tried to use the bonus weeks, the only things available was left over inventory.  The same inventory was available to every RCI member under some other program (I forgot the name) that allowed them to buy the very same weeks for under $200.  By the time the Hawaiian owner paid the exchange fee, what the bonus weeks amounted to was about a $75 ot $100 discount on junk inventory.



I disagree, Roger.  I joined RCI in 2000.  The bonus weeks used to trade like blue weeks, and I tried it and it worked.  I used the first bonus week for Sedona (Sunterra Sedona Summit) for Easter.  I had the choice of a 1BR or a studio.  I used an actual blue week for the 1BR, and the bonus week for the connecting studio.  The second trade I made on the bonus weeks was for a 2BR on the Big Island of Hawaii (Waikoloa), Paniolo Greens.  (Also a second unit.)

Then, suddenly, the bonus weeks were worth nothing.  I called RCI to complain about the downgrading of the bonus week, and basically was told it was all in my imagination and that, contrary to the prior representations of the RCI Vacation "counselors" as they were then called, the bonus weeks "never" traded as well as blue weeks.  I got nowhere that way, so I wrote to the CEO.  In response, I got a call from an RCI person who pretty much accused me of suborning the RCI vacation counselors!  (AS IF!  How DOES one do that?)  She took away the bonus trade and made me book it immediately on a regular week or lose it.  She claimed she had no supervisor to talk to.  So I wrote another letter.  RCI denied they had any such person working for them or any such department!  (Like they couldn't trace who did the transaction???!!!)  

I would be interested to hear from people who traded bonus weeks prior to 2000.  Most of what I've heard is similar to my experience.


----------



## Carolinian

There were also some posts on the old TUG board that at least at one time, a European RCI member trading into North Amercia with a European deposit was given two weeks for one.




Susan2 said:


> I disagree, Roger.  I joined RCI in 2000.  The bonus weeks used to trade like blue weeks, and I tried it and it worked.  I used the first bonus week for Sedona (Sunterra Sedona Summit) for Easter.  I had the choice of a 1BR or a studio.  I used an actual blue week for the 1BR, and the bonus week for the connecting studio.  The second trade I made on the bonus weeks was for a 2BR on the Big Island of Hawaii (Waikoloa), Paniolo Greens.  (Also a second unit.)
> 
> Then, suddenly, the bonus weeks were worth nothing.  I called RCI to complain about the downgrading of the bonus week, and basically was told it was all in my imagination and that, contrary to the prior representations of the RCI Vacation "counselors" as they were then called, the bonus weeks "never" traded as well as blue weeks.  I got nowhere that way, so I wrote to the CEO.  In response, I got a call from an RCI person who pretty much accused me of suborning the RCI vacation counselors!  (AS IF!  How DOES one do that?)  She took away the bonus trade and made me book it immediately on a regular week or lose it.  She claimed she had no supervisor to talk to.  So I wrote another letter.  RCI denied they had any such person working for them or any such department!  (Like they couldn't trace who did the transaction???!!!)
> 
> I would be interested to hear from people who traded bonus weeks prior to 2000.  Most of what I've heard is similar to my experience.


----------



## "Roger"

Susan,

In the end, we will just disagree on this one based upon our own experiences.

My experience using bonus weeks was prior to 2000.  One typical example was that I called (there was no online at the time) and asked for something in Arizona during August.  While this was a request for summer, given that it was Arizona where luxury hotels were renting rooms for around $70, I thought that this request might have a chance.  The VC checked her computers for a while and finally came back and told me that the best she could find was a week in Brownsville (yes, Brownsville Texas) for October.

At the time, there were many cries for help on TUG from people who had bonus weeks and could not find anything.  What I describe in my prior post is what they were told by others (not myself).

I am glad that you had a better experience, but it was certainly different from mine.

PS - I just pulled out my original bonus certificate and here and some of the suggested trades "subject to availability":

Western Canada: Jan, Oct, Nov, Dec (My bet is that Whistler as a ski week was not one of the things subject to availability, but I can't prove it.)
New England, Vermont, New Hampshire: Apr, May Nov, Dec
Virginia Williamsburg: Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, Oct, Nov, Dec (Worth mentioning because Williamsburg used to be one of the areas at the top of the list as overbuilt.  It was not overbuilt for summer months.  In fact, owners of summer months were given bonus certificates.)

The better stuff that I see (subject to availability, of course) is Cape Cod during the Winter, Lake Tahoe Sep thru Dec, West Central Florida (Orlando, I presume, another classic overbuilt area) during the off season months. Interestingly, Mazatlan and Tenefife were listed year around.

I go back to the fact that all this stuff was also available to the regular membership through another program, but they needed to pay somewhere between $75 to $100 more.  That, in my mind, was the real worth of the bonus program.


----------



## Carolinian

Susan and Jennie, I really suggest you post over on the www.timeshareforums.com board.  There are some regulars over there who systematically search certain areas who might be good sources of information.  One has even posted that he tried to offer his records of searches to the attorneys of record and was met with disinterest.  The message on what is going on with the lawsuit needs to get out as widely as possible.  Some of us post both here and there, but many concentrate on just one site or the other.


----------



## Mel

Susan2 said:


> I agree, Melanie, that a "points" system would be a fairer system than the current "weeks" system, if it were honestly handled.  However, the problems with the original points programs are legion.
> 
> One huge problem is that the Points values for weeks resorts were absurdly weighted in favor of Points resorts and against "weeks" resorts.  I can give you a personal example:  My resort in Arkansas went to Points, and my 1BR week 50 (SOLIDLY "BLUE" time) was assigned a value of 23,500.  Yes, it's a Gold Crown resort, but it's also the week BEFORE Xmas.  (Not the most popular vacation time!).


I agree that there is an issue of the balance between Points and Weeks.  If RCI wanted a generic grid for weeks resorts, the values should have been an average of values assigned to similar points resorts.   It is obvious that part of the reason for this was to allow for more points when a resort affiliated.  The idea was probably that owners using PFD would encourage their resorts the affiliate to have access to those points.  But then the developer saw a goldmine in conversions, and quashed that idea.  


> The other problem I see with Points is that RCI tried to make it work for alternate types of services:  hotels, airfares, rental cars, etc.  IMO, this was a really bad business decision, founded in the greed of company executives all over the travel industry (who wanted to take entirely free vacations and could only do that if their companies offered all the products), and will haunt RCI for years to come.  The economy went south soon after that.  Already, RCI has had to vastly scale back the number of points that can be used on such alternatives, and the actual value received on "points partners" has become pitiful.


In doing this, RCI was trying to make their system similar to the various other loyalty programs in the travel industry - the problem for RCI was that they had to purchase the inventory to satisfy the requests, rather than trade with other programs.  Even so, the value of those services for points was no worse than using frequent flyer miles other than for flights - not a great deal, but if you have points that are going to expire, you used them for something rather than nothing.  The problems is that frequent flyer miles don't really have a set value because they were earned as loyalty rewards, while RCI points are paid for with maintenance fees, and DO have a moneytary cost/value.


> None of that means that Points could not be used to equalize trades, though.  Let's face it, when RCI was founded, there were no seasonal or quality (Gold Crown, Silver Crown) variations.  (Just like TPI works now.)  Used appropriately, with fair values assigned, it would be a superior system.  (And BTW, I think that instead of constant re-rating the resorts, there could be "sales" now and then -- just like EVERY industry uses to unload inventory that proved to be less popular than predicted.)


While the points values assigned to resorts might not start out fair, over time RCI would need to adjust them.  As Carolinian loves to point out, the BIS resorts were valued poorly.  But if exchangers don't see the value in paying more points for a certain property, they won't spend the points, and RCI is left with excess inventory, as well as excess outstanding points.  Further, if they undervalue a resort, the demand will be that much greater, and owners are less likely to deposit them because they want more points.  It is in RCI's best interest to balance the equation by assigning a point value where the number of deposits approximates the demand at the same value.

Perhaps part of the issue is that developers are claiming to sell "points" packages based on the number of points, when in reality they are selling an underlying ownership that is currently valued at a certain number of points.  This is not the same as developers selling packages in their own points programs, where they can in fact sell pure points.


----------



## Carolinian

The reason for all the imbalances whether in Points or Weeks is to generate ''excess'' inventory for rental.  The key is to get the rental conflict of interest out of the equation.

What is wrong with the points partner concept is that it requires rentals of timeshares to purchase those items.  It is much better to cut out points partners to help cut out the rentals.

Also the whole points concept is based on timesharing primarily being based on exchangers, while the reality many places is that the majority of members own to use.  A point or some number of points is an absolutely useless concept to an own-to-use timesharer.  On the OBX, own to use timesharers outnumber exchangers over two to one, while at resorts I have traded into recently in Germany and France, the managers have told me that exchangers are an even smaller part of their member base.





Mel said:


> I agree that there is an issue of the balance between Points and Weeks.  If RCI wanted a generic grid for weeks resorts, the values should have been an average of values assigned to similar points resorts.   It is obvious that part of the reason for this was to allow for more points when a resort affiliated.  The idea was probably that owners using PFD would encourage their resorts the affiliate to have access to those points.  But then the developer saw a goldmine in conversions, and quashed that idea.
> 
> In doing this, RCI was trying to make their system similar to the various other loyalty programs in the travel industry - the problem for RCI was that they had to purchase the inventory to satisfy the requests, rather than trade with other programs.  Even so, the value of those services for points was no worse than using frequent flyer miles other than for flights - not a great deal, but if you have points that are going to expire, you used them for something rather than nothing.  The problems is that frequent flyer miles don't really have a set value because they were earned as loyalty rewards, while RCI points are paid for with maintenance fees, and DO have a moneytary cost/value.
> 
> While the points values assigned to resorts might not start out fair, over time RCI would need to adjust them.  As Carolinian loves to point out, the BIS resorts were valued poorly.  But if exchangers don't see the value in paying more points for a certain property, they won't spend the points, and RCI is left with excess inventory, as well as excess outstanding points.  Further, if they undervalue a resort, the demand will be that much greater, and owners are less likely to deposit them because they want more points.  It is in RCI's best interest to balance the equation by assigning a point value where the number of deposits approximates the demand at the same value.
> 
> Perhaps part of the issue is that developers are claiming to sell "points" packages based on the number of points, when in reality they are selling an underlying ownership that is currently valued at a certain number of points.  This is not the same as developers selling packages in their own points programs, where they can in fact sell pure points.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*No Need Putting The Cart In Front Of The Horse.*




Carolinian said:


> The reason for all the imbalances whether in Points or Weeks is to generate ''excess'' inventory for rental.  The key is to get the rental conflict of interest out of the equation.


If I were setting out to rip off members by renting out the choicest weeks, I'd just go ahead & do that without bothering to generate excess inventory in advance.  

I'd just point to all the dogs & cats nobody wanted & say_ I've Got Your Excess Inventory Right Here_ (or words to that effect).


Carolinian said:


> On the OBX, own to use timesharers outnumber exchangers over two to one, while at resorts I have traded into recently in Germany and France, the managers have told me that exchangers are an even smaller part of their member base.


In cases like that, the exchange companies are pretty much irrelevant, points & weeks _mox nix._ 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Mel

Carolinian said:


> Also the whole points concept is based on timesharing primarily being based on exchangers, while the reality many places is that the majority of members own to use.  A point or some number of points is an absolutely useless concept to an own-to-use timesharer.


Not necessarily.  Points are the next logical step following floating weeks, and also a way to balance the costs of running a seasonal resort.

For some resorts, you can justify charging the same fee to the blue week owner as the red week owner.  But in others, the blue weeks just can't come close in value to the red weeks.  If you use a fixed week system, or even a floating week system, in most cases all owners still pay the same fees (and in some resorts, all unit sizes still pay the same fees).

Floating weeks and points also have benefits to families, many of whom cannot always travel the same week every year.  Yes, many do, but many others cannot, and flexibility allows for a product suited to a larger client base.  I would be glad to pick a home resort to visit each year during spring vacation - but the dates change each year.  I would love to travel on the 4th of July every year, but you can bet DH can't get it off every single year, other people want that week too.

Besides, RCI is an exchange company.  It does not exist to service those owners who choose to use their own unit-week.  If exists to facilitate the exchange of timeshare ownerships.  Perhaps the smartest move on RCI's part would be to eliminate the weeks program entirely, and move EVERYONE over to points.  When you choose to deposit your week, you will be told the value in points, and have a set amount of time to exercise that deposit, or that number can change (if you haven't paid you fees yet, you risk it changing before you can deposit).  When you wish to make an exchange, you are told the going price for the week you want, with the system remaining dynamic as it is with week currently.  Of course anyone who paid to convert will be unhappy, as will the developers, who will lose a revenue source.


----------



## timeos2

*They should bite the bullet and go 100% Points. Period*



Mel said:


> Perhaps the smartest move on RCI's part would be to eliminate the weeks program entirely, and move EVERYONE over to points.  When you choose to deposit your week, you will be told the value in points, and have a set amount of time to exercise that deposit, or that number can change (if you haven't paid you fees yet, you risk it changing before you can deposit).  When you wish to make an exchange, you are told the going price for the week you want, with the system remaining dynamic as it is with week currently.  Of course anyone who paid to convert will be unhappy, as will the developers, who will lose a revenue source.



Absolutely! "Weeks" is already a points system but it's one that doesn't reveal the values OR give owners a chance to decide how to use the points. Switching the whole thing over to Points would be a great move and would solve the never ending issue of the inflexible and unsustainable week for week model (for the reasons given above & many times in the past). 

But the unfortunate decision to allow charges of up to $3000 or more to "convert" - when the actual cost was $200 - poisoned the switch. They should still do it wholesale BUT how would they handle those that got ripped off for thousands of dollars while others paid $200 or nothing? What a mess but not as bad as the flawed and unworkable weeks system. Get rid of it.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Re-Gruntling The Disgruntled.*




timeos2 said:


> BUT how would they handle those that got ripped off for thousands of dollars while others paid $200 or nothing?


When Erols Video Club went to free memberships after charging all previous members $50 or so to join, the company faced a similar problem because all their existing members had paid to join while all the new members were joining freebies. 

So to all the old members, Erols send coupon booklets good for 10 or so free video rentals -- more as a goodwill gesture to the old members than as anything actually equalizing the equation.  Even so, the gesture was appreciated & (far as I know) there was minimum grumbling from old members. 

Maybe RCI could offer something similar to Points members who paid big bux for conversion before the system changed over to free or nominal-charge points-conversion (like that's actually going to happen) -- say a coupon booklet good for 10 or so exchanges at $45 each instead of the going rate for exchange fees, or some such. 

Wouldn't that be something ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian

You don't seem to know the history of points if you call it a ''next step''.  In reality, Weeks is the younger system, and largely shut down the older points timeshare concept when it came out.  The very first timeshare developer was Hapimag, a Swiss company, which has always been points based.  Soon, a rival French developer came out with the Weeks concept to compete with Hapimag's points.  The market clearly prefered the newer Weeks concept and it quickly eclipsed points, although Hapimag kept plugging away and is still in business.  It was the more popular Weeks concept that crossed the Atlantic.

The fact that most points marketers, whether for RCI Points, Festiva, or whoever, have to resort to lies to sell conversions shows why it is not driven by market demand, but is instead something that has to be crammed down most people's throats.  Granted there IS a niche market out there that likes it, just as there was for Hapimag.  And it is not surprising that some points advocates would like to see RCI force it on all their members.

Your argument on blue weeks just doesn't hold water.  As has been mentioned a number of times on these boards, some states do not allow different m/f's for blue weeks.  For existing resorts in states where it would be legal, such a proposal would have to obtain a supermajority to amend condo docs, something that is almost impossible on any issue at most resorts, but particularly so when one can depend on the own-to-use majority to vote it down.  

If RCI tried to migrate their members forcibly to points, I suspect they would instead migrate many of their resort affiliates to other exchange companies.

There is no perfect exchange system, but points is more flawed than most.

However, the main point is that certain posters who regularly defend RCI are trying to change the subject away from the RCI class action to discuss the points vs. weeks issue instead.  If we can't get this thread back on topic, I am going to start another points vs weeks thread and ask you to take that discussion to it rather than continuing to hijack this thread.  The lawsuit issue is too important for RCI's defenders to take it off on a tangent






Mel said:


> Not necessarily.  Points are the next logical step following floating weeks, and also a way to balance the costs of running a seasonal resort.
> 
> For some resorts, you can justify charging the same fee to the blue week owner as the red week owner.  But in others, the blue weeks just can't come close in value to the red weeks.  If you use a fixed week system, or even a floating week system, in most cases all owners still pay the same fees (and in some resorts, all unit sizes still pay the same fees).
> 
> Floating weeks and points also have benefits to families, many of whom cannot always travel the same week every year.  Yes, many do, but many others cannot, and flexibility allows for a product suited to a larger client base.  I would be glad to pick a home resort to visit each year during spring vacation - but the dates change each year.  I would love to travel on the 4th of July every year, but you can bet DH can't get it off every single year, other people want that week too.
> 
> Besides, RCI is an exchange company.  It does not exist to service those owners who choose to use their own unit-week.  If exists to facilitate the exchange of timeshare ownerships.  Perhaps the smartest move on RCI's part would be to eliminate the weeks program entirely, and move EVERYONE over to points.  When you choose to deposit your week, you will be told the value in points, and have a set amount of time to exercise that deposit, or that number can change (if you haven't paid you fees yet, you risk it changing before you can deposit).  When you wish to make an exchange, you are told the going price for the week you want, with the system remaining dynamic as it is with week currently.  Of course anyone who paid to convert will be unhappy, as will the developers, who will lose a revenue source.


----------



## Jennie

vasselle said:


> I don't agree with them only holding deposited weeks for 31 days before it is up for grabs for rental. "



It's even worse than that. The proposed settlement is that they would hold deposits aside for 31 days for exchanges to members (and not rent them) but *only when the deposit was made more than one year in advance of the check-in date.*

There are two major problems with this scenerio: 

1) Most resorts require owners to pay the maintenance fees in advance before they allow the week to be space-banked. Thus, to make such an early deposit, members would have to pay the m/f up to a year before it would otherwise be due.

2) Many RCI Weeks members own "floating time" (a particular season or range of weeks e.g Weeks 22-37). The earliest date they can reserve a week is generally one year prior to the check-in date. A reservation made at that time could not be be deposited "more than a year" in advance, and would therefore not receive the 31 day exclusivity benefit.

And aside from that, there is no justification for RCI moving any weeks to a rental venue one year before the check-in date, no matter when they were deposited. They must have statistics showing that the vast majority of their members do not make vacation plans that far in advance.

A precedent already exists for owners of VRI managed resorts (and others, I'm sure). Any week at a VRI resort that is deposited with RCI, remains available for exchange *only to VRI owners *, for 30 days. This has been known by different names through the years, one of which was the "internal exchange advantage."  There is no time limit--the 30 day clock begins ticking whenever the deposit is made.


----------



## timeos2

*Do the dirty work and it will get done*



Jennie said:


> It's even worse than that. The proposed settlement is that they would hold deposits aside for 31 days for exchanges to members (and not rent them) but *only when the deposit was made more than one year in advance of the check-in date.*
> 
> There are two major problems with this scenerio:
> 
> 1) Most resorts require owners to pay the maintenance fees in advance before they allow the week to be space-banked. Thus, to make such an early deposit, members would have to pay the m/f up to a year before it would otherwise be due.
> 
> 2) Many RCI Weeks members own "floating time" (a particular season or range of weeks e.g Weeks 22-37). The earliest date they can reserve a week is generally one year prior to the check-in date. A reservation made at that time could not be be deposited "more thab a year" in advance, and would therefore not receive the 31 day exclusivity benefit.
> 
> And aside from that, there is no justification for RCI moving any weeks to a rental venue one year before the check-in date, no matter when they were deposited. They must have statistics showing that the vast majority of their members do not make vacation plans that far in advance.
> 
> A precedent already exists for owners of VRI managed resorts (and others, I'm sure). Any week at a VRI resort that is deposited with RCI, remains available for exchange only to VRI owners for 30 days. This has been known by different names through the years, one of which was the "internal exchange advantage."  There is no time limit--the 30 day clock begins ticking whenever the deposit is made.



Great points and it gets to the very heart of what the remaining issues are regarding this pending settlement. All that remains is the question of RCI's right to rent and when.  I completely agree that the "more than 1 year advance" time frame is ludicrous!  RCI wins big on that as few great weeks will be deposited that far ahead and if they aren't the settlement is moot. 

The 31 day rule, if it is to mean anything, should apply to any deposit at anytime with the possible exception of under 90 days when the ability to get any use - trade or rental - can be problematic.  The two year time limit for even the weak proposal being considered is yet another reason to reject it. 

Of course the real issue is why is RCI allowed to rent ANY deposit prior to proving it wouldn't have been taken with a legitimate trade using the already suspect trade power rules they control? To say that is the basis AND that they can predict the use or non-use based on historical data is a complete sham. It goes beyond the fox in the hen house to supplying the grill, making the fox the chef and a free pass to the inventory. 

Since it is clear the original lawsuit wasn't being handled by the owner caring legal team some thought the best answer remains the one that has always been available. Stop the pillage by stopping the free inventory given away under unacceptable terms.  That means YOU as the owner stop giving RCI (or II or any other exchange company that has a proven record of being incompetent  at their base job they are being paid for of obtaining an equal trade) your week(s) until they change the terms. No court is going to accomplish that as there is no dirty deed if it is clearly in the agreement terms (adhesion etc doesn't change the fact that no one HAS to deposit their time thus they are not forced into acceptance of terrible terms). Cutting the flow of inventory can and would force the changes we all seem to agree are needed, yet everyday I see posts that people gave away their time and now wonder why they aren't getting a fair trade.  Of course that doesn't apply to those who are depositing weak time and expecting much better time in return - like for like not an upgrade should always be the expected return.  

Lets rally the outrage to support Sue & Shep to get whatever may be possible out of this doomed class action - and hopefully reduce the outrageous amount being paid to the shysters that clearly wanted nothing but dollars from the start - and instead figure out how to get RCI / II and others to become a useful service rather than an ATM for their owners. I propose it start with withholding your best deposits if you feel you aren't getting a fair return. Let them know why and lets see if it's enough to force the change. If not then the users will have spoken with their actions and endorsed the RCI / II policies. If not we'll see a change and we can all take credit for making it happen. No shysters needed or paid.


----------



## Carolinian

John, This time I agree with most of what you have to say.  One of the things we need to do in objecting to the settlement / sellout is to object to paying any lawyers fees for no result worth a darn in terms of injunctive relief.  If these lawyers think trinkets are so great, let THEM be paid in trinkets as that is about all they are worth.

I am already primarily using DAE for exchanges, and I gave them my summer UK week this year.  I am using my summer Outer Banks weeks or letting family use it if I can't get back to the states or renting it.

We also need to push our resorts to open up competition for exchanges by dual affiliating with II, and spreading the word among their members about independent exchange companies like DAE, TPI, HTSE, SFX, PI, and UKRE.  The key is growing the competition.  As long as owners know they have alternatives to RCI for exchanging, RCI will not be able to get away with running over them with ripoff rental policies.


----------



## Susan2

*Update!!!!*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Judge Sheridan is holding a hearing on the issue of Notice.  The hearing will be held in his regular courthouse in Trenton, NJ on August 12, 2009 at noon.  

As far as I am concerned, this is big.  

I spoke extensively to Jenelle Welling (co-lead counsel for the Plaintiff class) today.  I will have more to post as soon as I have time.  

I'm going to try to get to the hearing. I'll be on vacation on Cape Cod -- at least it's not California or somewhere worse!


----------



## Larry6417

Susan, thanks for all your work on behalf of TS owners. You've been great!


----------



## bass

Susan,

Thanks for all of your hard work.   It is much appreciated by all RCI members.

Sincerely,
Nancy


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You are [all] quite welcome.  It's important to me, too, but the feedback I get makes me feel it's worth the time and trouble.  

I believe that together we can do this.  It's going to need a lot -- even just members talking to other members and to their home resorts.  And if we can't do this exactly what we want, together we'll accomplish our goals another way.  IMO, RCI has just gone too far, and it's here we stand our ground.   

In the meantime, I would like to post a survey to gauge the importance of different issues to members, so that I have numbers to report to the judge.  Stay tuned.  (I need to figure out how to do that!)


----------



## sandkastle4966

Susan (et al) - 

I am in the DC area and may be able to spend the day up and back to Trenton.  What is on the docket with the judge that day?  (I am no lawyer,  but quite against this rental issue, etc.)  

Can you give specifics on when and where and the agenda?  

thanks,

sjk

(FYI - My latest ralling cry against RCI was that I deposited an Aruba week,  it was not booked by anyone per the VC,  but I could not pull it back with itself or any of my tigers.....guess where it was.......)


----------



## london

*RCI In 5 Years*

My membership in RCI expires in 2014.

It will be interesting to see how RCI operates fives years from now.

We are only weeks owners, and not into RCI points. 

What we have done is purchase floating weeks at the resort we enjoy most in Cocoa Beach.

Since we can rent many timeshare weeks via Redweek etc and other sites, why trade.

For some RCI members, the RCI rentals can be an attractive feature.

Perhaps the class action suit will be finalized by this fall.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



sandkastle4966 said:


> Susan (et al) -
> 
> I am in the DC area and may be able to spend the day up and back to Trenton.  What is on the docket with the judge that day?  (I am no lawyer,  but quite against this rental issue, etc.)
> 
> Can you give specifics on when and where and the agenda?
> 
> thanks,
> 
> sjk



The hearing will be held Clarkson Fisher Courthouse at 402 East State Street, Trenton, NJ 08508.  The judge's name is Peter Sheridan.  

The hearing will start at noon, and there is no scheduled end time, but the judge's law clerk "would be surprised" if the hearing lasted more than three hours.  It may not last that long, but the judge does not have any other matters currently scheduled to be heard that afternoon.  

My guess is that the judge will treat this issue as seriously as he treated the objections the last time, and that he will give at least some of the RCI members an opportunity to speak.  

I do not believe that the new proposal for Notice is adequate.  RCI is asking the Court to approve a postcard-sized mailing (rather fine print for some members) which references a website and a telephone number for claims forms or more details.  It still says that "RCI denies any wrongdoing," whereas I would like to see it say "RCI maintains that it has the contractual right to rent or otherwise dispose of week deposited for exchange."  (I think this is necessary, because RCI employees, including the vacation counselors, deny that RCI ever takes weeks deposited for exchange and puts them in the rental pool or transfers them to other inventories not available to RCI members as exchanges.)  Ater all, if RCI claims it's perfectly legal for them to do so, then RCI should ADMIT that it does so!  IMO, this would be the best way for RCI to correct their fraudulent statements, and wouldn't take up much more room than the current wording.  

The RCI proposal includes thirty days for members to object, opt-out or file a claim form.  Last time, they gave 90 days.  I see no reason why 90 days should not be given this time, too.  After all, the judge deemed the last Notice to be inadequate.  

I also feel that the Notice should be sent via first-class mail, email, and available by telephone menu option, publication on the website AFTER one logs in as well as on the home page, and in Endless Vacation Magazine with a large announcement on the cover of the magazine and claim forms inside along with a summary of the details of the settlement.  That is what I intend to argue in Court if given an opportunity to speak.  (I also included these proposals in a letter to the Court.)


----------



## Carolinian

We need to organize to get as many people as possible to opt out of the settlement / sellout.  That is what will get the court's attention that this sellout is opposed by members.  Taking ANY of their stupid little trinkets is just interpreted as agreeing with the sellout.

We should also suggest that if the attorneys of record think trinkets have such value, whatever payment they get should be in the same stupid trinkets instead of cash.


----------



## Jennie

Carolinian said:


> We need to organize to get as many people as possible to opt out of the settlement / sellout.  That is what will get the court's attention that this sellout is opposed by members.  Taking ANY of their stupid little trinkets is just interpreted as agreeing with the sellout.



Agreed! 

The next hearing is scheduled for August 12th at noon at the Federal Courthouse, 302 State Street, Trenton, N.J..

Subsequent to the June 16th "Fairness hearing" the Judge ruled that the class members had not received sufficient notice of the terms of the proposed settlement. Both sets of attorneys were directed to submit briefs by July 7th, indicating what form of further notification they would like the Court to consider. On August 12th the Judge is expected to rule on this issue. 

RCI requesed that members be notified again through the Endless Vacations magazine, and that the deadline for members to respond should be 30 days from the date of the mailing of the magazine. Note: magazines are not sent via first class mail and usually take many extra days to be delivered, plus it is summertime when a lot of timeshare owners are on vacation. And the Judge has already ruled that the notification sent previously through that magazine was inadequate. Nevertheless the plaintiffs, who are supposed to be representing the class members (that's us!) are in agreement with RCI's notification request. 

Attorneys Susan Collins (TUG member "Susan2") and Steve Willett are seeking to be appointed to represent "the objectors." They will request that better forms of notification be sent to the class members, and that members be given at least 90 days to acquaint themselves with the details of the proposed settlement, and to respond if they wish.

Susan and I plan to attend the August 12th hearing. She will be flying in from Cape Cod, in the middle of a family timeshare vacation, to be present. All timeshare owners are welcome to come. However, since the issue that day is very narrow in scope, it is not likely to make a huge difference. But we'd love for you to come if it is not too long a trip

Once the new terms of class notification are spelled out, and the deadline for member response is set, the following weeks will be the best time to make our voices heard. We can all work together to inform as many owners as possible about the proposed terms of the settlement, and what the member options are, including their right to "opt out" which, of course, will get the Court's attention if enough people choose it. 

Susan and Steve will determine the most appropriate and effective way or ways for members to communicate with the Court, if they wish to do so, in addition to filling out the class action forms. 

It will be a tough battle but we have everything to gain, and nothing to lose, by giving it our best shot. Miracles do happen once in awhile.


----------



## JEFF H

Keep it simple.
If RCI is not serving your Timeshare exchange & rental Needs stop using them!
Why turn yourself into sheep to be hearded around and used by attorneys
to make a huge payday score.
They the Attorneys are doing what they always do. Playing the class members for a payday. 
RCI is just going to raise fees to offset their costs in this lawsuit. They likely already figured the costs and have done that already.
stopped be played!
If RCI is not serving your Timeshare exchange & rental Needs stop using them!


----------



## Jennie

JEFF H said:


> Keep it simple.
> If RCI is not serving your Timeshare exchange & rental Needs stop using them!
> Why turn yourself into sheep to be hearded around and used by attorneys
> to make a huge payday score.
> They the Attorneys are doing what they always do. Playing the class members for a payday.
> RCI is just going to raise fees to offset their costs in this lawsuit. They likely already figured the costs and have done that already.
> stopped be played!
> If RCI is not serving your Timeshare exchange & rental Needs stop using them!



This is one time when a Judge is taking the objections of class members seriously. He is not letting either RCI or the plaintiffs attorneys get away with the usual nonsense. 

Personally I have done very little business with RCI over the past several years. The few times I've needed something they have, I have figured out many little known ways to get it. I've been a TUG member since 1994. A lot of valuable information has been shared here through the years.

But I'm willing to expend time and energy (and some out-of-pocket expenses) to fight for the rights of members who don't have any other options. To tell someone, who was conned by a slick timeshare salesman into buying a low value week at an exorbitant price, to take their business elsewhere is not a viable solution. Most of them bought the week with the promise that they would be able to exchange it through RCI. RCI is supposed to be an exchange company but they are renting out tons of deposited weeks to the general public, at below fair market value, causing the weeks to be unavailable to meet the needs of their dues paying members.  

If RCI is not stopped from doing this, it will eventually have a huge ripple effect upon many other areas of the timeshare industry. You will probably suffer too in ways you cannot fathom from your smug vantage point.


----------



## timeos2

*Both sides of view are right!*



Jennie said:


> This is one time when a Judge is taking the objections of class members seriously. He is not letting either RCI or the plaintiffs attorneys get away with the usual nonsense.
> 
> Personally I have done very little business with RCI over the past several years. The few times I've needed something they have, I have figured out many little known ways to get it. I've been a TUG member since 1994. A lot of valuable information has been shared here through the years.
> 
> But I'm willing to expend time and energy (and some out-of-pocket expenses) to fight for the rights of members who don't have any other options. To tell someone, who was conned by a slick timeshare salesman into buying a low value week at an exorbitant price, to take their business elsewhere is not a viable solution. Most of them bought the week with the promise that they would be able to exchange it through RCI. RCI is supposed to be an exchange company but they are renting out tons of deposited weeks to the general public, at below fair market value, causing the weeks to be unavailable to meet the needs of their dues paying members.
> 
> If RCI is not stopped from doing this, it will eventually have a huge ripple effect upon many other areas of the timeshare industry. You will probably suffer too in ways you cannot fathom from your smug vantage point.



I find merit in both approaches.  First and foremost the idea that no one - even the mythical, bamboozled sucker would was talked into buying a Blue week in Wisconsin in order to freely trade into luxury accommodations in South France - is forced to give RCI their week(s). They DO have options and if in fact they own dog time they can/should only expect dog time in return which, as we all know, rentals or not RCI is awash in year round. All they are owed is an equal trade and in that market RCI can deliver on demand and in spades. They also can take their time to other third parties by simply doing a bit of homework to see if maybe they can do better elsewhere. They are not being hurt to the degree a more valuable week owner may be by RCI's questionable rental procedures.  Saying we need to protect them from themselves is disingenuous at best.  Educate them yes. Bail them out of a very bad choice - no.  

On the other hand, I now see a glimmer of hope that this particular lawsuit, while flawed from the start as nothing more than a way for some grubby lawyers to milk RCI/Owners for millions in unearned fees, has unexpectedly taken a positive turn toward actually making RCI listen to owners concerns about their operation.  The participation by volunteers to press owners concerns has been one of the few times that a grassroots effort has had some impact on RCI and we have, at least for the moment, a Judge willing to listen and learn.  This may be a one time opportunity to get our voices heard and we should do anything and everything to support those doing the dirty work on thier own dime.  Nothing about supporting Shep, Susan and the others precludes taking positive personal steps to avoid RCI by denying them your deposits. We are still members and this is an important fight when it concentrates on the very critical issue of unfair rentals of weeks to non-owners by RCI.  We can only hope this unexpected twist results in a change of heart by RCI if they realize how negative the on going uproar can be. Best wishes to those involved and please let us all know of anything we can do to further the cause.


----------



## gjw007

timeos2 said:


> I find merit in both approaches.  First and foremost the idea that no one - even the mythical, bamboozled sucker would was talked into buying a Blue week in Wisconsin in order to freely trade into luxury accommodations in South France - is forced to give RCI their week(s). They DO have options and if in fact they own dog time they can/should only expect dog time in return which, as we all know, rentals or not RCI is awash in year round. All they are owed is an equal trade and in that market RCI can deliver on demand and in spades. They also can take their time to other third parties by simply doing a bit of homework to see if maybe they can do better elsewhere. They are not being hurt to the degree a more valuable week owner may be by RCI's questionable rental procedures.  Saying we need to protect them from themselves is disingenuous at best.  Educate them yes. Bail them out of a very bad choice - no.
> 
> On the other hand, I now see a glimmer of hope that this particular lawsuit, while flawed from the start as nothing more than a way for some grubby lawyers to milk RCI/Owners for millions in unearned fees, has unexpectedly taken a positive turn toward actually making RCI listen to owners concerns about their operation.  The participation by volunteers to press owners concerns has been one of the few times that a grassroots effort has had some impact on RCI and we have, at least for the moment, a Judge willing to listen and learn.  This may be a one time opportunity to get our voices heard and we should do anything and everything to support those doing the dirty work on thier own dime.  Nothing about supporting Shep, Susan and the others precludes taking positive personal steps to avoid RCI by denying them your deposits. We are still members and this is an important fight when it concentrates on the very critical issue of unfair rentals of weeks to non-owners by RCI.  We can only hope this unexpected twist results in a change of heart by RCI if they realize how negative the on going uproar can be. Best wishes to those involved and please let us all know of anything we can do to further the cause.



John,

I agree.  RCI shouldn't be using the units as rentals to non-owners when there is an owner wanting to make an exchange.  RCI gets its revenue by the fees charged by the exchanges not by renting out somebody else's property and collecting the money from those rentals.  It has an obligation to try match exchanges although it can't guarantee exchanges.  By putting exchangeable units on the rental market, it ensures that the main purpose of the organization, exchanges, cannot be met.  

There may be times when rentals are justified but it should be far and few between.


----------



## Carolinian

We cannot just bury our heads in the sand and look at our personal exchanging situation.  The reason is that RCI's rental program can seriously damage the economics of our resorts and perhaps even threaten their viability.  That can kick us in the rear end another way besides exchanging by causing m/f's to rise substantially or even resorts going under.

RCI's flooding the market with rentals often at low prices also decreases the ability of individual timeshare owners to rent out their weeks at a decent price and decreases the demand for resale purchases.

RCI's rental to the public scheme kicks the financial props out from under timesharing in a wide variety of ways.




JEFF H said:


> Keep it simple.
> If RCI is not serving your Timeshare exchange & rental Needs stop using them!
> Why turn yourself into sheep to be hearded around and used by attorneys
> to make a huge payday score.
> They the Attorneys are doing what they always do. Playing the class members for a payday.
> RCI is just going to raise fees to offset their costs in this lawsuit. They likely already figured the costs and have done that already.
> stopped be played!
> If RCI is not serving your Timeshare exchange & rental Needs stop using them!


----------



## carl2591

any way to force them to run ads for Timeshare Today Magazine.. they are one of the forces behind this as well. They have published a lot of info about the lawsuit that in my mind is a must read for all RCI members.

that would shake the timbers of RCI for a while.. guess we have to dream on..


----------



## Jennie

carl2591 said:


> any way to force RCI to run ads for Timesharing Today Magazine.. they are one of the forces behind this as well. They have published a lot of info about the lawsuit that in my mind is a must read for all RCI members.



Shep (editor) and Ray (owner) of Timesharing Today Magazine have tried for over 10 years to place ads in RCI's Endless Vacations Magazine but the've been consistently rebuffed. Considering how greedy RCI is, it speaks volumes when you learn that RCI is willing to pass up substantial advertising dollars to keep RCI members away from a magazine that "tells it like it is."  

For anyone not familiar with the magazine, a free trial copy of the latest issue can be obtained by requesting it at their web site: www.tstoday.com 
One advantage to becoming a subscriber is that you can read all prior magazine issues on-line going back many years (password protected).

Ray and Shep provide free ads for owners groups to post notices in the magazine about meeting times and dates, and they personally attend many of these meetings around the country. They also post detailed information and charts about all of the exchange companies, large and small, so that readers can learn of exchange options other than RCI


----------



## Jennie

timeos2 said:


> First and foremost the idea that no one - even the mythical, bamboozled sucker who was talked into buying a Blue week in Wisconsin in order to freely trade into luxury accommodations in South France - is forced to give RCI their week(s).



They are not "forced" to give their weeks to RCI but many of them do not know they have other options. 

I know one highly educated, intelligent couple who bought a week at the Manhattan Club in New York City from the developer at full price. They were given a free one year RCI membership at the point of sale. When I met them for the first time 6 years later, they told me they had been using all 7 nights a year at MC. They thought they *had to* keep paying the RCI membership fees every year as a requirement of their MC ownership. 

The RCI "wish book" has played a large role in developer sales pitches for many years. At the class action court hearing on June 16th, the Judge asked the RCI attorneys why so many timeshare owners seem unhappy about the way the exchange program is working, as evidenced by the 100+ letters sent to the court in response to the article in Timesharing Today Magazine re: the inadequate proposed settlement. 

The RCI attorneys had the audacity to say that it's because the timeshare salespeople "over promise" in order to make a sale. When questioned further by the judge, the attorneys said that as part of the proposed settlement, they were going to take steps to prevent this "over promising" from happening. When pressed as to how they would accomplish this, they said they would hold "training sessions" with the sales teams :hysterical: . Note that nowhere in the almost 300 page settlement proposal is there any mention of "training sessions". The attorneys seemed to be "making it up on the spot" to deflect attention away from RCI's role in owner dissatifaction. Perhaps developers should be required to give buyers information about other exchange companies. I have stopped supporting ARDA since I learned that they lobbied against a proposal that would have provided more "truth in exchanging" type of information as part of the sales contract.  

But getting back to the issue of people who unwittingly bought blue weeks--many are now seniors without computer skills and do not know about the alternative exchange companies. Some, like my Manhattan Club friends, even think that they must pay RCI fees every year, the same way they must pay annual maintenance fees, in order to be able to use (or even retain ownership of) their week. 

I know it's hard for those of us on TUG to realize that there can be people out there who know so little about timesharing. But trust me, there are a lot of them. As a Board member for many years of the volunteer-run Greater New York Timeshare Owners Group, we met and helped hundreds of such people. For those who owned a truly terrible week, the best advice (and often times hands on help) we could give them was to prepare for a trip during the 45 day window when trading power "went out the window" and any week would pull anything in RCI inventory. This really "saved the day" for many of them. Most were seniors who could use a small unit and didn't care how "plain" the resort was. 

Many TUG posts keep mentioning owner expectations of exchanging into high end properties. In my experience, the owner of a middling week usually knows not to expect much. But they do expect *something*-*anything*. Some space-banked their week up to 2 years in advance. This was supposed to increase the trading power of their week. RCI really should allow this part of the program to remain in effect but the proposed settlement will eliminate it. 

I personally own 19 weeks/Points packages. Three of them, fixed weeks, were bought resale (at very cheap prices) in the mid 1990's, when I really didn't know much about timeshares. Trading power on each has changed drastically through the years. Sometimes it went up because of improvements in the property and units, or the location suddenly became a "hot spot" for certain groups (e.g. families with young children or "Spring breakers"). The value went down drastically in one of our units because the small greedy resort started charging exorbitant per diem fees for exchange guests ($18. per day per person including all children over the age of six!). Once RCI revealed this to interested exchangers, they refused to accept it. 

But the bottom line is that if all else failed, I was able to get very acceptable trades during the last minute window, which was 90 days at one time, then 60 days, and now I believe it's 45 days. 

I can also give them to RCI as pfd's into our RCI Points account That's a strategy I have been helping some owners of doggie weeks to use. Of course that shouldn't exist and will cause major trouble down the road for the entire system, but that's a "whole 'nother story". 

The bottom line is that RCI should focus on providing comparable exchanges for its 3.6 million members and not rush to rent out weeks, at any stage of the game, that they can reasonably assume their members will reserve, if given the chance. The annual membership fee of at least $100. per year plus the exchange fee of $139.-$199. should be sufficient profit for them to make on the service they provide. They do not have acquisition and production costs. Many transactions are completed on-line by members. We even have to print out our own confirmations and guest certificates so they pay no postage. If they make a sufficient profit from the ads placed in the Endless Vacations magazine, that's okay. If not, they can safe millions of dollars if they stop sending it to members, most of whom don't even open it up. For anyone who actually likes the magazine   well they can get it via a paid subscription.


----------



## timeos2

*Whats wrong with learning the ropes?*



Jennie said:


> They are not "forced" to give their weeks to RCI but many of them do not know they have other options.
> 
> I know one highly educated, intelligent couple who bought a week at the Manhattan Club in New York City from the developer at full price. They were given a free one year RCI membership at the point of sale. When I met them for the first time 6 years later, they told me they had been using all 7 nights a year at MC. They thought they *had to* keep paying the RCI membership fees every year as a requirement of their MC ownership.
> 
> The RCI "wish book" has played a large role in developer sales pitches for many years. At the class action court hearing on June 16th, the Judge asked the RCI attorneys why so many timeshare owners seem unhappy about the way the exchange program is working, as evidenced by the 100+ letters sent to the court in response to the article in Timesharing Today Magazine re: the inadequate proposed settlement.
> 
> The RCI attorneys had the audacity to say that it's because the timeshare salespeople "over promise" in order to make a sale. When questioned further by the judge, the attorneys said that as part of the proposed settlement, they were going to take steps to prevent this "over promising" from happening. When pressed as to how they would accomplish this, they said they would hold "training sessions" with the sales teams :hysterical: . Note that nowhere in the almost 300 page settlement proposal is there any mention of "training sessions". The attorneys seemed to be "making it up on the spot" to deflect attention away from RCI's role in owner dissatifaction. Perhaps developers should be required to give buyers information about other exchange companies. I have stopped supporting ARDA since I learned that they lobbied against a proposal that would have provided more "truth in exchanging" type of information as part of the sales contract.
> 
> But getting back to the issue of people who unwittingly bought blue weeks--many are now seniors without computer skills and do not know about the alternative exchange companies. Some, like my Manhattan Club friends, even think that they must pay RCI fees every year, the same way they must pay annual maintenance fees, in order to be able to use (or even retain ownership of) their week.
> 
> I know it's hard for those of us on TUG to realize that there can be people out there who know so little about timesharing. But trust me, there are a lot of them. As a Board member for many years of the volunteer-run Greater New York Timeshare Owners Group, we met and helped hundreds of such people. For those who owned a truly terrible week, the best advice (and often times hands on help) we could give them was to prepare for a trip during the 45 day window when trading power "went out the window" and any week would pull anything in RCI inventory. This really "saved the day" for many of them. Most were seniors who could use a small unit and didn't care how "plain" the resort was.



So someone with the money to buy a top resort like MC isn't smart enough to find out if they aren't using a service - RCI - they don't have to pay for it? Sorry, no sympathy for that here. They are simply not doing even the small amount of work needed to find out what they own and how to use it. It is not RCI's fault.  Yes there are plenty of owners completely in the dark about their timeshare even after years of ownership. It is not RCI's or anyone elses job to educate them. In a few hours of research or a talk by the pool at a stay they could find out the basics. That they won't even make that effort tells all we need to know.




Jennie said:


> Many TUG posts keep mentioning owner expectations of exchanging into high end properties. In my experience, the owner of a middling week usually knows not to expect much. But they do expect *something*-*anything*. Some space-banked their week up to 2 years in advance. This was supposed to increase the trading power of their week. RCI really should allow this part of the program to remain in effect but the proposed settlement will eliminate it.
> 
> I personally own 19 weeks/Points packages. Three of them, fixed weeks, were bought resale (at very cheap prices) in the mid 1990's, when I really didn't know much about timeshares. Trading power on each has changed drastically through the years. Sometimes it went up because of improvements in the property and units, or the location suddenly became a "hot spot" for certain groups (e.g. families with young children or "Spring breakers"). The value went down drastically in one of our units because the small greedy resort started charging exorbitant per diem fees for exchange guests ($18. per day per person including all children over the age of six!). Once RCI revealed this to interested exchangers, they refused to accept it.



Again the resort(s) get greedy with unwarranted fees so you blame RCI? Another red herring. It weakens the legitimate causes of actions to say RCI needs to be a Nanny to owners and resorts to protect them from themselves. 



Jennie said:


> But the bottom line is that if all else failed, I was able to get very acceptable trades during the last minute window, which was 90 days at one time, then 60 days, and now I believe it's 45 days.
> 
> I can also give them to RCI as pfd's into our RCI Points account That's a strategy I have been helping some owners of doggie weeks to use. Of course that shouldn't exist and will cause major trouble down the road for the entire system, but that's a "whole 'nother story".



And why should that not exist? PFD offers a way to get value out of otherwise tough to trade time by giving far more flexible points values to owners rather than nearly impossible to use week for week only system.  It is the need to deal with one exchange/deposit on a one for basis - no chance to adjust for greater or lesser values - that dooms the week for week system to having excessive and unwanted inventory. That same inventory heavily discounted in Points may be far more attractive and the ability to combine/rent/borrow points means the owner can actually use the tools offered to get a decent trade they can use. Points may be the savior of resorts with highly seasonal weeks that will never be a trade by themselves. Giving those weeks value via points means fees can be collected and the resort made stronger on the all important bottom line. 



Jennie said:


> The bottom line is that RCI should focus on providing comparable exchanges for its 3.6 million members and not rush to rent out weeks, at any stage of the game, that they can reasonably assume their members will reserve, if given the chance. The annual membership fee of at least $100. per year plus the exchange fee of $139.-$199. should be sufficient profit for them to make on the service they provide. They do not have acquisition and production costs. Many transactions are completed on-line by members. We even have to print out our own confirmations and guest certificates so they pay no postage. If they make a sufficient profit from the ads placed in the Endless Vacations magazine, that's okay. If not, they can safe millions of dollars if they stop sending it to members, most of whom don't even open it up. For anyone who actually likes the magazine   well they can get it via a paid subscription.



No RCI should not rent weeks out based on "historical data" or gut instinct but rather after they have been through the process and are proven to indeed have no close to equal trade interest. Then and only then  - which should be no more than 90 days from the start date - RCI should loosen trade values required slightly (but never a free for all), make them available to MEMBERS for discounted rental rates and, if that doesn't work quickly, to the public as competitively priced rentals. Not deep discounted time to the public that undermines the owners value as that does cut to the underpinnings of the timeshare model. However simply stating that there are "no acceptable trades" for those low value times more often than not means the member doesn't really want an equal value but an upgrade to better time or size or resort.  I've never seen any shortage at RCI or II of low value weeks ready for claiming by other low value owners.


----------



## Carolinian

This really needs to be a seperate thread, but this whole premise is flawed.

Weeks and Points need to be seperate systems.  I have no problem with Points members getting last minute Points inventory at a discount, which they are not given, but I do have a big  problem with giving them last minute Weeks inventory, which depletes the inventory for Weeks  members.

The overaveraging present in the Weeks/Points crossover grids are highly unfair to Weeks members.  But again all fo this should be another thread.  We need to concentrate on the lawsuit in this one.





timeos2 said:


> And why should that not exist? PFD offers a way to get value out of otherwise tough to trade time by giving far more flexible points values to owners rather than nearly impossible to use week for week only system.  It is the need to deal with one exchange/deposit on a one for basis - no chance to adjust for greater or lesser values - that dooms the week for week system to having excessive and unwanted inventory. That same inventory heavily discounted in Points may be far more attractive and the ability to combine/rent/borrow points means the owner can actually use the tools offered to get a decent trade they can use. Points may be the savior of resorts with highly seasonal weeks that will never be a trade by themselves. Giving those weeks value via points means fees can be collected and the resort made stronger on the all important bottom line.


----------



## Susan2

*Suggestions for Notice*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am preparing to comment at the August 12 hearing in Trenton, NJ, regarding the notice.  The Court has already determined that the prior Notice of the RCI Weeks class action proposed settlement was inadequate.  Now, new notice needs to be sent.  

RCI wants to send all members a postcard with very fine print.  (Too fine, IMO, for many people to read without glasses, and perhaps even with glasses for some.)

I am proposing a prominent website posting, an email with links to further information, a telephone menu option (when people call RCI), a multi-page printout in the Endless Vacation Magazine with a postcard to obtain the full proposed settlement, and a direct mailing.  

I am interested to know what TUG members feel would be the most useful.  

Susan


----------



## Stricky

Thanks again for all your work on this Susan.

Although I am too new of a member to be in the class, I will say I think all your suggestions are great. I really think email needs to be used (I get plenty of other RCI email). I think the phone menu option is a bit much. A hotline where people can call and get answers would be helpfull.


----------



## doubleos

*Reasonable Notice*

Again, Susan thank you so much for your work.  I like all of your ideas for notice, but the email with links for more information would be best for me.  It certainly seems to be good enough for RCI to send all of their inane nonsense.  I am most interested however in how I should respond, whether it is better to opt out of the class or to object to the settlement.


----------



## london

*Final Settlement*

Does it appear that a final settlement will be reached by Dec 2009.

One that will have all RCI members notified of their options.


----------



## Jennie

london said:


> Does it appear that a final settlement will be reached by Dec 2009...One that will have all RCI members notified of their options.



It's impossible to know at this time. We hope to have more information after the August 12th hearing takes place. A lot depends upon the Judge's decisions.


----------



## Carolinian

london said:


> Does it appear that a final settlement will be reached by Dec 2009.
> 
> One that will have all RCI members notified of their options.



A fair and just settlement means a whole lot more than the timing of it.


----------



## Jennie

bnoble said:


> I believe I understand both of those terms.  It's certainly not deceptive, because the practice is spelled out very clearly in the Subscriber Agreement.  Only a fool or an idiot would think that somehow RCI could not rent out deposits after reading that language.  So, let's dispense with "deceptive".



The Judge in the current proceeding ruled that notice of the proposed settlement was inadequate because it was placed on page 94 of Endless Vacations magazine, and the print size on the index page was too small.

Well guess where the ever-changing "Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" appears: 

In 2003 it is on page 473-476 of the 480 page book. It is readable by me only with glasses prescribed for very close work. I am legally able to drive without glasses (or contacts) and do not need anything for everyday reading of books, newspapers, etc...

In 2006 it is on page 499-501 of a 503 page book. For that one I need reading glasses PLUS a magnifying glass to read it. 

In 2008 it is on page 396-400 of the 412 page book. Again I need to wear prescription glasses AND use a magnifying glass to read it. 

Meanwhile the following "pollyanna" version of how to obtain an exchange is in much larger, darker print on page M15-16 near the front of the 2008 book. 

*STEP 1*: Deposit your week

Members are advised to deposit their week as early as possible "because depositing early helps increase your vacation options." 

*STEP 2*: Search for your vacation

It advises to "start a convenient, personalized search for the vacation you want. *Your request will be compared against newly deposited weeks as they enter the exchange system every day*. Once you institute a search, your work is done. There's no need for you to check on the status of your request; we contact you as soon as a match is found."

(*My comment*: By telling members there is no need to check on the status of their (search) request, it would seem to me that they are depriving members of the opportunity to speak with a Vacation Guide and learn the sad truth if the week they seek "ain't never gonna happen" especially if they had entered the search online without any feedback from a VG. Could it be that RCI hopes to extract another fee from them to "extend" their search after 9 months of no luck?)

*Step 3*: Confirm your Exchange, then enjoy your vacation.

"Once the system has found a vacation to match your search, you'll exchange your deposited week either online or with a Vacation Guide to close your search and complete the transaction." 
(Note they do not say *"IF"* a match is found).

If they are not trying to be deceptive, why aren't all the other terms and conditions on page 397 about how RCI can use deposited weeks for rental, etc...moved up front next to the the above noted rhetoric. Then members would have a better chance of learning what is really going on and make an informed decision of whether or not they want to continue doing business with RCI.

When I brought this information to the attention of the members of a New York timeshare owners group, their was disbelief, then anger. Most members said they would not deposit any more weeks with RCI. For some it was the deciding factor in selling or giving away their timeshares. Others (like myself) joined other exchange companies and/or began renting our high value weeks and using the rental money to rent what we want directly from other owners.  

Besides being unfair, RCI's greed will likely lead to less profit down the road as more and more members learn the truth and take their business elsewhere.


----------



## Jennie

Susan2 said:


> I would be interested to hear from people who traded bonus weeks prior to 2000.  Most of what I've heard is similar to my experience.



I believe it was the summer of 1998 when we received a one bedroom unit in July in the heart of Newport, Rhode Island. July is always a very prime time there. In addition, our week was during the famous annual Jazz Festival when people would come from all over the country to attend. They were paying up to $300. a night for dinky hotel rooms at the time.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



bnoble said:


> Only a fool or an idiot would think that somehow RCI could not rent out deposits after reading that language.  So, let's dispense with "deceptive".





Jennie said:


> The . . . "Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" . . . is readable by me only with glasses prescribed for very close work. . . .
> 
> In 2006 it is on page 499-501 of a 503 page book. For that one I need reading glasses PLUS a magnifying glass to read it.  . . .
> 
> If they are not trying to be deceptive, why aren't all the other terms and conditions on page 397 about how RCI can use deposited weeks for rental, etc...moved up front next to the the above noted rhetoric.  . . .
> Besides being unfair, RCI's greed will likely lead to less profit down the road as more and more members learn the truth and take their business elsewhere.



Thank you, Jennie, for bringing BNoble's comment to my attention.  Your response is very good.  However, it doesn't tell the whole story.  The truth is even worse.  

The terms and conditions of most contracts give more rights to the already empowered party than are ever normally exercised.  (You can call them "just in case" clauses.)  For example, most people would be surprised to find that the mortgage note on their primary residence says that if the borrower becomes 45 days delinquent on a monthly payment, then the bank has the right to foreclose.  

Now, banks rarely, if ever, actually do that.  But it IS in the fine print.  Of couse, it is extremely rare that any borrower actually READS the entire mortgage agreement.  The typical, REASONABLE buyer relies on the verbal interpretations given him/her, his or her past experience, the experience of other homeowners, and an assumption of good faith by the lender.  

But if one were to follow BNoble's rule of thumb, only a fool or an idiot would ever sign a mortgage agreement, especially if s/he is a teacher who works only 10 months a year, or a seasonal employee.  After all, it's "in the fine print."  Nor, under that reasoning, should anyone be surprised to find himself homeless after missing two mortgage payments.  

But that's not how life happens.  Reasonable people rely on common sense, verbal representations, and the good faith of others.  That's a perfectly sensible way to live one's life.  In fact, to do otherwise -- that is, to ignore common sense, verbal representations, and to put no trust in the good faith dealing of others -- qualifies one as "paranoid" at best.  

In fact, I submit that relying on the verbal representations made by the vacation guides, who CONSISTENTLY state that RCI DOES NOT RENT OUT OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF WEEKS DEPOSITED FOR EXCHANGE, is the only reasonable way to act, until informed otherwise.  Every one of the Guides will tell you that the weeks in the rental pool are "specially acquired inventory" obtained directly from the resorts, and that RCI does not contract with other vacation associations to give away weeks deposited by members for exchange.  Are they all liars?  I don't think so.  I think that they are just fed untruths.  Do most of them investigate their employer's actual practices?  OF COURSE NOT!  Again, that would be paranoid at best.  

People (even people with timeshares) have the right to trust the "social contract" that we live by.  No, that doesn't protect us from people like Bernie Madoff.  Living completely untrustingly of the social contract might protect people from some losses, but it would not lead to a better life overall.

Now, let's look at the other side of the equation:  NOWHERE BUT THE COURTROOM does RCI admit and defend its practice of taking weeks deposited for exchange and disposing of them for profit.  Everywhere else (and apparently even to its own employees) RCI denies the practice.  That's an inconsistency one could drive a truck through, and completely violates the social contract.  

Think about this:  If Bernie Madoff put it in the fine print in his "brokerage" contract that he could keep people's money, but verbally represented otherwise, almost no one would have read it, much less questioned it.  If people had questioned it, he could have explained that it actually meant that, if in his discretion he thought that a trade should not be made that day, the contract gave him the right to do so.  In that case, I think every one of his clients would have still signed it.  Are they/were they stupid?  No.  They just relied unwisely on the social contract and the good faith dealings of someone they knew and liked.  

Do you really want to live in a world where no one does that?  I wouldn't.  I would rather live my life taking only reasonable precautions, and take my chances that most people are honorable.  There are people out there who investigate people before dating them.  And people who marry people who turn out to be complete frauds.  Personally, I fall in between those two extremes, as do most people, and it works most of the time.  Most of us rely on the legal system when someone violates the law or the rules we live by.  

Yes, Jennie, RCI's actions will hurt RCI and the whole timeshare industry.  But I fear that the executives responsible for this fiasco will give themselves golden parachutes and convince themselves they were "good" administrators, who made lots of profit for their shareholders, because they feel no responsibility for adding to the discord and distrust in the world.     

The executives who authorized the manufacture and sale of the Pinto, knowing that the gas tank tended to explode even on minor impact were never criminally convicted, either.  But the tide is changing, and society is no longer as tolerant of corporate greed as it once was.  

And so we move forward, trying to right wrongs, simply because not to do so would be intolerable.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> A fair and just settlement means a whole lot more than the timing of it.



Well said!


----------



## krj9999

Not defending RCI here, but am posting latest data from Wyndham's quarterly results.  The only things I can read from the data are:  RCI membership continues to grow; rental volume is fairly flat; and exchange dues/fees per member is slowly declining.  While there had been some creep higher in revenue per rental, it has come down significantly since Q3 2008.

    Vacation
    Exchange
    and Rentals
      Average Number
       of Members
       (in 000s)   
2009    3,789     3,795       N/A       N/A         N/A
                      2008    3,632     3,682     3,673     3,693       3,670
                      2007    3,474     3,506     3,538     3,588       3,526
                      2006    3,292     3,327     3,374     3,429       3,356

      Annual Dues
       and Exchange
       Revenue Per
       Member     
2009  $134.38   $117.59       N/A       N/A         N/A
                      2008  $150.84   $128.91   $124.51   $109.56     $128.37
                      2007  $155.60   $132.33   $131.38   $124.59     $135.85
                      2006  $152.10   $130.37   $132.31   $128.13     $135.62

      Vacation
       Rental
       Transactions
       (in 000s)   
2009      387       324       N/A       N/A         N/A
                      2008      387       319       360       282       1,347
                      2007      398       326       360       293       1,376
                      2006      385       310       356       293       1,344

      Average Net
       Price Per
       Vacation
       Rental       
2009  $335.54   $422.00       N/A       N/A         N/A
                      2008  $412.74   $477.63   $553.69   $400.09     $463.10
                      2007  $349.73   $415.71   $506.78   $426.93     $422.83
                      2006  $312.51   $374.91   $442.75   $356.16     $370.93


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Careful . . .*




krj9999 said:


> Not defending RCI here, but am posting latest data from Wyndham's quarterly results.


 *. . .* it doesn't take much more than that to get lumped in with the _RCI Can Do No Wrong_ crowd. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## bnoble

> only a fool or an idiot would ever sign a mortgage agreement, especially if s/he is a teacher who works only 10 months a year, or a seasonal employee.


Well, as a university professor on a 9-month appointment, my university helpfully pays me over 12 months (to my benefit, as it happens, because our fiscal year runs from July to June, so I get paid two months "early" vs. one month "late").  So, I am not troubled with the burden of having to plan for an irregular income stream.

Even so, if your income stream is not reliable, then you _are_ either foolish or stupid to sign a mortgage without maintaining a cushion that you can draw upon in those months when you do not earn sufficiently to cover your obligations.  That the bank does not foreclose after 45 days is only a matter of profit for the bank---foreclosures are generally less profitable than a cutomer who falls behind once in a while, but makes it up later.

So, to sum up, would I prefer it if RCI never rented out deposits?  Yes.

Am I surprised that they do?  No.

Do I believe the membership agreement, going back to at least 1991, gives them the legal right to do it?  Yes.

On the last point, my opinion is immaterial, as I am not the judge in the case.

On the first point, I'm not as certain as I once was.  For example, I'm interested in several of those city-center Hyatt hotels that have been popping up in locations without many timeshare alternatives.  Those had to come from somewhere.  They certainly weren't deposited by some individual timeshare owner, and I doubt that Hyatt gave them to RCI just to be nice.  Somehow, RCI has to compensate Hyatt for those units that are taken via exchange---the easiest way I can think of is to rent out some units deposited for exchange in return.

I still get the sense that some of you believe that RCI owes it to us to forgo profit to improve our personal exchange fortunes.  I'm under no such illusions.  Like any company, RCI's only obligation is to its shareholders.  While they can satisfy their shareholders and still deliver value to me, I will continue to pay them for their services.  When they can no longer deliver value to me, I will stop using them.  It's really that simple.

I've probably said it before in this thread, but my relationship with RCI is not personal.   It is strictly business.

-brian, Defender Of Evil.


----------



## "Roger"

krj9999 said:


> ..  While there had been some creep higher in revenue per rental, it has come down significantly since Q3 2008....


One clarification here.  Rentals mean one thing here on TUG, another in Wyndham financial statements.  

The primary source of rental income in Group RCI _appears to be _a group of branded rental companies in Europe that rent things like spaces at motor home parks, cottages, etc.  

If, for example, you look at their December investor presentation (via the Wyndham Worldwide site), the comment on rental income is that they hope to expand their branded European rental properties  and establish a corresponding set of set of rental properties in the US.  (Nothing is said in their report to investors about their prospects for renting what had been timeshare weeks.) In quarterly reports, the figures on rental income is almost always qualified with a statement as to what the current rate of exchange for the US dollar is. (The idea here is what they report as rental income is largely affected by the rate of exchange since the rental income mainly comes from the branded European companies.)

I suspect that the income from renting what had been timeshare weeks and developer weeks is also thrown into the rental income figures, but it is not something that one can factor out from what is reported in their financial statements. (Reading Wyndham financial reports can be a bit like trying to decipher writings on walls in Beijing as to the current political winds in China.)


----------



## krj9999

Roger, good clarification.  Below is from the footnotes today:

Vacation Rental Transactions: Represents the number of transactions that are generated in connection with customers booking their vacation rental stays through us. In our European vacation rentals businesses, one rental transaction is recorded each time a standard one-week rental is booked; however, in the United States, one rental transaction is recorded each time a vacation rental stay is booked, regardless of whether it is less than or more than one week.




"Roger" said:


> One clarification here.  Rentals mean one thing here on TUG, another in Wyndham financial statements.
> 
> The primary source of rental income in Group RCI _appears to be _a group of branded rental companies in Europe that rent things like spaces at motor home parks, cottages, etc.
> 
> If, for example, you look at their December investor presentation (via the Wyndham Worldwide site), the comment on rental income is that they hope to expand their branded European rental properties  and establish a corresponding set of set of rental properties in the US.  (Nothing is said in their report to investors about their prospects for renting what had been timeshare weeks.) In quarterly reports, the figures on rental income is almost always qualified with a statement as to what the current rate of exchange for the US dollar is. (The idea here is what they report as rental income is largely affected by the rate of exchange since the rental income mainly comes from the branded European companies.)
> 
> I suspect that the income from renting what had been timeshare weeks and developer weeks is also thrown into the rental income figures, but it is not something that one can factor out from what is reported in their financial statements. (Reading Wyndham financial reports can be a bit like trying to decipher writings on walls in Beijing as to the current political winds in China.)


----------



## Egret1986

*I get that feeling very stongly from some posters here on TUG*



bnoble said:


> I still get the sense that some of you believe that RCI owes it to us to forgo profit to improve our personal exchange fortunes.  I'm under no such illusions.  Like any company, RCI's only obligation is to its shareholders.  While they can satisfy their shareholders and still deliver value to me, I will continue to pay them for their services.  When they can no longer deliver value to me, I will stop using them.  It's really that simple.
> 
> I've probably said it before in this thread, but my relationship with RCI is not personal.   It is strictly business.
> 
> -brian, Defender Of Evil.



It IS very simple.  

Even if you said it before in this thread, maybe it bears repeating.

Don't take it personally, folks!!!  If it doesn't work for you anymore, you have the right to cease being a member.  It's your choice.


----------



## Egret1986

*While I don't believe "RCI can do no wrong", I'm sure I'm considered part of the lump*



AwayWeGo said:


> *. . .* it doesn't take much more than that to get lumped in with the _RCI Can Do No Wrong_ crowd.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​




RCI continues to work for me.  It has for 25 years!  When it no longer works, then I will move on, instead of trying to strong arm this big conglomorate.  I believe choosing to continue or discontinue membership is the only real control one has over RCI and its practices.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Same Here.*




> While I don't believe "RCI can do no wrong", I'm sure I'm considered part of the lump


I got lumped in just for citing the user agreement language which says, in essence, that RCI can do anything it wants with deposited timeshare weeks. 

So it goes. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



bnoble said:


> I still get the sense that some of you believe that RCI owes it to us to forgo profit to improve our personal exchange fortunes.  I'm under no such illusions.  Like any company, RCI's only obligation is to its shareholders.



"Forego profits?"  Is that what you call it?  I have a different term for it.  

If RCI owned the timeshares they rent or otherwise transfer, I would absolutely agree that they had the right to dispose of them in whatever manner they choose.  After all, people have the right to profit from property they own.  

But when property is entrusted to an entity for a particular purpose, and the entity uses it for a purpose not contemplated by the owner of that property, nor specifically agreed to by the owner of the property (and in this situation most often not even known about by the owner) it is called "conversion," NOT "legitimate corporate profit."  The excuse that "we make more money this way" just doesn't cut it!  

We have multitudinous examples of this sort of corporate "profit" today, and some is being criminally prosecuted.  Much of the rest should be.  

I posit that if RCI truly believes that this practice is legitimate, THEY WOULD ADMIT TO THE GENERAL MEMBERSHIP, AS WELL AS TO THEIR OWN EMPLOYEES.  The fact that they continue to deny it to members who ask, means that they feel they need to hide it.  

WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU?


----------



## Carolinian

Egret1986 said:


> RCI continues to work for me.  It has for 25 years!  When it no longer works, then I will move on, instead of trying to strong arm this big conglomorate.  I believe choosing to continue or discontinue membership is the only real control one has over RCI and its practices.



You are burying your head in the sand, and pretending the problem will go away.  RCI's slimy activities in embezzling our exchange deposits to rent out for their own profit is also impacting the financial health of our resorts.  This issue is a lot bigger than us personlly.  What we need to do is be pro-active and get our resorts actively involved in migrating as much of their exchanger membership base as possible to other exchange outlets.

The Big Boys can be turned around with the right consumer pressure.  The self-styled ''cockroaches did it with US Airways in a couple of weeks.  Delta passengers did it with www.saveskymiles.com although that was a three year slog.  Yes, there were naysayers like the RCI happies on this board who blasted those who tried to do something in those cases, constantly saying the airlines were too powerful and nothing could be done on FlyerTalk.  From the activists continued onward and ultimately backed down the big companies.


----------



## Carolinian

In a consumer protection lawsuit, the issue is not what is buried in the fine print of a membership agreement that RCI changes at will without notifying members.  The standard is simple, are their acts and practices ''unfair'' oir ''deceptive''.  Both are very broad concepts.  When other statements from RCI that are much more visible to members than that buried language in the fine print, you have a classic case of deception.  Of course the whole rotten scheme is patently unfair.

The fine print is not an ironclad defense for RCI.  On the contrary, it can be part of the proof of their wrongdoing.




bnoble said:


> Well, as a university professor on a 9-month appointment, my university helpfully pays me over 12 months (to my benefit, as it happens, because our fiscal year runs from July to June, so I get paid two months "early" vs. one month "late").  So, I am not troubled with the burden of having to plan for an irregular income stream.
> 
> Even so, if your income stream is not reliable, then you _are_ either foolish or stupid to sign a mortgage without maintaining a cushion that you can draw upon in those months when you do not earn sufficiently to cover your obligations.  That the bank does not foreclose after 45 days is only a matter of profit for the bank---foreclosures are generally less profitable than a cutomer who falls behind once in a while, but makes it up later.
> 
> So, to sum up, would I prefer it if RCI never rented out deposits?  Yes.
> 
> Am I surprised that they do?  No.
> 
> Do I believe the membership agreement, going back to at least 1991, gives them the legal right to do it?  Yes.
> 
> On the last point, my opinion is immaterial, as I am not the judge in the case.
> 
> On the first point, I'm not as certain as I once was.  For example, I'm interested in several of those city-center Hyatt hotels that have been popping up in locations without many timeshare alternatives.  Those had to come from somewhere.  They certainly weren't deposited by some individual timeshare owner, and I doubt that Hyatt gave them to RCI just to be nice.  Somehow, RCI has to compensate Hyatt for those units that are taken via exchange---the easiest way I can think of is to rent out some units deposited for exchange in return.
> 
> I still get the sense that some of you believe that RCI owes it to us to forgo profit to improve our personal exchange fortunes.  I'm under no such illusions.  Like any company, RCI's only obligation is to its shareholders.  While they can satisfy their shareholders and still deliver value to me, I will continue to pay them for their services.  When they can no longer deliver value to me, I will stop using them.  It's really that simple.
> 
> I've probably said it before in this thread, but my relationship with RCI is not personal.   It is strictly business.
> 
> -brian, Defender Of Evil.


----------



## Carolinian

ANd not only is that contract of adhesion not enforcible, but the fact that RCI projects a contrary line to its members means that langugage is actually part of the proof to sink RCI in this lawsuit.

Companies cannot just put anything they want in the T&C and have them enforcible.  The standard in comsumer protection laws is where their acts or practices, including that language as well as other things is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'', then they become ''unlawful''.




AwayWeGo said:


> I got lumped in just for citing the user agreement language which says, in essence, that RCI can do anything it wants with deposited timeshare weeks.
> 
> So it goes.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## ecwinch

krj9999 said:


> Not defending RCI here, but am posting latest data from Wyndham's quarterly results.  The only things I can read from the data are:  RCI membership continues to grow; rental volume is fairly flat; and exchange dues/fees per member is slowly declining.  While there had been some creep higher in revenue per rental, it has come down significantly since Q3 2008.
> 
> Vacation
> Exchange
> and Rentals
> Average Number
> of Members
> (in 000s)
> 2009    3,789     3,795       N/A       N/A         N/A
> 2008    3,632     3,682     3,673     3,693       3,670
> 2007    3,474     3,506     3,538     3,588       3,526
> 2006    3,292     3,327     3,374     3,429       3,356
> 
> Annual Dues
> and Exchange
> Revenue Per
> Member
> 2009  $134.38   $117.59       N/A       N/A         N/A
> 2008  $150.84   $128.91   $124.51   $109.56     $128.37
> 2007  $155.60   $132.33   $131.38   $124.59     $135.85
> 2006  $152.10   $130.37   $132.31   $128.13     $135.62
> 
> Vacation
> Rental
> Transactions
> (in 000s)
> 2009      387       324       N/A       N/A         N/A
> 2008      387       319       360       282       1,347
> 2007      398       326       360       293       1,376
> 2006      385       310       356       293       1,344
> 
> Average Net
> Price Per
> Vacation
> Rental
> 2009  $335.54   $422.00       N/A       N/A         N/A
> 2008  $412.74   $477.63   $553.69   $400.09     $463.10
> 2007  $349.73   $415.71   $506.78   $426.93     $422.83
> 2006  $312.51   $374.91   $442.75   $356.16     $370.93



Not clear on what the column headings are - is it unit size or region? 

ie. for Vacation
       Rental
       Transactions
       (in 000s)

 2008      387       319       360       282       1,347

387 = equals what column - same for 319,360,282
1347 = equals the annual total (?)


----------



## Jennie

Egret1986 said:


> I believe choosing to continue or discontinue membership is the only real control one has over RCI and its practices.



One of the benefits of this lawsuit is that RCI will be required to acknowledge that they rent out some of the weeks members deposit into the exchange "pool'. You'd be amazed at how many RCI members, to this day, have no idea this is occurring. 

As I mentioned earlier, when a member of a large timeshare owners group I belonged to in New York, made this information known at a meeting in 2000 by distributing an enlarged copy of the RCI "Terms and Conditions" stating that they had the "right" to do so, almost every person in the room was shocked and appalled. Many of them dropped out of RCI as a direct result of this "revelation"  and they have not returned. 

For several years I was able to get multiple prime Febraury weeks in southeast Florida for about $250.-$300. through SkyAuction.com. These were not last minute cancellations. I was winning the auctions in April and May of the year before. At no time would they have been declared "excess inventory, not likely to be wanted by RCI members". When I won the auctions, I would receive confirmations that looked identical to an RCI confirmation, complete with the RCI logo. Meanwhile I was unable to obtain any of these weeks through RCI, despite ongoing searches beginning two years out, using weeks that had great trading power. So of course I stopped using RCI except for two "junk" weeks that I bought "way back when" before I knew anything about timeshares. 

People have the right to know what is going on. People who pay an annual fee to be a member of a program/club/etc... expect that they will receive benefits that are not available to non-members. If they find out otherwise, then it's up to them to decide whether to continue to be a paid member, or to drop out and  maybe continue to receive the benefits at an even lower price and not have to pay any member fees. 

"Knowledge is power."


----------



## Jennie

[QUOTE by bnoble: I still get the sense that some of you believe that RCI owes it to us to forgo profit to improve our personal exchange fortunes. .QUOTE]

No, RCI, like most companies, should make a profit on goods and services they supply to a consumer. By accepting annual membership fees to provide an exchange of timeshare weeks for their paid members, and then taking a week that a member is waiting for, and selling it to a non-member to make a few extra dollars, that's where I have a big problem.


----------



## krj9999

Sorry, column headings after the year are

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 and Entire Year



ecwinch said:


> Not clear on what the column headings are - is it unit size or region?
> 
> ie. for Vacation
> Rental
> Transactions
> (in 000s)
> 
> 2008      387       319       360       282       1,347
> 
> 387 = equals what column - same for 319,360,282
> 1347 = equals the annual total (?)


----------



## bnoble

> The fact that they continue to deny it to members who ask, means that they feel they need to hide it.


The simpler explanation is that the VCs simply don't understand how the company works.  Remember---these are people who get paid minimum wage (and if they work outside the US, probaly less).  They can barely confirm exchanges correctly. 

Maybe I'm unusual, but I was aware that RCI *and* II rented vacation weeks to the public through various channels before I ever considered buying a timeshare, let alone exchanging one.  It's not that hard to figure out---the fact that both companies advertise getaways without the need to exchange, that would be your first clue.


----------



## Simoncc

bnoble said:


> The simpler explanation is that the VCs simply don't understand how the company works.  Remember---these are people who get paid minimum wage (and if they work outside the US, probaly less).  They can barely confirm exchanges correctly.
> 
> Maybe I'm unusual, but I was aware that RCI *and* II rented vacation weeks to the public through various channels before I ever considered buying a timeshare, let alone exchanging one.  It's not that hard to figure out---the fact that both companies advertise getaways without the need to exchange, that would be your first clue.




Firstly, I'd say everyone on this site has much more knowledge than the average timeshare owner - and the fact that you were aware of the rental practices before you even bought makes you even more special  .

Whether the VC's give out false information through ignorance or an evil managerial masterplan is irrelevant - RCI members are being lied to and in no circumstances can that be acceptable/legal business practice.

As has been stated above most (I'd say nearly all) members join RCI in the belief that it is purely an exchange company - none of the RCI glossy brochures or magazines contradict this. Can anyone highlight an article written by RCI to the members about their rental practices? No? Well that to me confirms that the stroy they put to members differs from the reality.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Twenty-five years ago, when we joined RCI, there was no rental program, at least not that anyone knew about.  How could they implement such a program, with no internet?  

I am aghast at my recent drop in trading power, and RCI doesn't have any right to drop the trading power on weeks that were already deposited, but that does help their rental program, doesn't it?  Taking our business elsewhere is essentially the only way we can "get even" with RCI.  And that is exactly what I intend to do.


----------



## thheath

rickandcindy23 said:


> Twenty-five years ago, when we joined RCI, there was no rental program, at least not that anyone knew about.  How could they implement such a program, with no internet?



RCI started the Armed Forces Vacation Club (rentals) in 1999, this is from their website: http://www.afvclub.com

The Armed Forces Vacation Club (AFVC) is a "Space Available" program that offers Department of Defense affiliated personnel the opportunity to take affordable condominium vacations at resorts around the world for only $329* per unit per week. The AFVC makes this possible by utilizing "excess" inventory at condominium timeshare resorts. "Excess" inventory consists of condominium units that resort owners do not use, which generally means off-season or short-notice travel. If you enjoy off-season activities in popular locations without the hassle of high-season prices, crowds and lines or if you can travel on 10 days notice or less, the AFVC offers an incredible vacation value. 

To determine the appeal and demand for off-season vacation travel, the AFVC began as a limited test in the Military District - Washington area - in January 1999. Eligibility was restricted to military ID card holders, only a handful of installations participated and there were just a few resorts available, all within driving distance. The program proved so popular, that it was rolled out to all CONUS on 1 August 1999 and introduced to Europe on 1 November 1999. On 1 January 2000, the AFVC went global and extended eligibility to anyone (over the age of 21) affiliated with the DoD; all seven Uniformed Services, active duty or retired (medical or regular), reserves, and National Guard (see Policies and Procedures for full eligibility details).


----------



## melschey

bnoble said:


> The simpler explanation is that the VCs simply don't understand how the company works.  Remember---these are people who get paid minimum wage (and if they work outside the US, probaly less).  They can barely confirm exchanges correctly.
> 
> Maybe I'm unusual, but I was aware that RCI *and* II rented vacation weeks to the public through various channels before I ever considered buying a timeshare, let alone exchanging one.  It's not that hard to figure out---the fact that both companies advertise getaways without the need to exchange, that would be your first clue.



When we joined RCI in pre-Cendant days RCI did not rent to the general public. They did rent to RCI members and to become a RCI member you had to own a Timeshare.  That time the main purpose of RCI was to facilitate exchanges between members. Cendant changed that and IMO RCI now stands for Rental Condominiums International.

I agree it is common knowledge that RCI rents to the general public and suggest that people that don’t like that just don’t deposit anything of value with RCI. We are RCI members and would never even consider giving a valuable week to RCI. It is obvious that RCI’s rental policy is OK with many people as they still do a lot of business. That OK with me. Whether or not to do business with RCI is a personal choice.


----------



## "Roger"

[Don't make assumptions about how I feel about this.  Just adding info from what I have seen.]

Way back in the late '80's or early '90's I remember reading a Consummers Report article about timesharing.  They disrecommended it because the best weeks were rented and really were not available.  (This does not mean that RCI itself was renting them at the time. I honestly don't remember who they said was.)

When I joined TUG, there were regular threads about how RCI was making weeks available via Dinners Club, Mall Perks, and various other programs at prices below maintenence fees.  Not long afterwards they started a program in which anyone could get a week by bidding on the internet.  While many TUGGERS were outraged because of the ridiculous prices that units were going for, others were bragging how they got weeks for prices like seven dollars. (I suspect that RCI dropped this program when they saw how little they were getting for the units.)

I also believe that Craig Urbane said II could not survive without renting.

Has renting expanded?  I presume so, but there are also a lot more timeshares out there now.  When I started, RCI membership was well below two million. Also, the developer promotions that used to fill the RCI magazine ["Five days and four nights at *** for only $199"] have all but disappeared.  I presume that these units are not being rented (via RCI among others).


----------



## Jennie

[QUOTE=" When I joined TUG, there were regular threads about how RCI was making weeks available via Diners Club, Mall Perks, and various other programs at prices below maintenence fees...[/QUOTE]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But those weeks were mainly at low demand resorts during off-season. I know because I followed it closely, helping newly retired relatives obtain some weeks to satisfy their wanderlust. The weeks were usually listed in RCI's "Last Call" inventory for several days or weeks before becoming available through the general public venues. 

After a large outcry from RCI members, they stopped the public programs. Whether it was a result of the complaints from RCI members, or the unprofitabilty, is unknown.


----------



## e.bram

A look at the TUG pole shows that II has more TUGGERS as members even though RCI is amuch larger operation.


----------



## Carolinian

But that simplistic explanation is just wrong.  A number of RCI VC's have posted here and on other t/s boards, and they are certainly aware of the rentals to the general public and also thorught it was wrong and was screwing members.  Bootleg on this site was one of them.

Read what this RCI VC has to say:

www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7761



bnoble said:


> The simpler explanation is that the VCs simply don't understand how the company works.  Remember---these are people who get paid minimum wage (and if they work outside the US, probaly less).  They can barely confirm exchanges correctly.
> 
> Maybe I'm unusual, but I was aware that RCI *and* II rented vacation weeks to the public through various channels before I ever considered buying a timeshare, let alone exchanging one.  It's not that hard to figure out---the fact that both companies advertise getaways without the need to exchange, that would be your first clue.


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> But that simplistic explanation is just wrong.  A number of RCI VC's have posted here and on other t/s boards, and they are certainly aware of the rentals to the general public and also thorught it was wrong and was screwing members.  Bootleg on this site was one of them.
> 
> Read what this RCI VC has to say:
> 
> www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7761



Do you take that as a credible source? 

Show up, has all kinds of inside information. Has proof, but cannot share it. Worried about getting exposed, so cannot visit TUG or TSTODAY. When asked for specifics, gives vague answers. Does not provide a lot of specifics, and then *POOF* disappears.


----------



## Carolinian

ecwinch said:


> Do you take that as a credible source?
> 
> Show up, has all kinds of inside information. Has proof, but cannot share it. Worried about getting exposed, so cannot visit TUG or TSTODAY. When asked for specifics, gives vague answers. Does not provide a lot of specifics, and then *POOF* disappears.



When Anon first started posting, the owner of the site verified his bonafides by asking a series of specific questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could possibly answer correctly.  Anon came back with all of the right answers.  He is who is says he is.

Then there is longtime TUG poster Bootleg, who also disappeared not too long after the class action was filed, and likely during an RCI witchhunt.  Bootleg undoubtedly worked for RCI and helped quite a few Tuggers with issues.  He also confirmed that he could see prime weeks on RCI computers that were deposited for exchange but put immediately into the rental pool instead.

I would bet on both Bootleg and Anon being the genuine article.  There are some other posters who indicate they work for RCI who have posted similar things, but their bonafides are not as well established.


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> When Anon first started posting, the owner of the site verified his bonafides by asking a series of specific questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could possibly answer correctly.  Anon came back with all of the right answers.  He is who is says he is.
> 
> Then there is longtime TUG poster Bootleg, who also disappeared not too long after the class action was filed, and likely during an RCI witchhunt.  Bootleg undoubtedly worked for RCI and helped quite a few Tuggers with issues.  He also confirmed that he could see prime weeks on RCI computers that were deposited for exchange but put immediately into the rental pool instead.
> 
> I would bet on both Bootleg and Anon being the genuine article.  There are some other posters who indicate they work for RCI who have posted similar things, but their bonafides are not as well established.



Sorry, I was conceived in Missouri. Is there another thread where the site owner vouched for Anon's bonafides, and what questions he used to establish the bonafides? Do you recall if it by voice or e-mail?


----------



## Jennie

melschey said:


> RCI rents to the general public... I suggest that people that don’t like that just don’t deposit anything of value with RCI. We are RCI members and would never even consider giving a valuable week to RCI.



Um, if you don't deposit anything of value with RCI and you are suggesting that other members not deposit valuable weeks either, then why do you remain an RCI member? Am I missing something here?


----------



## Jennie

ecwinch said:


> Sorry, I was conceived in Missouri. Is there another thread where the site owner vouched for Anon's bonafides, and what questions he used to establish the bonafides? Do you recall if it by voice or e-mail?



"Bootleg" and Craig Urbane posted here on TUG for a couple of years and became known personally to some of us. Craig attended a timeshare owners luncheon at the Lighthouse Cove Resort in Pompano Beach, Florida one February and many of us met him there. 

Craig held an upper level position in Interval International and let us know that I.I. was beginning to get into the "rental game" after seeing how financially successful it was for RCI. His honesty on TUG seems to have cost him his job. (He checked back in at TUG a couple of years later and said he very happy owning his own business, which had nothing to do with timeshaing.


----------



## Carolinian

ecwinch said:


> Sorry, I was conceived in Missouri. Is there another thread where the site owner vouched for Anon's bonafides, and what questions he used to establish the bonafides? Do you recall if it by voice or e-mail?



I am a moderator on that site, and the site owner advised moderators of his checking out Anon soon after Anon first started posting.  The questions were about the site owner's own RCI account, but he did not mention the details of the questions.


----------



## Happytravels

*RCI do whatever they want..*



AwayWeGo said:


> I got lumped in just for citing the user agreement language which says, in essence, that RCI can do anything it wants with deposited timeshare weeks.
> 
> So it goes.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



YA EVEN GIVE THEM BACK TO THE RESORT!!  (which happened to me)

I thought once they get them they keep them, but what I found out is exactly like you said.  THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THE WEEKS.  EVEN GIVE THEM BACK.


----------



## doubleos

*Just for fun*

I just banked a week (Thanksgiving week) about 2 weeks ago in RCI.  Just for fun I wanted to see if it showed up in the available rentals and voila I found the following
 Harbortown Point Marina Resort & Club (#4042)    	1  available unit
  	   	Ventura
CA, 93001 USA


map resort

Available Unit Size
1 BR (6 max)
Check-In Date
21-Nov-2009
Price
$800.99

there is probably a 1% chance this is not my unit sleeps 6, check-in 11/21/09
Unfortunately it is not letting me access this listing but I was wondering if anyone might be interested in seeing if it available for exchange or if its a Voyager unit which means there is an even greater chance that it is mine.
As in the link to Anon's postings in the Insider thread here is a vacation week that went right to rentals.


----------



## ecwinch

Jennie said:


> "Bootleg" and Craig Urbane posted here on TUG for a couple of years and became known personally to some of us. Craig attended a timeshare owners luncheon at the Lighthouse Cove Resort in Pompano Beach, Florida one February and many of us met him there.
> 
> Craig held an upper level position in Interval International and let us know that I.I. was beginning to get into the "rental game" after seeing how financially successful it was for RCI. His honesty on TUG seems to have cost him his job. (He checked back in at TUG a couple of years later and said he very happy owning his own business, which had nothing to do with timeshaing.



My post was about Anon. But I do appreciate that info about Craig. I thought it is a shame that both exchanges stopped participating on TUG.

But then if we want to use developer reps as on-line punching bags, it is natural.


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> I am a moderator on that site, and the site owner advised moderators of his checking out Anon soon after Anon first started posting.  The questions were about the site owner's own RCI account, but he did not mention the details of the questions.



I always have a problem with second and third hand information.

I believe you were told his bonafides were checked. It stretches me a little further, but I can even accept that site owner did some verification. With a little more stretching I can see how he might have been an employee at RCI with access to account information.

But without knowing that the bonafides support his claims, I cannot take that last step.

Now if the bonafide was "There is a Hawaii in the rental pool now. Can you tell me where it came from" and then you verify that information, then I could believe his statements. 

I do not see the reason to believe everything he says, just because it can be proven that he worked at RCI. He makes some pretty boastful claims...

Could just as easily be RCI trying to draw out any proof that might exist


----------



## Carolinian

There was also a screen shot from RCI's computer posted at TST, and I do not remember if it was by Anon or by one or others who indicated they were RCI employees.  While the screen shot was compressed, Bootleg verifeid on this site that it contained precisely what would be on RCI's computers.  That is additional evidence that posters on TST are what they say they are.


----------



## Carolinian

You also now completely ignore Bootleg.  At least one Tugger has actually talked to him on the phone at RCI.  And he has helped Tuggers with problesms at RCI.  Bootleg confirmed many of the same things as Anon.




ecwinch said:


> I always have a problem with second and third hand information.
> 
> I believe you were told his bonafides were checked. It stretches me a little further, but I can even accept that site owner did some verification. With a little more stretching I can see how he might have been an employee at RCI with access to account information.
> 
> But without knowing that the bonafides support his claims, I cannot take that last step.
> 
> Now if the bonafide was "There is a Hawaii in the rental pool now. Can you tell me where it came from" and then you verify that information, then I could believe his statements.
> 
> I do not see the reason to believe everything he says, just because it can be proven that he worked at RCI. He makes some pretty boastful claims...
> 
> Could just as easily be RCI trying to draw out any proof that might exist


----------



## Jennie

Can someone please provide a link to the archived "Ask RCI" forum--the one where "Madge" answered questions.

Thanks!


----------



## ecwinch

Jennie said:


> Can someone please provide a link to the archived "Ask RCI" forum--the one where "Madge" answered questions.
> 
> Thanks!



I thought the Ask RCI forum on this board when back to 2005.

EDIT: If you click on the last response icon, you only get the sub-forum with Brian's post. You need to click on the forum link. That gets you to the archives.


----------



## Carolinian

I wish we had an archive of all of Bootleg's posts.  He gave straight info, as opposed to Madge's bobbing and weaving.


----------



## MuranoJo

Bootleg gave me some very good advice--not necessarily about RCI rentals, but about logistics for my own trade power, places I wanted to go, etc.  He really did seem to have an 'insiders' view.  And I remember well his piping in on this board.  I'll have to see if I kept any of his messages, but that also wouldn't 'prove' anything.

Edited to add:  Aha!  I did find some old '04 messages from Bootleg.  I'm just not comfortable posting them here right now, and, no, we didn't get into RCI renting deposited weeks, but I did clip a cute comment he made per below:

"If you ever call us and someone says "Might be rainy,
hope you're wearing your boots!" you'll know who's on
the other end! I've surprised a few familiar Tuggers!"

Great guy--very giving and helpful.


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> You also now completely ignore Bootleg.  At least one Tugger has actually talked to him on the phone at RCI.  And he has helped Tuggers with problesms at RCI.  Bootleg confirmed many of the same things as Anon.



No, I was not ignoring Bootleg. I just did not see any information about Bootleg that I had a comment on.

If you re-read my post, you see that I could even agree that he might work at RCI. But his boasts and reports of his sleuth work is what put me off 

Did Bootleg verify Anon's claims about weeks automatically going to the rental inventory even if a open request was on the books for that resort?


----------



## MuranoJo

Jennie said:


> Can someone please provide a link to the archived "Ask RCI" forum--the one where "Madge" answered questions.
> 
> Thanks!



Jennie, if you go way to the bottom of this page, you'll find 'Archives.'  Once in there, you have to scroll down past Exchanging to find archives with Madge.  Here's the link:

http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/archive/index.php/f-31.html


----------



## Carolinian

ecwinch said:


> No, I was not ignoring Bootleg. I just did not see any information about Bootleg that I had a comment on.
> 
> If you re-read my post, you see that I could even agree that he might work at RCI. But his boasts and reports of his sleuth work is what put me off
> 
> Did Bootleg verify Anon's claims about weeks automatically going to the rental inventory even if a open request was on the books for that resort?



Yes.  He initially privately emailed a Tugger that he doubted Anon's findings, then did some checking on his own RCI computer and quickly reversed his opinion.  He allowed that Tugger to post his communication that confirmed what Anon was saying.  Bootleg subsequently posted under his own handle about his findings as to prime weeks deposited for exchange that had nothing to do with cruises, points, or anything else, that were immediately placed into the rental pool.

Here is a thread where Bootleg, a few posts down, discusses the rental pool and where it comes from:

www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1021


----------



## Jennie

Keep in mind that during the recent Federal Court "fairness hearing," RCI made no secret of the fact that they rent weeks that have been deposited into the space-bank. They gave what I consider to be a concocted reason for doing so--their "business model" requires flexibility due to situations such as the downturn in the economy, terrorism, gas price increases, etc... In response, the Judge made what seemed to be a sarcastic remark--something to the effect of "What does the price of gas have to do with it?" 

The RCI attorneys maintain that RCI  has the absolute right to rent deposited weeks because of a clause buried in fine print in the back of the annual RCI book under "Terms and Conditions" of membership. If this lawsuit does nothing more than make sure that RCI Weeks members become fully aware of this, it will have served a very useful purpose. Of course, the hope is that it will accomplish much more.

One of the changes that is supposed to be made, if the proposed settlement is approved, is that RCI will not remove more deposited weeks than the number they replace from other sources. Apparently they have been removing more weeks than they have replaced, otherwise why the need to spell this out in the agreement. Our stand is: Do whatever you want with the weeks you obtain from other sources but leave our deposited weeks in the spacebank, for exchange only with other members. 

Since this company has been operating with impunity, with no impartial oversight, I don't see how anyone can doubt that RCI is renting weeks that members believed were being deposited for exchange to other members, and that RCI would generally choose the "cream of the crop" to increase their profit.

Even someone born in Missouri  should not need verification from an RCI insider to accept this as a fact.


----------



## Carolinian

And as Bootleg points out, it is the PRIME weeks that RCI is removing for rental.  One wonders what they are replacing them with, if anything.  RCI also says that they replace weeks removed from Weeks to give to Points members but refuses to say what they are giving back.  Anon says that, in fact, they give nothing back.

And if, at appears to be the case, the self-interested plaintiffs attorneys did not even do any discovery on the merits of the case, do they have any proof other than RCI's own claims or admissions, as to what is REALLY going on?  Settling a case without doing substantial discovery on the merits of the case, would IMHO be malpractice.  How could they possibly know how strong a case they had without discovery on the merits?




Jennie said:


> Keep in mind that during the recent Federal Court "fairness hearing," RCI made no secret of the fact that they rent weeks that have been deposited into the space-bank. They gave what I consider to be a concocted reason for doing so--their "business model" requires flexibility due to situations such as the downturn in the economy, terrorism, gas price increases, etc... In response, the Judge made what seemed to be a sarcastic remark--something to the effect of "What does the price of gas have to do with it?"
> 
> The RCI attorneys maintain that RCI  has the absolute right to rent deposited weeks because of a clause buried in fine print in the back of the annual RCI book under "Terms and Conditions" of membership. If this lawsuit does nothing more than make sure that RCI Weeks members become fully aware of this, it will have served a very useful purpose. Of course, the hope is that it will accomplish much more.
> 
> One of the changes that is supposed to be made, if the proposed settlement is approved, is that RCI will not remove more deposited weeks than the number they replace from other sources. Apparently they have been removing more weeks than they have replaced, otherwise why the need to spell this out in the agreement. Our stand is: Do whatever you want with the weeks you obtain from other sources but leave our deposited weeks in the spacebank, for exchange only with other members.
> 
> Since this company has been operating with impunity, with no impartial oversight, I don't see how anyone can doubt that RCI is renting weeks that members believed were being deposited for exchange to other members, and that RCI would generally choose the "cream of the crop" to increase their profit.
> 
> Even someone born in Missouri  should not need verification from an RCI insider to accept this as a fact.


----------



## ecwinch

Jennie said:


> One of the changes that is supposed to be made, if the proposed settlement is approved, is that RCI will not remove more deposited weeks than the number they replace from other sources. Apparently they have been removing more weeks than they have replaced, otherwise why the need to spell this out in the agreement. Our stand is: Do whatever you want with the weeks you obtain from other sources but leave our deposited weeks in the spacebank, for exchange only with other members.
> 
> Even someone born in Missouri  should not need verification from an RCI insider to accept this as a fact.



Just for clarification, I was born in Montana. But I am so insistent on seeing the actual evidence and not relying on heresay, that I say I was conceived when my parents spent the night in Missouri.

I was not doubting that RCI rents out weeks. You interpreted my comment out of context. I was questioning the bonafides of Anon.

On a side note, I always do like to hear your first hand observations of the RCI hearing. 

And I think the 1 out, 1 in rule will hurt members, especially with regard to last minute rentals. Given the low price of those weeks, it would almost benefit RCI to not make them available for rental and to let the week go to waste. Particularly if they have to replace them. I think they should be excluded. But maybe there is some aspects of that provision that I am missing. 
Thanks


----------



## PerryM

*Move on folks...*

This thread started June 18, 2009 and what has been accomplished - nothing that I can see.

All of we RCI and RCI Points members have had an alternative to RCI for years now - the RedWeek Point exchange system.  Granted that system is running on fumes but if all the folks here so bent out of shape just started using an alternative to RCI and quit RCI then RCI would listen - or at least the stockholders who eventually get revenue from RCI would start bellyaching.

Move on folks; this battle benefits just the lawyers and courts - they win no matter who wins or loses.

So just quit RCI and use RedWeek or band together and form your own exchange company.   That would be something you control 100% instead of 1% as with the current litigation.

If you haven't approached your HOA and asked them to drop RCI and move to another exchange company you are spending energy in the wrong place.


----------



## Carolinian

Eric, did you get a chance to read the thread with Bootleg's comments?  As he points out, it is not that hard to look up for an RCI employee with access to their computers.





ecwinch said:


> Just for clarification, I was born in Montana. But I am so insistent on seeing the actual evidence and not relying on heresay, that I say I was conceived when my parents spent the night in Missouri.
> 
> I was not doubting that RCI rents out weeks. You interpreted my comment out of context. I was questioning the bonafides of Anon.
> 
> On a side note, I always do like to hear your first hand observations of the RCI hearing.
> 
> And I think the 1 out, 1 in rule will hurt members, especially with regard to last minute rentals. Given the low price of those weeks, it would almost benefit RCI to not make them available for rental and to let the week go to waste. Particularly if they have to replace them. I think they should be excluded. But maybe there is some aspects of that provision that I am missing.
> Thanks


----------



## Carolinian

Perry, while I agree with you on the need for Tuggers to become proactive and encourage their resorts to dual affiliate with II and spread the word on the independents, I think you are too pessimistic about the chances of the lawsuit.  The judge seems to be listening and there are now voices for timesharers who cannot be bought off like the original ''plaintiff's attorneys'' were.

Big companies can be backed down from their anti-consumer policies by customer activism.  One successful one that I was involved in myself was the Save Sky Miles campaign ( www.saveskymiles.com ) at Delta.




PerryM said:


> This thread started June 18, 2009 and what has been accomplished - nothing that I can see.
> 
> All of we RCI and RCI Points members have had an alternative to RCI for years now - the RedWeek Point exchange system.  Granted that system is running on fumes but if all the folks here so bent out of shape just started using an alternative to RCI and quit RCI then RCI would listen - or at least the stockholders who eventually get revenue from RCI would start bellyaching.
> 
> Move on folks; this battle benefits just the lawyers and courts - they win no matter who wins or loses.
> 
> So just quit RCI and use RedWeek or band together and form your own exchange company.   That would be something you control 100% instead of 1% as with the current litigation.
> 
> If you haven't approached your HOA and asked them to drop RCI and move to another exchange company you are spending energy in the wrong place.


----------



## PerryM

Carolinian said:


> Perry, while I agree with you on the need for Tuggers to become proactive and encourage their resorts to dual affiliate with II and spread the word on the independents, I think you are too pessimistic about the chances of the lawsuit.  The judge seems to be listening and there are now voices for timesharers who cannot be bought off like the original ''plaintiff's attorneys'' were.
> 
> Big companies can be backed down from their anti-consumer policies by customer activism.  One successful one that I was involved in myself was the Save Sky Miles campaign ( www.saveskymiles.com ) at Delta.



The outcome of this and any other legal dispute is out of our control - that judge decides.

There are alternatives to RCI and those who fight RCI have decided to bypass the alternatives and instead put their faith in one person's decision, or a bunch of folks who were Shanghaied into servitude in a court system that threatened them if they didn't conform.

Win or lose this long battle and you could have been exchanging in RedWeek and a host of other places.

That's all I'm saying.


----------



## e.bram

If Redweek let you search first like II I would join.


----------



## PerryM

e.bram said:


> If Redweek let you search first like II I would join.



RedWeek needs a good kick in the pants - they have for years now.

If the energy that went into complaining about RCI went towards moving away from RCI to RedWeek I'd bet a few kicks would get RedWeek to spend a few bucks and make a better exchange system.

That, to me, seems better than putting faith in our court system and lots of lawyers.


----------



## thheath

PerryM said:


> RedWeek needs a good kick in the pants - they have for years now.
> 
> If the energy that went into complaining about RCI went towards moving away from RCI to RedWeek I'd bet a few kicks would get RedWeek to spend a few bucks and make a better exchange system.
> 
> That, to me, seems better than putting faith in our court system and lots of lawyers.



Do you have something constructive to say, if so please say it?


----------



## PerryM

thheath said:


> Do you have something constructive to say, if so please say it?



I just did - many here wallow in "RCI derangement syndrome".

The ONLY outcome will be fat cat lawyers on both sides of this struggle.

And you all know who will pay for all of this right?  You don't think for a second that RCI or their stockholders is going to pay for any of this do you?

Quit RCI is my advice and go on vacation - use other exchange companies for enjoyment.

But I am no longer a member of RCI - went elsewhere just like I suggest.


----------



## Carolinian

The part you ignore, Perry, is resort economics.  Having spent seven years on an HOA BOD, these ARE issues that concern me.  One individual's exchanging problem is not the most important thing.  On the contrary, it is member bailout of resorts' members who primarily exchange.  That can hurt all members, even the exchangers who go elsewhere and own-to-use members.  Bailout means rising m/f's, which means more bailouts and evener higher m/f's.  This can turn into a death spiral for a resort if not brought under control.

Generally, as a resort matures, the number of exchanger members gradually declines and a bigger proportion of the membership base are own-to-use.  These resorts are probably better positioned to resist the impact of RCI kicking the props out from under exchanging as people have known it.  But even they are not immune.  Members who primarily exchange still make up almost 30% of the membership base of older OBX resorts, for example.  A rapid pace departure of these people could still be a financial disaster for the resorts.

One of the problems is that most timesharers do NOT know that they have alternatives to RCI unless they are in a resort dual affiliated with II.  HOA's need to recognize that it is very much in their self-interest to 1) widely advertise the alternatives such as independents, and 2) create a further alternative by dual affiliation with II.  Members need to actively press their HOA's on these issues.  One reason that is necessary is that the most likely profile of an HOA board member is an own-to-use member, who doesn't know much about exchanging or care very much.  Many management companies are either in the dark on some of these issues or have some misguided loyalty to RCI.

I agree with Perry that we need to be proactive in getting our resorts to defend themselves against RCI's onslaught through making availible info on alternatives.  However, the threat to timesharing is so great, we need a multi-pronged response, and pushing the lawsuit just as far as it can be pushed for members benefit is a critical part of that multi-pronged approach.

Another thing that smart HOA's are doing is actively focusing on own to use groups on resales.  RCI has made depending on exchanger-members something like building on quicksand.  A number of OBX resorts actively target such groups, such as OBBC I and II with locals interested in using the facilities yearround, Seascape with golfers thaniks to their golf course next door, or Ocean Villas with duck hunters.  Given the uncertainly RCI has created about the future of exchanging, it is groups like these that should be the primary target of HOA resales.


----------



## PerryM

*Blood sports*



Carolinian said:


> The part you ignore, Perry, is resort economics.  Having spent seven years on an HOA BOD, these ARE issues that concern me.  One individual's exchanging problem is not the most important thing.  On the contrary, it is member bailout of resorts' members who primarily exchange.  That can hurt all members, even the exchangers who go elsewhere and own-to-use members.  Bailout means rising m/f's, which means more bailouts and evener higher m/f's.  This can turn into a death spiral for a resort if not brought under control.
> 
> Generally, as a resort matures, the number of exchanger members gradually declines and a bigger proportion of the membership base are own-to-use.  These resorts are probably better positioned to resist the impact of RCI kicking the props out from under exchanging as people have known it.  But even they are not immune.  Members who primarily exchange still make up almost 30% of the membership base of older OBX resorts, for example.  A rapid pace departure of these people could still be a financial disaster for the resorts.
> 
> One of the problems is that most timesharers do NOT know that they have alternatives to RCI unless they are in a resort dual affiliated with II.  HOA's need to recognize that it is very much in their self-interest to 1) widely advertise the alternatives such as independents, and 2) create a further alternative by dual affiliation with II.  Members need to actively press their HOA's on these issues.  One reason that is necessary is that the most likely profile of an HOA board member is an own-to-use member, who doesn't know much about exchanging or care very much.  Many management companies are either in the dark on some of these issues or have some misguided loyalty to RCI.
> 
> I agree with Perry that we need to be proactive in getting our resorts to defend themselves against RCI's onslaught through making availible info on alternatives.  However, the threat to timesharing is so great, we need a multi-pronged response, and pushing the lawsuit just as far as it can be pushed for members benefit is a critical part of that multi-pronged approach.
> 
> Another thing that smart HOA's are doing is actively focusing on own to use groups on resales.  RCI has made depending on exchanger-members something like building on quicksand.  A number of OBX resorts actively target such groups, such as OBBC I and II with locals interested in using the facilities yearround, Seascape with golfers thaniks to their golf course next door, or Ocean Villas with duck hunters.  Given the uncertainly RCI has created about the future of exchanging, it is groups like these that should be the primary target of HOA resales.



The HOA should have already set up relations with multiple exchange companies - if not why not?  Sure if the developer is still building I understand that the developer is still running the place.

I understand the politics of HOA's - that's your problem and not RCIs or IIs or anyone else but the owners of the resort.

In the mean time quit RCI and use RedWeek or other exchange companies that don't require your resort's approval.

This is the correct way to tackle this problem - more competition.

The wrong approach is to assume that a court has the brains to understand the problem and do the right thing.  This approach ignores competition and relies on big government - a losing proposition in the long run.

Now if you enjoy this kind of blood sport then have at it...

P.S.
When faced with jury duty a few years ago I sent an eMail to the clerk of the federal court and asked just how accurate the court was - out of 100 decisions how many were eventually overturned or vacated.  This would have a tremendous influence on my verdict and the burden of proof the prosecution had to compile.

Never heard back and got an eMail releasing me from jury duty.

Assume the lawsuit is correct, just how accurate an outcome can you guys expect?  Don't put your faith in a highly flawed system - just dump RCI and go on vacation.


----------



## thheath

PerryM said:


> P.S.
> When faced with jury duty a few years ago I sent an eMail to the clerk of the federal court and asked just how accurate the court was - out of 100 decisions how many were eventually overturned or vacated.  This would have a tremendous influence on my verdict and the burden of proof the prosecution had to compile.
> 
> Never heard back and got an eMail releasing me from jury duty.



In my opinion that doesn't say much for your character.

The lawsuit is about to run it's course, let it go.


----------



## Carolinian

Just the relatively small percentage of informed timesharers jumping ship from RCI to other exchange companies does not help the problem much, Perry.  Your suggestion of working within HOA's is much more proactive than that of burying our heads in the sand.  The HOA's for their own self interest need to be migrating their members who exchange to other exchange platforms, but with the profiles of people who often sit on the boards of HOA's, namely own-to-use members, the HOA's need active encouragement by informed exchanger members to take the necessary actions.  We all need to be proactive in this regard.  We need to push the lawsuit, too.  Among other things, it helps get more people informed.


----------



## PerryM

thheath said:


> In my opinion that doesn't say much for your character.
> 
> The lawsuit is about to run it's course, let it go.



I use the same logic when I need a doctor or a family member must use a hospital - the statistics are available for anyone to view.  I always use the doctor and hospital that kill the fewest patients.

Our court system needs those same statistics - just how accurate are they?  They routinely order the killing of fellow citizens and all kinds of punishment of imprisonment and financial ruin.

Just asked the court how accurate they are in what they do; they didn't reply - what a surprise. 

Relying on the judge or jurors for your vacation enjoyment is not how I solved my RCI problem - I went elsewhere.  I recommend others do likewise.

I seriously doubt that your vacations will improve with any ruling from a less than perfect court system.


----------



## PerryM

Carolinian said:


> Just the relatively small percentage of informed timesharers jumping ship from RCI to other exchange companies does not help the problem much, Perry.  Your suggestion of working within HOA's is much more proactive than that of burying our heads in the sand.  The HOA's for their own self interest need to be migrating their members who exchange to other exchange platforms, but with the profiles of people who often sit on the boards of HOA's, namely own-to-use members, the HOA's need active encouragement by informed exchanger members to take the necessary actions.  We all need to be proactive in this regard.  We need to push the lawsuit, too.  Among other things, it helps get more people informed.



We will see after the ruling - how many here will get better vacations?

My guess is that few, if any, will be able to track back a better vacation by what a court rules.

Just take your business elsewhere and have your HOA work on getting associated with more exchange companies.

That's how you solve the RCI problem - not fighting them in court.  Only the lawyers win when you do that.


----------



## Marvin

PerryM said:


> I use the same logic when I need a doctor or a family member must use a hospital - the statistics are available for anyone to view.  I always use the doctor and hospital that kill the fewest patients.
> 
> Our court system needs those same statistics - just how accurate are they?  They routinely order the killing of fellow citizens and all kinds of punishment of imprisonment and financial ruin.
> 
> Just asked the court how accurate they are in what they do; they didn't reply - what a surprise.
> 
> Relying on the judge or jurors for your vacation enjoyment is not how I solved my RCI problem - I went elsewhere.  I recommend others do likewise.
> 
> I seriously doubt that your vacations will improve with any ruling from a less than perfect court system.






PerryM, if you truly have no interest in this class action suit, why do you follow it so closely??


----------



## PerryM

Marvin said:


> PerryM, if you truly have no interest in this class action suit, why do you follow it so closely??



Gee, why would I not throw a life perserver to a person flailing for their life?

This RCI topic has been going on for years now - RCI sucks and we will make it better.

It's not your job to make RCI better folks - either use them as they are or use a competitor.

There are plenty of competitors out there even if your HOA doesn't want to find them.  Ideally they would join many exchange companies - the more the merrier.

Too many here are not going on vacation but getting their entertainment from fighting RCI.  Is that really what timeshare ownership is all about?  Fighting RCI in court?

I've given this advice for 2 or 3 years now - occasionally drop by to watch the same old hate speech and give the same advice - go on vacation and enjoy timeshare ownership.


----------



## thheath

I don't have a dog in this fight (I think that is how it goes) but no matter how it turns out RCI will think twice before enacting additional polices that are harmful to TS owners.  Even if the current TS owners get nothing RCI will be out millions.  I think that will get the management and stock holders attention.

Allowing RCI to go unchallenged is definitely not the answer.


----------



## PerryM

thheath said:


> I don't have a dog in this fight (I think that is how it goes) but no matter how it turns out RCI will think twice before enacting additional polices that are harmful to TS owners.  Even if the current TS owners get nothing RCI will be out millions.  I think that will get the management and stock holders attention.
> 
> Allowing RCI to go unchallenged is definitely not the answer.



I don't think they care about this lawsuit at all - if they lose they will appeal and if the finally lose they will simply go about their business and pass all the costs to the RCI members.

RCI is completely voluntary and you all signed an agreement that lets RCI do anything they want and change the rules any way they want.

There is no way they fear a court meddling in their business - they are too smart and move too fast for any court to have a long term impact on their business.

These are business practices that a court is asked to get involved with - and no one put a gun to any person when they signed up with RCI.  I sure don't think they are sloppy and broke any laws - their way of just interpreting their own rules.  Of course 100 lawyers will read them 100 different ways; they are not managers of RCI.

Again folks, this is no big deal - plenty of alternatives exist.


----------



## e.bram

1. I think in Wyndham managed resorts the BOD might get some perks from them to keep only RCI because they a tied together.
2. I was thinking of using RW but they have virtually no TS exchange availability within reasonable driving distance from Northen NJ where I live.(incedentally, somehow I got a free membership)


----------



## e.bram

1. I think in Wyndham managed resorts the BOD might get some perks from them to keep only RCI because they a tied together corporately.
2. I was thinking of using RW but they have virtually no TS exchange availability within reasonable driving distance from Northen NJ where I live.(incedentally, somehow I got a free membership)


----------



## Jennie

e.bram said:


> I was thinking of using RW but they have virtually no TS exchange availability within reasonable driving distance from Northen NJ where I live.(incedentally, somehow I got a free membership)



No matter what happens ultimately with the lawsuit, the "Objectors" provided enough information to convince the Judge that RCI members did not receive adequate notice and information about the issues involved. RCI is now being required, at their expense, to send a better notice to the 1.6 million Weeks members. 

The Judge has already ruled that the notice previously placed on page 94 of the Endless Vacations magazine (which personally I never bother reading) was not enough. Now RCI is proposing to insert a 4x6" tear off postcard in the same magazine. I have no idea what the plaintiffs attorneys (who brought the lawsuit) will recommend. The "Objectors" are trying to advocate for much better notice. We'll see what the Judge orders.

But in any event, we hope that this notice will be read by more RCI members, and that various timeshare groups across the country will get the word out. RCI is no longer denying that they take deposited weeks out of the spacebank and rent them to the general public for profit. They assert that they have the legal right to do it. 

TUG members are savvy and know this practice exists. But the average timeshare owner has no clue. Once this info reaches them, and articles are written informing them of the other exchange companies available, there will hopefully be an exodus of enough of them to get RCI's attention, and hopefully bring more weeks to Redweek, Dial-an-Exhange, Trading Places, San Francisco Exchange, and the other alternative exchange companies, if RCI doesn't make substantive changes in the way they handle deposits and exchanges.


----------



## Carolinian

Perry, you clearly don't seem to understand consumer protection statutes.  The test is not whether a company follows its own rules, but whether their acts or practices are ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.  Hiding things in fine print that are inconsistent with the way they otherwise portray themselves is certainly deceptive.  Embezzling members' exchange deposits to rent out for their own benefit is certainly unfair.

''Their rules'' are not something that automatically protect them.  On the contrary, they may be a big part of the evidence of their violation of consumer protection law.





PerryM said:


> I don't think they care about this lawsuit at all - if they lose they will appeal and if the finally lose they will simply go about their business and pass all the costs to the RCI members.
> 
> RCI is completely voluntary and you all signed an agreement that lets RCI do anything they want and change the rules any way they want.
> 
> There is no way they fear a court meddling in their business - they are too smart and move too fast for any court to have a long term impact on their business.
> 
> These are business practices that a court is asked to get involved with - and no one put a gun to any person when they signed up with RCI.  I sure don't think they are sloppy and broke any laws - their way of just interpreting their own rules.  Of course 100 lawyers will read them 100 different ways; they are not managers of RCI.
> 
> Again folks, this is no big deal - plenty of alternatives exist.


----------



## PerryM

*Watch where you step...*



Jennie said:


> No matter what happens ultimately with the lawsuit, the "Objectors" provided enough information to convince the Judge that RCI members did not receive adequate notice and information about the issues involved. *RCI is now being required, at their expense, to send a better notice to the 1.6 million Weeks members*.
> 
> The Judge has already ruled that the notice previously placed on page 94 of the Endless Vacations magazine (which personally I never bother reading) was not enough. *Now RCI is proposing to insert a 4x6" tear off postcard in the same magazine.* I have no idea what the plaintiffs attorneys (who brought the lawsuit) will recommend. The "Objectors" are trying to advocate for much better notice. We'll see what the Judge orders.
> 
> But in any event, we hope that this notice will be read by more RCI members, and that various timeshare groups across the country will get the word out. RCI is no longer denying that they take deposited weeks out of the spacebank and rent them to the general public for profit. They assert that they have the legal right to do it.
> 
> TUG members are savvy and know this practice exists. But the average timeshare owner has no clue. Once this info reaches them, and articles are written informing them of the other exchange companies available, there will hopefully be an exodus of enough of them to get RCI's attention, and hopefully bring more weeks to Redweek, Dial-an-Exhange, Trading Places, San Francisco Exchange, and the other alternative exchange companies, if RCI doesn't make substantive changes in the way they handle deposits and exchanges.



Sounds like a 4" X 6" piece of paper is the solution.....

All this over a 4x6 piece of paper?

Give me a break.

This has got to be a form of entertainment to those all worked up over this matter.

This is no expense to RCI - they will simply raise their fee $1 to cover this and make a profit.

This is like saying that companies pay taxes - they pass that expense on to the consumer.

Guys; go on vacation - use another exchange company - nobody is holding a gun to your heads in this matter.  You guys are just wound up too much over this; no matter the outcome.

I'll ask the question again "How is this going to make your next vacation better?"

The simple answer is you don't know - you can guess but there is no definitive way to know if RCI has installed a new secret policy to do something else that you guys object to later.

P.S.

Companies are just a pile of legal paperwork in a file folder - it doesn't have a soul, it doesn't vote, it doesn't pay taxes, it doesn't enjoy anything, and it certainly doesn't fear a single thing.

It's a pile of papers like a pile of dog poop.


----------



## Carolinian

Perry, there were Delta passengers just like you who tried to pooh-pooh the www.saveskymiles.com campaign and US Airways passengers who tried to pooh-pooh the efforts of the self-styled ''cockroaches'' at that airline.  They said it was a waste of time, and nobody would get anywhere against a big and mighty airline.  But guess what?  The pooh-poohers were simply wrong!  Both of those campaigns backed those airlines down on their anti-customers moves in their ff programs.  The cockroaches beat back US in a matter of weeks while the DL campaign took a couple of years before it succeeded.

If you don't have the backbone to get involved, don't sit back and criticize those who do.


----------



## PerryM

*Hang 'em high...*



Carolinian said:


> Perry, there were Delta passengers just like you who tried to pooh-pooh the www.saveskymiles.com campaign and US Airways passengers who tried to pooh-pooh the efforts of the self-styled ''cockroaches'' at that airline.  They said it was a waste of time, and nobody would get anywhere against a big and mighty airline.  But guess what?  The pooh-poohers were simply wrong!  Both of those campaigns backed those airlines down on their anti-customers moves in their ff programs.  The cockroaches beat back US in a matter of weeks while the DL campaign took a couple of years before it succeeded.
> 
> If you don't have the backbone to get involved, don't sit back and criticize those who do.



I am simply asking all those folks here, worked up to a lather, "How is this going make your vacations better" - some real examples.

If you guys can't come up with real examples - like you now will get that dream vacation condo, then what is this fight really over?

The coupons you were offered are going to make your next vacation better?

Folks, you can't hurt a company - its impossible; it isn't flesh and blood; it exists in a file folder.

If you want to take revenge against the stock holders just what did they ever do to you?  The mutual funds that own them - the retired folks that own them - what did they ever do to you?

If you want to take revenge against the employees in the company, the mentally challenged guy in the mail room, just how is that going to make your vacation better?

This lawsuit is all about making the lawyers rich - all of them on both sides.  That's going to make your next vacation better?

You simply got caught up in all the lynch mob mentality that the lawyers create to win their side of the argument - don't fall for it - enjoy your life and quit RCI and find an alternative.  You control this situation, not RCI.

All of this reminds me of those TV shows where the wife is beat around by the husband but she can't leave him.  Just leave RCI; I did.


----------



## Carolinian

Perry, why is it that YOU work YOURSELF up into such a lather - and this is hardly the first time - trying to get people to lay off poor 'ole misunderstood RCI?

If we can force them to operate in an honest manner, then certainly that helps get better vacations for those still using RCI.  Your attitude, is ''just accept that trade in Orlando in hurricane season or Cape Cod in January and quit fussing about the decent and equitable trades you used to get. Those are for renters now, and thats RCI's business''


----------



## timeos2

*You hold the key and it will save not cost you mney*



Carolinian said:


> Perry, there were Delta passengers just like you who tried to pooh-pooh the www.saveskymiles.com campaign and US Airways passengers who tried to pooh-pooh the efforts of the self-styled ''cockroaches'' at that airline.  They said it was a waste of time, and nobody would get anywhere against a big and mighty airline.  But guess what?  The pooh-poohers were simply wrong!  Both of those campaigns backed those airlines down on their anti-customers moves in their ff programs.  The cockroaches beat back US in a matter of weeks while the DL campaign took a couple of years before it succeeded.
> 
> If you don't have the backbone to get involved, don't sit back and criticize those who do.



And what was the bottom line result? Has Delta become the user friendly, better "perk" airline the "win" anticipated? No? What happened? Has the "victory" turned sour as other changes - many conceivably due to unsustainable level of "perks" - changed the airline for the worse? 

It is tough to impossible to force a business to act as YOU wish it would. The best road is using - thus rewarding- those that meet or exceed your expectations and punish - DON'T USE - those that fall short. If they fail to meet enough expectations then they will change or die no lawsuits or overpaid shysters needed. To blindly ignore what they are doing - especially if it's allegedly causing you personal loss of value - and continue to give them business with the faint hope that a lawsuit or two will somehow correct the situation  is the height of lunacy.  Take the steps to protect yourself/your resort/business by ending your dealings with the culprits Then, if you wish to stay involved, support any other processes you feel will help. But the number one key is HELP YOURSELF especially when the answer is SO obvious. DON'T DO BUSINESS WITH THOSE YOU THINK ARE RIPPING YOU OFF!

I was a top tier US Air traveler for many years and used to purposely route trips to take full advantage of that status and to maintain it. But the negative changes they made in routing, perks, pricing and more made me abandon them for all but the few cases where they offered a direct vs multi-stop flight and/or a better price. That means the vast majority of my flights moved to more competitive airlines such as Jet Blue & Air Tran. Problem solved. And US Air is paying the price in lost business not just from my limited use but from many who have made the same type of "do whats best" choices.  If they go under, as is often rumored, they earned it. No lawsuit required.  

Problem, for you, solved.


----------



## PerryM

Carolinian said:


> Perry, why is it that YOU work YOURSELF up into such a lather - and this is hardly the first time - trying to get people to lay off poor 'ole misunderstood RCI?
> 
> If we can force them to operate in an honest manner, then certainly that helps get better vacations for those still using RCI.  Your attitude, is ''just accept that trade in Orlando in hurricane season or Cape Cod in January and quit fussing about the decent and equitable trades you used to get. Those are for renters now, and thats RCI's business''



I'm not defending RCI - I left RCI.

That's my recommendation to all those think RCI is pond scum.

Participating in this lawsuit is simply a waste of time and just makes more lawyers richer.

If you dump RCI then the lawsuit means nothing.

You watch folks - the outcome of all of this won't improve your life one bit; unless this is just entertainment and then it's a barrel of monkeys.


----------



## thheath

Perry, your postings are in effect hijacking this important thread and diluting the subject.  

Do everyone a favor, let it go and not post.


----------



## PerryM

thheath said:


> Perry, your postings are in effect hijacking this important thread and diluting the subject.
> 
> Do everyone a favor, let it go and not post.



So free speech and a healthy debate are not welcomed by RCI haters?

Ok, I've said what I've been saying for years now.

You guys watch the outcome and see if your vacations improve.

As details enfold I will comment and try to instill some sanity into this insanity.


----------



## Carolinian

Perry, your analysis is on the micro rather than macro level.  An informed timesharer can certainly improve his own vacations by switching to II or SFX or DAE or Redweek or others or some combination. The problem is that the percentage of timesharers informed enough to do that is relatively small, so we would just be burying our heads in the sand.

On the macro level, what RCI is doing is changing the whole chemistry of timesharing.  Unless our resorts are savvy and able to adjust, and many of them will not see it coming, they are going to get squahed, and that impacts our vacations, too!  If our m/f's skyrocket as a result of bailouts or our resorts go under, that impacts us a lot more than getting a crummier week for our exchange.  And the small percentage of imformed timesharers just picking another exchange company is not going to ward off that problem.

RCI's shananigans are already impacting resorts in terms of bailouts, and it can only get worse.  One of the big pluses that may come out of getting better notice is that HOA's might start wising up.  That is still a major slog, though, because it is own-to-use members who tend to dominate HOA boards they and they usually do not pay that much attention to exchanging.
That is why we need to be proactive and push our HOA to try to migrate exchanger owners to other, more owner-friendly exchange systems.

I'm afraid, Perry, that you cannot see the forest for the trees.


----------



## Jennie

HELLO?!  Perry.

Please read my post #241 above.

The *average* RCI Weeks member (many of whom bought their weeks 15-25 years ago and are now senior citizens) have no idea RCI is renting space-banked weeks. Many of them are not on the Internet. How do you propose to get your "dump RCI" message out to them?

The 4x6 postcard to be placed in EV Magazine is RCI's attorneys suggestion to the Court as to how the re-notice should be sent. This to the same Judge who ruled that their first notice in EV Magazine was insufficient. I think the Judge must be outraged by their current proposal. The "Objectors" and hopefully the plaintiff's attorneys, who are *supposed* to be representing the RCI Weeks members, are asking for much more. We want all RCI members to be fully aware of what RCI is doing with deposited weeks, and what their options are, including taking their business elsewhere.


----------



## thheath

You guys are just enabling Perry; there is nothing you can say that will make sense to him.  Don't respond to his posts, he's already hijacked the thread.


----------



## PerryM

Jennie said:


> HELLO?!  Perry.
> 
> Please read my post #242 above.
> 
> The *average* RCI Weeks member (many of whom bought their weeks 15-25 years ago and are now senior citizens) *have no idea RCI is renting space-banked weeks*. Many of them are not on the Internet. How do you propose to get your "dump RCI" message out to them?
> 
> The 4x6 postcard to be placed in EV Magazine is RCI's attorneys suggestion to the Court as to how the re-notice should be sent. This to the same Judge who ruled that their first notice in EV Magazine was insufficient. I think the Judge must be outraged by their current proposal. The "Objectors" and hopefully the plaintiff's attorneys, who are *supposed* to be representing the RCI Weeks members, are asking for much more. We want all RCI members to be fully aware of what RCI is doing with deposited weeks, and what their options are, including taking their business elsewhere.



Must not be much a problem if the vast majority of RCI members don't see anything wrong.  If the vast majority of RCI members are happy with RCI who are you to tell them that they are schmucks?

Hard to educate and convince them to join a lynch mob to hang RCI.  Best of luck.  Somebody alert me when anyone here can attribute a better RCI exchange to the lawyers.

I've been involved with 10+ class action lawsuits over the years - the average coupon is $25 and the lawyers made millions.  I join them if we receive a letter and we just sign and wait for our coupon.  Takes 1 minute of my time.

So enjoy your coupon...


----------



## TUGBrian

enough of the bickering, if you dont have something useful to say...please dont bother saying it.


----------



## PerryM

oops I'll bow out now.


----------



## e.bram

If the suit does nothing more than inhibit the way Wyndham and other developers for touting RCI agressively as way of exchanging any TS(the one being sold at the presentation) for any other TS any time and handing out the RCI book as a sales too,l it will have accomplished is purpose. Anything else will be icing on the cake.


----------



## MuranoJo

e.bram said:


> If the suit does nothing more than inhibit the way Wyndham and other developers for touting RCI agressively as way of exchanging any TS(the one being sold at the presentation) for any other TS any time and handing out the RCI book as a sales too,l it will have accomplished is purpose. Anything else will be icing on the cake.



Amen!
Any TS, including any TS anywhere in the world.


----------



## kirby2000

Thanks Jennie for what you have done. I had never heard of the Class Act Suit before tonight -- a little behind the curve, huh. At least now when I get my Endless Vacations magazine I will look for the 4x6 card. 

I never have any success trading for decent resorts during decent weeks and now I know why....RCI is renting them out instead of allowing members to exchange for them! I always suspected as much....

My story is long and complicated.  The quick version: when my parents passed away I was advised to put the deeds in my name while I was the Power of Attorney and closing out the estate -- now I cannot get rid of them and I have to pay the maintenance fees every year. I have about six weeks spacebanked and I can't remember how many weeks I have let expire. In other posts I see advice to list them here on TUG and maybe I'll try that next. Quick question to people that have defaulted by not paying maintenance fees - what happens? I am considering this option when December/January rolls back around. Thanks in advance for your thoughts and sharing experiences.


----------



## cancun dish

Just out of curiousity where/when do you own and where have you tried to go?


----------



## Talent312

kirby2000 said:


> Quick question to people that have defaulted by not paying maintenance fees - what happens? I am considering this option when December/January rolls back around.



Not that I have personal experience, but most likley, the HOA will...
(a) Turn the debt over to a collections agency who will hound you;
(b) Sue you to obtain a judgment for foreclosure & deficiency; and
(c) Report the default to credit reporting agencies, which will impair your ability to open bank accounts, obtain credit cards or other loans, lease apartments or cars, and increase your insurance premiums.
--- Better to list the TS's on ebay for $1 and offer to pay closing costs (IMHO).


----------



## PerryM

Talent312 said:


> Not that I have personal experience, but most likley, the HOA will...
> (a) Turn the debt over to a collections agency who will hound you;
> (b) Sue you to obtain a judgment for foreclosure & deficiency; and
> (c) Report the default to credit reporting agencies, which will impair your ability to open bank accounts, obtain credit cards or other loans, lease apartments or cars, and increase your insurance premiums.
> --- Better to list the TS's on ebay for $1 and *offer to pay closing costs (IMHO).*



$1 eBay timeshares are too expensive as the real estate market implodes - demanding the seller pay closing costs and including a week of usage should be the buyer's strategy.

We have arrived at that time of the year where owners face the huge problem of trying to pay next years MFs expect great bargains on eBay and elsewhere - but don't pay $1, make the seller pay you to unload their burden.

You sellers must realize that thousands of other folks are dumping their timeshares this time of the year and you are competing against them and it really boils down to this is a buyer's market and not a seller's market - good luck.

I know that many here are hurting but this is reality talking - selling in Q2 of 2010 will probably get you a better deal - but that's assuming the real estate market has some kind of recovery in the mean time.  That may be wishful thinking.

But whatever you do don't walk away from those MFs - they will not go away but metastasize into something much worse.


----------



## kirby2000

cancun dish said:


> Just out of curiousity where/when do you own and where have you tried to go?



I own weeks 10 and 16 at The Historic Powhatan Resort (RCI #1046) in Williamsburg, VA, both are A&B lockout units. I've tried many times in the past (several years running) to find a unit at the beach on the East coast within reasonable proximity of driving from Virginia (10 to 12 hours max) either the first week of April (our kids Spring Break), Fourth of July week, or any week during June or July, or Labor Day week in September. 

Thanks for all the info and advice about keeping up the maintenance fees, and how if I don't my credit will be ruined. I don't want that.

Thinking out of the box -- has anybody ever visited their resort during their week and followed along sales tours and then approach the "customers" with a really good bargain..like a timeshare for a $1? I'm thinking this way because I am sure weeks are still being sold at timeshare resorts for thousands of dollars. 

Any other suggestions in or out of the box would be appreciated.


----------



## Carolinian

You might see if one of the independent exchange companies could get something you want:

www.daelive.com

www.htse.net

www.tradingplaces.com

www.platinuminterchange.com

Any of these should accept your resort as a deposit.


----------



## sandkastle4966

Kirby -

you will not have great luck getting a beach unit during the summer months (especially July 4 weekend) using a Williamsburg week.

Owners of beach front summer do not deposit a lot of weeks so availability is low.  Of those deposited, only "tiger traders" or "top tier" traders are going to pull those trades.

Williamsburg is not going to be a "top trader".  Top traders will be beach summer, prime ski resorts in winter,  manhatten club, DVC, etc. 

with enough advance searching you should be getting april timeframes....


----------



## Jennie

santa said:


> We got our timeshare june 2004 unit39 a&b wk 19 it was supposed to be built  within a year. It is not even been started  its been 5 years! we never received a time share magizine  we did receive a letter from resort consulting group. We went to this meeting sat aug. 8 @noon. They wanted us to pay $3265.00 to give up our ownership to eValley LLC. Chase Heatwole said creekside timeshares were being sold on ebay for $1.oo. after getting on the computer the complaints came up we had no idea other people were having the same problems we were having. Please let us know any  information or who to contact about creekside timeshare.



Mosey on over here:
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96347&highlight=creekside
to compare notes with other disgruntled owners at your resort.

Good luck Guys


----------



## Lisa P

kirby2000 said:


> I own weeks 10 and 16...in Williamsburg, VA.... I've tried many times in the past (several years running) to find a unit at the beach on the East coast... either the first week of April (our kids Spring Break), Fourth of July week, or any week during June or July, or Labor Day week in September.


Sorry to say, you're trying to trade a cool, off-season week inland into a high season week at the beach - especially within driving distance of huge population centers.  So you'll have a ton of competition for that trade.  Won't happen, except perhaps for the early April week in years when it falls nowhere near Easter weekend.  Whenever an exchange company permits this much of an upgrade, folks love it :whoopie: ...... until they try to trade their prime week into another prime week and discover there's no prime inventory left because it was all given away to others with offseason weeks.    RCI has been tightening the trade power reins, especially in the last two years or so - some win, some lose.  You may find that, with diligence in searching daily and watching the sightings forums regularly, that you may be able to do a last minute trade (within 45 days of travel) to the beach, if your schedule is flexible enough to travel with little notice.  Sorry.


----------



## Lisa P

Carolinian said:


> Delta... and US Airways.... Both of those campaigns backed those airlines down on their anti-customers moves in their ff programs.


What was accomplished and since the costs eventually pass on to the consumer anyhow, at what cost?  Were these expensive class action suits too?



e.bram said:


> If the suit does nothing more than inhibit the way Wyndham and other developers for touting RCI agressively as way of exchanging any TS(the one being sold at the presentation) for any other TS any time and handing out the RCI book as a sales too,l it will have accomplished is purpose. Anything else will be icing on the cake.


This could not be accomplished through this RCI lawsuit.  The developers are not named here and they would have no accountability through this lawsuit's outcome.  Very good idea but it would require an entirely different approach than this existing class action.


----------



## Lisa P

Carolinian said:


> One of the big pluses that may come out of getting better notice is that HOA's might start wising up.  That is still a major slog, though, because it is own-to-use members who tend to dominate HOA boards they and they usually do not pay that much attention to exchanging.


So do you expect the HOA's to suddenly sit up and take notice... change their affiliation agreements... because they receive a 4x6 card in the magazine or a couple curious owners contact them to ask how it impacts them???     Will this 4x6 card even say anything about RCI renting out _prime_ weeks or does it just reiterate what it already says in the Terms and Conditions?  Do you expect it to make a dramatic difference or is this really just wishful thinking?

As a health care provider, I think in terms of cost vs. benefit, risk vs. gain.  I really wonder about the cost vs. benefit to Members with this suit.  The cost matters, it will eventually trickle down to us, with increased exchange fees.  A one-time $20 discount off one exchange fee can easily turn into a $15 increase _per exchange_ with a premature price increase and we (frequent exchangers) simply lose.  We also know that every aggressive action has the potential for untended, negative results.

In timesharing, my family actually _likes_ the resorts, destinations and chains that are affiliated with RCI.  We are also among some half-million Wyndham owners who get our annual RCI membership included with our ownership.  There are several other chains that provide (free/included) individual or corporate membership access to RCI exchange inventory too, paid indirectly through maint fees (Bluegreen, HGVC, DVC, etc.).  This issue is _not_ addressed in this lawsuit and will not change as a result of it.  The combination of these factors keeps us (and many, many others) exchanging through RCI.

This class action lawsuit has neither the weight nor direction to actually, substantially impact the availability of exchanges into many of these desired resorts and chains.  Increasing dual-affiliation could even result in more _limited_ availability in the most desirable destinations through RCI.  So for us and for many others who prefer not to pay the added membership with II, this thing could _easily backfire_ into total, higher fees annually (adding II, increasing RCI fees) coupled with more limited exchange availability at our desired destinations.  No matter how it goes from here, it just looks like a losing proposition for us!  If the plaintiff attorneys were competent _and_ doing what they had claimed, there was a chance of positive outcome.  As it stands, it's in damage-control mode and the only likely outcomes look like bad vs. worse, for us.

I mention all of this to give voice to another demographic.  Like the owners (and HOA members) who rarely exchange, we are among those who may not see any real, substantive benefit from this suit so we don't share your high anti-RCI energy.  But worse, we even recognize a potential personal cost which is _far more likely to actually happen_ than the risks expressed here and elsewhere if we don't support this thing... as if our resorts will implode as a direct result of RCI's business approach single-handedly destroying the timeshare exchange model.  I'm no fan of RCI's or II's or SFX's rental businesses.  But resorts fail due to poor resort management decisions and I don't see this RCI lawsuit being capable of directly impacting the quality of resort management.

This view does not make me an RCI apologist.  It's just a different perspective that tells why some of us may _realistically_ see more harm than good coming from this class action suit - for hundreds of thousands of owners, if not a million or more.

_Some_ in this thread have tried to paint anyone who hasn't jumped on board as uneducated, foolish, brainwashed or spineless.  Just isn't so.  And sarcasm or shouting (over-sized, bold letters) _from a few_ doesn't make it so, either.  Debating the merits of this suit, which may impact all of us in some fashion, is not hijacking the thread either but rather, it's completely on topic.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Sez You.*




Lisa P said:


> This view does not make me an RCI apologist.


Sorry, that view makes you part of the _RCI Can Do No Wrong_ bunch. 

Welcome to the club. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carolinian

What RCI has done is not restrict trading power.  They have diverted inventory to their rental pool.  Some very regular RCI searchers at TS4MS concluded from a variety of data that about 10,000 weeks simply disappeared in the recent ''enhancements'', most of them the more desirable weeks.  

Using my tiger in RCI to look, I tend to agree.  I can see the occaisional gem like summer Paris, summer England, etc. but overall there is a lot less availible in shoulder season and high season now looking with a summer northern Europe high demand week, than there was a few years ago looking with an OBX blue week.  It is simply gone.  Those who have searched certain areas, like SW Florida regularly for years and recorded what they saw posted at TS4MS that the good stuff just disappeared with the ''enhancements''  Asking others, it was not just their own deposits, but no one was seeing what had been there the week before or anything close to it.





Lisa P said:


> Sorry to say, you're trying to trade a cool, off-season week inland into a high season week at the beach - especially within driving distance of huge population centers.  So you'll have a ton of competition for that trade.  Won't happen, except perhaps for the early April week in years when it falls nowhere near Easter weekend.  Whenever an exchange company permits this much of an upgrade, folks love it :whoopie: ...... until they try to trade their prime week into another prime week and discover there's no prime inventory left because it was all given away to others with offseason weeks.    RCI has been tightening the trade power reins, especially in the last two years or so - some win, some lose.  You may find that, with diligence in searching daily and watching the sightings forums regularly, that you may be able to do a last minute trade (within 45 days of travel) to the beach, if your schedule is flexible enough to travel with little notice.  Sorry.


----------



## TUGBrian

Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, I added a multiple choice poll to this thread.  please vote.

*note your username is not displayed publicly in this poll, and the last option was so I can see the results without clicking "view results" every time i visit the thread...im lazy =)  but feel free to click it and make me happy!

Also if ive missed a viable option or two, please let me know and ill add it to the choices


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Freedom Of Choice.*




TUGBrian said:


> (and if ive missed a viable option or two, please let me know and ill add it to the choices)


If I like 1 of the viable options that you add later on better than the choice I've already voted for, can I get a do-over ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## TUGBrian

yes i can change your vote if you send me a PM.


----------



## Carolinian

Where this impacts resort financial viability is through member bailout.  Someone with many years of timeshare resale experience in North Carolina told me a couple of years ago that until the couple of years prior to that it was extremely rare for a seller to mention disatisfaction with RCI as a reason to put a week up for sale, but now it had become very common that sellers cited that as a reason.

You have not sat on a resort board to look at the realities of this.  I have.  I have seen the several multiple blue week exchanger owners bail out or try to bail out (the last one at this resort has been listing his weeks for sale for a couple of years but prices them unrealistically).  These people were essentially retired and could travel on short notice and so loved the 45 day window exchanges, until RCI's diversion of those weeks to rentals and Points members dried up the pool they were used to.  Their response was to get out of timeshare exchanging with the 4-6 blue weeks they had been exchanging.  It is real, It is here.  It is happening.  I have seen it.  It is only a matter of time until the exchangers with 1 or 2 blue weeks do the same.  There are more of them and that will impact the resort more.  This is a slow motion train wreck that RCI has set in motion, but it is already happening.  In the area I am familiar with about 30% of off season owners exchange.  If all of these people left over a period of time too short to recycle their weeks to others, then it would substantially undercut resort finances.

RCI has stabbed its resort affiliates in the back.  Resorts need to protect their own interests, and that means finding other options to keep their offseason owners in the game.  It also means finding other resale options for the off season weeks they get back that does not involve RCI exchanging.

Are a few uninformed questions from owners or a 4x6 card going to move HOA boards that are otherwise not informed on this issue?  Unlikely. That's why informed owners working with their HOA boards are important.  We need to be proactive.  The resorts really don't need to give RCI the total heave-ho.  That would also be disruptive for some members.  What they need to do is create more competition for exchanges by dual affiliation with II and informing their members about their options with independent exchange companies.  And they need to advice their members exactly what RCI is doing with the rentals, just like the Seasons chain did when they unloaded on RCI in their resort chain newsletter over both points and rentals.

Better notice that is much more explicite to all RCI members of the settlement / sellout in the lawsuit will also help get the word out.  A 4x6 card is not adequate.  Fineprint legalese in not adequate.  Clear explanation of exactly what is going on is needed.

It is not about being ''anti-RCI'', it is about opposing rental and other policies that are highly destructive to timesharing. If RCI abandons these policies, I could be an ''RCI happy'' as I once was, again.





Lisa P said:


> So do you expect the HOA's to suddenly sit up and take notice... change their affiliation agreements... because they receive a 4x6 card in the magazine or a couple curious owners contact them to ask how it impacts them???     Will this 4x6 card even say anything about RCI renting out _prime_ weeks or does it just reiterate what it already says in the Terms and Conditions?  Do you expect it to make a dramatic difference or is this really just wishful thinking?
> 
> As a health care provider, I think in terms of cost vs. benefit, risk vs. gain.  I really wonder about the cost vs. benefit to Members with this suit.  The cost matters, it will eventually trickle down to us, with increased exchange fees.  A one-time $20 discount off one exchange fee can easily turn into a $15 increase _per exchange_ with a premature price increase and we (frequent exchangers) simply lose.  We also know that every aggressive action has the potential for untended, negative results.
> 
> In timesharing, my family actually _likes_ the resorts, destinations and chains that are affiliated with RCI.  We are also among some half-million Wyndham owners who get our annual RCI membership included with our ownership.  There are several other chains that provide (free/included) individual or corporate membership access to RCI exchange inventory too, paid indirectly through maint fees (Bluegreen, HGVC, DVC, etc.).  This issue is _not_ addressed in this lawsuit and will not change as a result of it.  The combination of these factors keeps us (and many, many others) exchanging through RCI.
> 
> This class action lawsuit has neither the weight nor direction to actually, substantially impact the availability of exchanges into many of these desired resorts and chains.  Increasing dual-affiliation could even result in more _limited_ availability in the most desirable destinations through RCI.  So for us and for many others who prefer not to pay the added membership with II, this thing could _easily backfire_ into total, higher fees annually (adding II, increasing RCI fees) coupled with more limited exchange availability at our desired destinations.  No matter how it goes from here, it just looks like a losing proposition for us!  If the plaintiff attorneys were competent _and_ doing what they had claimed, there was a chance of positive outcome.  As it stands, it's in damage-control mode and the only likely outcomes look like bad vs. worse, for us.
> 
> I mention all of this to give voice to another demographic.  Like the owners (and HOA members) who rarely exchange, we are among those who may not see any real, substantive benefit from this suit so we don't share your high anti-RCI energy.  But worse, we even recognize a potential personal cost which is _far more likely to actually happen_ than the risks expressed here and elsewhere if we don't support this thing... as if our resorts will implode as a direct result of RCI's business approach single-handedly destroying the timeshare exchange model.  I'm no fan of RCI's or II's or SFX's rental businesses.  But resorts fail due to poor resort management decisions and I don't see this RCI lawsuit being capable of directly impacting the quality of resort management.
> 
> This view does not make me an RCI apologist.  It's just a different perspective that tells why some of us may _realistically_ see more harm than good coming from this class action suit - for hundreds of thousands of owners, if not a million or more.
> 
> _Some_ in this thread have tried to paint anyone who hasn't jumped on board as uneducated, foolish, brainwashed or spineless.  Just isn't so.  And sarcasm or shouting (over-sized, bold letters) _from a few_ doesn't make it so, either.  Debating the merits of this suit, which may impact all of us in some fashion, is not hijacking the thread either but rather, it's completely on topic.


----------



## deejay

*works for me*



Lisa P said:


> This view does not make me an RCI apologist.  It's just a different perspective that tells why some of us may _realistically_ see more harm than good coming from this class action suit - for hundreds of thousands of owners, if not a million or more.
> 
> _Some_ in this thread have tried to paint anyone who hasn't jumped on board as uneducated, foolish, brainwashed or spineless.  Just isn't so.  And sarcasm or shouting (over-sized, bold letters) _from a few_ doesn't make it so, either.  Debating the merits of this suit, which may impact all of us in some fashion, is not hijacking the thread either but rather, it's completely on topic.



RCI has been, and is continuing to meet or exceed my expectations.


----------



## Lisa P

Carolinian said:


> Resorts need to protect their own interests, and that means finding other options to keep their offseason owners in the game.  It also means finding other resale options for the off season weeks they get back that does not involve RCI exchanging.....
> 
> That's why informed owners working with their HOA boards are important.  We need to be proactive.  The resorts really don't need to give RCI the total heave-ho.  That would also be disruptive for some members.



I agree with these statements.   

If Disney could negotiate to have their new RCI contract include a regional block, it ought to be possible for other desirable resorts to negotiate contract renewals that prohibit RCI from renting out exchange inventory into their resorts (particularly in red season?) more than 2 months in advance of check-in.... or some other such restriction.  Couldn't the resort's contract agreement with RCI state that the resort prohibits incoming renters through any exchange company which is confirmed anytime prior to the Last Call period?  Couldn't they stipulate that they'll refuse to honor said reservations?

Does this lawsuit do anything to open the door to this kind of contract option for sold-out (perhaps 80%?) resorts???

I can understand developers wanting to continue to rent out excess inventory via RCI Rentals.  Affiliation contract re-negotiations could require wording which includes language that spells out the time period that RCI is required to leave exchange deposits in the exchange spacebank after deposit as well as how long before check-in it may be rented out by RCI.  If these contracts had to include the option to limit rentals of non-developer weeks to 4 months out for off-season and 2 months out for high or red season, then solidly managed resorts could use the re-negotiation period to institute protections on behalf of their owners who would opt to utilize RCI for their exchange needs.  Is there any avenue for this through the class action?


----------



## Carolinian

The thread below has several posters such as JLB who have regularly searched certain areas in RCI for years and kept notes.  What they have found after RCI's recent ''disenhancements'' is not a decrease in trading power, but that thousands of the best weeks have simply been removed from the system.  People can't see what they used to see because they are simply not in the system anymore, not because of changes in trading power for tiger traders.

www.timeshareforums.com/forums/rci/93191-how-big-yours.html


----------



## AwayWeGo

*J. L. B. Has Not Put In An Appearance Lately.  Whussup With That ?*




Carolinian said:


> The thread below has several posters such as JLB


For a while there, JLB sent in lots & lots of humorous & informative TUG-BBS entries, but not for a long time now. 

I hope he is OK. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Elli

AwayWeGo said:


> For a while there, JLB sent in lots & lots of humorous & informative TUG-BBS entries, but not for a long time now.
> 
> I hope he is OK.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


Alan, if you check "Over Yonder" you'll see him post there.


----------



## Clintshare

*What notice ???*



Jennie said:


> Well, the RCI attorneys wanted the court to believe that all RCI members should have seen it buried on page 94 of Endless Vacations magazine. You mean you didn't see it there? :hysterical:
> 
> I let the Judge know that many timeshare owners hate that magazine, myself included, and toss it in the recycling bin unopened. I further told him that several years ago many of us notified RCI that we did not wish to receive the free magazine but we were told that there was no way to opt out, that receiving it was a* requirement* of our RCI membership!
> 
> And if you saw the link on the RCI web site, you would have had to read over 100 pages of legal mumbo jumbo to try and figure out what was being proposed.
> 
> I also told the Judge that the lawsuit had been pending for so many years that a lot of people assumed it had "died." Rumors would surface from time to time but they usually proved false. I told him that even if I had noticed the link on the RCI website, or saw the notice in the magazine, I wouldn't have trusted anything that came from RCI. I was awaiting some sort of official notification from the Court or the plaintiff's attorneys to let me know what was going on.





I do look at the magazine when it comes in. It is not much use, but I look anyway. I never saw any Class Action notice. I'll have to go back and look.


----------



## TUGBrian

Hearing should be going on right now, im looking forward to updates!


----------



## rocketraj

im looking forward to updates


----------



## itgrafix

*Is it too late?*

Is it too late to be part of the lawsuit? I was unaware and didn't receive any emails - am assuming it is too late, but thought I'd ask in case there is some hope.


----------



## TUGBrian

the settlement hearing today was to decide on what further steps RCI must take in order to better inform its members, so you havent missed the boat yet.


----------



## Jennie

*UPDATE: August 12th hearing.*

A hearing was held today at the Federal Court in Trenton, New Jersey to determine the form of a new Notice of Settlement..

Previously, at a hearing held on June 16, 2009, Judge Sheridan ruled that the initial notice of the proposed settlement sent to RCI Weeks members (via publication on page 94 of Endless Vacation Magazine and referenced "within an enclosure on the table of contents page") was "difficult to find," difficult "to determine to whom the Notice applied," and "inadequate."  

This prior decision was a victory for every RCI Weeks member who hadn't learned about the lawsuit within the timeframe to opt out or to choose a settlement option and/or file an objection to the proposed Settlement. They will soon have a new opportunity to exercise one or more of their rights. 

The attorneys for RCI submitted a new proposed notice in the form of a postcard, which  was acceptable to the Plaintiffs' attorneys, but not to the Objectors.  The Judge therefore scheduled a hearing for today, which lasted about 90 minutes, to determine the most appropriate way of "re-notifying" the class members of the terms of the proposed settlement.  A week prior to the hearing, RCI's attorneys submitted a new, much improved Notice, which they substituted as their submission to the Court.  The Judge approved this second Notice.  We "Objectors" further recommended that the same notice be sent by Email to those members whose email addresses are on file with RCI. The Judge ordered that both methods of communication be used simultaneously.

The  Objectors suggested that the notice contain a link to TUG, Timesharing Today, and/or Redweek.com where class members could read more consumer-friendly information.  The judge declined, ruling that it is adequate that the published notices will have a web site link and phone number to the site set up by the Plaintiffs' and Defendants’ attorneys to assist members who want more information and forms.

The attorneys for RCI requested that the deadline for members to respond to the new postcard notice be 30 days after mailing, to which the Plaintiffs' attorneys agreed, but which the Objectors considered inadequate.  RCI's attorneys then agreed to 45 days, and it was so ordered by the Judge.

The Judge has stated that he will consider applications from two attorneys who have expressed a desire to be named "counsel for the Objectors."  One of the attorneys, Susan Collins, is a TUG member who posts as "Susan2" on the TUG Bulletin Boards.  The other, Steve Willett, is an attorney from Virginia who, although not a timeshare owner himself, claims to be familiar with the timeshare exchange process through his parents’ ownership of a timeshare.    

*November 30th is the date when the next "Fairness Hearing" will be held in Trenton, New Jersey at 2:30 p.m.. If anyone is within driving distance, please consider coming to the court that day (and maybe bring a bunch of relatives and friends). It could have a tremendous impact upon the final outcome of this important lawsuit.* We've been told that it is rare for more than one or two people to show up in court for a class action Fairness Hearing. A large turnout puts the Judge on notice that the proposed settlement may not be meeting the expectations of the class members. 

We objectors are optimistic about achieving some positive results.  As the saying goes, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained".  By the way, my "venturing" today involved driving almost 100 miles in torrential rain!


----------



## Simoncc

Thanks again for the efforts you, Susan and Shep are making - not least in battling the elements!

I understand that the plaintiffs are acting for Weeks members but am I right in thinking that the proposed settlement also applies to RCI's actions under the Points system?


----------



## JEFF H

Jennie said:


> By the way, two attorneys--one from upstate New York (TUG member "Susan2") and a man from Virginia--applied to be appointed as "Atorney for the Objectors".  Due to technical legal issues, the Judge could not rule on it at this time. But he seems inclined to approve it in the near future.



Let me be a Cynic here for a moment.
Couldn't this be a couple more Attorneys that are just playing Us and attempting to worm their way to the table to get a piece of the settlement fee pie?


----------



## grest

Just wanted to say thanks for the updated information.
Connie


----------



## urple2

Thanks Jennie for the update and everyone's efforts in this.

That meeting that is scheduled 9/9 does seem intriguing...


----------



## Dori

I would also like to add my thanks for your help.  Having you all step up to the plate for fellow TUGgers is much appreciated.

Dori


----------



## Jennie

Simoncc said:


> Thanks again for the efforts you, Susan and Shep are making - not least in battling the elements!
> 
> I understand that the plaintiffs are acting for Weeks members but am I right in thinking that the proposed settlement also applies to RCI's actions under the Points system?



It does not apply directly to Points members. But hopefully if RCI "gets the message" about the need to treat members fairly, they may be less likely to engage in the same behavior re: the Points inventory. 

With Points, you still own the "underlying" week and have the right to reserve the use of it each year (within certain timeframes) instead of accepting the Points. You also have the "home resort preference." If you have reserved the use of your own week and/or unit, or another week at your home resort, and you later find something in the RCI Points inventory that you would like to have instead, you can cancel your home resort reservation (usually without any cost or loss of points if it is more than 120 days before the check-in date) and confirm the other week.

Of course this is a simplistic summary of the how the Points program works. But, the way I see it, it's similar to a free "search first feature" especially if the "underlying" week you own is one you would be willing/happy to use every year if RCI's inventory of other available weeks is poor. RCI would not make a penny on you (except the annual membership fee, and you can always cancel your RCI Points membership and revert back to traditional ownership of your week). RCI would lose the ability to collect an exchange fee from you plus from the other owner who gave up the use of their week that year. So, if RCI rents out desirable weeks to the public, and leaves poor weeks in the Points inventory, they may lose enough money from unrealized exchange and membership fees to make it not worth their while.

I know there are other arguments that can be made, but I think that is best left for discussion on the "Points systems" Forum boards.

And, bottom line, if there are serious issues with the way the Points program is run, I'm sure there will be an abundance of lawyers ready to step up to the plate and file another class action suit. These suits cost RCI millions of dollars to defend, not to mention the loss of members who may defect to other exchange companies when they learn the truth about what RCI is doing with deposited weeks.


----------



## timeos2

*A different case (finally)*



JEFF H said:


> Let me be a Cynic here for a moment.
> Couldn't this be a couple more Attorneys that are just playing Us and attempting to worm their way to the table to get a piece of the settlement fee pie?



Thankfully. no. These individuals are not being paid but are volunteering this time (so far) and have already done more than the shysters (who stand to get MILLIONS!) did in almost 3 years of sloth like "progress" to an unsatisfactory end. 

If they can get standing to be paid more power to them as they have earned it and should have the full support and respect of TUG, all RCI members / former members and the timeshare community at large. 

GO GET 'EM!  We have a voice.


----------



## Jennie

JEFF H said:


> Let me be a Cynic here for a moment.
> Couldn't this be a couple more Attorneys that are just playing Us and attempting to worm their way to the table to get a piece of the settlement fee pie?



No, no! Susan is an avid timeshare owner like us who got involved after reading the article about the proposed settlement in Timesharing Today magazine. After speaking by phone with Shep Altshuler, editor of the magazine, she agreed to submit to the Court the 100+ letters sent by readers who were upset about the proposed terms. As an attorney, admittted to the Bar in New York and Hawaii, Susan had the knowledge necessary to do so in the prescribed manner. 

Admittedly Susan has no experience in class action lawsuits but she has first hand experience in timesharing. She has become increasingly disturbed by many of RCI's policies, especially the renting of weeks that were deposited by members for members. Susan  traveled 400 hundred miles each way to attend the June and August hearings, and spoke so well on our behalf that the Judge pointed to her and told the plaintiff attorneys "She did your work for you" (meaning presenting info to the Court about what was so inadequate about the proposed settlement). 

I have had many discussions with Susan over the past two months and can attest to the fact that she is a genuine timeshare owner motivated by the same concerns shared by many of us who are RCI Weeks members. She became involved in this case for the right reasons. She didn't even know there was such a thing as being an attorney for the Objectors. Read her various posts earlier in this thread (Susan2). She believes the plaintiffs (who are supposed to be representing us) have not done an adequate enough job re: obtaining a better settlement. Her appearance and statements at the "Fairness Hearing" in June prevented the settlement from becoming a "done deal."

I'd rather not comment about the second attorney who is asking to be appointed as attorney for the Objectors.


----------



## Carolinian

*Get articles in your HOA newsletters*

How many members have resort newsletters that will come out between now and when all of this is done?  We need to write newsletter articles and try to get them in our resort newsletters.  If you have a homeowner-controlled HOA, that should be easier than with developer control.  My only remaining US resort will have a newsletter out, and I will see that it has an article.  My European resorts do not have newsletters, and I will have to check on the timing on the SA newsletter.

Maybe Jenny or Suan could write a generic one that could be paraphrased or with their permission submitted intact under another byline?


----------



## Simoncc

Jennie said:


> With Points, you still own the "underlying" week and have the right to reserve the use of it each year (within certain timeframes) instead of accepting the Points. You also have the "home resort preference." If you have reserved the use of your own week and/or unit, or another week at your home resort, and you later find something in the RCI Points inventory that you would like to have instead, you can cancel your home resort reservation (usually without any cost or loss of points if it is more than 120 days before the check-in date) and confirm the other week.



I certainly wasn't aware of this feature - I'll have to check that it applies to the European Points based programme.

I raised the question as I have recently been looking for availability at one of my home resorts and coming up with nothing. Last year at the same time I was seeing several options and wondered if RCI were dipping their fingers into the Points deposits as well.


----------



## Jennie

Sorry, I didn't notice that you are from the UK. The rules may be different. Here in the U.S. generally only owners can reserve weeks at their home resort within 10-13 months before the check-in date, using RCI Points. Thereafter any Points owner can reserve the weeks. Have you been looking after your home resort reservation preference period expired? Take time to study the rules of your membership so that you can get the best value from it.

Why don't you check the Points Systems Forum/bulletin board here at TUG. I think there are some UK members who can help you more. 

By the way, I admire your country for passing tough new laws to protect consumers from victimization by unscrupulous timeshare schemes. Maybe they will investigate RCI Europe in the future.


----------



## Jennie

Carolinian said:


> How many members have resort newsletters that will come out between now and when all of this is done?  We need to write newsletter articles and try to get them in our resort newsletters.  If you have a homeowner-controlled HOA, that should be easier than with developer control.
> Maybe Jenny or Suan could write a generic one that could be paraphrased or with their permission submitted intact under another byline?



We are working out a gameplan to do as much as possible to get the word out about the issues involved in this lawsuit, and what action owners can take, if they wish.

Publication in resort newsletters is an excellent idea!

I will be attending the annual meeting at one of the homeowner controlled resorts where we own three weeks. It is always held on the first Sunday in October. The drive to and from provides a great opportunity to enjoy the Fall foliage. Usually a couple of hundred loyal long-term owners show up each year. Many are seniors who are not on the Internet. 

We intend to speak at the meeting about the RCI class action lawsuit, as well as distribute hand-outs, and forms they can fill out and mail if they wish to opt out or apply for one of the "trinket benefits", plus self-addressed envelopes to use if they want any "objections" made known to the judge.

If any Weeks owner is interested in trying to distribute something like this at an owner's meeting, let us know and we will supply it. 

We are also planning to send an information packet with these forms to the Managers of the smaller resorts and ask if they would be willing to place copies at the Front Desk and/or other areas frequented by guests (e.g. health club, locker rooms, near a coffee machine, etc... ).

If you think one of your resorts might be receptive to this idea, please let us know the name and address. We will not mention your name, unless you are willing for us to do it.

For a reason I cannot disclose at this time, we will probably not have this material available to go out until around the middle of September. Something important might happen before then that could change the contents of the materials we are preparimng. 

Thanks for all your support!


----------



## ecwinch

Jennie said:


> I'd rather not comment about the second attorney who is asking to be appointed as attorney for the Objectors.



Based on the objection letter that Mr. Willett filed with the court, it would appear that his intentions justify some of the OP concerns. He indicates that he would prefer that the case be filed in California, where he practices law. I also did not find his objection letter to be particularly well-written.

Combined with those factors, and the fact that he is not a timeshare owner, I think Susan is the best person to represent the objectors in this situation. I think the other posts regarding her qualifications and purpose are spot on. Hopefully, the Judge will see it the same way.


----------



## Jim Bryan

*Thank you Jennie!*

Just noticed this.


----------



## Nikstar

Wow, this is all news to me.  I'm a new member here (and a member of RCI), as of today..& have already learned so much!!
I'm still a bit confused of the entire issue but i get the gyst.
I'll keep checking back.
Thank you for the support and the continued updating of this topic.


----------



## Nikstar

Sorry somehow i posted this twice


----------



## sailsomsen

*RCI Shenanigans....*

I recieved no notice of proposed settlement, although a member for over 13 years.  I did recently allow my membership to lapse a few months ago, primarily because I was so disgusted with RCO's shenanigans.  Two things that I find objectionable (I was on the board of a Homeowner governed Board timeshare that belownged to RCI.  I do have an idea of what some of their games have been.
1.  Take a deposited week, rent it out instead of allowing another member to exchange for it.  We have absolute proof that this has occurred.  We have member name, dates and unit number and owner name (RCI rented the week back to the same person that had deposited it, but the rental came after RCI swore that no exhange was available....
2.  Depreciating the value of Weeks memberships, in preferrence to Points memberships.  Thus making it much more difficult for Weeks members to exchange.
RCI and their parent company(s) have been responsible for a huge scam for years.


----------



## Carolinian

I hope your board responded by letting the members know what was going on and by advising them of the indepedent exchange companies they could use.  Also by dual affiliating with II, if you had not already done so.




sailsomsen said:


> I recieved no notice of proposed settlement, although a member for over 13 years.  I did recently allow my membership to lapse a few months ago, primarily because I was so disgusted with RCO's shenanigans.  Two things that I find objectionable (I was on the board of a Homeowner governed Board timeshare that belownged to RCI.  I do have an idea of what some of their games have been.
> 1.  Take a deposited week, rent it out instead of allowing another member to exchange for it.  We have absolute proof that this has occurred.  We have member name, dates and unit number and owner name (RCI rented the week back to the same person that had deposited it, but the rental came after RCI swore that no exhange was available....
> 2.  Depreciating the value of Weeks memberships, in preferrence to Points memberships.  Thus making it much more difficult for Weeks members to exchange.
> RCI and their parent company(s) have been responsible for a huge scam for years.


----------



## madex

Thank you Susan for  all your efforts.  Thank  you for taking the time and and your hardword  representing us.  


thank you Jennie for keeping us informed!


----------



## TimeShare Junky

Jennie said:


> A hearing was held on June 16th at the Federal Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey. There were four attorneys representing each side.
> 
> Shep Altshluler, editor of Timesharing Today Magazine, spoke eloquently on behalf of timeshare owners re: complaints about difficulty obtaining fair exchanges, rental of timeshare weeks to the general public, lack of transparency and oversight of the methods used to determine trading value of deposited weeks, etc... He expressed dissatisfaction with many aspects of the proposed settlement. And he particularly emphasized the lack of proper notice to RCI members.
> 
> A very passionate, articulate, and well informed attorney, Susan B. Collins, came all the way from West Seneca, N.Y. (400 miles-she flew in and rented a car) to address these issues and concerns--not as an attorney but as a timeshare owner. Sadly, there were no other RCI members present except for Yours truly and spouse. I spoke for about 25 minutes.
> 
> The Judge seemed to be very fair. He is a dignified, calm gentleman who listened carefully to each speaker and asked excellent questions. The RCI attorneys were given ample time to respond and explain their positions. The judge made some remarks indicating skepticism about some of their well-rehearsed rhetoric.
> 
> The main purpose of this hearing was to determine if RCI members had received adequate notice of the proposed settlement so that they would have had an opportunity to send letters to the Court expressing their approval or objection to the terms.  RCI proudly stated that 15,500 members had submitted the required form by the April 6th deadline requesting one of the token "peace offerings". The Judge said that he considered that to be a rather low response considering that there are 1,500,000 weeks members. And more than 15,500 should have stepped up to claim freebies worth up to $100. if they had known about it.
> 
> An RCI attorney went on an on about how notice was given to members through publication in the Endless Vacations Magazine.
> 
> Miss Collins handed the Judge a copy of the EV issue and challenged him to find the notice. While he was searching, someone blurted out that is was on page 94. The RCI attorney volunteered that it was also listed in the Table of Contents. Miss Collins pointed out that it was in print much smaller than the other topics listed and could be easily overlooked. She suggested that it should have been prominently displayed on the cover of the magazine. The Judge seemed to agree.
> 
> When the RCI attorneys stated that the RCI web site also contained a link to information of the proposed settlement, Miss Collins handed the judge over 100 pages of "legalese" that she had printed out from the link. She said that even though she is an attorney, it was a daunting task for her to read through it all and try to comprehend what was being proposed as the settlement.  I later pointed out that many timeshare owners are older folks who are not computer literate and do not visit the RCI web site.
> 
> When the Judge asked if RCI had sent Email notices to members, the attorneys said that they only had Email addresses for less than 50% of the members. I later pointed out that they sure bother me enough with Emails trying to sell something. Yet I never received an Email about the settlement. The Judge asked point blank if they had sent Emails about the settlement to *any* of the members and they conceded that they had not.
> 
> One issue in which the Judge seemed to have a particular interest was why the proposed settlement changes would last for only two years. The RCI attorneys spoke in general terms about how their busines model requires flexibility to adjust to changing conditions in the world (e.g "911" and the economy and gas prices, etc...). Their vague answers didn't make much sense to me. I don't think the Judge bought it either.
> 
> The attorneys who brought the suit were asked the same question. They said that RCI had convinced them that it would take so much time and trouble and expense to make the changes that they felt certain RCI would then leave the changes in place indefinitely. I doubt that anyone in the courtroom believed that one. The Judge asked about it again and again and said that if changes are needed they should become permanent so as not to have more lawsuits brought after the 2 year period expired.
> 
> One other issue the Judge questioned was why so many members seem dissatisfied about the exchange process. The RCI attorneys blamed the developers for over-promising during the sales presentation. They kept saying that they have no control over what the salespeople say and do. They even had the nerve to say that they would be addressing that issue as part of the changes that would be implemented as a result of this settlement. (Yeah, right!). There is not a word about that in the settlement. The Judge asked how they would do it and they made vague statements about holding some training sessions.
> 
> When I spoke, I discussed the "incestuous relationship" between RCI and the resort developers and sales teams. I said that most people attend a presentation to obtain a free gift. They did not do prior research and did not plan to buy a timeshare. The main selling point is usually the promise that they will be able to exchange their week if they buy one. They are shown the RCI "wish book" and led to believe it will be easy to just pick up the phone and make a reservation anywhere in the world they want to go. Most are led to believe that the week they are being offered has great trading power, even if it is a mud week in an undesirable location.  This would not happen if there was some way for them to obtain an objective valuation of the week and its exchange potential before buying it or within the recission period, which by the way, should be much longer.
> 
> I mentioned how Redweek.com assigns a point value to a week before you deposit it. You are able to look through their inventory of already deposited weeks and determine what you will be able to obtain as an exchange. And you can purchase additional points, if necessary, to obtain a desired week that has greater trading power than yours. Redweek does not remove any of these weeks and sell them elsewhere. (Of course I'm aware of other problems with their system but I was trying to keep things simple). I observed the Judge jot down Redweek on his notepad.
> 
> But honestly, if RCI did not exist and most people deposited with Redweek (or a similar company), AND Redweek did a better job of properly valuing the weeks, and did not become beholden to developers and resorts, I think it would provide a far better outcome than the way RCI now operates. Redweek would be satisfied making a reasonable profit running an honest business. I'm afraid RCI will never be satisfied. They will always try to come up with new ways to make more and more money, no matter what tactics they have to use, and no matter how unfair or dishonest it may be to their members. When will companies stop letting GREED be their driving force. Hasn't enough damage already been done to the economies all over the world?
> 
> Both sides were directed to submit briefs by 4:00 p.m. June 23rd re: the matter of sending first class mail notices to members of the class action lawsuit. Thereafter the Judge will render a decision. STAY TUNED!



Thanks Jennie for your hard work.

I do not read much of the RCI magazine, only when I go on vacation. They should have sent a letter in the mail. I work full time, own a funeral home and manage my own 20 week of timeshares. Their printing it in a magazine is garbage and not much of making it visable.


----------



## RIMike

*Any word yet from the court?*

I read your summation...any word yet from the court?


----------



## Jennie

Look on the page before this one--page 12, Post # 298.


----------



## brianfox

I've been following this thread for a while now and think it's incredibly helpful.  My wife and I just purchased a resale timeshare and we're both glad it trades with II.

That said, we are new to timesharing and II.  Isn't Interval going down the same road of renting deposited weeks through their "getaways"?  I know that exchanges even for desirable weeks are relatively easy through II, but that's the way it was in RCI...at least up till around 2008.

So soothe my nerves, can someone explain in a few sentences why II's operating model is not something I should be concerned about?


----------



## timeos2

*No difference but size*



brianfox said:


> I've been following this thread for a while now and think it's incredibly helpful.  My wife and I just purchased a resale timeshare and we're both glad it trades with II.
> 
> That said, we are new to timesharing and II.  Isn't Interval going down the same road of renting deposited weeks through their "getaways"?  I know that exchanges even for desirable weeks are relatively easy through II, but that's the way it was in RCI...at least up till around 2008.
> 
> So soothe my nerves, can someone explain in a few sentences why II's operating model is not something I should be concerned about?



II's model is nearly the exact one used by RCI - including rentals - but they have far less inventory, don't have the primer of a points based system that allows for easier (and IMO silly) use of timeshare value for car rentals, plane tickets, etc thus far less exposure to scrutiny by the "trade police". If you really want to avoid any unfair use of your time for trade stick with direct trades between owners or the smaller, more boutique type operations like SFX where they really do tend to get a like for like trade and of high quality resorts. 

The "take it all" groups like II cannot be picky and the vast majority of what they get deposited is older, smaller, less desirable time/resorts/units as those are what the majority own and thus want to trade.  Less than 10% of all ownerships are top weeks/resorts/times and the top 10% as well as the other 90% junk are ALL chasing those very limited times.  That's just the way it is and no amount of bluster can hide the fact that very little is really top tier time. And precious little of that gets deposited as the owners know it's too valuable to risk in the "place & hope" RCI/II systems. No knowledgeable owner is going to give that time away on the chance they'll get anything close to value back.


----------



## e.bram

With II you can look first to see what you can trade into before you deposit.


----------



## Carolinian

Older and smaller does not equate to less desirable.  The best cases in point would be Schloss Grubhof, a small resort in a 14th century Austrian castle and Chateau de Maulmont, a small resort (2 timeshare units) in a historic French chateau that once belonged to the sister of the King of France.

Rentals of last minute inventory or something that would clearly have excessive supply for all possible exchange demand are not at all in the same category as rentals of high demand, low supply inventory, which seems to be a major activity of RCI.  Even so, those also can distort a lot of the dynamics of the timeshare industry.  Also internal rentals to timesharers of the above type of inventory are not really destructive.  The widespread rentals to the general public is what causes the real damage.

II apparently does some limited rentals to the public, but they have never gone hog wild with it like RCI.  They are also far more discreet in what they do and seem to not focus on rentals of prime inventory. Their practices are far less damaging.

But,yes, there is a big danger that if RCI gets away with this travesty, then II may be tempted to jump into it with both feet as well.  II members should also be keeping their fingers crossed that RCI can be backed down in the lawsuit.




timeos2 said:


> II's model is nearly the exact one used by RCI - including rentals - but they have far less inventory, don't have the primer of a points based system that allows for easier (and IMO silly) use of timeshare value for car rentals, plane tickets, etc thus far less exposure to scrutiny by the "trade police". If you really want to avoid any unfair use of your time for trade stick with direct trades between owners or the smaller, more boutique type operations like SFX where they really do tend to get a like for like trade and of high quality resorts.
> 
> The "take it all" groups like II cannot be picky and the vast majority of what they get deposited is older, smaller, less desirable time/resorts/units as those are what the majority own and thus want to trade.  Less than 10% of all ownerships are top weeks/resorts/times and the top 10% as well as the other 90% junk are ALL chasing those very limited times.  That's just the way it is and no amount of bluster can hide the fact that very little is really top tier time. And precious little of that gets deposited as the owners know it's too valuable to risk in the "place & hope" RCI/II systems. No knowledgeable owner is going to give that time away on the chance they'll get anything close to value back.


----------



## JRS

I have not been as regular of a visitor as in years past, however it would be nice to find out if any news of interest since that original court date in June.  Does anyone have anything to report, or have a link to the plaintiff's (class action) attorney's ?


----------



## ecwinch

JRS said:


> I have not been as regular of a visitor as in years past, however it would be nice to find out if any news of interest since that original court date in June.  Does anyone have anything to report, or have a link to the plaintiff's (class action) attorney's ?



If you scroll back a page and look at Jeanie (Post #286), she provides a recap of the current status.

The readers digest version is that there was a hearing last week, and the judge approved the notice of settlement going out again and in a different format than the original one.


----------



## Brummie

*Yet another sleeping RCI member wakes up......*

I am a UK RCI member and an owner at Orange Lakes, FL and this is the first I have heard of all this.
I am fully behind any group wishing to take on RCI and/or the developers.
I will keep an eye out for updates and would love to put my two penneth in if the opportunity arose.
Huge thanks to those who have pushed things this far (doubless at great personal expense in both time, effort and dollars).
I personally would be happy to chip in to a fighting fund as long as it was administered by somebody who had suffered the same pain as those being represented.
If nothing else this might be a reminder to RCI that people will only stand being bullied for so long.
Maybe the US government might be persuaded to look at setting up some sort of regulatory authority?
Hope springs eternal.


----------



## jacquesg10

I did not know anything about this class action, and I own 4 different timeshares... where can we find information on this class action besides this forum?


----------



## TUGBrian

link to the rci page regarding the lawsuit....and per the discussions above...as an rci weeks member you should recieve a postcard and an email with more information from RCI.

http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/


----------



## decolady424

I just found out about this here, looks like the date (April 2009) has passed to file a claim....are we out of luck???


----------



## Carolinian

decolady424 said:


> I just found out about this here, looks like the date (April 2009) has passed to file a claim....are we out of luck???



The class action is a claim for all members.

If you are talking about asking for one of the nearly worthless trinkets is offering in this sellout ''settlement'' that is shooting yourself in the foot, as it will signal support of RCI continuing their malpractices in renting exchange inventory.  If you want to fight those malpractices, when the new notice comes out, you need to object to the ''settlement'' and also object to the sellout original class lawyers getting paid anything for their failure to properly represent their clients.


----------



## decolady424

Got It...thanks!!


----------



## Jennie

TUGBrian said:


> link to the rci page regarding the lawsuit....and per the discussions above...as an rci weeks member you should recieve a postcard and an email with more information from RCI.
> 
> http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/



What you will find by following the above link is the terms of the *proposed* settlement. However, there *may* be some changes in it before the new postcard notice is sent out around mid-September. So read it carefully and/or check back with TUG to get further information after you receive the postcard and/or Email.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I would like to send a letter to the judge or the attorneys, if someone could give an address.  If there is an address somewhere, please let me know where I can find the information.  

Elderly people are certainly the victims of RCI.  They don't have internet, nor do they own computers; they have older timeshares that are no longer valued by RCI and II; and they are the ones who fall prey to postcard companies.  

This is certainly another bit of information that I would like to share.  Also, the losses of trade power on 5/30 is another huge issue for me.


----------



## Jennie

A small group of Objectors is meeting with RCI officials and about 10 attorneys this week. If the negotiations result in a much better proposed settlement, then each of us can decide if we wish to accept it.  

If not, any RCI Weeks member may "opt out" or "object".

The Federal Court handling this class action lawsuit has already ruled that the previous notice published in Endless Vacations magazine was inadequate and too many members did not receive necessary information about the issues, terms of the proposed settlement, and their options.

Later this month, a  postcard *and* Email notice will be sent to present RCI Weeks members, and former members who were members at any time between January 1, 2000 and November 30, 2008. The postcard and Email notices will provide a link to a website containing the terms of the proposed settlement, and a telephone number that members can use to call to have the terms and forms sent to them, plus instructions on how to exercise their various rights. 

Brian Rogers, owner of TUG, has stated that this information will be prominently displayed on TUG. Thank you, Brian, for all your interest and support!

If the proposed settlement is not significantly improved, we will offer many  suggestions as to how best to proceed. 

Stay tuned!


----------



## unclenapolean

When I first found out about this suit back in August I wanted to add my two cents but failed to follow up on activating my account.
What I wanted to say was, that the way the attorneys representing the timeshare owners were ready to accept any settlement offered them by RCI, sounded strikingly like a common corporate ploy used to avert having to pay large judgements in class action suits.  I know when Prudential was being sued in NJ for deceptive sales practices and faced huge settlement costs John Hancock realized that they were guilty of the same thing, so what they did (and other companies have done the same when they realized their lawsuit exposure) is to contact a lawfirm and have them solicit enough people to participate in a class action lawsuit against the company for whatever legal exposure they (the company) may have.  The secret understanding between the lawfirm and the company then is that the suit will be settled for minimal damages paid to the class action group and the lawfirm will reap a nice pay day in the process for next to no work.  Usually they pick a lawfirm that is large enough to look like they should be able to put up a good fight, but in reality doesn't have deep enough pockets to be able to put up an extended process of litigation.  Add to that the fact the company usually promises to give more work to the law firm later down the road and you see where the financial incentive is to just go through the process and not make waves.  Is it ethical?  No, but when it comes to the law, if nobody can prove it then it didn't happen.  And nobody ever claimed that law firms were ethical, although we do know they're greedy.  The proof of this is examination of the judgements in most class action suits that involve product misrepresentations and fraudulent sales practices.  In these suits the lawyers always pull in millions of dollars in fees and the complainants get what amounts to a token award.  The only time class action complainants ever get any substantial awards is when it involves death, dismemberment, disability or diease.  There was even an article back in the 80's or 90's in Time or Newsweek about companies doing this very thing.  I thank Susan and Shep and any others that have taken the time, on behalf of all of us timeshare owners, to put the pressure on RCI to either change their ways or at least reimburse us fairly for taking our exchanges and then renting them.  I know I was exceedingly irritated when I called in to exchange one of my weeks in Vegas for a week on Grand Cayman and saw a whole list of weeks available for rent online for the week I was looking for, but was told on the phone that there were no weeks available for exchange.  Why couldn't they have given me one of those weeks they had listed for rent?  
I won't be logging in on any regularity to read responses to my post, but feel free to do so and I'll reply when I can.


----------



## Jennie

There are many complex issues involved in this case which I will try to explain in the near future. I, too, started with the belief that the plaintiffs were in it just for the money and had worked out a paltry settlement deal just to be able to walk off with large legal fees and leave the class members with no meaningful benefits. But I have learned from months of close involvement in the case, that there are many other factors involved.  

The legal system, as it exists, has many rules and procedures that must be followed, even if it doesn't seem "fair" or reasonable to those of us who view it from a layperson's perspective.

The Objectors met with RCI for 5 hours on September 9th, at their request.  Representatives from the defendant's and plaintiff's legal teams were present, along with RCI attorneys and executives. There were 17 people in attendance altogether. All parties seemed sincerely interested in listening to our complaints about the terms of the proposed settlement, plus many other problems RCI Weeks members have about the way the exchange program is being administered. The participants were polite and attentive and treated us with respect. They asked many pertinent questions and gave us adequate opportunity to make recommendations. We tried to convince them that if significant changes are not made, more and more members will likely bring their business elsewhere, and this will have a large negative impact upon the company's revenues.

Within a week we expect to receive communication from RCI as to what changes, if any, they are willing to make to the terms of the settlement. At that point we will have to decide if the changes are sufficient enough to warrant our acceptance, or if we need to "fight on". Our decision will be made with extensive feed-back from TUG members, subscribers of Timesharing Today Magazine, Redweek.com members, members OY, and any other RCI Weeks members who wish to weigh in on the subject. We will try to present a comprehensive summary of the pros and cons to both courses of action. 

We will share with you the 12 page position paper we submitted to RCI about a week prior to the meeting. It served as the basis for most of the discussions that took place on September 9th. And hopefully it was reviewed closely after the meeting by whomever else along the chain is involved in RCI's decision making. 

RCI has major public relations concerns. Through the efforts of the Objectors, the Court ordered RCI to send out a new notice of the proposed settlement, by postcard and Email, to about 2,000,000 RCI members. The post cards should be mailed out in the beginning of October. Many of the recipients will be learning for the first time that RCI has been removing deposited weeks and renting them to the general public. Unless they see that as a result of this lawsuit, enough restrictions will be placed upon the rental  activity, there could be a mass exodus of members, and/or less deposits of good weeks by owners who will switch to other exchange companies or rent their weeks themselves, and use the rental income to rent the week they want directly from another owner. 

That's about all I am at liberty to disclose at this point.


----------



## grest

Just wanted to add my thanks, Jennie.
Connie


----------



## Nancy

Jennie,

Thanks for your hard work.

Nancy


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Jennie,

Thank you and the other objectors for what you are doing to make sure that the Court knows that there are thousands of RCI members who are clueless.

Also, thank you for being the spearhead of a movement that I hope will turn out to be such a ruckus that RCI will be forced to do what is right by it's Exchange Members.  By what is right, I mean brokering exchanges between members for a fee consistent with the original RCI business model. 

We the people who deposit our weeks *for exchange *do so with the explicit understanding that our property is banked for the use of other members and only by other members.  Our property is not being banked for the use of a non-member who pays RCI a rental fee. It has been that way or should have been that way for the past 35 years. 

I have been a successful user of RCI for almost 25 years and have never NOT received a  "like exchange" or considerably better than a "like exchange," due to the exercise of patience and knowledgable use of my membership. 

However, it is not acceptable for RCI to take Inventory specificily deposited for exchange and rent that inventory to "joe public" who has no vested interest except the rental fee paid to RCI. 

While RCI may see their rental activity as a good business practice that adds significant revenue to their bottom line, the activity is not consistent with the long advertised practice of RCI which is openly marketed as an EXCHANGE COMPANY that makes EXCHANGES for dues paying members.     

If RCI keeps it up, even I will be affected some day, and I will be forced to leave them for one of several companies who are more than willing to do what is right by it's Exchange Members.

Meanwhile, we who know what is going on should remain vigiliant and make sure that we *opt out when the "postcards" are received *if the settlement being offered does NOT eliminate the current RCI practice of renting Exchange Inventory.


----------



## Simoncc

Jennie said:


> Within a week we expect to receive communication from RCI as to what changes, if any, they are willing to make to the terms of the settlement. At that point we will have to decide if the changes are sufficient enough to warrant our acceptance, or if we need to "fight on". Our decision will be made with extensive feed-back from TUG members, subscribers of Timesharing Today Magazine, Redweek.com members, members OY, and any other RCI Weeks members who wish to weigh in on the subject. We will try to present a comprehensive summary of the pros and cons to both courses of action.
> 
> We will share with you the 12 page position paper we submitted to RCI about a week prior to the meeting. It served as the basis for most of the discussions that took place on September 9th. And hopefully it was reviewed closely after the meeting by whomever else along the chain is involved in RCI's decision making.



Hello Jennie,

Thanks again for your hard work. Are you able to share the position paper now or are you required to wait until you receive RCI's response?


----------



## Jennie

Simoncc said:


> Hello Jennie,
> 
> Thanks again for your hard work. Are you able to share the position paper now or are you required to wait until you receive RCI's response?



We are required to wait awhile before sharing it in public. But soon---


----------



## TUGBrian

looking forward to the latest updates =)


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

Carolinian said:


> One question.  I saw a discovery schedule some time ago.  Is it correct that no discovery on the merits of the case had even been started at the time this ''settlement'' was agreed to, and that only discovery on the issue of class certification had been done?  It is absolutely incredible if that is so that any attorney would agree to a settlement without doing that discovery.



That would seem to indicate that the primary goal of the litigation was to extract legal fees, which is pretty typical for this type of litigation.  Looks as if the attorneys decided that now was the best time to cash in.


----------



## BillWilliam

*RCI*

Hi All,
My wife and I have been timeshare owners and members of RCI since 1980.
I had not heard of rentals by RCI of space banked weeks before today. I knew they rented timeshares but I thought these weeks came from properties that were unsold or unspace banked weeks and that the owner of the week got part of the rental fee. 
What is going on is a crime. 
They are taking space banked weeks and renting those weeks instead of exchanging them as was agreed in the contract. I hope that is how this was presented to the judge. This is a clear case of breach of contract. I have noticed that over the years it has been more difficult to find a place where we want. In the 80's and early 90's we always got what we wanted when we wanted. We have never used our home unit except once for relatives. We were careful when we bought our unit that it was in a good location for exchange and it has been. We made the mistake of buying into the points program. The point sales company making the presentation lied from start to finish. They said they represented RCI and soon everything would be points. Both lies. Under the weeks program because we had our unit exchanged every year we could get any unit any where. We have been to some very nice places. Far better than out home unit. When we switched to points the compnay had what was susposed to be a RCI catalogue. We were given 38,000 points for our unit. Looking in the book they had that was near the top of the point values so we agreed to the deal. The next year our new book came out and 38,000 points is not worth much. What a bunch of crooks. The whole idea of points is just another way to make you pay twice for your exchange. Pnce with your RCI fee and again for extra points. By buying a premium site you pay extra just for that ability to get your exchange every year. Now that counts for nothing.


----------



## Jennie

Unfortunately, the games and scams in the timeshare business go on and on.

WELCOME to TUG. There are a lot of knowledgeable people here who just want to share honest, helpful information. Visit often, read a lot, and post questions.

I'm sorry you paid extra $$$$ to convert your fixed weeks to RCI Points. If it's any consolation, you can always revert back to owning your week as a fixed week by just canceling your RCI Points account. I know it would be a total waste of the money you paid to get it into RCI Points, but I wanted to make sure you are aware of that option.

It may not be a good option, though.

RCI Points can work very well when you learn more about them, and how to use them. You may even find that they work better than the fixed weeks exchange system did. Or maybe not. A lot depends upon the trading power of the fixed week you own, what type of vacations you like, how far in advance you can plan, if you are able to take last minute vacations, etc...

I own both fixed-deeded weeks and RCI Points and I have received excellent exchanges through both systems.

If RCI chooses to eliminate, or seriously curtail the rental "games" (or is forced to do so because of the class action lawsuit), we should all receive better exchange opportunities. Here's hoping!  We'll know soon.


----------



## Golfnut7

Bill,
My life with RCI parallels yours - member since 1978, and switched to points in the 90s.  However, if you are a Points member, you still have access to the Weeks program.  I agree that units are much harder to find than in the past, and taking our deposited weeks and renting them is criminal; but we do have access to both the Points units and the Weeks units.  I have found calling RCI Points and asking them to look in the Weeks database is much more efficient than searching on the web.


----------



## Jennie

Golfnut7 said:


> Bill,
> However, if you are a Points member, you still have access to the Weeks program.  I agree that units are much harder to find than in the past, and taking our deposited weeks and renting them is criminal; but we do have access to both the Points units and the Weeks units.



If Bill owns only one week, and it has been converted to RCI points, he will no longer have access to the Weeks deposited in the Weeks space-bank because he will have no week there to search against. 

It's true that through his POINTS account he will be able to see and reserve *weeks that have been pfd'd*, but he will not have access to the rest of any of the regular (unconverted) weeks deposited into the traditional weeks spacebank.


----------



## castleo

*Jennie and RCI Case*

I will have to admit that I have not kept up with this case and truly appreciate your efforts and report.

To me receiving some sort of settlement is not a big issue.  Is there anything that requires RCI to post and make available a large percentage of the units that are exchanged by owners or unused in their inventory for the benefit of us owners who want to exchange.  I am often amazed at how little is available at times???

Does the settlement do anything to improve our lot for exchanging?

                               Rich Castello


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Welcome To TUG*

Rich,

Back in 1985 and maybe for a few years afterward, I remember that The Fairfield Exchange (FAX) and/or RCI would periodically share exchange statistics with its membership.

But back in the day they were trying to let the membership know what a great job they were doing and they were providing the information to Developers who in turn were touting the relatively high Exchange rates to prospective timeshare owners. For whatever reason, it has been my experience that such information has not been forth coming for a long time.

Today, I doubt that it would be in RCI's best interest to report what they probably now consider proprietary information.  So unless they voluntarily provide the information, a Court demands it, or it comes out in discovery, we the membership are not likely to get access to the information.


----------



## jodivk

*RCI Weeks lawsuit / us too...*

I would like to express our sincere appreciation for Jennie's time and follow through as well.

We read the magazine, but never saw any information about the lawsuit and frankly never heard about it prior to this thread.  Been a Tug member for 3+ years (thank goodness!).  We receive mail offers, phone calls, and emails from RCI asking us to bank our weeks.  But no information about a lawsuit.

Does anyone know when the information postcard or what have you is supposed to be sent out by RCI?

I do have to input that it isn't just Wyndham or RCI that does the false sales promises.  Currently own in Kauai after attending both a Quintas / Hanalei Bay Resort presentation (5 hours) and another at Pahio Bali Hai.  Bought from neither salesman.  Wyndham / Pahio salesman lied like his pants were on fire (small example:  he said that we could reserve / exchange within any of the Pahio resorts, for our week, without having to go through RCI).  It took almost 2 years for us to figure out 95% of what he said was bs.

Been exchanging thru RCI for about 15 years.  We've really noticed in the past 5 that's really hard work to find an equitable exchange through weeks. With our last banked week (Kauai) it took several calls and complaints over a 3 yr. period of searching, in 5 state options and multiple unit sizes, before RCI could "find" us an exchange into a smaller sized unit.  And it was about a month before our banked week was due to expire.  Ridiculous and frustrating.

I haven't seen a note, I'll check other threads too, is II as hard to deal with  as RCI?

Between HOA fees and RCI fees, and the inability to find a place to exchange, it's beginning to seem like we would be better off renting from someone else.  The only reason we haven't reverted to hotels is that we are a family of 6 that need kitchens during our trips.

Trying to find the right fit for us.  Really appreciate everyone's input all over the site.  Have exchanged with Tuggers - all good.

Jodi


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Rich - Sorry About That - Misread your post.*



> *Rich said:* Is there anything that requires RCI to post and make available a large percentage of the units that are exchanged by owners or unused in their inventory for the benefit of us owners who want to exchange.



Rich, upon review, I realized that I had misunderstood what you were asking.

Jeannie or someone else, may be aware of something that is currently in place that requires RCI to post (on their website) and/or make available a large percentage of the units that are exchanged by owners. But, I am not aware of such a requirement in their Terms of Service or agreement with RCI Weeks members. 

As far as I know there also is no requirement that RCI post (on their website) unused Inventory (such as Inventory that routinely shows up under Extra Vacations)  for the benefit of Weeks owners who want to exchange.

Hopefully, the recent action by the Court forcing better notice of a settlement will encourage RCI to re-think what it is doing with deposited Weeks Inventory and make amends. 

Although RCI may have the "legal" right to rent Weeks that are deposited by both Weeks members and Points members, RCI as a matter of fairness to its dues paying members should keep those deposits in Inventory for a specific period of time (the longer the better) for the benefit of the membership.


----------



## Golfnut7

*Ok, now I understand...*



Jennie said:


> If Bill owns only one week, and it has been converted to RCI points, he will no longer have access to the Weeks deposited in the Weeks space-bank because he will have no week there to search against.
> 
> I own two weeks and I have kept one in the "Weeks" program.  As such, I can search either program.  I also can deposit my Week into the points system.


----------



## carl2591

any know if redweek.com and the other site are posting info about the RCI lawsuit on there sites.. I am sure redweek gets a good amount of traffic from RCI members and others in relation to timeshare stuff..

I personally don't mind rci or others (II) renting out weeks as long as I get a shot at them as well.  heck most average folks (non tuggers) wait till 30 or so day out to even start looking for places to rent.  

what get me is,, are there really people paying the rates i see on some of the rental sites.. especially in hearing the ones here that are trying to rent stuff and having a hard time just getting MF most times.. 

sounds to like someone is not telling the truth in the matter.. not sure who to beleive.. rci or tuggers... 


had you .....  I would to beleive a tugger any day of the week..


----------



## Jennie

*RCI lawsuit update--sort of*

Following the last court hearing on August 12, 2009 in Trenton, New Jersey this time (vs. Newark on June 16), the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's attorneys asked the four "Objectors" if they would be interested in getting together with RCI to discuss our differences. We enthusiastically agreed and a meeting was scheduled for September 9th. Per their request about a week before the meeting, we submitted a list of the topics we wished to discuss, plus some questions we would like answered. 

There were 17 people in attendance. Shep Altshuler, publisher of Timesharing Today Magazine, was out-of-town due to a family emergency but joined us via a conference call for part of the session. 

RCI representatives included high level Management personnel from different departments. They were very cordial to us and seemed genuinely interested in hearing and understanding our objections to the proposed terms of the lawsuit settlement. 

The meeting lasted for 5 hours. We had ample opportunity to discuss all of the items on our 12 page list. RCI executives listened intently to our recommendations and asked many relevant questions.

At the conclusion of the meeting we were informed that RCI executives and attorneys would have further discussions about the topics raised and would get back to us (through the plaintiffs and defense attorneys) in a week or so. On September 16th, the attorneys were told that feedback would be received late Thursday afternoon or Friday.Toward the end of Friday we were told that one key executive had to "sign off" on it on Monday. Here it is Thursday morning and there is still no communication. 

We remain guardedly optimistic that essential changes will be made to the settlement terms. After all, they did not tell us "thanks, but no thanks."  

But at the same time, we are proceeding with plans to "get the word out" if we do not consider the changes to be enough. We are scheduled to speak at the annual owners' meeting of several timeshare resorts, and at local timeshare owner group meetings. We have an investigative reporter standing by to write an article for a major newspaper (which will be syndicated all over the country) i*f* RCI's policies do not become more member friendly. We have been preparing handouts with information about the smaller exchange companies, plus information about how to rent out your own timeshare (through ads on TUG, Redweek etc..).

I just wanted to let you all know that we're still working hard to try and bring about much needed improvements in the area of timeshare exchanges. 

Let's hope that RCI will decide to do the "right thing". Even they will benefit in the long run if they drastically scale back or eliminate their rental activity and concentrate on their core business of being an Exchange Company. 

More soon!


----------



## Dori

Jenny, a huge thanks to you all for your tireless work in trying to right the wrongs created by RCI.  Your efforts are greatly appreciated by members worldwide.

Dori


----------



## gnipgnop

How do we even being to thank you for all your diligence in trying to make this right???:   You have spent (probably too many to count) hours ~ days ~ weeks ~ months on this project and we want to support you in any way that we can.  As for now I want to throw out a SUPER BIG THANK YOU FROM ALL OF US "TUGGERS".  Good luck!


----------



## Jennie

You can't imagine how much all the wonderful comments mean to me! It makes the effort worthwhile. It's been a long grinding road. But we cannot let RCI get away with all this "garbage" without a fight. 

Thanks!
Jennie


----------



## falmouth3

Jennie, my thanks also.  You have put an incredible amount of effort and time into this.

I am no longer an RCI member, but if things turn around there, I may just rejoin.  I hope they realize now that they are losing members because of their business practices.

Sue


----------



## mopsy

*adding my thanks*

Jennie, on behalf of the people who bought from developers because we didn't know better (and those who are now forced to sell those dinosaurs for cents on the dollar) and for those of us who were lied to about 2-for-1's , extra vacations, exotic travel all over the world with just one phone call; who thought we'd have these great vacations for kids and grandkids but have nothing but high fees and heartburn...we THANK YOU for being a good guy in a land of greed and corruption.    



Question for Jennie: has anyone taken to YOUTUBE to rant about RCI and timeshare scams?  (Or would that be counterproductive to the legal task at hand?) If something did go up on Youtube and we on TUG were notified; TUGGERS could log on and leave messages to each other and more people could leave videos  with their own tales of lies and deception.  TV stations and networks have often told timeshare horror stories...why can't we do it ourselves?


----------



## MuranoJo

While I fully support Jennie, is it possible some people are confusing RCI with their own t/s organization?  RCI was not the enterprise promising people all those goodies when they purchased.  The company selling you timeshare may have promised you that, and they may and probably did say RCI would give you all the trades you wanted anywhere in the world, any time you want to go. That is typical of t/s sales.  This court battle will not resolve those issues.


----------



## Carolinian

muranojo said:


> While I fully support Jennie, is it possible some people are confusing RCI with their own t/s organization?  RCI was not the enterprise promising people all those goodies when they purchased.  The company selling you timeshare may have promised you that, and they may and probably did say RCI would give you all the trades you wanted anywhere in the world, any time you want to go. That is typical of t/s sales.  This court battle will not resolve those issues.



Oh, yes, they were.  RCI provided films and other materials to developers that were just as deep in the promising as the developers themselves.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *muranojo said:* While I fully support Jennie, is it possible some people are confusing RCI with their own t/s organization? RCI was not the enterprise promising people all those goodies when they purchased. The company selling you timeshare may have promised you that, and they may and probably did say RCI would give you all the trades you wanted anywhere in the world, any time you want to go. That is typical of t/s sales. This court battle will not resolve those issues.



muranojo you are correct that RCI was not the enterprise that promised people "all those goodies."  But, it is a fact that RCI from the get go provided the Developers with an "exchange model" to sell and the means and materials to grow both RCI's business and the business of the Developers.  

Timeshare owners for the past 35 years have considered RCI to be an “Exchange Company” and they joined RCI to EXCHANGE their Week or Weeks with other timeshare owners? 

The concept has been marketed by both RCI and Developers as exclusive and only available to dues paying members.  RCI's tweeking of the model has not been widely known until recently. Once the ignorant among us learn that the inventory they have deposited is being siphoned off for rentals and the profit put into RCI's pocket the stuff will hit the fan - or it should! 

The Exchange business has been RCI's bread and butter and the PRIMARY reason why all members pay their membership dues. There is NO dues paying member of RCI that I am aware of who gets any benefit what-so-ever from RCI RENTING inventory to anyone who is willing to pay the rental fee.

The fact that RCI deliberately has kept the Exchange Membership in the dark about their decision to change their business model is what is infuriating the Membership and what has prompted the Judge in the case to demand that RCI provide more comprehensive notice. 

In the end RCI will probably be able to continue Renting deposits that it's  membership gives them.  However, because of Jeannie and the few other folks who OBJECTED strongly at the court hearing those previously ignorant members will gain information that RCI would have rather they not know.

Jeannie, the Judge, and the other "objectors" have given RCI something to chew on and as a result we the membership may or may not be better off; but, hopefully RCI will see the error they have made and will begin to mitigate the public relations nightmare that is about to overwhelm them. 

The Court battle will not resolve the issue of who said what and when they said it; but as a result of the Court battle RCI and the timeshare industry as we know it will change, hopefully for the better.


----------



## zgreg9

*"... worst rip off artist and abuser of timeshare owners today is RCI..."*

These are the words from a retired British 25 year timeshare industry insider. 
To read his entire post please go to this link on HolidayWatchdog.com 
http://forum.holidaywatchdog.com/the-home-truths-t106800.html

Maybe someone involved in the class action negotiations could contact this gentleman to get the inside scoop.  

Greg


----------



## MuranoJo

OK, I totally believe RCI front-loaded developers with info & sales materials to fill pockets on both sides.  So people who come here complaining about resorts' sales tactics need a better response which implicates both parties, not just the resort.


----------



## teepeeca

*The "old" gold crown status*

RCI in bed with the developers??? At one timeshare I own, while in "developer's sales", RCI had given the resort a "gold crown" designation, which (in MY opinion) would definitely help sales.

After the developer left, the resort was "downgraded" to either "silver crown" or "standard" ---sorry, I can't remember the accurate designations.

When I questioned the resort, old developer, AND RCI, I was told, (by RCI, and the resort) that the "gold crown" designation was just a temporary designation to help sales, and the resort, under "normal" circumstances, would never be "awarded" the gold crown designation.

Therefore, I firmly believe that RCI WAS/IS a party to the deception.

Tony


----------



## Thanksgiving1997

*Robbed in 1997 Cabo San Lucas*

I am only now hearing about this RCI case. Of course the "settlement" is laughable and I can take no action to "claim" any benefit because it is pitiful and much of it requires doing continued business with these people.

One thing about this forum is that there seems to be an assumption that even 5% of the people who get coerced into a "timeshare" really end up wanting one or respecting the idea afterwards. Certainly few of us really cared about ever returning to stay at the nominal place that we "bought" in the Mexican town we were in. Most of us were totally bamboozled with the talk of being able to get a free week anywhere in the world at a 5 star resort and that the $5000 deposit is nothing compared to the future benefits when inflation makes rooms worth $200 or more in value per night. I stupidly "did the math" and stupidly figured that, even with a $400 per year "maintenance cost", there was actually an advantage to paying the $5000 deposit upfront. I was an idiot. This was completely wrong. That money was simply stolen. Even an upfront $400 per year, if paid many months in advance, would be pushing the limits of whether that was "worth it" for the ability to stay at a nice hotel for a week (money in the pocket until the last second has extraordinary value over money paid in advance).

I paid the phony maintenance fee for 2 years and then simply stopped paying. Nobody came after me. It did not effect my credit. They knew they were criminals and that the 2 years of fees + the deposit were all robberies with no benefit to me. Of course I never went back to Cabo San Lucas. By depositing the week with RCI, I basically lost the right to go to "my unit" anyway (I never say "my unit").

And it was with RCI that the robbery was really apparent.

You see, considering I had made a $5000 deposit and paid $400 in maintenance fees for Cabo San Lucas at Christmas (highly valuable exchange I believed it to be), I should have been able to make a phone call to RCI and negotiate a one week stay somewhere in Europe during any given week. This is what the Canadian salesman at the resort had said. No such luck! They wouldn't offer me anything anywhere. This is why I stopped paying the $400 annual maintenance fee for the resort. RCI had no intention of giving me any week "for free" anywhere.

That was their crime. They knew our timeshares had zero value (or at least those from certain resorts). They would just stonewall.

I remember being at a totally empty resort and asking that RCI at least give me that for a week. They said "nothing available". The receptionist next to me was laughing. RCI were total criminals.

Any class action suit would demand that we get back at least 20% of what we were taken in by the resorts that RCI colluded with.

The crime was collusion with the resorts.

I wouldn't take less than $1000 settlement.

The above challenge appears to be like a lot I know in business that are really a setup, a controlled-burn, where proper complaints are not filed, proper arguments are never made and presto, you get a "judgement or settlement" where everyone gets a $100 gift certificate if they jump through more hoops.


----------



## TUGBrian

Recieved this today from the publishers at Timesharing Today and am posting it here at their request.



> RCI faces another Class Action Suit - Points
> 
> TimeSharing Today recently learned that a Points member filed a class action Complaint in the same United States District Court in New Jersey as the Class Action lawsuit by Weeks Members. There are similar allegations in the Points Complaint in that it states RCI engages in a "fraudulent, deceptive and unconscionable marketing scheme" by representing "that only members of the program can access the timeshares," whereas RCI actually engages in the "practice of skimming a large percentage of the timeshares from the system, including many prime timeshares, and renting them to the general public at a profit to RCI, or selling them to vendors who then rent them to the general public."
> 
> 
> 
> It is interesting to note that Count II of the 38-page Points Complaint includes: A Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing.
> 
> 
> 
> RCI has filed a motion to dismiss certain aspects of the Complaint. The court has not yet ruled on that motion. A case management conference, setting deadlines for pretrial discovery and other pretrial procedures, is scheduled for October 26, 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> If you have not yet read a complaint in a class action lawsuit, take a few minutes to view the Points Complaint at http://tstoday.com/rciclassaction/glenz.pdf.
> 
> 
> 
> TimeSharing Today will continue to follow events in this lawsuit as it has done in the in Weeks Members Lawsuit. Another Fairness Hearing in the Weeks Member suit is scheduled for November 30th.
> 
> To send your comments, email: staff@tstoday.com Subject: Points Class Action



interesting info


----------



## rocketraj

*RCI weeks exchange program settlement*

Here is the website with the update on settlement and a link to the online claim form:

http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/claimoptions.htm

however, my browser seems to have trouble opening the link to the online claim form.

Raju.


----------



## RustyS

*Online Claim Site not working correctly*



rocketraj said:


> Here is the website with the update on settlement and a link to the online claim form:
> 
> http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/claimoptions.htm
> 
> however, my browser seems to have trouble opening the link to the online claim form.
> 
> Raju.



*Everyone* will have trouble opening the site.  There are at least three issues with the online claim form:

1) It won't open without a secure connection (https).  While this is common enough (let's face it all of our banking and even the RCI site uses it), it is the responsibility of the programmers of the site to make sure the link to a page that requires it includes the transition from HTTP to HTTPS.  Otherwise you have to reach up into the URL and add the "S".  Which I did, leading to...

2)  Their Certificate that ensures the secure connection isn't fraudulent is wrong.  The error they made is common enough, they moved the page to a server address that isn't covered by the fairly specific certificate.  It looks OK, so I said "I'll accept the risk, open the darned page", which led to...

3)  The form isn't there.  Bottom line it couldn't find the page.

You think the RCI programmers did this page too?

By the way, I looked at the send-it-via-the-mail version of the form, and our options are paltry.  Free renewal for a month or two in a program I've already decided to leave because it has been devalued.  The offer to get a prorated refund on my membership (I can (and have) gotten that already without the lawsuit).  Twenty or thirty bucks towards a future exchange (again in a program I'm quitting, and if I wasn't that is about a days worth of exchange), a day in a daily rental unit so long as I rent another (what inventory do they rent by the day?  Branson and Brownsville?).

These options are pitiful.  They screw us out of our precious property, our kids future vacations, and get a slap on the wrist.

I'm out of the whole thing.  They've already returned my 2010 week to me and as soon as I use up the older deposits I'll be getting that prorated refund.

Which brings up another question:  Is the RedWeek exchange program worth it?  They're offering me a number of points that seems to exceed most of the stuff I can see in their inventory, though their inventory is mostly run of the mill stuff (no Hyatts or Christmas weeks).  That's OK with me, that's what I have to deposit and expected anyway.  I've posted this question as a separate thread:

Exchanging through RedWeek:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107555


----------



## Carolinian

Don't cave in to this rape of timesharing by accepting their silly and worthless trinkets.  The thing to do is to object to the ''settlement''.




rocketraj said:


> Here is the website with the update on settlement and a link to the online claim form:
> 
> http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/claimoptions.htm
> 
> however, my browser seems to have trouble opening the link to the online claim form.
> 
> Raju.


----------



## BigElm

*Thank you Jennie...*

I don't post much here but when I got the email yesterday, the first thing I said to myself is "check tug". And here I am....

I agree with everyone that your efforts are appreciated and we can't thank you enough for what you're doing and continue to do for TS owners, as yourself. I received no notification about this lawsuit from RCI and I can't find any information on their website. I can't get the form to fill out and don't know if I'm already too late. I've tried the settlement link but there's only pdf info I see. 

I own both weeks and points and to be honest, points hasn't done much for me. I definitely have noticed very limited availabilty through both though my trading power is strong..... well, that's what RCI says  

Looking forward to the outcome and hopefully your efforts Jennie are not in vain! *fingers crossed*

/subscribed

EDIT: I guess it's been that long that my post count got reset :rofl:


----------



## DaveHenry

*Yesterday's Email Designed to Discourage Objections*

The linked documents for yesterday's email seem to be designed to discourage written objections.  They state that all written objections have to be postmarked by last April!  They are obviously the old documents that they didn't send us last winter.  However, many people will think that they have missed the deadline and not do anything.  I hope someone tells the judge about this!


----------



## Carolinian

DaveHenry said:


> The linked documents for yesterday's email seem to be designed to discourage written objections.  They state that all written objections have to be postmarked by last April!  They are obviously the old documents that they didn't send us last winter.  However, many people will think that they have missed the deadline and not do anything.  I hope someone tells the judge about this!



Does anyone beleive that this was a ''mistake'' by RCI????????


----------



## Stricky

Just an FYI that I received the lawsuit email yesturday (as I am sure all of you did)


> You May be a Member of a Class Action Settlement Regarding RCI Weeks® Timeshare Program and Entitled to Benefits
> A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that claims that RCI, LLC unlawfully rented or otherwise disposed of timeshare inventory deposited by members of the RCI Weeks® Exchange Program. RCI denies any wrongdoing.
> 
> The Settlement affects anyone who was a member of the RCI Weeks® Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009. If the Settlement is approved, Settlement Class Members who submit Claim Forms may receive monetary, travel-related or program benefits. Claim Forms must be submitted to the Settlement Administrator by November 20, 2009. If you previously submitted a Claim Form, you do not need to submit a new Claim Form.
> •	If you wish to exclude yourself from the lawsuit and keep your right to sue RCI on your own, you must send a written request for exclusion to David Berman, P.C., P.O. Box 111, Morristown, NJ 07963-0111 by November 20, 2009. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the Court's ruling in the case.
> •	If you do not exclude yourself, you can enter an appearance in Court through your own attorney at your own cost. You may also object to or comment on the Settlement. Objections and/or notices of appearance must be filed with the Clerk of the Court by November 20, 2009 and mailed to Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant.
> The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a Fairness Hearing on November 30, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.
> 
> For Detailed Information and a Claim Form
> Visit: www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, Call: 1-866-783-5876,
> or Write: Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 1966, Faribault, MN 55021-6162.
> Questions may also be directed to Class Counsel by email at rcisettlement@njlawyer.com.


----------



## TUGBrian

hopefully one of the people in our camp can let us know who mr Berman is, and which side of the fence he is on.

im guessing he is one of rcis attys


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Please Do NOT do anything hastily!*

I personally have not received a Post Card or E-mail from RCI and may never receive one; but, no one should act before we have input from Jeannie.

Then we should get together and make our feelings known to the Judge through a written objection, if that is what Jeannie recommends.

Here is some information on Berman:



> RCI Settlement
> 
> David C. Berman, a Professional Corporation was designated Plaintiffs’ Liaison Counsel in a nationwide class action that was filed in New Jersey during 2006 on behalf of RCI Weeks Program members. Through its Weeks Program, RCI offers its members the option of depositing their vacation week in a spacebank to exchange it for a comparable week from the spacebank. Plaintiffs allege that RCI actually rents out the most desirable and highly demanded vacation weeks from the spacebank, thus depleting the most desirable options available to Weeks Program members who seek exchanges. Preliminary approval of the settlement reached in this lawsuit was entered on December 17, 2008. If you meet the definition of a class member, your rights may be affected.



http://www.njlawyer.com/RCISettlement.asp

Let's wait and see who this Berman fellow is.  Jeannie should be bringing us up to date soon.


----------



## stevedmatt

I also did not receive an email. This may be due to the fact that I opted out of the class during the first go round. I'm surprised that I would not have that option once again, but I would still opt out again anyhow.


----------



## Drivr

Keep an eye on your junk mail folders. A lot of mail program are marking that mailing from RCI as junk mail and it wont go into your inbox. Thought it was kind of funny to see this email was correctly filed in the junk folder by OUtlook.:hysterical:


----------



## MuranoJo

I didn't receive mail or email regarding this and it is not in my junk bin which I've learned to check every day.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*An Update on The Weeks Class Action*

Yesterday afternoon at 4:26 PM (Post # 356) TUGBrian shared with us a snippet from an E-Mail that TSTODAY gave permission to publish here on TUG. 

Recently I learned that a more detailed E-Mail had been published elsewhere on the Internet. The entire E-Mail should be of interest to those following this particular thread.  But, it would be inappropriate for yours truly to identify where the entire E-Mail was posted or to even mention again the specific publication that TUGBrian has previously mentioned because of the ban against advertising. 

Maybe with encouragement TUGBrian will post the entire E-Mail. 

Meanwhile, here is a quote from the original E-Mail that provides:   



> Weeks Class Action update
> 
> Objectors to the proposed RCI Weeks Class Action Settlement are waiting for news regarding a Court determination on whether it will appoint a Lead Counsel for the Objectors.
> 
> Two attorneys have submitted applications to be named "Lead Counsel for the Objectors" in order to coordinate Objections and to enjoy more formal status in the case: Susan Collins, a matrimonial attorney from Western New York who owns 9 timeshare weeks, and who has extensive experience with timesharing and exchanges, and Stephan Willett, a former patent attorney whose parents own a timeshare week, and who is has some experience as a class-action attorney. TST's publisher, Shep Altshuler, who has attended the court appearances and has seen both attorneys in action, has supported the appointment of Ms.Collins as Lead Counsel for the Objectors.





> A link to the 38-page proposed settlement can be found at the bottom of RCI's log-in page. *(Readers should be careful when printing the document, or they will print all 291 pages including the attachments!) *


----------



## TUGBrian

that info you posted was made public many weeks ago with susan collins actually posting here in this thread.

the info I posted the other day was something TSTODAY had asked me to post here, it relates to the POINTS side of the house, vs the WEEKS side as mostly discussed here.

The email sent to RCI members earlier today was in relation to the WEEKS settlement.


----------



## Lazz

I am a real rookie on the whole court case, but I did receive the e mail yesterday with a link to the website.  The additional link in the website to the online claim form does work for me.  Should I submit, or wait?

http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/claimoptions.htm

In addition.  here are some of the important dates they have posted:



> Settlement Website
> 
> Class Period - January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009
> Exclusion Deadline – November 20, 2009
> Objection Deadline - November 20, 2009
> Claim Form Deadline – November 20, 2009
> Fairness Hearing - November 30, 2009 at 2:30


----------



## jdp0906

All I can say is Oh My Gawd,

Something is actually challenging thsse creeps.  I only found out yesterday.  I will replay my experience and then ask those so very involved how I can be the most effective with my actions.

My husband and I reserved a 3 bedroom unit at the Fairway Villas in the Poconos.  Set - for many months.  2 days before travelling, a call from a supervisor at RCI telling me we have to change our plans.  Two lesser units were all that were available, THEY HAD OVER BOOKED.  Sleeplessly, I called the resort and found a person that could confirm my reservation and the unit that was assigned, that met what we reserved, a 3 bedroom.

The following day RCi cancelled that reservation.  Now, with only one day to travel, we have no reservations at all.  More calls with RCI and the resort, we resolved to the 2 lesser units and other concessions.

Many family plans were made based on the original booking that fell apart because, at the last minute RCI was able to rent the 3 BR unit and screw us.

What is the best way we should proceed.  Of course I will submit the necessary form to be a part of the class action suit  - but what I do that is more.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Update: Rci Class Action Lawsuit*



> *Posted by TUGBrian: *The email sent to RCI members earlier today was in relation to the WEEKS settlement.



Brian, I realize that the E-mail sent to RCI members earlier today was in relation to the WEEKS settlement.  I, however, still have not received the same E-Mail and as I said earlier, I may never get the E-Mail or a card from RCI although I have been a member for 24+ years. I would not have seen the link on RCI's website either had I not read about how RCI provided the link last time. 

For those interested, if you are an RCI Member and enter your USERNAME and Password to access RCI.com you too will probably NOT see the link. 

The link has been posted by RCI as they may have done prior to April, 2009; but unless you *do not *log-in you will will not see it. To see it you have to go to the site as a Non-Member would and scroll down to the bottom of the initial page without logging-on. Once you log-on the link disappears. (Is that devious or what!) How many of you routinely go to the site and scroll to the bottom of the page before logging-on? 

You are correct that the original E-Mail referred to above started out by announcing the "Points" Class Action Suit. * But *talking about just the "Points" Class Action was not the only purpose of the complete E-Mail that I was referring to. Upon closer inspection, (if you have a copy of the complete E-Mail) you should find that the version that I saw had much more to say about what we have been discussing.  

If you did not receive the entire E-Mail and therefore are unaware of the complete text, the fact that it has not been posted is understandable.  *But*, if you did receive the entire E-Mail as seen elsewhere on the Internet, please reconsider posting it. 

In its entirety, the original E-Mail shares the insight of someone who was probably present at the most recent RCI WEEKS Law Suit court hearings. The information imparted provides the readers of this thread some interesting input.   

I have spent most of the last two hours reviewing this entire thread.  You are correct that Susan Collins had specifically advised that she would be applying for permission to be Lead Counsel for the "objectors."  But, I was not able to find out much about the other Lawyer who also wanted the appointment.

What I did pick up on was the fact that the other applicant was probably not as well qualified as Susan to represent timeshare owners.

After reading the entire thread and the apparent complete version of the E-Mail, I am satisfied that we are fortunate to have someone like Susan Collins going to bat for us.  It is my hope that the Judge does in fact appoint her counsel for the "objectors."  

Anyone who takes the time to read every post in this thread is going to become well informed about the current status of the WEEKS Class Action Lawsuit.  So when you get the chance dive in!


----------



## Jennie

I have been sitting here on the sidelines reeading all your kind comments for weeks, dying to let you know what's been happening re: the RCI Weeks lawsuit. Since September 9th, while we were in active negotions with RCI, we were *required by law* not to disclose anything that was being said or done. Proposals and counter proposals were made. The last, and presumably final offer was rejected. I cannot say anything further about the specifics at this time. 

Hundreds, if not thousands of hours have bees spent by the four objectors trying to persuade RCI to offer a better settlement. However, in the end  they offered very little. I'm not an attorney so I'm not sure if/when I'll be allowed to share the details. 

My personal opinion is that RCI has little regard for their members' needs and rights and will engage in any activity they can get away with to increase their revenues no matter how unfair or unconscionable it may be to their members.  Am I surprised? Of course not. I've been a member since 1995 and have been a first hand observer of the slow but steady decline in service and positive results members have received.  

*At this point we "Objectors" are asking for a bit more time before offering a recommendation about how to respond to the options you will soon be offered in the proposed settlement notice. There are serious pros and cons to each course of action which I'll try to explain in detail soon. We are awaiting clarification of a few legal points.*

Frustrating? Yes  

Waste of time and effort? Absolutely not. Eighteen people attended the September 9th conference, including some high ranking officials of the corporation (translate: decison makers). They clearly know what they are doing is wrong. I'd like to think that we made them aware of some important facts that they have not been properly factoring into the equation. 

I showed them a list of almost 100 exchanges we have made, literally to places all over the U.S., Mexico, Caribbean, Canada, Hawaii, and Europe. Hubby and I own 19 weeks, including one junk week we purchased "way back when" before we knew much about timesharing. That's the only week we deposit anymore.  And through TUG I learned how to turn even that lemon into lemonade. I've gotten the Manhattan Club twice in the summer with it, and some prime February weeks in southeast Florida. But RCI will never again get their grubby paws on our prime weeks. In fact we haven't even bothered to register with them the weeks we both over the past five years via resale.

Since I saw the impact the rental activity was having upon the quality and quantity of weeks being offered for exchange, I have purchased only prime weeks that we plan to use ourselves every year. They have excellent rental potential if we decide to do something different one year. Then we would rent our week and use the money received to rent a week directly from another timeshare owner. So who needs RCI? 

The economy has virtually halted the development and sales of new timeshares. Being able to rent timeshares at prices below what an owner pays in maintenance fees is a powerful disincentive to anyone buying any timeshare. People are traveling less and staying at their drive-to timeshares instead of exchanging. People are unfortunately walking away from their timeshares because of job loss, home forclusures, bankruptcies, etc... 

It is quite likely that in a few years the free weeks that the developers have been providing to RCI will dry up, cutting off one of their main sources of rental profits. Exchange revenues could drop so much that RCI will have to do all in their power to "court" their current members and try to win back those they aleinated. Bad behaviour is often times punished in unexpected ways.

There are severe penalties imposed if a corporation is caught violating the terms of a settled class action lawsuit. We have come up with a plan to catch violations if RCI is brazen enough to try it. It is a rather ingenious plan, I think, that is possible only because there are web sites like TUG, with fair-minded members who really care about cleaning up the garbage being spewed into "our world of timeshares" by greedy companies like RCI. More about that later. There are other things being worked on that cannot be mentioned publicly. All I can say is that publicity about this lawsuit may have brought forth some potential "whistle blowers." 

As Carolinian has so often suggested, working through state Attorney General's Offices and consumer protection agencies may be the way to accomplish some of what this class action lawsuit may not do.

That said, there is still the possibility that some improvements will be made to the current settlement. It's far from dead. More information will be provided soon.

CLARIFICATION of one thing that is IMHO very poorly written in the official settlement: You may choose one of the rather worthless benefits AND object to the settlent at the same time. But if you choose to "Opt out" then you cannot request any of the trinkets.


----------



## hajjah

I have a question.  This latest link to the claim page is working.  Where we are asked to list the resort names and ID's, are we to list all of the RCI resorts that we owned during the years identified for the claim, or what we presently own that are with RCI?  I would have to go to the RCI website and get a list of at least 10 RCI resort ID numbers.  I wanted to ask before I submit the claim form.
Thanks.


----------



## jdp0906

Need some help here.

I was starting to fill out the online form.  I want to be part of the class action suit, but I don't want to shoot myself in the foot.

I got o the inquiry of what I would settle for and don't want to settle for any of them and say that that is it.  I want to proceed as objecting to their 'trinkets' and stay aboard to bring this action to a more satifying end for all members.

Should I just opt for one of the offerings and then object.

Please help me to make sure I don't legally forfeit my rights to force these greedy individuals in doing what is right.

Jane Pietras


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Poll*



> Posted by TugBrian: Just out of sheer morbid curiosity, I added a multiple choice poll to this thread. please vote.
> 
> *note your username is not displayed publicly in this poll, and the last option was so I can see the results without clicking "view results" every time i visit the thread...im lazy =) but feel free to click it and make me happy!
> 
> Also if ive missed a viable option or two, please let me know and ill add it to the choices
> __________________
> Brian Rogers - Owner
> Timeshare Users Group



Brian,

For what ever reason I can not find the poll within the thread or anywhere else on the BB. 

Apparently I am doing something wrong or I have missed something somewhere. 

Your help in finding it would be most appreciated.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *Posted by Jane Pietras:*  Please help me to make sure I don't legally forfeit my rights to force these greedy individuals in doing what is right.



Jane recommend that you wait a few days before filling out the form.  Keep checking back here for more input from the Lawyer Susan Collins or our point person Jeannie.

*Meanwhile:* The instructions on the site about your options were not written very well and may be confusing. *You may choose one of the rather worthless benefits AND object to the settlement at the same time. But if you choose to "Opt Out" then you cannot request any of the "trinkets" and you are on your own.*


----------



## jdp0906

Thank you Goofy - my most favorite Disney Character, OBTW.

My position is that that RCI is not acting in a fair and just manner with their inventory assignments.  Furthermore, I believe that the Berman law office is not working on behalf of their clients, the T/S owners representives.  4 million for nothing but lip service.

I will be a strong fighter, but need a direction on how to proceed.

Jane


----------



## KJV

*Rci Canceled*

After 20 plus years with RCI and II I did not renew RCI last week. What ever little settlement they agree to with some new catch is not worth giving them a new membership. After a couple years I was always questioning the fairness of how the system worked. I do not think I have received any e-mail telling of the class action law suit. Thanks for a place to vent.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*If You Are No Longer an RCI Weeks Member - What Can You Do?*

*To Guest*:  KGV and others who come here to "vent" or seek guidance.

If you have stopped your membership with RCI since 2000 or are contemplating ending your membership you must have had a reason for leaving the fold.

People who were members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009 are members of the settlement class.

*YOU STILL HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT!*​


> *NOTE:* If you are or were a member of the RCI Points Exchange Program, but you were not also a member of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009, you are not a member of the Settlement Class.



Those of us who strongly feel that this Settlement proposal is wrong and that RCI should be held accountable need help to get enough OBJECTORS!

We need well over a thousand members of the class to object in writing to the settlement.

You as former Members of RCI WEEKS or about to be former Members of RCI WEEKS also should consider objecting to the possibility that the Plaintiffs attorneys may be granted up to $4,000,000.00 in legal fees.

If YOU think that it is fair for RCI to receive a COURT's stamp of approval to RENT deposits made by MEMBERS OF RCI, then so be it!

If the Settlement is approved (and *it is likely to be approved UNLESS enough members of the class OBJECT*), RCI will be able to point to the Court Approved Settlement of This Class Action and say:





> *For two years*:You as an EXCHANGER can deposit your week more than 12 months before the check-in date and RCI will leave your week for other Exchangers for up to 31 days from the date of deposit. *After 31 Days, including the date of deposit, RCI is free to use the UNIT for any purpose and without limitation for RENTAL.*






> If you as an EXCHANGER deposit less than 12 months before check-in, RCI is free to use the UNIT for Exchange or for RENTAL if there is no Exchange Request for your WEEK on the date of deposit.



*What happens after the TWO YEAR period has expired:*  I will leave it up to your imagination!  

On average, when you did deposit a UNIT with RCI how many months before check-in did you make your deposit?

When you begin your search for a Vacation how far in advance on average do you set-up the search?

If this Settlement is approved the door is WIDE open for any EXCHANGE company to take your deposits and OPENLY RENT the UNITS.

Where will unsophisticated Timeshare EXCHANGERS go to make their exchanges?

Folks, we are on the edge of a slippery slope. How long before we completely lose the ability to Exchange with a major Exchange company?


----------



## GadgetRick

So, to sum it up...should we still wait before doing anything or participate? It's all gotten very confusing...just the way they want it.


----------



## Tia

Great post. I'll put a link here to my resorts yahoo group but need a link to where people can object if there is such?



Goofyhobbie said:


> *To Guest*:  KGV and others who come here to "vent" or seek guidance.
> 
> If you have stopped your membership with RCI since 2000 or are contemplating ending your membership you must have had a reason for leaving the fold.
> 
> People who were members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009 are members of the settlement class.
> 
> *YOU STILL HAVE A DOG IN THE FIGHT!*​
> 
> 
> Those of us who strongly feel that this Settlement proposal is wrong and that RCI should be held accountable need help to get enough OBJECTORS!
> 
> We need well over a thousand members of the class to object in writing to the settlement..............
> 
> ?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*How To Object To The Settlement*

My recommendation is to continue to wait until "Jeannie" and/or "Susan" come back to this thread and tell us their recommendation on HOW and WHEN to object. But, for those that can't wait here is the information requested: 

The following is available at the RCI web site.  To get access YOU DO NOT HAVE TO BE A CURRENT MEMBER OF RCI. 

*Note:* If you are a current member of RCI the link disappears IF you Log on the site. GO TO RCI.COM. (*Do NOT log on!*) Once you are at the site scroll down to the bottom of the FRONT PAGE. 

http://www.rci.com/RCI/

The selection that is quoted below is found in the Frequently Asked Questions section. 



> *How do I object to the settlement? *
> 
> If you’re a Class member, you can object to the settlement if you don’t like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to the settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS). Be sure to include the class member’s name, address, telephone number, RCI Weeks Exchange Program Identification Number, Resort Identification Number, resort name and your signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement. Mail the objection to these places postmarked no later than November 20, 2009 to:
> 
> Clerk of Court
> United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
> 402 East State Street
> Trenton, New Jersey 08608
> 
> 
> David C. Berman
> A Professional Corporation
> P.O. Box 111
> Morristown, NJ 07963-0111 David S. Sager, Esq
> DAY PITNEY LLP
> P.O. Box 1945
> Morristown, NJ 07962-1945
> 
> 
> 
> *What is the difference between objecting and excluding? *
> 
> Objecting is telling the Court that you don’t like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the Class. Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t want to be part of the Class. If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.
> 
> 
> *May I speak at the hearing?*
> 
> You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter saying that it is your “Notice of Intention to Appear in In re: Resort Condominium International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS).” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature. Your notice of Intention to appear must be postmarked no later than November 20, 2009 and be sent to the Clerk of the Court, Co-Lead Class Counsel, and Defense Counsel, at the following addresses:
> 
> Clerk of Court
> United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
> 402 East State Street
> Trenton, New Jersey 08608
> David C. Berman
> A Professional Corporation
> P.O. Box 111
> Morristown, NJ 07963-0111  David S. Sager, Esq
> DAY PITNEY LLP
> P.O. Box 1945
> Morristown, NJ 07962-1945
> 
> *What are the deadlines? *
> 
> •If you wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement, you must send in a written request for exclusion to the Co-Lead Class Counsel postmarked no later than November 20, 2009.
> 
> 
> •If you wish to object to the Settlement, you must send your objection to the Clerk of the Court, Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel so that it is received by them by November 20, 2009.
> 
> 
> •If you wish to appear at the Final Settlement Hearing, you must file a Notice of Intention to Appear with the Clerk of the Court, and serve the Notice on Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel so that it is received by them by November 20, 2009.
> 
> 
> •The final settlement hearing will be held November 30, 2009 at 2:30 pm.


----------



## GadgetRick

Ok sitting tight...


----------



## mempho_to_diego

i just got an email today, here are the contents:



> You May be a Member of a Class Action Settlement Regarding RCI Weeks® Timeshare Program and Entitled to Benefits
> 
> A Settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that claims that RCI, LLC unlawfully rented or otherwise disposed of timeshare inventory deposited by members of the RCI Weeks® Exchange Program. RCI denies any wrongdoing.
> 
> The Settlement affects anyone who was a member of the RCI Weeks® Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009. If the Settlement is approved, Settlement Class Members who submit Claim Forms may receive monetary, travel-related or program benefits. Claim Forms must be submitted to the Settlement Administrator by November 20, 2009. If you previously submitted a Claim Form, you do not need to submit a new Claim Form.
> •	If you wish to exclude yourself from the lawsuit and keep your right to sue RCI on your own, you must send a written request for exclusion to David Berman, P.C., P.O. Box 111, Morristown, NJ 07963-0111 by November 20, 2009. If you do not exclude yourself, you will be bound by the Court's ruling in the case.
> •	If you do not exclude yourself, you can enter an appearance in Court through your own attorney at your own cost. You may also object to or comment on the Settlement. Objections and/or notices of appearance must be filed with the Clerk of the Court by November 20, 2009 and mailed to Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant.
> The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a Fairness Hearing on November 30, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608.
> 
> For Detailed Information and a Claim Form
> Visit: www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, Call: 1-866-783-5876,
> or Write: Settlement Administrator, P.O. Box 1966, Faribault, MN 55021-6162.
> Questions may also be directed to Class Counsel by email at rcisettlement@njlawyer.com.



i just got my timeshare this summer on July 21st, 2009 - so I think I became a member of RCI at the same time, as I got all my RCI information sometime in the first or second week of September. Hmmm, so what should I do? Should I fill out a claim form?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Welcome to Timesharing and Exchanging for as long as it is a viable concept.*

Yes you most definitely are a member of the class.  You can file a claim for the same benefits as the old timers and you can also OBJECT to the Settlement as offered to the court. 

Our purpose in objecting is to get a MUCH better Settlement and/or to light a fire under RCI as well as other like minded companies who would prefer to take our Weeks or Points and Rent same rather than provide them to their membership for Exchange.

Please check back here often for updates and to get guidance on what you should do. It will be forthcoming.


----------



## Fredm

*Suggestion*

We all appreciate the effort Jennie and the other objectors are putting forth in the name of justice. RCI has become a parasite on timesharing.

Words alone cannot support the selfless investment of time, energy and money being spent to represent our interests in this case.

How about TUG starting a defense fund to support the efforts of Jennie and others that are representing all of us?
If nothing else, it can help offset the cost of gas, supplies, and other necessary expenses.  

If TUG will act as a repository, I will kick in my $20.


----------



## stevedmatt

So if I opted out of the class previously, I have no basis to object now? I actually thought at the time that my actions were the same as objecting.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Status of Class Member If He Opts Out*

Steve,

Based on my understanding of how a Class Action suit works, once you  opt-out you are no longer a member of the class and therefore have no standing before the Court. 

That means your Objection, if made, would probably fall on deaf ears. 

However, if you feel strongly enough about the issue, you could write a letter to the Court (following the procedures above) and point out that you as a layman thought at the time that by opting out you were giving notice that you OBJECT! 

If it was truly not your intention to take yourself out of the class maybe the Court would allow you back in as a member of the class and give weight to your written objection.

It should be obvious to all concerned that you are not trying to reap a gain ("trinket") from the settlement. You are simply asking that your objection be noted!

*Go for it!*  The most you have to lose is a few minutes of your time and the cost of mailing. What you have to gain is a lot of satisfaction!


----------



## martinimary

*rci weeks settlement*

i also rec'd no email or snail mail, and i check my suspect email all the time. i own both weeks and points and i am not happy with either.


----------



## Carolinian

It is important that as many people as possible object to the ''settlement'' (sellout by official attorneys for plaintiffs to line their own pockets at our expense).


----------



## JPD

*no email yet*

Here it is 6 oct, and I have not received my email yet. How long should we wait for this email before it's too late. Is there a site where it's posted so we can make sure our name is included as an objector in this suit.


----------



## lgreenspan

I have never recieved any e-mails concerning this lawsuit. Although I still recieve a e-mail about once a week on some special they have?


----------



## Tia

I might even be a member of the class since the date is 2000....going to have to look at my old RCI books.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Site Where You Can Object To Settlement*



> *Posted by JPD:* Here it is 6 oct, and I have not received my email yet. How long should we wait for this email before it's too late. Is there a site where it's posted so we can make sure our name is included as an objector in this suit.



Please refer to *Post # 384 *of this thread.


----------



## mempho_to_diego

Goofyhobbie said:


> Yes you most definitely are a member of the class.  You can file a claim for the same benefits as the old timers and you can also OBJECT to the Settlement as offered to the court.
> 
> Our purpose in objecting is to get a MUCH better Settlement and/or to light a fire under RCI as well as other like minded companies who would prefer to take our Weeks or Points and Rent same rather than provide them to their membership for Exchange.
> 
> Please check back here often for updates and to get guidance on what you should do. It will be forthcoming.



goofy, so i plan to object to this to try and get a better deal from RCI ... so, according to your post; should i just check back later on in this thread to see how, as an entity/individually, i/we will object? I want to ensure we do this before the nov. 20th timeframe.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*What Can You Do!*



> *Posted by mempho_to_diego:* goofy, so i plan to object to this to try and get a better deal from RCI ... so, according to your post; should i just check back later on in this thread to see how, as an entity/individually, i/we will object? I want to ensure we do this before the nov. 20th timeframe.



*Yes, keep checking back. *

The "objector team," which is led by an Attorney who is a Member of The Class and a very avid timeshare user, is working on their strategy. 

We want to do as much as possible to get the word out about the issues involved in this lawsuit, and what action owners can take, if they wish.

For specifics on the Attorney go to Post # 42, & #46 in this thread.

*"Susan2" *(the attorney) and *"Jeannie"* (who started this thread), have both contributed many times here and their comments are definitely worth your time). They have personally interacted with the Judge and the other key players in this case. 

There are many objectors who have signed up for Susan Collins to represent them.  Soon Ms. Collins will be communicating with those objectors who have signed up. I anticipate that she will also post here once strategy has been communicated.

Rest assured information will be forthcoming in plenty of time to get your objection into play. 

If you want to let her know of your interest, consider contacting her directly; but, to keep things managable, I am willing to take your Name by PM.

The minimum information necessary is your Name, TUG USERNAME, and E-Mail address. (They will be put into a spreadsheet and conveyed to the "objector team" for easy access.) 

It no doubt will be easier for her if she receives just a few E-Mails as opposed to what we hope will be thousands of objectors. 

Meanwhile, think about who you can reach out to!

*It is important that as many RCI Members as possible understand what is at stake.* Personal communication to your friends, HOA, relatives etc will mean a lot.


----------



## TUGBrian

hopefully some new and useful info will be available on TUG soon for all of you to read.  =)


----------



## bunny217

*so many questions....*

Okay..I just stumbled upon all of this...We have 2 weeks RCI and another 2 weeks that were converted over to points at Orange Lake.  I'm trying hard to understand everything - but I'm getting more confused the more I read.  We are not happy with RCI either  (haven't been for a long time)...and have never gotten ANY emails from them...not even "specials" - 
   In our family - all together we have 4/5 people that are owners...they are not happy either, and when I asked if they knew about any of this - I was told they didn't.
   Can anyone point us in the right direction?  Is it too late to be involved?
We've been RCI members since about 1985...we've just followed along like sheep I guess..... 
        Can anyone explain in a nutshell what we should do to help or get involved?
            thanks...Barb in Texas


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Welcome To TUG*



> *Bunny217 posted:* Can anyone point us in the right direction?
> 
> Is it too late to be involved?  No you are still in time!
> We've been RCI members since about 1985...we've just followed along like sheep I guess.....
> 
> Can anyone explain in a nutshell what we should do to help or get involved?
> thanks...Barb in Texas



*(Barb, your Post is #400 on this Thread.) You can see your number on the top right of your post. * 

Please go to* Post # 384 *and read carefully.  For more good information go to *Post # 1*, *#42 *and *#46 *of this thread.


----------



## Almstnownr

*Saved by Tug!!*

Just a note thanking all the members of this site for the wonderful informative information reguarding RCI and the obvious stealing of members property. We just returned from a Vegas trip, bought a timeshare at the Grandview, rated a gold star and red. We were given a so called bonus week from RCI to use on our off years. I was skeptical about the whole exchange thing from the get go so I did some research and viola found your site. We were TOLD, this was a privately owned condos and only owners would be using the resort. HA what a load of crap!:annoyed:  I typed in the Grandview and it came up as a HOTEL and the condos were being rented to anyone and everyone and at really cheap rates as low as 70$ a night. They were listed on every travel site known to mankind. The so called bonus week were limited to off times and only a few resorts so vitually useless for our travel needs. It made no sense to me to pay for m/f, fees to RCI, the cost of timeshare ownership there, just to have my time rented to joe public with no interest invested whatsoever. After spending numerous hours here reading through all the posts we made the decision to cancel our purchase, luckily we were in the timeframe allotted to do so. What a scam this business has become, developers in bed with RCI to get as much money as they can from unsuspecting people walking into their traps. I read in the RCI info packet they gave us that the Grandview has over 1000 members alone.


----------



## TUGBrian

confirmed, I will have some new info to post for all of you tomorrow afternoon.


----------



## BigElm

^ Looking forward to it...

For the record, I have not sent any form filled out yet in hopes to see what our Objection representatives are able to accomplish. I read something about a list of objectors, is that something Jennie or Susie has somewhere or just send an email/PM? I think I read that, I just wanted to be clear before I bother anyone here


----------



## Fredm

*Bump*



Fredm said:


> We all appreciate the effort Jennie and the other objectors are putting forth in the name of justice. RCI has become a parasite on timesharing.
> 
> Words alone cannot support the selfless investment of time, energy and money being spent to represent our interests in this case.
> 
> How about TUG starting a defense fund to support the efforts of Jennie and others that are representing all of us?
> If nothing else, it can help offset the cost of gas, supplies, and other necessary expenses.
> 
> If TUG will act as a repository, I will kick in my $20.



Any interest in doing this?


----------



## Fredm

*RCI Rental Revenue*

For those interested in the magnitude of RCI's timeshare rental business, it will generate ~$620,000,000 in revenue this year.  
Second quarter 2009 was $158,000,000.

Puts the whole issue in some perspective when discussing what is fair to members.


----------



## TUGBrian

im not sure of the legal ramifications of doing this, as money sent to TUG would likely just be considered income (and taxable) etc.

if you were to do something like this, id think sending it directly to said individuals paypal account would be more appropriate.


----------



## theo

*Your source???*



Fredm said:


> For those interested in the magnitude of RCI's timeshare rental business, it will generate ~$620,000,000 in revenue this year.
> Second quarter 2009 was $158,000,000.
> 
> Puts the whole issue in some perspective when discussing what is fair to members.



Not disputing / challenging your statement, but I'm curious to know where those figures come from....


----------



## geekette

theo said:


> Not disputing / challenging your statement, but I'm curious to know where those figures come from....



Yes, and I want to be sure it is ONLY RENTALS.


----------



## rickandcindy23

I heard something on the news today about Wyndham, but I heard it while I was on the phone, kind of in the background, and I went to turn it up, and I hit the channel change button, so I couldn't go backwards.  

I think Wyndham is restructuring it's business model, including RCI, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Fredm

Ah, didn't consider that.

Good alternative.  

How about it Jennie? Is there an account we can send donations to?


----------



## Fredm

theo said:


> Not disputing / challenging your statement, but I'm curious to know where those figures come from....



Directly from Wyndham's financials. 

*"Vacation Exchange and Rentals (Group RCI)
Revenues were $280 million in the second quarter of 2009, an 11% decrease compared with the second quarter of 2008, primarily related to the impact of unfavorable foreign currency movements. In constant currency, revenues decreased only 1%, as favorability in vacation rental revenues was offset by lower ancillary revenues.

Annual dues and exchange revenues were $112 million, relatively flat in constant currency compared with the second quarter of 2008 reflecting a 3% increase in the average number of members and a 4% decline in revenue per member. Including the impact of foreign currency, revenues declined 6% from the second quarter of 2008."*


----------



## Fredm

geekette said:


> Yes, and I want to be sure it is ONLY RENTALS.



Yep, just rentals. Memberships and exchange fees have been backed out.

280mm less 112mm in dues and fees = 168mm . Oops! I said 158mm. Looks like 168mm.

RCI claims 137mm rentals for the 2nd quarter. The rest is in interest income, etc.


----------



## bunny217

*thank you..*

GoofyHobbie/Dave for pointing me where I should go and start...I've printed out the posts you highlighted and have read through them...I also looked up the "action" suit info on the RCI site...and this confuses me...would this be us?   We've always owned weeks, and then three years ago took two of those weeks and turned them into points...keeping the other 2 weeks as weeks....so are we included or not?   This is what I copied from the site:

   People who were members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009 may be eligible for special settlement benefits. If you are or were a member of the RCI Points Exchange Program, but you were not also a member of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009, you are not a member of the Settlement Class. 

   Also...there is a list of "Eligible for Expiring Benefits" on that link too....I see my husband's name...(or maybe there's a few people with that name) on it.  What is that?
   I'm sorry to be asking so many questions...but we were really sad and disappointed that we've not been able to arrange for my daughter and her family to stay with us at Orange Lake, when we are there...we had to do a "last call" week at another resort down the road.   
   I wish there was a "Timeshare Friendly to Owners - Dummy Book" for people like me....I'm so glad to have found this site, but still get so confused at everything there is to know.   I really hate going to those "meetings" that they want you to go to each vacation....they really upset me.   We never hear the same thing twice...
   Well - thank you again for listening....Barb in Texas


----------



## geekette

Fredm said:


> Yep, just rentals. Memberships and exchange fees have been backed out.
> 
> 280mm less 112mm in dues and fees = 168mm . Oops! I said 158mm. Looks like 168mm.
> 
> RCI claims 137mm rentals for the 2nd quarter. The rest is in interest income, etc.



holy crap.  that's ... obscene.


----------



## geekette

Sounds to me like you are a class member for the Weeks action.

Don't know about the expiring benefits thing.

There is a Timeshare for Dummies book but I don't recommend it.  Much is false and/or misleading.  If you really want it, check it out of the library vs spending money on it.  it could be a decent starting point for you or "well, duh, I knew all that!"

On this site you can find honest info and experience.  stick around, ask questions.   You don't need a book when you have an interactive place to drop in and get answers to your specific questions, not general 'when x, then y' crap that never seems to fit your situation. 

skip the "meetings", they are just sales presentations so generally not geared to benefit you!



bunny217 said:


> GoofyHobbie/Dave for pointing me where I should go and start...I've printed out the posts you highlighted and have read through them...I also looked up the "action" suit info on the RCI site...and this confuses me...would this be us?   We've always owned weeks, and then three years ago took two of those weeks and turned them into points...keeping the other 2 weeks as weeks....so are we included or not?   ...
> Also...there is a list of "Eligible for Expiring Benefits" on that link too....I see my husband's name...(or maybe there's a few people with that name) on it.  What is that?
> ...
> I wish there was a "Timeshare Friendly to Owners - Dummy Book" for people like me....I'm so glad to have found this site, but still get so confused at everything there is to know.   I really hate going to those "meetings" that they want you to go to each vacation....they really upset me.   We never hear the same thing twice...
> Well - thank you again for listening....Barb in Texas


----------



## Fredm

geekette said:


> holy crap.  that's ... obscene.



Obscene is one way to put it. 

Think about it. It is the largest stream of revenue in the entire corporation. And owners pay the HOA fees, turn in the inventory for a trade, and RCI keeps 100% of the income.

$600 MILLION+ a year, every year, and growing.

And, their benevolent souls are willing to settle this claim, without admitting wrongdoing for worthless trinkets. 
19th Century robber barons were saints compared to these guys.

The ONLY thing more disgusting are the lawyers who sold out the class.

I have been following this for 13 years. Ever since Cendant purchased RCI in '96.
In '97 they followed with acquiring Fairfield and Trendwest.
They then launched RCI Global Points Network (now RCI Points).

This rental scam was orchestrated right under everyone's nose. 

I quote verbatim Henry J. Silverman, Chairman and CEO, Cendant Corp. in his January 2003 presentation ‘Travel Industry Outlook’ to the American Lodging Investment Summit. “The weekly-interval model for timeshare will be *eliminated *within five to ten years in favor of points-based timeshare usage.”

Points are the ultimate shell game. If anyone wonders what is in it for them, you now have the quantifiable answer.

Cendant soiled its name so badly, it simply realigned its components and changed their name to Wyndham Worldwide. Wyndham hotels were, and are, a hotel chain under their umbrella.  

I know there are many "point" proponents. But, wait. Your turn is coming. They have been generous because they needed you to screw the rest of the timeshare world.  NOTHING makes or guarantees that points work except Wyndham's promise. 
You are in the grinder and just don't know it.


----------



## Jennie

TUGBrian said:


> hopefully some new and useful info will be available on TUG soon for all of you to read.  =)



Susan Collins, the Attorney who has attended the last two Federal Court hearings in New Jersey, and has fought very hard for an improved settlement in  the Weeks class action lawsuit, will post a detailed update here on TUG in a day or two. She was unable to do so while in active negotiatins with RCI. 























s


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Update*

I have retained Susan B. Collins as my legal counsel.  She will represent me and hundreds of other objectors before the Court at NO COST to any member of the class who chooses to object and sign on with her as your legal counsel.

I apologize for the delay in getting back to the board with how you can proceed from here. Both Jeannie and I are working very closely with Susan. 

The goal is to come to a consensus among the objectors and then move forward with as much clout as possible.

Like Susan and Jeannie, I have been extremely tied up drafting instructions and a Form Letter which Susan will review before I post it here. 

It is our goal to get as many of you on board as possible. As Jeannie has stated ahead of me, the information you are waiting for should be available within the next couple of days if not sooner.  

If you decide to sign on with Susan as your counsel, she will represent you well because she is one of you a member of the class.  Once on board you can expect a personal E-Mail to each of you to first bring you up to date and then to tell you how we will stay in touch. 

Having your own legal counsel will provide you with excellent insight into what is going on and you will no longer feel like you are sitting under a mushroom as birds fly by and tell you all sorts of scuttlebutt or pelt you with their droppings. :hysterical: 

Stand by.

We are trying our best to make the process as simple as possible for each of you.

Dave


----------



## GadgetRick

Goofyhobbie said:


> I have retained Susan B. Collins as my legal counsel.  She will represent me and hundreds of other objectors before the Court at NO COST to any member of the class who chooses to object and sign on with her as your legal counsel.
> 
> I apologize for the delay in getting back to the board with how you can proceed from here. Both Jeannie and I are working very closely with Susan.
> 
> The goal is to come to a consensus among the objectors and then move forward with as much clout as possible.
> 
> Like Susan and Jeannie, I have been extremely tied up drafting instructions and a Form Letter which Susan will review before I post it here.
> 
> It is our goal to get as many of you on board as possible. As Jeannie has stated ahead of me, the information you are waiting for should be available within the next couple of days if not sooner.
> 
> If you decide to sign on with Susan as your counsel, she will represent you well because she is one of you a member of the class.  Once on board you can expect a personal E-Mail to each of you to first bring you up to date and then to tell you how we will stay in touch.
> 
> Having your own legal counsel will provide you with excellent insight into what is going on and you will no longer feel like you are sitting under a mushroom as birds fly by and tell you all sorts of scuttlebutt or pelt you with their droppings. :hysterical:
> 
> Stand by.
> 
> We are trying our best to make the process as simple as possible for each of you.
> 
> Dave


Sounds like a great idea. How do we go about doing this?


----------



## Carolinian

Stephan said:


> I am an attorney and I happened to speak with counsel on the newly filed RCI Points Class Action yesterday.
> 
> I happened to mention the objectors in the RCI class action trying to create a class of objectors and he laughed. In class actions that is the whole purpose of retaining a class "representative". Ironically, he then reviewed techniques to artfully negotiate an improved Settlement.
> 
> I mention this since the selection of an attorney is an important decision. When we see oxymoronic conduct in the profession, we do what we can to correct it. If anyone would like to discuss the case, I am sure I can direct them accordingly.
> 
> Cordially,



Was that a nervous laugh?  Hopefully he does not have the same intention as the slimeballs who are the official attorneys fpr plainiffs in the Weeks case to line his pockets personally while stabbing his clients in the back.


----------



## Simoncc

Fredm said:


> Obscene is one way to put it.
> 
> Think about it. It is the largest stream of revenue in the entire corporation. And owners pay the HOA fees, turn in the inventory for a trade, and RCI keeps 100% of the income.
> 
> $600 MILLION+ a year, every year, and growing.



Before you get carried away with the rental figures quoted above, RCI have a number of companies in the group whose only source of income is holiday rentals - I have referred to some of these earlier in this thread eg. Landal, Holiday Cottages.

I suspect that the actual amount of revenue through renting deposited exchanges is a small percentage of the figure you quote - but still a significant proportion of the income generated by the company you and I would probably consider the 'true' RCI.


----------



## "Roger"

As the previous post notes, most (and quite possibly all) the rental figures refer to a collection of European operations.  When you look at some of the investor presentations, RCI speaks of setting up some rental operations in the United States.  My suspicion is that all the timeshare rental money is listed under their timeshare figures and none of it under rentals.


----------



## Simoncc

Stephan said:


> Remember the resorts that "give" those rentals to RCI have to be paid, but still that is a lot of "revenue".



I think you are mis-understanding my post. The companies I refer to sell direct to the public and this is where nearly all their rental income comes from.

However, these companies also do provide some inventory to the RCI weeks pool (I've exchanged into a Landal resort myself for next year) and no doubt some cash will change hands from the RCI exchange company and this will probably come from a rental of a unit.


----------



## TUGBrian

yes, legal items prevented me from posting what I did as well...i just jumped the gun.  rest assured you will get all the info you need here as soon as its available!


----------



## Fredm

"Roger" said:


> As the previous post notes, most (and quite possibly all) the rental figures refer to a collection of European operations.  When you look at some of the investor presentations, RCI speaks of setting up some rental operations in the United States.  My suspicion is that all the timeshare rental money is listed under their timeshare figures and none of it under rentals.



Why would you suspect that?
Timeshare figures may (but may not) include resort rentals where Wyndham is acting as an agent for the owner, or renting developer owned inventory. But, Group RCI inventory is none of those.

As for setting up rental operations int he US, they already have a number of venues that do just that.
An example is http://veteransholidays.com/
There are a number of "focused" discount sites like this one that pretend to be an altruistic service to various communities. 

Point is LOTS of inventory is being rented. Prime season weeks, low season weeks, and fill in days. This is not European based property, though a few may be.


----------



## Carolinian

Stephan said:


> No, just an attorney trying to do a good job. Thus, I further share with you that not surpisingly the court agreed with me and indicated "to the extent that Susan Collins has been retained" in their decision dated October 7, 2009 "the objections vary, [and] it is improbable that one lawyer could represent all of them without a conflict of interest arising". Let me emphasize "retained" above and the professional ethics the profession requires.



The official attorneys for the weeks class are not very ethical at all, having sold their clients down the river for a cool $4million in their own pockets.

The next step in the Weeks class action saga will be the ethics complaint.


----------



## Carolinian

Fredm said:


> Why would you suspect that?
> Timeshare figures may (but may not) include resort rentals where Wyndham is acting as an agent for the owner, or renting developer owned inventory. But, Group RCI inventory is none of those.
> 
> As for setting up rental operations int he US, they already have a number of venues that do just that.
> An example is http://veteransholidays.com/
> There are a number of "focused" discount sites like this one that pretend to be an altruistic service to various communities.
> 
> Point is LOTS of inventory is being rented. Prime season weeks, low season weeks, and fill in days. This is not European based property, though a few may be.



And if you look, for example at summer HHI, RCI offers almost no exchanges but a fair number of rentals. They are diverting exchange inventory, no matter what those who think RCI can do no wrong may say.


----------



## Tia

Oh ya I too am a class member as found our 2003 RCI book and search results from 2001 that I had printed still in another book.... don't recall being notified of being in the class via a letter and hadn't even dawned on me until I read here the 2000 cut off.



Tia said:


> I might even be a member of the class since the date is 2000....going to have to look at my old RCI books.


----------



## "Roger"

Fredm said:


> Why would you suspect that?
> Timeshare figures may (but may not) include resort rentals where Wyndham is acting as an agent for the owner, or renting developer owned inventory. But, Group RCI inventory is none of those.
> 
> As for setting up rental operations int he US, they already have a number of venues that do just that.
> An example is http://veteransholidays.com/
> There are a number of "focused" discount sites like this one that pretend to be an altruistic service to various communities.
> 
> Point is LOTS of inventory is being rented. Prime season weeks, low season weeks, and fill in days. This is not European based property, though a few may be.


Take a look at page 3 of this presentation by Wyndham Worldwide to Goldman Sachs. Notice what is listed under the title "Vacation Rentals."  Also notice that the sites like veteran holidays are NOT listed. In short, when Wyndham is reporting "Vacation Rental" income, they are referring to the profits from the listed operations.

Note: I have been looking at Cedent and Wyndham financials for years.  I don't want to take the time to track them down, but prior presentations have talked about how they hope to _start_ a vacational rental operation in the United States similar to what they have in Europe (the companies listed on page 3.) They have been telling investors that this is an untapped market for them. Many of their financial filings have also noted how the "Vacation Rental" income is affected by the current exchange rate for the dollar. That is because the income comes from their European rental operations.

Don't assume that the word "Rentals" in an accounting statement means what you think it does. Look to see what is included.


----------



## Fredm

Carolinian said:


> And if you look, for example at summer HHI, RCI offers almost no exchanges but a fair number of rentals. They are diverting exchange inventory, no matter what those who think RCI can do no wrong may say.



Well of course they are. I didn't think that was even in question any longer. The question is how much.  Does anyone believe that Wyndham would agree to any settlement if they could demonstrate otherwise?

This is a grinding tactic to wear limited resources down. Too much is at stake for RCI. $150,000,000 a quarter, give or take 10 million, is not some quaint alpine cottage rental operation as some portray. 

Forget all the real outlets for these rentals. Just look at what's here:
http://www.wyndham-vacations.com/vacation-packages.html


----------



## Fredm

"Roger" said:


> Take a look at page 3 of this presentation by Wyndham Worldwide to Goldman Sachs. Notice what is listed under the title "Vacation Rentals."  Also notice that the sites like veteran holidays are NOT listed. In short, when Wyndham is reporting "Vacation Rental" income, they are referring to the profits from the listed operations.
> 
> Note: I have been looking at Cedent and Wyndham financials for years.  I don't want to take the time to track them down, but prior presentations have talked about how they hope to _start_ a vacational rental operation in the United States similar to what they have in Europe (the companies listed on page 3.) They have been telling investors that this is an untapped market for them. Many of their financial filings have also noted how the "Vacation Rental" income is affected by the current exchange rate for the dollar. That is because the income comes from their European rental operations.
> 
> Don't assume that the word "Rentals" in an accounting statement means what you think it does. Look to see what is included.



Roger,

My computer locks up trying to download that compressed pdf.

All revenue, not just rental revenue, is adjusted for dollar valuation when compared to prior periods. So, that is not validation of your premise.

Nonetheless, you may be right. Does that imply that Wyndham is hiding its timeshare rental revenues? Even though they are clearly rentals of RCI timeshare inventory?

Veteransholidays is an RCI site. Not a third party site. As, of course, is Wyndham Endless Vacations. 

I am not trying to argue for the sake of it. (again, I can't see the documents)
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that a sales pitch to Goldman Sachs which highlights European rental activity as a growth opportunity in the US, means that the rental revenue stated in the Group RCI segment of the financials excludes other rental activity? Even though there is no footnote, or other reference to it anywhere in the official Wyndham financials.
Indeed, the financial tables appear clear cut.  VOI sales are just that.
There is no where else to state the rental revenues unless they are being buried. And, why would they do that? 
After all, you assume that they are being perfectly transparent in the Goldman presentation. Why not elsewhere in the real financials?

No, it's easier for me to assume they mean what they say. RCI rental revenue is the ONLY place any rental revenue is disclosed.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*RCI Notice To Members of a "Proposed" Settlement To The Weeks "Class" Action Lawsuit*

You may not ever receive an E-Mail or Post Card from RCI telling you that your rights have been extended until November 20, 2009.  

At this point in time, if you are a member of the class and have NOT already "opted-out" or objected you have a second bite at the apple.

The opportunity to object is yours with or without an official communication of that right from RCI.  

Unless you have previously "opted-out" you have until November 20, 2009 to object to the proposed settlement.

The NEW opportunity to object is available to you even if you have previously made a choice of the benefits and have alredy notified the administrator of that choice.

*IF YOU WERE AND STILL ARE A MEMBER OF THE "CLASS" IN THE WEEKS LAWSUIT YOU HAVE UNTIL NOVEMBER 20 TO SEND IN YOUR OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT!*

I look forward to seeing posts from anyone who has already sent in their objection to the proposed settlement and/or from anyone who needs instructions, a Form Letter or any other information on how best to proceed.


----------



## JustAllie

I feel like a doofus for failing to learn about this class action suit until I got the postcard this week.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *Posted by Justallie: *I feel like a doofus for failing to learn about this class action suit until I got the postcard this week.



Justallie,

Please don't feel that way their are literally thousands in the same situation.

To the best of my knowledge you are the first to announce here on TUG that you have actually received a Post Card.  That is a good sign. Each and every class member is supposed to receive the same card.

Stay tuned. Posts will be forthcoming regarding your options should you consider objecting to the proposed settlement.

By the way there will also be updates on Twitter.  Just access: GoofyHobbie.


----------



## bunny217

*mmm...*

I'm just jumping in here to say that TODAY for the first time ever...
   I got a post card informing me of the suit.....well...at least they know I'm alive now.. ..this is the first time I've gotten anything from RCI at all....
if it wasn't for this forum I wouldn't have known what the heck was going on.  (Not that I fully understand it all as you all do!!)    
   Thank you for all you're doing...keep posting!!

  adding to say...It's NOT from RCI....it's from the Settlement Administrator......
            so......I THANK YOU all -   so........I guess we're still on the "invisible" RCI list......


----------



## exyeh

bunny217 said:


> I'm just jumping in here to say that TODAY for the first time ever...
> I got a post card informing me of the suit.....well...at least they know I'm alive now.. ..this is the first time I've gotten anything from RCI at all....
> if it wasn't for this forum I wouldn't have known what the heck was going on.  (Not that I fully understand it all as you all do!!)
> Thank you for all you're doing...keep posting!!
> 
> adding to say...It's NOT from RCI....it's from the Settlement Administrator......
> so......I THANK YOU all -   so........I guess we're still on the "invisible" RCI list......



I got the same post card, too. Should I do what the card said (submit a claim form)? Sorry, I am busy and have not read all the post about this lawsuit. Thanks. 
Emily


----------



## "Roger"

Fredm said:


> Roger,
> 
> ...
> All revenue, not just rental revenue, is adjusted for dollar valuation when compared to prior periods. So, that is not validation of your premise.
> 
> ....


Agreed.  If you look at my original post,  I did not say that I was absolutely sure that the kind of rental income that drives TUGGERs crazy is not part of the rental income listing.  What I said is that I suspect not.  Having read numerous Cedent and Wyndham financial statements and messages to investors (the Goldman Sach is just the most recent), I have never seen any reference in the discussions of rental income to the success of Points rentals, the various rental sites in the US, etc.  The references are always all oriented toward the listed rental operations in Europe (the ones that you can't see -- English cottages, RV parks in Europe, etc.) with occasional notes that figures need to account for the change in the valuation of the dollar.

Even if I am wrong, it is clear that these European operations pull in lots of money and constitute the lion's share of what is being reported as "rental income."



Fredm said:


> Roger,
> ...
> There is no where else to state the rental revenues unless they are being buried. And, why would they do that?
> ....


The cynical answer would be that RCI doesn't want anyone to find out how much is being made from their rentals of deposits, the rental of developer inventory, switches between developer inventory and deposits (with the deposites then rented), and properties acquired via trades with other exchange companies (they do all of this) and there is probably some truth to this cynical response.  (Hell,  for the longest time you couldn't get any financial information on II - none!) However, if you understand  how corporations are usually organized (various divisions with each division financially accountable for its own turf), it is also probably true that the entities listed under Vacation Rentals (the European outfits) are placed under one corporate executive who is responsible for making that division profitable and another corporate executive is responsible for making the exchange part of the operations profitable.  As such, the rentals that TUGGERs are upset with would fall under the purview of the latter executive and any financal transactions (the ones that TUGGERs don't like) would be part of his division and subsummed in that part of the financial reporting.

Could I be wrong about this? Sure. But, knowing what I do about how corporations normally operate and having looked at lots of Cedent and Wyndham financial announcements, it where I put my money.


----------



## STEVIE

Hi,
   I received the post card in the mail yesterday about the class action settlement. I'm sure it has already been mentioned so please accept my apology for asking. What should I do? Please advise me.  Sue


----------



## Tia

Hi, go to posts #418 &#419 , numbers in the right upper corner of each post, for a suggestion as to how to proceed. 
 




susgar said:


> Hi,
> I received the post card in the mail yesterday about the class action settlement. I'm sure it has already been mentioned so please accept my apology for asking. What should I do? Please advise me.  Sue


----------



## Simoncc

Fredm said:


> This is a grinding tactic to wear limited resources down. Too much is at stake for RCI. $150,000,000 a quarter, give or take 10 million, is not some quaint alpine cottage rental operation as some portray.



Presumably referring to me there. I am not defending RCI's practices in any way but anyone quoting figures should be sure that they've got their facts straight or they just end up weakening their valid argument.


----------



## marion10

Got my postcard yesterday. I no longer own any timeshares and got a refund of my extra years in RCI a while ago. Not sure what I will do yet.

I will be following this and want to do what is best for TUGGERS overall. I only had two SA weeks which I bought resale. I certainly got a great value for my money- but realize I am in the minority.


----------



## Fredm

Simoncc said:


> Presumably referring to me there. I am not defending RCI's practices in any way but anyone quoting figures should be sure that they've got their facts straight or they just end up weakening their valid argument.



I am indeed quoting figures. Not fabricating them.
The facts are as straight as Wyndham reports them.
View the Q2 Financial Tables

I do not make any guesses about the origin of stated revenue.
Others have claimed that almost all, if not all, is the result of European activity. However, such guesses are not supported by any detail Wyndham chooses to disclose.

The financials do show that RCI rental revenues grew from 498 million in 2006 to 624 million in 2008.

Fact is that we do not know the portion of the reported amount that represents deposited inventory. All we do know is that a substantial web-based effort exists to rent them.


----------



## Fredm

"Roger" said:


> Agreed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Even if I am wrong, it is clear that these European operations pull in lots of money and constitute the lion's share of what is being reported as "rental income."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry, it is not clear that European operations constitute the lion's share. It may, but we have no way of knowing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The cynical answer would be that RCI doesn't want anyone to find out how much is being made from their rentals of deposits, the rental of developer inventory, switches between developer inventory and deposits (with the deposites then rented), and properties acquired via trades with other exchange companies (they do all of this) and there is probably some truth to this cynical response.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My premise is to not take a cynical view. I choose to believe them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, if you understand  how corporations are usually organized (various divisions with each division financially accountable for its own turf), it is also probably true that the entities listed under Vacation Rentals (the European outfits) are placed under one corporate executive who is responsible for making that division profitable and another corporate executive is responsible for making the exchange part of the operations profitable.  As such, the rentals that TUGGERs are upset with would fall under the purview of the latter executive and any financal transactions (the ones that TUGGERs don't like) would be part of his division and subsummed in that part of the financial reporting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do understand how corporations are organized.
> Your entire premise is that these are European revenues aligned with a European executive.  However, the corporate reporting structure places them under Group RCI, which is reporting rental revenue apart from membership and exchange fees.
> To suggest that the rentals in question are being reported under membership and exchange fees is to say that there are irregularities in the financials, and their representation to the financial community.
> A former chief executive of this company is serving time in prison for misrepresenting its financials. I don't believe they are foolish enough to repeat that mistake.
Click to expand...


----------



## "Roger"

Try this link. It is what Wyndham describes as its Vacation Rental division as part of Group RCI.  To throw in income from another division of Group RCI into its income statements under the very same title would be what would really be misleading (and probably forbidden by the SEC).


----------



## Fredm

"Roger" said:


> Try this link. It is what Wyndham describes as its Vacation Rental division as part of Group RCI.  To throw in income from another division of Group RCI into its income statements under the very same title would be what would really be misleading (and probably forbidden by the SEC).



Roger, I agree completely. It would be misleading, and probably forbidden by the SEC. And vice versa. That is exactly what my most recent response said.

You assume (incorrectly, I believe) that the Vacation Rental division of Group RCI is only comprised of the European component which is highlighted in their description. It is not. It says what they choose it to say. 

Their opening statement "As the largest marketer of European vacation rental properties, Group RCI offers approximately 45,000 independent vacation property owners the opportunity to rent their properties through some of our well known vacation rental brands, including Cuendet®, Endless Vacation Rentals®, Holiday Cottages Group, Landal GreenParks® and Novasol®. "
can certainly lead one to assume that Europe is the focus. It is not all inclusive. It is merely accurate as far as they state it. That is, they are the largest marketer of European vacations. It does not exclude US timeshares. 

The visitor is then invited to peruse what is available. First among the options is
Wyndham Endless Vacations. That is where the lions share of availability is. 
I won't get into the other RCI rental sites. They obviously have them categorized somewhere in thier rental empire.


----------



## TUGBrian

getting a wee bit off topic here guys


----------



## pagla

*Michael Carpenter*

Hello
How do I find the Form for Classaction Lawsuit?
Thank You
Michael Carpenter
pagla@roadrunner.com


----------



## Stricky

> How do I find the Form for Classaction Lawsuit?



see post 381 and 386 for the information


----------



## TUGBrian

Updates, and important summaries are all avalabile at this page

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com


----------



## DebbieF

I just got a postcard today-didn't know about any of this since I sold my RCI affiliated resort a few years back and canceled membership.  I went online for the claim form and I had the choice of $15, or a discount if I wanted to rejoin RCI-I took the $15!


----------



## tschwa2

One of the objections I have (and am drafting for my official objection) is the 31 day priority for deposits made more than 1 year in advance.  First of all it should be longer- 60 days would give members more time and would still allow RCI plenty of time to find a renter.  

More importantly many float weeks will not allow you to reserve your week before the 1 year mark and by the time the resort can verify the reservation for deposit there is less than the one year time frame RCI would require. Virtually all good float weeks would be available instantly to renters and never make it into the exchange pool.   I think the priority for deposits to remain in the exchange pool should extend a minimum to  11 months in advance if not 10 months.


----------



## biskits

*How to object*

Unfortuately, I have not been on this site for awhile and just recently received postcard and printed out claimforms. The lawyers filing class action suit really did screw us RCI owners, uh???I have read much of this thread but did I miss instructions on how to proceed with objection and join Ms Collins group???
 Is this what most Tuggers are doing???
Thanks
Paul


----------



## Jennie

*Warning---urgent Info*

Please do not trust the information being posted by Stephan Willett (TUG name "Stephan")

I have been a TUG member since 1994 and own several fixed-deeded weeks, one floating week, and RCI and Wyndham-Fairfield Points. I have been working closely for months (as an unpaid volunteer) with Shep Altshuler, Publisher of Timesharing Today Magazine, and Susan Collins, an attorney and avid timeshare owner who currently owns 9 weeks and has been doing RCI exchanges for years. Her theoretical and personal first hand  knowledge is tremendous. 

Stephan Wiilett began posting on TUG for the first time 2 days ago as "Stephan" from Escondido, California (although he has filed court papers stating that he lives and works in Virginia and I have reached him by phone there). He did not appear at the Fairness Hearing on June 16th. If Shep and Susan and I had not gone that day in person to the Federal Court in New Jersey to object to the proposed settlement, it would probably have become a "done deal" and we would not be discussing member options here and now. 

Stephan contacted us after the hearing in June, purporting to be an attorney with experience in class action litigation. He said he wanted to work with us on the RCI case. He does not own any timeshares. He says his father owns one. We soon found out that his knowledge about timesharing was very simplistic. 

He sent us numerous Email messages which were rambling, difficult to understand, and contained inaccurate information. He bombarded the court with notices that were difficult to understand and distracted from, and often times conflicted with, what Shep and Susan, and I were trying to accomplish. 

We quickly let Stephan know that we were not interested in working with him. Shep and I and a some other people officially retained Susan Collins to be our attorney and sole spokesperson for us in this case. Steve was notified of this and was told not to communicate with us anymore. He ignored it and kept sending Emails, some of which contained bizarre statements. Susan sternly told him that she would notify the Judge and possibly make an ethics complaint if he didn't stop communicating with her clients about the case.

Stephan subsequently made an application to the Court to be appointed "Lead Atorney for the Objectors". His application has not been approved. He came to the Federal Court hearing in this case on August 12th and was not allowed to testify, while Susan and I were permitted to address the court.

Stephan posted a message on TUG tonight which I have asked TUG Brian to consider deleting. If per chance it is still visible, you will see an example of what I have been referring to as his rambling and confusing way of trying to convey information. To state that people should consider sending claim forms to him is outrageous and will be reported to the Judge.


----------



## Jennie

Ms. Susan Collins will be posting accurate information about the case very soon.


----------



## Jennie

*Unbelievable !!!!!!!!!!!!*



Stephan said:


> Thus, I further share with you that not surpisingly the court agreed with me...it is improbable that one lawyer could represent all of them without a conflict of interest arising"



UNBELIEVABLE !!!

The Judge agreed with Stephan Willett? ????????????   

The same Stephen Willett who bombarded the same court and the same judge with multiple notices requesting that HE be appointed "Lead Attorney for the Objectors".

Let's see what Judge Sheridan has to say when your TUG posts are forwarded to him.

Please TUGgers, do not trust information this new comer is providing about the RCI lawsuit.


----------



## timetraveler

received my first official class action notice in the form of a postcard yesterday.

I'll watch this thread for instructions from Susan.


----------



## TUGBrian

just so im clear jennie, people can both select one of the "benefits" AND object to the settlement?

as I read it, if I select one of the benefits arent I agreeing to the current terms of the settlement?  how can I also object?

I am trying to make things less confusing for others, but with all legal matters...there appears to be things preventing the people impacted by this from having all the facts.


----------



## RustyS

tschwa2 said:


> One of the objections I have (and am drafting for my official objection) is the 31 day priority for deposits made more than 1 year in advance.  First of all it should be longer- 60 days would give members more time and would still allow RCI plenty of time to find a renter.
> 
> More importantly many float weeks will not allow you to reserve your week before the 1 year mark and by the time the resort can verify the reservation for deposit there is less than the one year time frame RCI would require. Virtually all good float weeks would be available instantly to renters and never make it into the exchange pool.   I think the priority for deposits to remain in the exchange pool should extend a minimum to  11 months in advance if not 10 months.



Frankly I think the only time a week deposited for exchange by a Weeks member should make it into *any* rental inventory is in the waning days of life in order to prevent it going unused.  These are the same weeks we used to see as "Last Call" vacations, and the limit was (if I remember correctly) the 45-days-left point.  I'd say from days 45-30 offer them as Last Call clearances to anyone with an open deposit (regardless of exchange value), then at the end also offer them as rental to non-Weeks members, the general public.  

For the most part, once a week hits the open market it will be *gone* if it is a decent resort/unit/time etc.  Whether they set the line at 12 months, 10 months, or whenever, from that point forward the best units will NOT be available to exchangers.  Where ever that line is set we'll be forced into making our plans from 13 to (fill in the blank) months in advance if we want to _even have a shot_ at a decent exchange.  I don't know about the rest of you but I can't always plan that far in advance due to kids' school and sports schedules, elderly family members' health, etc.  I need that window to be as wide as possible to provide the flexibility I need.  If I'm late to the trough I recognize my choices will be limited, and I accept that.  But with RCI declaring a deposited week surplus with 10 or 12 months left on it, there won't be anything after that point worth a darn.

I'm OK with an ever-expanding pool of exchangers who have the chance on a property.  Super-premium deposits should be seen first by those who have made similar deposits.  After a while people who made slightly lower grade deposits, and so on until towards the end anyone with _any_ deposit on record (and I'll avoid speculating on the lowest grades possible) has a shot at a week if they haven't been snatched up by someone earlier.  Lastly, before it goes unused, offer it to the General Public, but even then it should benefit the members of the weeks program somehow, even if RCI uses the $$ to work on their web site.  And of course, deposits of lower value would be immediately visible to those that made higher value deposits.  After all, if I deposit a 2BR in HI I should be able to grab a studio dang near anywhere, but the reverse would not be true until EVERYONE else had passed on the higher value week and it was going to turn to dust very soon.  _That_ is the point I can see allowing a non-member access to the unit.  And not before.

Our vacation weeks were not given to RCI so they could maximize their shareholders' value.  They were given IN TRUST for the facilitation of trades between a pool of members.  Period.  And for the privilege of being in that pool we paid an annual fee, and to pull from the pool a rather handsome fee.  And for us, the members, factoring in resort MFs, SAs, and the original cost quickly makes our exchange quite expensive, though I don't consider these costs any concern to the exchange company as they aren't involved in it other than to recognize we, their members, have a broader financial stake in this whole thing that affects how we judge the value of their services.

If they want to change the plan from this point forward, that is a business decision they can make and try to sell (good luck on this one).  But they can't change it after they sold me the old model, while I have an active membership and deposits made under the original concepts.  I didn't give them a week so they could rent it out.  I gave them a weeks stay in MY resort, PLUS $89 per year in member ship fees, PLUS $175 or so just so I could have access to a like exchange, and sometimes if I'm lucky get a better exchange, and sometimes take my lumps on a less desirable week because I'm late.  That is a fair system I would belong to for life, but I think it's gone.  It must be gone if we're only arguing about how early they can skim the cream.  We should be arguing that the cream is ours and they should keep their mitts off.


And what's this stuff about *Stephen*?  Jennie has a solid warning about him, yet Brian posted a link to his monologue on the web as if it's legit.  What gives?


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TUGBrian said:


> just so im clear jennie, people can both select one of the "benefits" AND object to the settlement?
> 
> as I read it, if I select one of the benefits arent I agreeing to the current terms of the settlement?  how can I also object?
> 
> I am trying to make things less confusing for others, but with all legal matters...there appears to be things preventing the people impacted by this from having all the facts.



Brian, I can answer this.  YES you can both file an objection AND select a benefit.  They are two separate processes.  

You (and other members) can file a Claim Form in order to select a benefit.  The claim form is available at the link provided in the Notice, or the RCI log-in page (before logging in). 

To file an objection, you can follow the instructions on the same website.  We are, however, attempting to create a simple form for members to fill out if they wish to object.


----------



## TUGBrian

Just to clarify....the website still exists...i just removed the link from the post while we work out some "controversy" behind the scenes.

it appears there are now two sides to even the objectors side of things....I dont want to put TUG in the middle of that sort of argument...TUG is here to provide info for owners to digest and make educated decisions on...and the last thing I want to do is muddy the waters for any of you.

I am in direct contact with stephan, jennie, and susan collins and this will get sorted out I promise you.

For now, if it were me as an individual RCI member...a 15 dollar coupon is not worth me "Agreeing" to the settlement terms as they are currently listed to my knowledge...and I side with the objectors in hopes they can modify the settlement to more fairly compensate RCI weeks members, vs what is currently on the table.

but this is just my opinion...and ill admit that even im lost in this entire process to this point...so much going on!


----------



## TUGBrian

on a side note....there is also a link to a summary page on timesharing today that has downloadble pdf files discussing the rci settlement if you wish to read those.

the link is available on the http://rciclassactionsettlement.com website in the latest updates.


----------



## lgreenspan

*Trying to research Stephan*

Is this the Attorney Stephan being refered to?

http://www.attysdwillett.com/


----------



## tschwa2

*Can't rent RCI exchanges*



Stephan said:


> In an ideal world Member Weeks could not be taken for "*any* rental inventory", but if Members can rent their Weeks then RCI can rent their Weeks also.



Stephen, In case you didn't know members can not rent out exchanges or extra vacations obtained through RCI; only our own personally owned weeks.  RCI is not renting out there own weeks they are renting out weeks that were deposited for exchange.  Something they say they can do because they put that clause in the "small print"


----------



## DeniseM

Stephan said:


> The above attorney is not me.



So are you stating that you are not Stephan Willett from Virginia, and that you are a different Stephan located in Escondido, CA?



> Stephan
> Guest
> 
> BBS Reg. Date: Oct 8, 09
> Location: *Escondido, CA*
> Posts: 7


----------



## DeniseM

lgreenspan said:


> Is this the Attorney Stephan being refered to?
> 
> http://www.attysdwillett.com/



I don't believe it is - notice that website is for  Steph*e*n Willett, and it's in South Carolina.


----------



## Jennie

tschwa2 said:


> Stephen, In case you didn't know members can not rent out exchanges or extra vacations obtained through RCI; only our own personally owned weeks.  RCI is not renting out their own weeks-- they are renting out weeks that were deposited for exchange.  Something they say they can do because they put that clause in the "small print"



Susan Collins and I have told Stephan over and over and over again that *RCI does not own the weeks they rent.* 

For some unknown reason, he cannot grasp this simple concept 

He has said several times that if the lawsuit results in RCI being prohibited from renting timeshare weeks, then owners will lose the right to rent their weeks too. Huh??? I won't be able to rent my fixed deeded week??? In America???


----------



## RustyS

*Absolutely Not !*



Stephan said:


> ... but if Members can rent their Weeks then RCI can rent their Weeks also. ...



I cannot disagree more strongly without resorting to harsh language.

I, as the owner of a timeshared property, that purchased such property with my own funds, and whose ownership of that property has usage rights to a week at the property, and because of said ownership pays maintenance fees as levied by the property, and periodically will pay assessments that may be levied by the association managing the property, *can do damn near anything I want with my week of usage in that property.*  And for good reason, I own the right to use.  I may have a deed, I may not.  I may own a fixed week and unit, I may own just the right to be issued one upon request.  But I own it.

One of the things I may choose to do is trade with someone that owns a different week of usage, perhaps even at a different property.  That gets real cumbersome to try to do one-on-one even today, but imagine what it was like in the days before the internet.  So along comes RCI who offers me membership in a club that facilitates that exchange with other club members.  I don't have to know the other people, I don't have to confirm their assurances, I just let the man in the middle handle all that.  What a deal, and for only $89 per year.  Of course I have to pay for the exchange because they have to collect some revenue to support the exchange system, after all it's probably on some big mainframe computer someplace (at least it was in the beginning).

But I don't have to exchange it.  I can use my week myself.  After all, that's what I bought it for, right?  It's a neat place, on the beach, and I can bring my kids to the same place year after year, but only have to pay for the 1/52 share in it.  The true basis of "time share".

Or I can let a friend use it.  I better call management so they will let them in the door, because they're expecting to see my ugly mug at the door at 4PM on Saturday.  But they'll do it because they know me and trust me to say "my buddy Bob will be using it, treat him as well as you treat me please."

Or, I can rent it to someone I don't know.  I'll have to deal with making sure the check doesn't bounce, and that they won't let their kid rip the towel bars off the wall, and I still have to call the resort to tell them to let a guy named Joe use the place.  

I can do all of these things with *MY* timeshare week because *I own* the week.  I know I own the week because the property association sends *me* the bill for my share of operational expenses on an annual basis (the process known as the _Maintenance Fee_).  And my name is on a deed somewhere so if the place gets hit by an insurable occurrence, I'll get my 1/52 share of my unit.  Why?  *Because I own it.*

Should I desire to exchange the week I own with the owner of a different week, maybe even a week at a different property, I'll call those guys that I pay an annual fee to belong to their club.  What was the name again, oh yeah RCI.  Since I joined their club they will take my week on deposit, give me a credit with which I can look over the existing inventory of deposits and make a selection.  If I don't see anything I like I can wait around until someone drops in something I do like, though they cap it at a reasonable couple of years I can do that to prevent massive imbalances, and I find that acceptable.  And they'll do their best to make sure I'll get something of similar value to what I deposited, and I find that acceptable.  And they will handle all the details of my trade with the other members in exchange for my membership fee, plus an additional fee payable when I make my withdrawal from the "space bank".

Nowhere in all of that is there any sort of agreement, written, implied, or otherwise, that says I'll deposit my week with them and they can do what they want with it, even if it significantly diminishes the inventory from which I get to make my withdrawal.  If they have some legaleze somewhere that says they can, it ain't what they told me they would do, and it _dang sure_ ain't what I signed up for.  And apparently a whole lot of other people agree with me because a court has declared us a class as we hash this out with RCI.

If that is what RCI wants to operate, they must be explicit in their sales literature so I and all other timeshare owners can determine if it's a good value or not and make our membership decisions accordingly.  It's a free country, and they can offer whatever service they want.  Of course, I for one wouldn't join up for that program, and I think RCI knew that.  So they told us one thing, got us to sign up, then did something completely different than they promised.  Hence the lawsuit.

*So no, Stephen*, just because I, the owner of a share of time in a property, can rent it out, *does not in any way* mean that RCI, the operator of a voluntary, membership-based exchange service for owners of timeshares, can rent out what has been deposited with them for the current or future use of the collective of members of the exchange service.

I'm kind of lost in who is who in some of this right now, but if you don't get this concept I hope you aren't offering to represent the opposition to the offered settlement.  You would be poorly equipped to argue on their behalf.

Maybe a real world example would help get across the problem with them renting out deposits.

One hundred hunters bring their freshly harvested deer to a processing plant that offers locker service.  The service will store the meat in their great big freezer on behalf of the hunter, who can stop by anytime and get a roast or sausage or whatever for the weekend.  If the locker service sells the meat on the side, eventually some hunter is going to show up for his monthly withdrawal and find out there isn't anything left, or what is left sure isn't the good stuff he brought into the place.  And he's rightfully going to be ticked off, because that was HIS kids' dinner the locker operator stole, sold off, and bought a new truck with the cash.

If a stock brokerage tried to operate the same way with their deposits as RCI does, the SEC would shut them down.  If it was a bank the FDIC would shutter the doors.  If its a meat locker the local ranchers and hunters that came to get their rations and found the freezer empty would tar and feather the guy, or worse.

Whether it's dollars deposited into a bank or timeshare weeks deposited with RCI, only the original owner of the deposit should benefit from the withdrawal.  Period.

Hmmm, maybe the closest analogy is RCI is like a Ponzi scheme.  Those that make early withdrawals get better returns, and in the end have the best chance of even getting a return at all, whereas those that trust the operator get stiffed in the end.  So RCI should suffer the same fate as Bernie Madoff?


----------



## carl2591

i also received a postcard from RCI.. quite mundane looking one at that.. quite different from the usual 4 color high gloss, with fun people doing fun things on them.. 

guess they are just trying to pass it off as junk mail so it gets tossed out by some RCI member and not acted upon.. kinda sleezie but we are talking RCI here..

any word on a paypal account that can accept donations to this cause??

also I went online to website listed on the card and started trying to fill out the stuff.. I see a part about getting a $100 dollar credit for cruise and some other worthless trinkets. Not sure what the correct way to go about this.  are we looking to object to the settlement and determine the benefits wanted?? 

I have tried to read the posts but they are all over the place with no real thread to follow for the most part..

just looking for a quick answer to my questions above.


----------



## DeniseM

carl2591 said:


> Not sure what the correct way to go about this.  are we looking to object to the settlement and determine the benefits wanted??
> 
> I have tried to read the posts but they are all over the place with no real thread to follow for the most part..
> 
> just looking for a quick answer to my questions above.



Here is Susan's response to this questions:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=803139&postcount=466


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Guidance is coming.*

Definitive and hopefully helpful information is being finalized.

There is an old proverb dating back to at least 1575. 

*"Too many cooks spoil the broth."* 

The goal as many objectors see it, is to get RCI to revise their settlement significantly. In reaching for that goal we should move forward as united as we can be. 

There is power in our numbers but as a group we can be overlooked if we do not move forward with as many of us as possible being on the same page. 

My attorney (Susan Collins) has reviewd all aspects of what I propose to offer the TUG Board and we have offered the information to TUGBrian for his approval prior to posting.

Hopefully it will be up for all to peruse in the next 48 hours, if not sooner.

Stay Tuned.


----------



## jamstew

Goofyhobbie said:


> My attorney (Susan Collins) has reviewd all aspects of what I propose to offer the TUG Board and we have offered the information to TUGBrian for his approval prior to posting.
> 
> Hopefully it will be up for all to peruse in the next 48 hours, if not sooner.
> 
> Stay Tuned.



I'm looking forward to seeing it. I got my postcard today, but I plan to sit tight until I get some direction on how to make an effective objection.


----------



## ttt

I got 5 emails from the "Settlement Administrator", 1 for each of the 5 RCI weeks accounts I used to have. I will become an "Objector", but I only have 2 of my account numbers, any Idea how to find out the others? By the way, the emails went into my Spam box....No postcards...


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *ttt posted:* I got 5 emails from the "Settlement Administrator", 1 for each of the 5 RCI weeks accounts I used to have. I will become an "Objector", but I only have 2 of my account numbers, any Idea how to find out the others? By the way, the emails went into my Spam box....No postcards...



I am not an attorney. But here is how I see it.

If you have or had more than one account and each account was in the name of a different "class" member then each of those individuals, trusts, or entities could consider sending in a separate objection under the appropriate "class member's" name.

*Soon we will have instructions up that detail what to do in the instances where the "class member" is a trust or entity.*

The only way that I can think of to get your previous separate account numbers from RCI would be to "without fuss" simply call RCI at the standard number at RCI.com and ask them to look into their computer to see if the account numbers previously established are still on file. I suspect that they are because you received five separate E-mails.

Another approach would be to contact the RCI class action administrator and ask them to look in their data base and identify your account number for you.


----------



## KimberlyAnn

I am unsure if I am a member of the class... I received the e-mail from RCI and was an RCI member before August 31st. But I had not deposited a week or tried to exchange before that date. Your help is appreciated. I thank all of you that are working so hard for all RCI members!


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *Kimberlyann posted:* I am unsure if I am a member of the class... I received the e-mail from RCI and was an RCI member before August 31st. But I had not deposited a week or tried to exchange before that date. Your help is appreciated. I thank all of you that are working so hard for all RCI members!


 
By becoming a dues paying RCI Member after January 1, 2000 and before August 31, 2009 you may be considered a member of the "class."  This is true even though you have not as yet made a deposit or an exchange.

The fact that RCI has your E-Mail address and has evidently informed the administrator of your status gives credence to my statement above.

Stay tuned more information is about to be provided here on TUG and elsewhere.

My Twitter Account is goofyhobbie.  Recommend, if you use twitter, that you plug-in. 



> *The following is from the RCI website.*People who were members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009 may be eligible for special settlement benefits. If you are or were a member of the RCI Points Exchange Program, but you were not also a member of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009, you are not a member of the Settlement Class.


----------



## Susan2

*What Has Been Happening In The Case*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry it has taken me so long to get this out, but there has been MUCH happening lately.  This is the first of several, broken down to make it easier to follow.  

Since the original Fairness Hearing, I have been admitted to the District Court of New Jersey "pro hac vice," that is, only on the RCI Weeks litigation, to formally represent other Objectors who have specifically requested that I represent them as their attorney.  (I shall refer to my client objectors as "the Objectors" -- with a capital "O" -- in my discussion below, but there are other objectors whom I do not represent and who are not included among the Objectors.) Local New Jersey counsel is assisting me.  Both I and another attorney (Stephan Willett) who were admitted to the Court for purposes of this case filed motions requesting the Court’s recognition as "lead counsel" for all objectors, but the Court ruled that it is "improbable" that conflicts of interest among the objectors would not arise, and that therefore appointment of lead counsel would not be appropriate.

Some members of the core group of Objectors and I have been trying to negotiate with RCI to improve the settlement terms.  At this point, negotiations for improved terms have not been successful.  Despite substantial effort, RCI has not changed any part of the proposed settlement terms except to extend the class cut-off date from November 20, 2008 (the date on which the original settlement proposal was signed) to August 31, 2009 and to agree to some date changes for deadlines.   During the course of negotiations, RCI did offer a few additional concessions to the Objectors.  The majority of the Objectors deemed these concessions minor and not worth withdrawing the noted objections or agreeing to represent the settlement proposal as fair and reasonable.  On behalf of the Objectors and based on discussions with the Objectors, I submitted a counterproposal to RCI that addressed what we believed to be the Objectors’ most vital concerns.  The counterproposal was submitted in the spirit of compromise; it was not an effort to demand everything that the Objectors would like to see included in an agreement intended to restrain the RCI practices to which we all object.  RCI rejected the proposal without any discussion or true consideration.

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs have frequently expressed their opinion that they negotiated as good a settlement as was possible, but it is clear that they are not personally familiar with the timesharing exchange system and with RCI.  They were unable to conduct discovery, due to an interim order signed by the prior judge (who has since retired).


----------



## Susan2

*Where To Get Information*

If you would like to read the 38-page proposed settlement agreement, you may download the proposed agreement from the website referenced on the Notice.  You also can retrieve it from a link on the RCI website home page.  You need not be a current RCI member to access the homepage at www/rci.com.  Once you login, the link disappears.  You should note, though, that while the proposed settlement agreement itself is 38 pages long, with all the attachments the entire file consists of 291 pages.  You might want to be careful to print only the pages that you want to read.


----------



## Susan2

*Where Do We Go From Here?*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many issues remain unresolved as the Fairness Hearing approaches and as decisions need to be made concerning how to proceed.  Some Objectors believe that the plaintiffs’ attorneys who brought the RCI Weeks litigation were not fully aware of, or did not fully consider when negotiating the proposed settlement agreement, the other entities and outlets used by RCI (or its parent and sister entities) to dispose of and rent weeks.  These “other exchange programs” are briefly mentioned but not listed in the proposed settlement agreement.  These organizations appear to include Endless Vacation Rentals, Sky Auction, Dream Vacations International and other organizations.  The Objectors with whom I have consulted do not feel that the provisions regarding rentals by RCI effectively cover these other outlets.  In addition, many Objectors with whom I have consulted are concerned that the restrictions placed on RCI’s ability to rent weeks deposited for exchange apply for a two-year period only.  Even Judge Sheridan has expressed concern about this relatively short period of applicability, fearing that the two-year limit will lead to future litigation over the same issues.  The Plaintiffs' attorneys are adamant that the two-year restrictions on RCI will not in any way inhibit future actions against RCI for renting deposited inventory, nor convey upon RCI the freedom to rent deposits in the future without fear of lawsuits.  Whether or not this is true, it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to settle a case with the intention of trying the same issues all over again in the near future.  Since this case was initially filed early in 2006, a two-year term for changes doesn't make a lot of sense.   

Some Objectors are also seriously concerned about the prices at which RCI rents weeks, and want to include in any acceptable settlement agreement a provision that, except under certain limited circumstances, would prohibit RCI from renting weeks it takes from the spacebank for amounts that are less than the annual maintenance fees at the resorts in question.  There is a strong feeling that RCI’s current practice of renting deposited weeks at discount rental rents seriously undermines sales and resales of timeshare weeks and even continued ownership of the timeshare weeks.  These Objectors believe that few potential timeshare buyers would purchase or own timeshare intervals that they can rent for less than they would have to pay in annual maintenance fees.

Virtually all the objectors that I represent want to ensure that all weeks offered for rent, or deposited with other outlets will remain simultaneously available for exchange through the RCI spacebank.  It appears to some of us that the current settlement agreement proposal does not require RCI to make any such weeks simultaneously available for exchange if they are “swapped out” to another exchange system, or taken by RCI within 90 days of the start date.  Rather, Section II. C of the proposed settlement appears to allow RCI to transfer weeks to “other exchange programs” if they are exchanged with other weeks or within 90 days of the start date without replacement or compensation to RCI members.  The Plaintiffs' attorneys feel that the wording of Section IX. B (part of the Representations and Warranties) counters the wording of Section II. C, so that RCI indeed does have to replace this inventory.  (Personally, I don't read it that way at all, but if that is what RCI means, then I want to see a clarification so that there can be no question that this is what is meant.)


----------



## Susan2

*What Alternatives Are Available?*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many Objectors have asked me what they should do with respect to the Notice, the upcoming Fairness Hearing and the proposed settlement itself.  As I see it, the alternatives are to continue to object to proposed settlement (which allows the Objector to accept one of the benefits offered), to accept the benefit and the proposed settlement without objecting, or to “opt out” of the class (which would preserve an individual’s right to bring a separate lawsuit against RCI).  The proposed settlement agreement provides that if 5% of the class “opts out” of the class (about 80,000 members), then RCI has the option to withdraw from the proposed settlement.  RCI is not required to do so, however. 

Judge Sheridan also could reject the proposed settlement at the November 30 Fairness Hearing scheduled for November 30 if a substantial number of class members continue to object to the terms of the proposed settlement.  At the aborted fairness hearing on June 16, Judge Sheridan stated that he was very much influenced by the “hundreds” of objections he had received and remarked that in a typical class action suit, he might receive “two or three” objections.

Some RCI members have asked me about “opting out.”  Every member should make an individual choice, but I personally do not intend to “opt out,” as I do not believe that any meaningful changes to RCI’s current policies will be made unless a class action suit is successfully brought.  Furthermore, I do not believe that any “losses” I have suffered due to RCI’s objectionable policies are sufficient to warrant the expenditure of time, energy and attorney fees that any lawsuit I personally brought against RCI would require.  I do not believe that it would be feasible to attempt to certify a class (that is, get any new litigation that I might commence declared to be a class action suit) if the pool of possible plaintiffs represents less than 5% of the RCI membership.

I believe that, if the goal is rejection of the proposed settlement agreement, it would be more effective for the Objectors and any other class members who wish to join the Objectors to submit objections to the judge.  I believe that a much smaller number of objections than 80,000 would be sufficient to convince the judge to reject the agreement or to postpone a decision on the fairness of the settlement while encouraging RCI to engage in more constructive settlement negotiations.  One of the Objectors has prepared a form for other objectors to complete, rather than writing a letter.  This will hopefully make it more convenient for those who wish to object to do so, and will ensure that the required information is contained in the objection.   

I intend to continue my objection to the current proposed settlement.  Because I already formally objected, I do not need to file another objection.  If you previously filed objections with the court, or sent an email to me before the original fairness hearing on June 16, your objections were noted by the Court as well. However, if you only sent an email to me, I would encourage you to file a formal objection, which should be sent to the Court, with copies to the plaintiffs' attorneys, the defendant's attorneys, and to me, if you have retained me as your attorney.  

Each potential class member should accept, object to, or opt out of the settlement as he or she sees fit.  By taking no action, a class member automatically becomes part of the class.  All class members, including those who object, but not those who opt out, are entitled to receive a benefit of their choice, but they must complete and submit a claim form by the due date in order to receive the benefit.  (Forms are available via the link on the RCI website, or by following instructions on the Notice.)  I have requested the only benefit that I personally deem worthwhile for myself – a one-time opportunity to search for an exchange before releasing my week for deposit.  For some members, there are additional benefits, such as benefits for those who paid to extend their deposits and were still not able to obtain satisfactory exchanges.  (There are lists of those members in one of the attachments to the proposed settlement.)  Full details concerning the offered benefits are available via links at the bottom of the RCI website homepage and can be accessed by telephone or website as noted on the postcard Notice.


----------



## Susan2

*What Are The Objectors I Represent Planning To Do?*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

RCI’s refusal to make substantial changes to the proposed settlement agreement has caused the positions of some Objectors to harden and others to question whether it is worthwhile to continue to fight.  After much discussion, local New Jersey counsel and I have decided to continue objecting for those Objectors who wish to keep trying.  

RCI has stated very clearly that they will reject any settlement proposal that completely prohibits it from renting out weeks deposited for exchange and has admitted that its rental program is an important source of revenue.  Many Objectors and potential class members want to see this practice completely prohibited.  Other Objectors and potential class members are willing to allow RCI to rent deposited weeks under certain conditions that are designed to protect exchangers’ rights and benefits.

After lengthy discussion and evaluation of alternatives, local New Jersey counsel and I have decided to submit a new settlement proposal to RCI’s counsel.  As was the case with the original settlement counterproposal, we will not demand everything we want, but rather what we believe we can justify to the Court and for which we feel it is worthwhile to fight.

I will post information regarding further actions when it is appropriate.


----------



## jamstew

Susan2 said:


> One of the Objectors has prepared a form for other objectors to complete, rather than writing a letter.  This will hopefully make it more convenient for those who wish to object to do so, and will ensure that the required information is contained in the objection.



From whom do I get a copy of this?


----------



## tschwa2

*questions about letters of objection*

Susan,

Do you think in our personal letter to the court (copied to the appropriate individuals), we should be equally restrained with the spirit of compromise or should we object to every major point that we personally disagree with the settlement as we understand it?  Does any version a proposed settlement contain clauses to protect objectors from repercussions from RCI on personal accounts?  I am not particularly worried about that but I have some coworkers and relatives who are casual RCI users who asked.

Thank you again for the many, many hours you have put in to help timeshare users.   

Tracey


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Thanks For Your Patience*

In several separate posts, I will provide basic instructions that TUGGERS can easily follow should they choose to object to the proposed RCI "class"
action law suit settlement.

The instructions will follow immediately.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Informational Instruction # 1*

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED RCI WEEKS “CLASS” ACTION LAW SUIT?

By now, many of you will have received the e-mailed or postcard “Notice from the Administrator” regarding your rights in the RCI Weeks litigation. If you believe you are a member of the “class” and have not received a personal notice there is notice available at RCI.com.  [To access the link to that notice do not log-in to the site.  Logging in (as of the date of this instruction) will prevent you from seeing the link. The link is at the bottom right hand side of the site and is easily missed unless you scroll down.]
What are your alternatives?

•	*You can do nothing.*  If you do not submit a claim form, you will not be entitled to one of the individual benefits the current settlement offers to “class” members.  However, you will automatically be a member of the "class," and you will receive the general benefits under the proposed agreement if the agreement is accepted by the judge.

•	*You can accept one of the “benefits”* offered by RCI in the proposed settlement without objecting. 

•	*You can “opt out” *of the “class” (which would preserve your individual right to bring a separate lawsuit against RCI.)

•	*You can object *to the proposed settlement (This option allows you as an Objector to accept one of the benefits offered while also objecting.)


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Informational Instruction # 2*

*WHAT DO I DO IF I WANT TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?*​
The Court will consider the proposed settlement agreement at a Fairness Hearing to be held on November 30, 2009 before the presiding judge, the Honorable Peter J. Sheridan.  The Notice you should have recently received from the “class” administrator is the result of the initial objections to the prior notice by some of the objectors who appeared at the initial Fairness Hearing on June 16, and who successfully argued that the Notice which appeared on page 94 of the March/April edition of Endless Vacation    magazine (which many RCI members did not see) was inadequate notice of the lawsuit settlement. 

If you are a “class” member, you can object to the settlement if you don’t like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. However, reasons for your objection are not required. If you choose to give reasons the Court will consider your views.

•	You can represent yourself, or you can elect to be represented before the court by an attorney. 

•	[*You do not have to be represented by Counsel to file an objection.* But, if you choose to seek representation by an attorney, that attorney must have standing with the Court.]


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Informational Instruction # 3*

*What is the downside if I object to the proposed RCI “class” action settlement?*

Last week I contacted my attorney, Susan B. Collins and put the following question to her:

What are the risks of objecting to the RCI proposed “class” action settlement?

Her written response is as follows:

Dave, as I see it, the risks of objecting are these:

1)  Many members fear that RCI will retaliate against Objectors.  On September 9, at the negotiations, RCI executives assured us that no retaliatory measures would be taken against objectors, and that they recognize that doing so would not be acceptable business practice.  I specifically brought to their attention the fact that several years ago, I apparently "complained too hard" about a change in RCI's policies regarding bonus weeks issued for highly desirable deposits (including writing a letter to the CEO), and that RCI did retaliate against me, in that I received a call from woman who claimed that an exchange I had made with a bonus week was improper, and she canceled the confirmed exchange.  I specifically told the executives that RCI members were concerned that RCI could lower the value of their existing deposits.  They responded that there simply is no way to lower the value of an existing deposit.  We then pointed out that the value of many deposits were lowered in the "recent unpleasantness" at the end of May, but an RCI VP assured us that that was a software glitch and was being corrected, and that trade power had been restored for most people, and that the restoration would be completed for everyone soon.  (This "glitch" should have been corrected by now.)  Despite these assurances, some skeptical RCI members may also find comfort in the fact that there is "safety in numbers," and that the more people who object, the harder retaliation would [theoretically] be. 

2)  If enough people object, the proposed settlement could be rejected by the judge.  The Plaintiffs' attorneys tell us that they believe that this would be very much against the interests of RCI members.  On the other hand, they really believe that the settlement answers most members' concerns, which is a position with which many members disagree, some vehemently.  Some objectors have expressed grave concerns that no discovery was conducted, and question how effectively the attorneys could have negotiated without knowing the full extent of RCI's practices.  (Plaintiffs’ attorneys claim that an order issued by the prior judge -- who has since retired -- prohibited them from conducting discovery.)  Plaintiffs' attorneys have also expressed reluctance to try to the case, and have implied that they could find an alternative, such as settling on behalf of the named Plaintiffs individually.  In that event, there might be no class action suit and no current or future restrictions placed on RCI, unless another action is brought.  However, it is also possible that the judge would frown on such a tactic or that if RCI members were able to find another attorney or firm to represent the class, the action might be continued, or a new action might be brought.  It is a risk, however, that each member should consider when deciding whether or not to object.  In other words, is the proposed settlement of sufficient value that risking it’s not being implemented is a serious concern?  (It is also interesting to note that apparently the Plaintiffs' attorneys, at least, seem to consider it possible that the objectors will succeed in having the proposed settlement rejected by the judge.)  

Signed:  Susan B. Collins


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Informational Instruction # 4*

*You Have Decided To Object What’s Next?*​ 

To object you must send a letter saying that that you object to the settlement in  *In re:* *Resort Condominiums International LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-222 (PGS).*


Be sure to include the class member’s name, address, telephone number, RCI Weeks Exchange Program Identification Number, Resort Identification Number, Resort Name and the signature of the "class member" or authorized representative if the "class member" is a trust, corporation, or other entity.  


You can provide specific objections and the basis supporting your position; but* providing specific objections or the reasons for your objections is not a requirement *it is optional.  If you provide specific objections and the reasons for them the Court will consider your statement.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Informational Instruction # 5*

*Frequently Asked Questions:​*
*Is there a simple form that I can send in to object?*

Sending your objection to the Clerk of Court is exceptionally easy. A generic form letter has been provided within Informational Instruction # 6.

[I apologize in advance regarding the alignment of the text of the form. It was created in MS Word 2007 and for some reason certain things such as the placement of the Date did not line up when transferred to this site.]

Yep, it really is that easy just fill in the blanks and mail it with copies to the two individuals shown at the bottom of the form. One of the recipients of a copy will be the Co-Lead Class Counsel and the other gentleman is Defense Counsel.

*What is the difference between objecting and excluding? *

Objecting is telling the Court that you don’t like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the “class.” Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t want to be part of the “class.” If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you. 

*Does a Member of the “class” who chooses to object to the settlement require an attorney to represent the “class Member?”*

*No!* Absolutely not, you can simply object by sending your objection in writing. There is no requirement that you be represented by an attorney. 

*What are the deadlines?*

• If you wish to object to the Settlement, you must send your objection to the Clerk of the Court, Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel postmarked no later than November 20, 2009.

• According to the Administrator's post card "The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a Fairness Hearing on November 30, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608."

• If you wish to submit a claim you can submit the claim electronically or mail your claim. The following shortcut will take you directly to the site where the Claim Form is available: http://tinyurl.com/RCI-Claim-Options *All claim forms must be submitted electronically or postmarked by November 20, 2009. *

*I own more than one RCI affiliated resort, do I have to list all the resorts that I own which are affiliated with RCI.*

*No,* only one Resort Name and Resort Number is to be listed even if you own more than one.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Informational Instruction # 6*

Date: ____________

Clerk of Court
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N. J.  08608 		

RE:  In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC

I object to the settlement in *In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)*

REASONS FOR OBJECTION (OPTIONAL):

































Signed: ______________________	          _________________________   



Name(s): _____________________ 	 _________________________
Address: _________________________________________
City: ___________________   State _____   Zip Code ____________
Telephone: _________________   RCI Weeks Account #:____________

Resort ID #:_______		Resort Name__________________ 



Cc:  David C. Berman				
       A Professional Corporation                		 		       		    	 
       P. O. Box 111	      		      	
       Morristown, N. J. 07963 -0111

Cc:  David S. Sager, Esq.
DAY PITNEY LLP
 P. O. Box 1945
  Morristown, N. J.  07962-1945


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Some Previous Posts Worth Noting!*

If you have not already noticed each post in this thread has a Number.

The # can be found at the top right hand side of each post.

*Example this post is # 498.*

I recommend that you review the following specific posts within this thread at your convenience.

The following specific threads were posted by Susan2:

# 42 Dated July 4, 2009

# 45 Dated July 4, 2009

# 46 Dated July 4, 2009

# 88 Dated July 9, 2009 

Also the following are noteworthy posts:

*On trading power *  Post # 102

*On the Judge taking objections seriously *Post # 155

*On RCI Terms and Conditions * Post # 172

*On the question should RCI forgo profits?  * Post # 182

*On should you just walk a way from RCI?*  Post # 187

*On the subject of "RCI RENTS WEEKS" * Post # 218

*On the assertion that many RCI Members do not know their weeks are being rented.*  Post # 252

*For an excellent report on the results of the August 18th hearing.*  Post # 286

*For comments by another TUG member about Susan Collins* Post # 39 and Post # 294

*For* *"Why We deposit and what We expected from RCI *Post # 328


----------



## Carolinian

Settling a complex case like this without conducting any discovery is malpractice.  The next complaint ought to be the ethics complaints against these sellout attorneys who are only looking for the $4million in their own stinking pockets.  Indeed, as part of the objections to this judge, we ought to object to their being paid anything at all (well, okay, maybe a few of RCI's worthless trinkets that they want us to be happy with) for their ''work'' (and I use that term loosely) on this case.


----------



## Jennie

Goofyhobbie said:


> Date: ____________
> 
> Clerk of Court
> United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
> 402 East State Street
> Trenton, N. J.  08608
> 
> RE:  In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
> 
> I object to settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC,
> Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS)
> 
> REASONS FOR OBJECTION (OPTIONAL):
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
> 
> •	Although I object to the proposed settlement I have decided to not retain legal counsel to formerly present those objections and negotiate for
> improved settlement terms.
> 
> •	I will be represented in connection with this objection by_______________________________________________.
> 
> 
> Signed: ______________________	          _________________________
> 
> Name(s): _____________________ 	 _________________________
> Address: _________________________________________
> City: ___________________   State _____   Zip Code ____________
> Telephone: _________________   RCI Weeks Account #:____________
> 
> Resort ID #:_______		Resort Name:_________________________
> Resort ID #:_______		Resort Name:_________________________
> Resort ID #:_______		Resort Name:_________________________
> Resort ID #:_______		Resort Name:_________________________
> Resort ID #:_______		Resort Name:_________________________
> Resort ID #:_______		Resort Name:_________________________
> 
> Cc:  David C. Berman
> A Professional Corporation
> 71 Maple Ave.
> P. O. Box 111
> Morristown, N. J. 07963 -0111
> 
> Cc:  David S. Sager, Esq.
> DAY PITNEY LLP
> P. O. Box 1945
> Morristown, N. J.  07962-1945



An independant company, approved by the Court, has impartial information about the RCI proposed settlement at: www.weeksprogramsettlement.com

There it is stated under instructions for filing a claim: " Resort Name: is the name of the resort where your timeshare is located... Please be advised that if you own or owned more than one timeshare, you may have multiple Resort Names, but *you are required to submit the name of only one resort that is linked to your Weeks Exchange Program membership. *


----------



## Stricky

Just double checking: If we use Susan to represent us do we also need to send an objection letter to the court?


----------



## RustyS

*How about a *temporary* moratorium on rentals?*



Susan2 said:


> ...
> 
> RCI has stated very clearly that they will reject any settlement proposal that completely prohibits it from renting out weeks deposited for exchange and has admitted that its rental program is an important source of revenue.  Many Objectors and potential class members want to see this practice completely prohibited.  Other Objectors and potential class members are willing to allow RCI to rent deposited weeks under certain conditions that are designed to protect exchangers’ rights and benefits.
> 
> After lengthy discussion and evaluation of alternatives, local New Jersey counsel and I have decided to submit a new settlement proposal to RCI’s counsel.  As was the case with the original settlement counterproposal, we will not demand everything we want, but rather what we believe we can justify to the Court and for which we feel it is worthwhile to fight.
> 
> ...



RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception.  If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing.

I don't think we can demand RCI not rent weeks that are deposited.  But I do feel we can, and should, ask that they be prevented from it for a period of time that somehow relates to the existing memberships purchased and deposits made under the original concepts of the program, those that most of us agree were acceptable and that we wish were still offered.

My beef is they changed the program without being forthcoming about it.  They kept pushing us to renew for longer periods of time ("Renew now before the rates go up!") without saying the plan was changing.  They told us to deposit our weeks with them and they'd have a good one for us to pick in return, but they started syphoning the better weeks out to the various Points and Rental programs, all in the interest of increased revenue.  If they want to devise a program like this, the one they obviously are trying to operate, they can do so but I won't be a member, and sure as heck won't give them my beach side week because they will not return me anything of value for it, especially when you consider my costs for such activity: my membership fee, my exchange fee, and my vacation time.

I think we should be asking that they operate the program under the old concepts until most of the current deposits have been exchanged, and the memberships played out.  From that point forward they can do what they want but it will be without me, and it sounds like most of the people on this board, maybe the bulk of the 80,000 members Susan refers to.  This would mean no, and I mean NO removal of deposited weeks to any other venue or market for approximately two years, and potentially the restoration of inventory previously removed causing the existing inventory to be lacking any decent properties to withdraw.  They could make that restoration by making Points and other programs' time available to the Weeks membership.

Let us get the value they originally promised us, and for which they coerced us into paying membership and exchange fees, then set them free to create whatever business model they want so long as they are up front about the how the service operates, and therefore the value of the service.

That is the basis of my complaint.  Not that I want them to continue to provide the old program forever (I sill long the simplicity of my Windows 95 machine but MS ain't doing that either), but that I want them to give me the value they promised in exchange for what I already gave them.  I have a membership good through 2012 but I can get some of that prorated back to me once I use up my exchanges.  My biggest beef is my deposited 2008 and 2009 weeks, for which I'm still looking for a decent exchange, aren't getting matched up with anything resembling a LIKE vacation experience.  I've already pulled my 2010 week and as soon as I can get use up my remaining deposits I'm gone from their rolls.  But I think they should be made to give me something of value for those deposits.  If they temporarly restore the program I can get what I need and split.  I'll bet this hold true for many of you as well.

Considering the bait and switch they performed, any aspect of this they perceive as punitive would be warranted.  After all, under this proposal in two years they can rent to their hearts delight, and anyone still a member at that time will know up front what they are getting into.  But they lied to us and stole our vacations.  I just want them back and then be shed of them.

And they can keep their trinkets.


----------



## Carolinian

To get an idea of just how bad the rental problem really is, a fellow moderator on the European based TimeshareTalk forum reported on his recent attendance at the 2-day ''Timeshare Stripped Bare'' seminar in the UK, and said that one European timeshare developer in attendance reported that 80% of the weeks deposited for exchange by his members were getting diverted to the RCI rental program, and it was seriously undermining the value of timesharing for his owners, and was causing problems for retention of members.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> Settling a complex case like this without conducting any discovery is malpractice.  The next complaint ought to be the ethics complaints against these sellout attorneys who are only looking for the $4million in their own stinking pockets.  Indeed, as part of the objections to this judge, we ought to object to their being paid anything at all (well, okay, maybe a few of RCI's worthless trinkets that they want us to be happy with) for their ''work'' (and I use that term loosely) on this case.



Carolinian, your posting is incorrect on several points.  First, obeying an order by a judge cannot be malpractice.  PERIOD.  If a judge prohibits discovery, even temporarily, then discovery cannot be conducted, at least until the order changes, and I have seen very few judges ever reverse themselves.  I cannot make any comment on any appeal that might or might not have been possible to file, because I do not do appellate work.  However,  I do know that appealing ANY order is an expensive, lengthy, and difficult process that ought not be attempted unless there is a very good chance of success.  Furthermore, appealing an order is not something that would generally promote the negotiation process.  

Second, although the original notice (in Endless Vacation magazine) stated that the Plaintiffs' attorneys were requesting as part of the settlement fees "up to $4 million," I understand that they're getting less than half that amount.  That figure must be approved by the Court, and the judge recently ruled that the Plaintiffs could amend their fee request to include time spent after May 1 (which ruling appeared to be -- and I believe was -- unsolicited by the Plaintiffs' attorneys).  To me, that indicates that the Judge probably does not consider the prior fee request to be excessive or unreasonable, and that he may even believe that the attorneys should be further compensated. 

Third, I agree that there is very little value in most of the individual benefits being offered.  However, the main point of the settlement is not the individual benefits, it is the requirement that RCI *change its practices*.  It is true that these required changes are not as broad or sweeping as many members would like to see.  That is not to say that they have no value, or even a value that can be compared to what you describe as "trinkets" available to individual members.  

If you have read the proposed settlement, then I would like very much to discuss your opinions with you.


----------



## Carolinian

First, as to discovery, there is a right under the Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct discovery.  If the court order you refer to purported to prohibit discovery at all at any period of the case, then it would be in conflict with the Rules and subject to being overturned.  A motion to accomplish that could be made in the trial court.  More likely the order limited discovery during some time period or did something similar.  In that situation, it would IMHO be malpractice to settle a case before the time when discovery could be conducted arrived and discovery was done.  They should have waited and done discovery BEFORE sitting down to settle the case.  Discovery is critical to negotiation, as it tells you how strong a case you have.  In this case, RCI attorneys knew what evidence was out there but plaintiffs attorneys did not so they were flying blind.

My recollection of what I read some time ago about the case, was that there was a scheduling order that divided discovery, and in the initial period discovery was limited to issues dealing with certifying the class.   Discovery on the merits was not prohibited, just assigned a later time.  Plaintiffs attorneys did not wait for that time to arrive, and proceeded to sell out their clients interests in a ''setttlement'' without waiting for discovery on the merits.  That is what I believe is unethical and what I have a  huge problem with.

It is good to know that these sellout shysters of plaintiffs attorneys are not going to get $4million, but then $2million is way too much.  Two cents would probably be too much IMHO.

My remarks about value were indeed directed as the stupid trinkets, but the injunctive relief is very, very weak, and also of relatively little value.  Injunctive relief is what matters in these cases, not trinkets.





Susan2 said:


> Carolinian, your posting is incorrect on several points.  First, obeying an order by a judge cannot be malpractice.  PERIOD.  If a judge prohibits discovery, even temporarily, then discovery cannot be conducted, at least until the order changes, and I have seen very few judges ever reverse themselves.  I cannot make any comment on any appeal that might or might not have been possible to file, because I do not do appellate work.  However,  I do know that appealing ANY order is an expensive, lengthy, and difficult process that ought not be attempted unless there is a very good chance of success.  Furthermore, appealing an order is not something that would generally promote the negotiation process.
> 
> Second, although the original notice (in Endless Vacation magazine) stated that the Plaintiffs' attorneys were requesting as part of the settlement fees "up to $4 million," I understand that they're getting less than half that amount.  That figure must be approved by the Court, and the judge recently ruled that the Plaintiffs could amend their fee request to include time spent after May 1 (which ruling appeared to be -- and I believe was -- unsolicited by the Plaintiffs' attorneys).  To me, that indicates that the Judge probably does not consider the prior fee request to be excessive or unreasonable, and that he may even believe that the attorneys should be further compensated.
> 
> Third, I agree that there is very little value in most of the individual benefits being offered.  However, the main point of the settlement is not the individual benefits, it is the requirement that RCI *change its practices*.  It is true that these required changes are not as broad or sweeping as many members would like to see.  That is not to say that they have no value, or even a value that can be compared to what you describe as "trinkets" available to individual members.
> 
> If you have read the proposed settlement, then I would like very much to discuss your opinions with you.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> * Posted by Stricky:* Just double checking: If we use Susan to represent us do we also need to send an objection letter to the court?
> __________________
> http://www.smuggsbbs.com



*Yes!* 

You can ask Susan or any attorney that you choose to represent you before the Court to provide you with a form letter for your objection that meets the requirements of the Court. 

If you choose to object to the proposed settlement you as a member of the "class" must be "filed" with the Clerk of the Court by November 20, 2009 and mailed to Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



tschwa2 said:


> Susan,
> 
> Do you think in our personal letter to the court (copied to the appropriate individuals), we should be equally restrained with the spirit of compromise or should we object to every major point that we personally disagree with the settlement as we understand it?  Does any version a proposed settlement contain clauses to protect objectors from repercussions from RCI on personal accounts?  I am not particularly worried about that but I have some coworkers and relatives who are casual RCI users who asked.
> 
> Thank you again for the many, many hours you have put in to help timeshare users.
> 
> Tracey



You're welcome.  You have two questions here.  Regarding "repercussions" which I read as meaning "retaliation" by RCI against objecting members is something I answered previously, I believe.  Basically, RCI execs say that they would absolutely not do that even if they could, and they seemed insulted by the suggestion that they might consider retaliation.  However, if enough members are concerned, perhaps RCI would be willing to put something specific in writing.   

As for your other question, I wish I had a sensible answer for you.  I think basically what you are asking is, "which method would be more effective?"  Is that right?  

Well, I have a crystal ball in my office.  (I really do!  It's held up by three "blind justices.")  I have never gotten any answers from it, but when I am asked a question I simply can't answer, I invite my clients (or others) to attempt to scry for themselves.  It gets a laugh and redirects the conversation.  

My feeling is that RCI is unlikely to change until and unless they feel that changing is in their best interests.  (Just like the rest of the world.)  The real question is how to convince them that changing their practices really is in their best interests.  It appears that RCI, enjoying what amounts to a near monopoly in some respects, especially with certain resorts, has the feeling that their business is not in danger from those of us who object to some of their business practices.  Perhaps they are right, but perhaps the repercussions of their actions will only be felt over time.  That would be a "crystal ball" question for me.  Ten years from now, might business people point to RCI's current actions and mark this as the point in time at which RCI "went wrong"?  It's possible.  

The real object, in my opinion, would be to let RCI know that it is not a small number of people who are objecting to the proposed settlement.  IMO letting RCI know that certain opinions are very widely held would be more effective than any particular individual's persuasiveness in an individual objection would be.  (BTW, there are at least some of RCI's people who read this thread -- and perhaps others -- on TUG.)  There are many members who read, but do not comment on this thread, leaving everyone to speculate about their true opinions.  Perhaps a poll of TUG members' opinions would be a useful device to demonstrate to RCI that certain opinions are widely held.  (Or conversely, would show the objectors that, contrary to our beliefs, we are actually a small percentage!)  

If anyone is interested in preparing a poll, I'd be happy to work with you.  May I suggest a very simple poll to start off?  (I think I've seen a link on how to do this, but I'm not terribly "computer savvy," and I don't remember.)  How about:

Question:  Would you like to see a specific statement from RCI that it will not retaliate against any member individually, or as a part of a group, for voicing objections to the proposed settlement, or for making statements against RCI's business practices, including citing a member's own personal experience?  

__ Yes, I would be more comfortable seeing such a statement if I felt I could trust that it was true

__ No, I do not feel such a statement is necessary

I would invite anyone who knows how to post the question as a poll.  

Susan


----------



## dundey

Just wanted to say a quick but sincere thank you to both Susan and Dave for all their recent efforts.
I have not been on here much recently, but have been a TUG member and timeshare owner / exchanger for 12 years.
Hopefully these efforts will lead to at least some meaningful change in RCI's ongoing practices.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> First, as to discovery, there is a right under the Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct discovery.  If the court order you refer to purported to prohibit discovery at all at any period of the case, then it would be in conflict with the Rules and subject to being overturned.  A motion to accomplish that could be made in the trial court.  More likely the order limited discovery during some time period or did something similar.  In that situation, it would IMHO be malpractice to settle a case before the time when discovery could be conducted arrived and discovery was done.  They should have waited and done discovery BEFORE sitting down to settle the case.  Discovery is critical to negotiation, as it tells you how strong a case you have.  In this case, RCI attorneys knew what evidence was out there but plaintiffs attorneys did not so they were flying blind.
> 
> My recollection of what I read some time ago about the case, was that there was a scheduling order that divided discovery, and in the initial period discovery was limited to issues dealing with certifying the class.   Discovery on the merits was not prohibited, just assigned a later time.  Plaintiffs attorneys did not wait for that time to arrive, and proceeded to sell out their clients interests in a ''setttlement'' without waiting for discovery on the merits.  That is what I believe is unethical and what I have a  huge problem with.
> 
> It is good to know that these sellout shysters of plaintiffs attorneys are not going to get $4million, but then $2million is way too much.  Two cents would probably be too much IMHO.
> 
> My remarks about value were indeed directed as the stupid trinkets, but the injunctive relief is very, very weak, and also of relatively little value.  Injunctive relief is what matters in these cases, not trinkets.



Carolinian, you may be absolutely right.  I don't know.  I do family law (divorces, custody, visitation, child support, etc.), in Western New York, and I suspect that the sorts of discovery we do is quite different from what is appropriate here.  So I can't really comment.  On the other hand, the Plaintiffs's attorneys may have gotten good information from sources other than discovery.  (We certainly do that sometimes in family law!   )  

In my practice, I do both the "traditional" litigation and "alternate dispute resolution" including mediation and collaborative law, much of which amounts to agreements to "play nice in the sandbox."  Perhaps for that reason, I see the current RCI lawsuit as a sort of "Can this marriage be saved?" situation.  Frankly, I think that if RCI "goes down," we will have to reinvent it -- based, of course, on what we believe are fairer principles.  It could quite possibly be done, and it may happen.  It would definitely take time, however.  And in the meantime, the entire timeshare industry could suffer a setback from which it would never recover.  Having said that, I do not believe that RCI should be allowed to continue to profit by renting out timeshare weeks which RCI does not own, and which were deposited with the specific intentions that they would be used for exchange, especially without the knowledge or consent of the owners.  Furthermore, I firmly believe that if RCI truly believed that it had the right to rent out those weeks, RCI would inform its Vacation Guides (and everyone else) that it was doing so.  On that, you and I are in agreement.  

However, if "two cents" is more than you think that the Plaintiffs' attorneys deserve to be paid, then we will have to disagree on that point.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



dundey said:


> Just wanted to say a quick but sincere thank you to both Susan and Dave for all their recent efforts.
> I have not been on here much recently, but have been a TUG member and timeshare owner / exchanger for 12 years.
> Hopefully these efforts will lead to at least some meaningful change in RCI's ongoing practices.



From your lips to God's RCI's ear!


----------



## TUGBrian

added the poll for you, the poll title limits the amount of txt sadly...i fit in as much as i could =)


----------



## Susan2

TUGBrian said:


> added the poll for you, the poll title limits the amount of txt sadly...i fit in as much as i could =)



Thanks, Brian!  

For future reference, how many characters can be put on the title?  
How many on the answer options?


----------



## TUGBrian

that listed right there is the actual limit (there was like one letter left)

im not sure on the poll options, but I am guessing its roughly the same.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Stricky said:


> Just double checking: If we use Susan to represent us do we also need to send an objection letter to the court?



I would definitely advise all of my clients to send an objection letter to the Court if they have not already done so, or if they wish to change the wording or nature of their prior objections --even if they have already asked me to represent them.  But I would also ask them to send me a copy for my information.    

A word of caution:  Naming an attorney on your objection letter does not, by itself, create an attorney-client relationship.  

Also, please be mindful that an attorney cannot represent clients whose goals and objectives are in conflict with the goals and objectives of other clients.  For example, in one recent post, a TUG member suggested arguing against the fees payable to the Plaintiffs' attorneys.  Assuming that was not just hyperbole, that would be a problem if he were my client, as other objectors I represent would not want to take that position.  I myself don't feel that it would be productive or appropriate to argue against the fee request.  Therefore, I WOULD HAVE TO DISCONTINUE REPRESENTATION of such a [hypothetical] client.    

In some cases, more is NOT merrier!   

The clients that I currently represent are people who have read what I have to say, and who agree with it.  That doesn't mean that I won't accept additional clients, but it might be wiser to wait until my local counsel and I have something more specific to say, such as a new proposed settlement offer to RCI.  Then, if people who object to the current proposed settlement agree with what that proposal, and want to add themselves to the roster of clients I represent, I would be happy to add them.  Likewise, if current clients find themselves in disagreement with such a settlement offer, then they should let me know, and I will inform the Court that I no longer represent them due to a conflict.


----------



## Jennie

*Caution*

In trying to decide whether or not to have Susan Collins (or any other attorney) represent you in this case, you should ascertain what their position is on the key issues of the case.

ASK first what is the #1 change/benefit he or she is advocating for in the proposed settlement?  You might be quite surprised, maybe even shocked, at the answer.  If you disagree with the attorney's chief goal, not only should you not ask the attorney to represent you, but the attorney will require you to request that you not be his/her client. 

Make sure you are "on the same page" with the attorney before "signing on."


----------



## Jennie

*Date discrepencies need to be resolved*

In the FAQ section at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com 
there are date deadline discrepancies that need to be clarified and rectified.
This is the website set up by the company approved by the court to send out the notice postcards and provide impartial factual information. 

6. How do I object to the settlement?

If you’re a Class member, you can object to the settlement if you don’t like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. The Court will consider your views. To object, you must send a letter saying that you object to the settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS). Be sure to include the class member’s name, address, telephone number, RCI Weeks Exchange Program Identification Number, Resort Identification Number, resort name and your signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement. Mail the objection to these places *postmarked no later than November 20,* 2009,

9b.What are the deadlines?
If you wish to object to the Settlement, you must send your objection to the Clerk of the Court, Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel so that it is *received by them by November 20, 2009.[/B]


8. May I speak at the hearing?

You may ask the Court for permission to speak at the Fairness Hearing. To do so, you must send a letter saying that it is your “Notice of Intention to Appear in In re: Resort Condominium International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS).” Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, and your signature. Your notice of Intention to appear must be postmarked no later than November 20, 2009 


9c  What are the deadlines?


If you wish to appear at the Final Settlement Hearing, you must file a Notice of Intention to Appear with the Clerk of the Court, and serve the Notice on Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel so that it is received by them by November 20, 2009. *


----------



## Snorkey

What are the settlement benefits?

If the Court approves the settlement and you do not exclude yourself, current members automatically get the benefit of the changes to RCI’s operation of the Weeks Exchange Program.

In addition, eligible current members have their choice of one of five special benefits. A current member can choose: (1) the opportunity to search available inventory and make an exchange request prior to depositing your vacation time; (2) a $20 credit that can be used toward a membership renewal or toward your next exchange; (3) a prorated refund of your subscription fee and a refund of fees you’ve paid for a pending exchange requests, should you decide to end your Weeks Exchange Program membership; (4) one free night stay at any RCI rental that can be used toward the same room of any paid rental of at least one night; or (5) a $100 discount certificate per cabin for the purchase of any cruise offered by RCI, with the option of receiving additional $100 discount certificates toward the purchase of up to three additional cabins for the same cruise. Eligible former members can request to receive a $15 credit toward re-joining the Weeks Exchange Program or request a $15 payment from RCI. 


*Is this worth it?*


----------



## TSToday

*October 26 & November 30th*

*Points Class Action.* A case management conference, setting deadlines for pretrial discovery and other pretrial procedures, is scheduled for October 26, 2009. The lack of discovery in the Weeks Class Action has not helped the Weeks Members. This upcoming conference could set the stage for something significant relative to discovery for both Points Members and Weeks Members and issues dealing with RCI's claim to have a lawful right to rent deposited weeks. We should develop an understanding as to how the decision about the Weeks settlement can impact on the Points Class Action, and how the ability for the Points Plaintiffs Attorney to take discovery will impact on a trial or future settlement in that case.   

*"Fairness" Hearing* I believe the proposed weeks settlement remains flawed and therefore, I intend to maintain my objection. You should consider the differences between objecting, appearing and attending. If you intend to object, send your letter to the court by 11/20. If you intend to appear (speak at the Fairness Hearing on 11/30) notify the court by 11/20. If you would just like to attend the Hearing to see for yourself how the process works and to demonstrate your support, you can just show up, keeping in mind that the hearing can be postponed. A huge turnout of attendees will send a strong message to the court and to the attorneys. 

*Postcard notice.*At the most recent hearing about the notice, I pointed out to the court, that it was very important that the notice be legible and that the type should be large enough so the reader would not have any difficulty in reading it. My recollection is that the sample RCI presented in court was larger and more legible. The postcard that I received in the mail was, in my opinion, in adequate because of a lousy printing job and the type was much too small. If you agree, I would like to have some samples of what was received sent to me. If you disagree and feel that the notice was adequate as to legibility, please advise. I am not talking about content but only legibility. RCI spends plenty of money on direct mail postcards, it should have done a better job with this one simply because of its importance to over 2 million current and prior Weeks Members.
Shep Altshuler
Publisher
TimeSharing Today


----------



## Stricky

(I think it is time for this to be a sticky)


----------



## Jennie

RustyS said:


> RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception.  If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing.
> 
> I don't think we can demand RCI not rent weeks that are deposited.  But I do feel we can, and should, ask that they be prevented from it for a period of time that somehow relates to the existing memberships purchased and deposits made under the original concepts of the program, those that most of us agree were acceptable and that we wish were still offered.
> 
> My beef is they changed the program without being forthcoming about it.  They kept pushing us to renew for longer periods of time ("Renew now before the rates go up!") without saying the plan was changing.  They told us to deposit our weeks with them and they'd have a good one for us to pick in return, but they started syphoning the better weeks out to the various Points and Rental programs, all in the interest of increased revenue.  If they want to devise a program like this, the one they obviously are trying to operate, they can do so but I won't be a member, and sure as heck won't give them my beach side week because they will not return me anything of value for it, especially when you consider my costs for such activity: my membership fee, my exchange fee, and my vacation time.
> 
> I think we should be asking that they operate the program under the old concepts until most of the current deposits have been exchanged, and the memberships played out.  From that point forward they can do what they want but it will be without me, and it sounds like most of the people on this board, maybe the bulk of the 80,000 members Susan refers to.  This would mean no, and I mean NO removal of deposited weeks to any other venue or market for approximately two years, and potentially the restoration of inventory previously removed causing the existing inventory to be lacking any decent properties to withdraw.  They could make that restoration by making Points and other programs' time available to the Weeks membership.
> 
> Let us get the value they originally promised us, and for which they coerced us into paying membership and exchange fees, then set them free to create whatever business model they want so long as they are up front about the how the service operates, and therefore the value of the service.
> 
> That is the basis of my complaint.  Not that I want them to continue to provide the old program forever (I sill long the simplicity of my Windows 95 machine but MS ain't doing that either), but that I want them to give me the value they promised in exchange for what I already gave them.  I have a membership good through 2012 but I can get some of that prorated back to me once I use up my exchanges.  My biggest beef is my deposited 2008 and 2009 weeks, for which I'm still looking for a decent exchange, aren't getting matched up with anything resembling a LIKE vacation experience.  I've already pulled my 2010 week and as soon as I can get use up my remaining deposits I'm gone from their rolls.  But I think they should be made to give me something of value for those deposits.  If they temporarly restore the program I can get what I need and split.  I'll bet this hold true for many of you as well.
> 
> Considering the bait and switch they performed, any aspect of this they perceive as punitive would be warranted.  After all, under this proposal in two years they can rent to their hearts delight, and anyone still a member at that time will know up front what they are getting into.  But they lied to us and stole our vacations.  I just want them back and then be shed of them.
> 
> And they can keep their trinkets.




VERY WELL SAID !!!!

During all the telephone and in-person conferences we Objectors have had over the past few months with RCI and the Plaintiffs attorneys, your idea has never been mentioned. 

It would be great if you would send a letter to the Federl Court stating that you are objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement and attach a printed copy of what you have posted above. 

There should be instructions posted in one place here on TUG shortly. Or you can obtain it from the official impartial website authorized by the court:
http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com


----------



## jacknsara

*Sunshine makes the best disinfectant*

Aloha
I have been following this thread with great interest even though we have been relatively successful with RCI exchanges.  I am in awe of Susan2 and the pro bono work being done on behalf of people who by and large are neither economically nor socially underprivileged. 
Timeshare commerce exists in an environment of extreme economic / information inefficiency.  
I don’t recall ever seeing unanimity within the TUG community.  In http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=803275&postcount=478 Goofyhobbie states: “The goal as many objectors see it, is to get RCI to revise their settlement significantly.”
I have no quarrel with that as an intermediate objective.  I believe there is an even more overarching objective.  It might be something like maximizing owners’ perceived value of owning and using their timeshares.  For now, I’d rather avoid the distraction of fine tuning the words used to articulate it.  
Using that as a target, what outcome for any class action suit against RCI (or any exchange company) might make the most progress toward that objective?
I contend that the highest leverage opportunity is in developing a groundswell of unfunded objectors large enough that the judge does not accept the current proposed settlement.  Such a development would be unusual perhaps even unprecedented.  With a little bit of help, it would likely catch the notice of various news media.  That would likely increase general awareness of market realities. That would reduce the economic / information inefficiency currently rampant in the timeshare world, which would have more influence on the business behavior of exchange firms and developers than any negotiated settlement language.  I am all for discovery and improved settlement language too.    
So, just what do I recommend that the TUG community do?  Step 1 is obvious.  Perhaps steps 2 thru 4 have been suggested earlier, but I don’t remember: 
#1) Object.  (Since this thread is so long, I’m pasting in a link to Goofyhobbie’s helpful info  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=803642&postcount=495 )
#2) All Tuggers who stay at a timeshare in the next five week should communicate with others at whatever resort they are staying at to tune in to the issue. Encourage them to object.
#3) For those Tuggers with connections to media professionals, encourage them to track the issue (and even attend the hearing).   
#4) A poll where Tuggers can anonymously indicate their intended course of action might be very useful for community self awareness and encouragement. 
Jack


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Jeannie,

I too like what RustyS had to say. He made some very valid points. We cannot reasonably expect for a corporation with a good business model to always and forever maintain that business model given the variables that come into play going forward. No one has a crystal ball that says all things will stay the same forever.

But, RCI as a service company has not, to my knowledge, reached out to the membership that it serves to advise how their business model has drastically changed. 

To the contrary, when specifically asked representatives of RCI have conveyed misinformation at best or outright lied to its membership time and again about what they have been doing with our deposited weeks. 

The deception is contrary to public policy and ethical business practices. Any settlement should have provisions to protect against the offending practice for at least the same period of time that the deception lasted.

In this case that would be ten years if you assume that the deception started on January 1, 2000. 



> *Jeannie said:* There should be instructions posted in one place here on TUG shortly. Or you can obtain it from the official impartial website authorized by the court: http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com



The instructions at the authorized court site are pretty explicit; but depending on what you are looking for regarding sending in an objection the Frequently Asked Questions and other documents leave things out that should be addressed and state things differently depending on where you look.

After some considerable research, I posted Informational Instructions that should help the average objector fill in the gaps.  The Information is GENERIC and posted in such a way that a new comer to this site could retrieve what they need to complete their objection notice.

For anyone looking for some guidance recommend you go back through this thread to Post * #491 through Post # 498. *


----------



## RustyS

*Thanks.*



Jennie said:


> VERY WELL SAID !!!!
> 
> During all the telephone and in-person conferences we Objectors have had over the past few months with RCI and the Plaintiffs attorneys, your idea has never been mentioned.
> 
> It would be great if you would send a letter to the Federl Court stating that you are objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement and attach a printed copy of what you have posted above.
> 
> There should be instructions posted in one place here on TUG shortly. Or you can obtain it from the official impartial website authorized by the court:
> http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com



I'm seriously considering submitting such an objection.  I have printed off the proposed settlement (yes, it is a pain to sift out the pages and pages of junk but it was doable) and plan to spend a day with a highlighter to get the key points out.  I'd like to be able to quote that and other RCI documents if I submit anything.  The comment above is part of me rolling the issues and ideas around in my head and spreading them out in words to see how they line up.  I submitted a similar posts a few days back but I think they got lost in a barrage the same day.  If interested, see post #465 or  post #475

In my zeal to get value from my weeks, I may not have been clear but I absolutely agree with GoofyHobbie that RCI, like any red-blooded American company, has to be transparent in what they offer and how they operate, especially when they are operating in trust for their clients (members, whatever).  And they are operating in trust because we "deposit" something of value, not money but future vacation, and withdraw from a "space bank".  Even the terms they use for the program evokes the image of a vault, so they know they are offering to be stewards of our property.  Hence, they operate "in trust".

If they want to operate the program like they apparently do, getting us to give them our vacation weeks and then renting them out to the highest bidder, offering us run-down studios in Kissimmee or Branson in return for the 2BR Vail ski week we deposited and they rented out, they have to be up front going forward.  Something tells me they won't have the membership they want and need to perpetuate that model.  But the market will handle it so long as they are clear what they intend to do with the deposits they seek.  

It's quite possible RCI recognizes it's a lousy deal and will only be transparent if forced to do so.


----------



## RustyS

jacknsara said:


> Aloha
> ... I believe there is an even more overarching objective.  It might be something like maximizing owners’ perceived value of owning and using their timeshares.  ...
> I contend that the highest leverage opportunity is in developing a groundswell of unfunded objectors large enough that the judge does not accept the current proposed settlement.  ...  I am all for discovery and improved settlement language too.
> So, just what do I recommend that the TUG community do?  Step 1 is obvious.  Perhaps steps 2 thru 4 have been suggested earlier, but I don’t remember:
> #1) Object.  (Since this thread is so long, I’m pasting in a link to Goofyhobbie’s helpful info  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showpost.php?p=803642&postcount=495 )
> #2) All Tuggers who stay at a timeshare in the next five week should communicate with others at whatever resort they are staying at to tune in to the issue. Encourage them to object.
> #3) For those Tuggers with connections to media professionals, encourage them to track the issue (and even attend the hearing).
> #4) A poll where Tuggers can anonymously indicate their intended course of action might be very useful for community self awareness and encouragement.
> Jack



And aloha to you too.  Something tells me the weather you awoke to today is better than what I saw, and if not the weather than the overall scenery. 

I'm not certain I can agree with your overarching objective.  Actually I agree we should all be concerned with protecting the value of our timeshares, but I don't know we can pin that on RCI.  They aren't the one that sold us our units.  They didn't set the price to something most of us realized was actually unreasonable once we left the boiler room of the presentation.  They just operate an exchange service, one that the salesmen touted as a key benefit to TS ownership, true, but unless you can prove some sort of collusion or conspiracy to defraud, it is unlikely we can get satisfaction from the courts on that objective.

RCI operates what used to be an exchange service.  They're not the only one out there for us owners of timeshares to turn to.  There's the big box competitor II, the local outfits that are discussed elsewhere in TUG, there's RedWeek, and TUG itself.  We are not held captive to RCI, so I think it would be difficult to get a court to force them to operate a plan to protect the value of our property.  It would be like getting the court to force Sony to continue making the BetaMax because I have a big collection of Beta tapes and my local BlockBuster let's all us owners swap them with each other.  Or maybe it's making BlockBuster continue to offer a bin in the back to allow us Beta owners an outlet to trade.  Something like that.  It's just not RCIs responsibility to prop up the value of our timeshares.

It IS, however, their responsibility to provide me the service I paid for and thought I was going to receive when I renewed my membership and deposited my weeks with them.  They made a deal with me and reneged.  If enough of us feel the same way THAT is our class complaint.

They probably have some modified legaleaze that I implicitly signed when I made my deposits, but I think there would be enough evidence that they were not transparent enough in the changes they made to the plan considering the number of members that claim they were unaware RCI was shifting deposited weeks away from the exchange program into the Points and Rental programs.  If we focus on this issue, something akin to Bait and Switch, or possible theft of property through diversion of assets, we may convince a court that RCI owes us value, an apology, and that they owe future membership a clear disclosure on what they will be doing with the deposits, including the net result of a lousy selection being available when it's time to withdraw.

As for taking this to the media... Well it seems to me that would be bringing additional negative attention on the time share industry, and to some extent on us the owners.  I get enough crap from friends and family about being suckered into timeshares, and honestly I'm starting to agree with them.  I went to my first presentation to get a free BBQ grill (probably a cheap hibachi), but instead left with a headache, a dazed look, a deed and a mortgage.  But that was 25 years ago so I can write it off as youthful vulnerability.  Why I bought the second one... well it's harder to dismiss.  Something to do with the Tech Boom and a pleasant stay at a Marriott.

Whether RCI operates a reasonable exchange service in the future or not, we'll still own, and be trying to protect the value of, our timeshare vacations.  We need to start planning on them not being part of the picture because they can make more money renting excess inventory from the resorts.  I just don't want them renting my exchange deposit, and I want value for those deposits that I've already made.


----------



## Carolinian

Another area to work on in terms of disclosure is requiring any developer selling a timeshare to provide disclosure on any affiliated exchange company's rentals.  Presently under the timeshare law of most if no all states developers have to provide purchasers with a detailed disclosure guide on exchange programs of such exchange companies.  Those laws were written in the good old days when Chystal deHahn ran RCI and things were on the up and up.  Nobody even comtemplated that they would be skimming off good weeks for rentals.  A similarly detailed disclosure guide ought to be required from any affiliated exchange company that rents exchange deposits.  That way timeshare buyers would know what they are getting into.  Part of the disclosure should include price ranges of rentals.  Of course, then developers would have a hard time selling weeks, so they would either come down like a ton of bricks on RCI or jump ship to II.  Either way, they would jerk RCI's chain very, very hard.

If I were back in the states, I could find a legislator to introduce that in the NC General Assembly.  The real key would be to get it introduced in Florida, since many states look to what Florida does in timeshare.


----------



## TSToday

*Put the pieces together*

If you haven't done so, read the Complaint in the Points Class Action. You can see how it brings in a *breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing* and the possibility of RCI violating *Consumer Protection Laws*. Here is a link that Timesharing Today has provided. http://tstoday.com/rciclassaction/glenz.pdf.

All timeshare owners owe a lot to Anton Glenz who is the Plaintiff in the Points Class Action. The question remains as to whether the Attorneys will prevail in being allowed discovery.

Time is running out. The November 20th filing deadline in the Weeks Class Action is not that far away. 

Shep Altshuler-Publisher
TimeSharing Today
staff@tstoday.com


----------



## bunny217

*okay...I'm stumped..*

I am wanting to send the form letter (post 497)...but stumped as to what to write in the body....I don't know what to say in it.  I am behind this movement all together...but legally....am totally confused as to what I should actually say.  That is the reason I'm so glad to have found this forum....you all are sooo very much more knowlegdable than I could ever be about the legal aspect of things...Can anyone help?   It wouldn't make any sense for me to fill it out and just say something that wouldn't help the cause.   Am I making any sense?
    Thanks for any help anyone can pass my way....Barb


----------



## TSToday

*A right to rent*

Rusty said: _RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception. If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing._

But, if you read the notice sent by RCI, it states:
*A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that claims RCI, LLC unlawfully rented or otherise disposed of timeshare inventory deposited by members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program.
*
If you agree that RCI has the right to rent or otherwise dispose of those weeks, why would two Class Action lawsuits have been filed in the first place? Common sense dictates that if RCI's actions were OK, the Plaintiffs Attorneys  would not have bothered to pursue with this costly litigation in the first place.


----------



## RustyS

*They can sell it, I don't have to buy it*



TSToday said:


> Rusty said: _RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception. If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing._
> 
> But, if you read the notice sent by RCI, it states:
> *A settlement has been reached in a class action lawsuit that claims RCI, LLC unlawfully rented or otherise disposed of timeshare inventory deposited by members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program.
> *
> If you agree that RCI has the right to rent or otherwise dispose of those weeks, why would two Class Action lawsuits have been filed in the first place? Common sense dictates that if RCI's actions were OK, the Plaintiffs Attorneys  would not have bothered to pursue with this costly litigation in the first place.



I may be guilty of using too many words so my meaning got lost.

They can devise and offer any service they want, but they have to be truthful in advertising it, signing people up, etc.  They changed the plan without properly telling us (at least that's my contention), because if I knew they were skimming the cream inventory to cater to their new Points customers, or line their pocket with rental income, I would not have deposited my weeks with them, nor would I have renewed my membership.

The _"unlawfully rented or otherise disposed of timeshare inventory"_ statement agrees with my contention that the deposits they removed from the inventory had been deposited for exchange purposes only, because that is how the program historically operated.  Once they started depleting the inventory (and of course they chose the best stuff), the problems began.

They can offer it, though I don't have to buy it.  But when they sell me one thing and deliver something else, we have a problem.  Apparently it's not just me, because lots of Weeks owners, and now lots of Points owners too, object to how they are operating the programs they sold us.  Bait and switch, deceptive practices, diversion of property... Something along these lines has occurred in the past and RCI owes something back to those of us affected by the quiet change in their operation that bled out the exchange inventory.

When I gave them my week it was nowhere in my mind to allow them to remove it from the exchange pool, after all they never had in the previous 20 years or so of my membership, because I was always able to get an acceptable exchange when I requested.  And they took my deposit with the promise (written, implied, historical, I don't know) that I would receive a *like* property when I went to withdraw.  It looks like many of us feel the same way.  I think if we focus just on that we have a chance to be made right, _then_ decide if we want to make any future deposits under their new plan.

If they want to make this program and sell it openly they are free to do so.  We cannot demand they return to the old business model forever just because we liked it better (hey Blockbuster, rent me some Beta tapes).  But they can't summarily change the old program after I bought into it and gave them control of my weeks, at least not until their obligations to me (us) have been fulfilled.  That was unfair and needs to be rectified.  My thoughts on that are to return to the old business model for a while (a period relating to the open memberships and deposits) where no exchange inventory is removed, replenish that inventory with Points and Rental inventory (reverse the flow to replace what they took away), let us get our expected and agreed-upon value by exchanging out the deposits we have already made (and for that matter give us another week for the ones we took that were substandard because that was all we had from which to choose), _THEN_ they can implement a new program.  They better be up front or they'll have deceptive practices issues again.

Once they make it right to all of us who bought memberships and deposited weeks under the old concepts, they can offer whatever they want.  I, for one, won't be using their services at that point and I doubt few others will either.


----------



## thheath

*RCI Rentals to Military Groups*

RCI continues to push rentals to non-member groups no matter the ongoing litigation.  As retired military I get an email from them at least once a month with some special they're running.  Here's one I received today:

http://emails.fam2friends.com/w/web...ATVNOLkNPTQ__&si=&mv=T&bv=H&oc=H&sc=&k=11ExQW


----------



## DanM

bunny217 said:


> I am wanting to send the form letter (post 497)...but stumped as to what to write in the body....I don't know what to say in it.  I am behind this movement all together...but legally....am totally confused as to what I should actually say.  That is the reason I'm so glad to have found this forum....you all are sooo very much more knowlegdable than I could ever be about the legal aspect of things...Can anyone help?   It wouldn't make any sense for me to fill it out and just say something that wouldn't help the cause.   Am I making any sense?
> Thanks for any help anyone can pass my way....Barb



Here are excerpts from my letter of objection that others may want to adapt or incorporate:

"RCI sells itself as an exchange company and is acting in bad faith when it rents deposited units before the last minute.

I oppose any rental of units deposited in RCI, regardless of when deposited for exchange, unless they are still not taken in exchange 45 days before their use date. At no time should any deposits be offered exclusively for rent, even during the 45 day window."


----------



## TSToday

*Impact*

And what is the impact on Members if the Court approves the current proposed settlement because there were not sufficient objections to it?


----------



## RustyS

DanM said:


> Here are excerpts from my letter of objection that others may want to adapt or incorporate:
> 
> "RCI sells itself as an exchange company and is acting in bad faith when it rents deposited units before the last minute.
> 
> I oppose any rental of units deposited in RCI, regardless of when deposited for exchange, unless they are still not taken in exchange 45 days before their use date. At no time should any deposits be offered exclusively for rent, even during the 45 day window."



Dan, I'm concerned about "offered exclusively for rent".  I don't think they should be offered for rent at all because it exposes the inventory to depletion.

I'm leaning towards the statement "at no time should any interval deposited into the exchange system be offered through any other channel (Points, Rentals, etc) until 30 days prior to the use date".  Or "all intervals deposited into the Exchange system shall be made available exclusively to members of the Weeks program for the purpose of exchanges in kind with the single exception of allowing use through other markets, including Points and Rental programs, no earlier than 30 days prior to check-in date".  Something along those lines.

Problem is I don't know we have standing to require this from a company in perpetuity.  I'd be happy getting that concession for long enough to run out all the memberships and deposits made under the old program concepts.


----------



## RustyS

Stephan said:


> ...  *Basically, members who can not plan their vacations and/or deposit their Weeks a year in advance or do not happen to have an active search pending when a Member Week is deposited will probably lose that Member Week to RCI who will rent the Member Week.*



You definitely hit the head of a nail that they are driving through my vacation forecast.  They seem to think by offering that very narrow window for exchange they have fulfilled their obligations.  Unfortunately, I can't plan that far in advance due to kids class and sport schedules, the health of elderly family members, and my own work demands.  Sometimes I feel lucky if I can get 3 months planning.

For the program to be of value to me, the inventory must remain intact with the obvious exception of legitimate member exchange activity.  True, at 90 days out I've probably missed some of the better opportunities, but there will still be something in there.

Secondly, I'm seeing a more disturbing trend in exchange inventory offerings.  Whole slices of the calendar are no longer available to me yet seem to have plenty of inventory in the rental programs.  Specifically I searched for ski vacations and see an obvious black out on properties of all quality and size levels during ski season.  Non-ski locations, like lakes in the northwest and other obvious summer spots, are available to me Dec - Mar, and ski locations are available Apr - Nov, but there is little of value in there.  If I want to see anything decent I have to look in the rental pool.

So the way it is currently operating it doesn't seem to be driven solely by deposited weeks, but also by match criteria, trading power, call it what you want, but the only way I can get what I used to trade for is to rent it.  Sadly, the agents on the phone stick to the party line that "no deposits have been made for that period" (yet I can see deposits for after that period or rentals available during).  Deception, deception, deception.


----------



## RustyS

TSToday said:


> And what is the impact on Members if the Court approves the current proposed settlement because there were not sufficient objections to it?



"Hosed again by corporate America"?

"The little guy trampled by the CEOs"?

"Granny's investment in a Branson vacation wiped out in the interest of maximizing shareholder value"?


----------



## Susan2

*Change requests to proposed Settlement Agreement*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here is a copy of the settlment proposal I sent to RCI's lead counsel.  

I have tried to make the objectives clear without getting too terribly wordy, but it may help considerably to refer to the actual proposed settlement agreement in order to more fully understand what we are asking.  I do not have the time to correspond with everyone who has questions, or even to post explanations, but I think there are enough TUGgers out there who have read the agreement who can discuss it, or at least post sections of the agreement on this thread, if other readers don't understand or cannot navigate around the agreement.  (Thank you in advance.)  

Obviously, even these requested modifications will not satisfy everyone's desires, but we hope we've addressed most people's major concerns.  The proposal addresses only the changes to RCI's practices, not the individual benefits some members refer to as "trinkets," because we believe that most members are far more concerned with RCI's ongoing practices than the are with increasing the individual payout even 10 times.  (10 x $15 = $150.  Not enough for me to put up with RCI's antics!  And for me ten $100 cruise vouchers = more paper to put in the recycling bin!)  

So, here is what we're asking:    

1.  As we read it, Section II. C (Priority for Weeks Exchange Fulfillment) provides that beginning August 31, 2010 and continuing for a period of two years, RCI is required to hold weeks deposited for exchange by members more than a year in advance exclusively available for members to exchange for a period of 31 days from the date of deposit (rather than from the date of RCI's confirmation of the deposit, which is the date on which the unit is available for exchange), and also requires that weeks deposited less than a year in advance be used to fulfill outstanding searches for those members whose searching weeks have sufficient trade power to make the exchange.  After the end of the "exclusivity period," or the comparison of the deposited week to outstanding searches, RCI may then "swap out" the deposit for a week RCI acquired from another source, and offer it for rent "or any other purpose."  Under the terms of the proposed agreement, after the exclusivity period expires or the unit has been compared against ongoing searches, "RCI will make the deposited Vacation Time available for both Exchange and Rental, *should RCI wish to offer the Vacation Time for Rental*."  It is not clear that the weeks would be simultaneously available for exchange in the event that RCI were to use to the deposited Vacation Time "for any other purpose" as is allowed under the balancing as required by Section II.A.(2).  

We propose instead that there be a "rolling exclusivity” term for ALL deposits in accordance with the table below.  The time would run from the date the week is made available for exchange to other RCI members.  These new terms of exclusivity should be as follows: 
a.	120 days for deposits made 11 or more months in advance of the check-in date, 
b.	90 days for deposits made between 6 to 10 months in advance of the check-in date, and
c.	31 days for deposits made between 3-6 months in advance of the check-in date. 

2.  We also want to see the proposed Agreement amended to clarify that Vacation Time will be made simultaneously available for exchange when it is used for rental or "for any other purpose" (subject to the aforementioned balancing act).  We understand these "other purposes" to include RCI transferring said weeks to "other exchange or accommodation programs" which is allowed in paragraph 25 of the Terms and Conditions of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership. 
Therefore, Section II C Priority for Weeks Program Exchange Fulfillment should be amended to state that RCI will make ALL Vacation Time available for both Exchange and Rental, should RCI wish to offer the Vacation Time for rent "or for any other purpose, including rental, whether through RCI or whether through any other exchange program, partner, affiliate or other entity."  

The provisions of Subparagraph 1 (other exchange programs) and subparagraph 2 (excess Vacation Time and inventory not subject of a Confirmation ninety (90) days prior to the starting date) should be specifically modified to state that these weeks will be simultaneously available for exchange by RCI members.  

3.  Section II A.2, “Balancing of RCI Deposits and Rented Inventory,” allows RCI to “swap out” weeks deposited for exchange by substituting inventory acquired directly from the resorts, or from another source.  We propose that this section be amended as follows:  1) the third line should be changed from “Vacation Time that is deposited by members and is rented by RCI” to read ”Vacation Time that is deposited by members and is rented or otherwise disposed of by RCI in any manner other than direct exchange by another member”; and 2) Sub-provision b which excludes “Vacation Time that is not the subject of a Confirmation ninety (90) days prior to the start date of that Vacation Time” from the balancing requirement should be stricken, so that RCI is not allowed to pull these weeks from the spacebank without replacing them with other inventory.  Alternately, subprovision b could be reduced to thirty (30) days, provided that this change is consistent throughout the proposed Agreement.  

4.  Weeks deposited by members for exchange would not be offered for rent through RCI or other exchange program, partner, affiliate or other entity for less than the annual maintenance fees, unless said Week is still available within 90 days of the start date, in which case, RCI (or its affiliate or partner) would be free to offer said week for whatever it believed the market would bear.  This restriction would exclude Weeks offered as "bonus” vacation time, as these are not "rental” weeks.

5.  Section II. A.(1) regarding Disclosure of Trading Power should be amended to allow Affiliated Resorts, as well as individual timeshare owners, to view the trading power of weeks.  At a minimum, affiliated resorts should be able to compare the trading power of each week of unsold inventory, or weeks that are otherwise available for sale, and to clearly inform resorts that they have the ability to compare the trading power of weeks in inventory.  (RCI has consistently denied responsibility for timeshare sales people overstating the exchange value of the weeks they sell.  However, unless RCI makes it possible for resorts to obtain specific information on exchange values other than "red-white-blue," RCI cannot shift the responsibility for misrepresentation wholly to the resorts.)

6.  These program changes should be permanent.  

7.  The provisions of Section II. A. 3 Disclosure of Weeks Program Activity should be lengthened substantially (we suggest at least ten years, rather than two years from December 31, 2008, as stated in the agreement), as this is the mechanism under which members can be assured that RCI is complying with the requirements of the proposed Agreement.  Vacation Time deposited less than ninety (90) days in advance should not be excluded from this disclosure, but should be reported separately.  Alternately, the 90 days could be changed to 30 days, if this change is consistent throughout the agreement.    

8.  A provision should be added to Section VIII (Payment of Attorneys’ Fees, etc., to allow the attorneys for the Objectors (Susan B. Collins and Mandel, Katz & Brosnan LLP) to seek a fee and reimbursement of expenses (with RCI reserving all its rights in the same manner as set forth in paragraph A regarding the class action attorneys).

9.  Section VII. G regarding sending confirmation of RCI’s compliance with the above terms should be amended to include Susan Collins as well as Jenelle Welling as the recipient of the information.

10.  RCI Guides should be trained and monitored to ensure that they are not providing misinformation to members, more than is reasonable and occasional human error, and there should be a person or a department designated to whom to send complaints regarding misinformation.  RCI should agree to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that misinformation is corrected.

If this counteroffer is accepted, the Objectors would agree to withdraw their objections, either without comment or stating that, although they would have preferred a more comprehensive settlement with more restrictive terms, based on all of the circumstances, they acknowledge that these terms of the settlement are acceptable to the majority of the class.  (Alternately, we can discuss an amendment to section X. C relating to the active involvement of the Objectors.)  


We have no assurance that RCI will discuss these proposed terms, but we intend to place them before the Court should RCI not be willing to discuss them.  We believe that all these requested terms are reasonable and that none of them would unduly restrict RCI's legitimate business practices.


----------



## TUGBrian

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com now contains TUGGER goofyhobbie's instructional/informational posts from earlier in the thread for easy reference.


----------



## DanM

I think Susan's point about units remaining available for exchange even if offered for rent is the key one. It's my major concern and where I differ, perhaps, with Rusty. Putting aside the time periods when things might be exclusively offered for exchange, I see many prime weeks sitting in the rental pool for months because they are simply too expensive. There have been more than a dozen January Whistler and Colorado ski weeks sitting in Extra Vacations at $1100 - $1600 since mid summer.

Bottom line, if the rental is more than about $700 (my average cost for maintenance and exchange fees), I won't rent and obviously many others won't either. I will hold out and hope for an exchange. So, my theory is that as long as the unit is offered for exchange and rent at the same time exchangers will have a reasonable shot at getting the unit. RCI will screw itself by asking too much for rent for too long.


----------



## RustyS

DanM said:


> I think Susan's point about units remaining available for exchange even if offered for rent is the key one. It's my major concern and where I differ, perhaps, with Rusty. Putting aside the time periods when things might be exclusively offered for exchange, I see many prime weeks sitting in the rental pool for months because they are simply too expensive. There have been more than a dozen January Whistler and Colorado ski weeks sitting in Extra Vacations at $1100 - $1600 since mid summer.
> 
> Bottom line, if the rental is more than about $700 (my average cost for maintenance and exchange fees), I won't rent and obviously many others won't either. I will hold out and hope for an exchange. So, my theory is that as long as the unit is offered for exchange and rent at the same time exchangers will have a reasonable shot at getting the unit. RCI will screw itself by asking too much for rent for too long.



To an outsider, someone who has not purchased a timeshare property and pays no annual maintenance fee, a week in a condo (the larger the better) for 1100 to 1600 per night is a bargain compared to booking multiple hotel rooms to house his skiing family, especially since they can eat in.

RCI doesn't price the rentals for us, the exchangers.  They price it for people who compare the price and lodging experience to hotel rooms.  In doing so they have indeed reduced the value of timeshare ownership because why would I go through the hassles when I can rent and walk away at the end of the week?

Trust me those weeks will go.  Maybe not a long way out, but they can keep them at that price and a high percentage will end up occupied.


----------



## ctyatty

One test of fairness is reciprocity, If RCI would go out and rent what I wanted to trade for, then it could be fair. So if the week I desired was not deposted, it would expend some of that rental income to provide me with the trade which I desire.

RCI is renting inventory which should rightfully be avaiable to members. So the basic concept is a consumer fraud. RCI really doesn't pool all deposited weeks, it skims the cream for profit to the detriment of members.

The proposed settlement is a rip-off plain and simple. The lack of transparency and obtaining membership money under false pretenses ought to mean upper management gets fired.

Too bad so much of corporate America gives free enterprise a bad name by their tales I win heads you lose attitude.

Plus its pretty easy for them to increase the trade power of weeks it can successfully rent so that the dogs are leftover.


----------



## BigElm

Apart from the email, I got my postcard today (bottom left showing "Second Notice"). 

Anyway, as to Susan's post, I can agree with everything as an Objector but the fact that a deposited week is available for rent at the same time, concerns me. I believe that after a period of time that a deposited weeks sits in the exchange pool, it should then become available for rent AFTER a given period of time from it's deposit date. 

It would be nice to see RCI put deposit dates on those units that are available when doing a search; but who's to say that RCI won't alter the date to move it to a rental pool sooner. Unless members keep a close watch of their desposits and see them available online, this may help keep RCI on their toes.


----------



## Jennie

Stephan said:


> In regard to your first point above, my legal statement states:
> *Basically, RCI knows the majority of Weeks are deposited by Members less than a year in advance and the chances of a search to be started before a Member happens to deposit their Week AND the search meets the Member's search are low. RCI knows the deposit and search patterns of their Members since that is what RCI tabulates and they know human nature. RCI can predict that the majority of Weeks deposited will not meet the two above requirements. RCI knows they can still take a majority the Member Weeks deposited for rentals under the present Settlement, as long as they are within three (3) undefined Trading Power Segements.*
> 
> Your second point is key also since actually there were deposits made, but RCI knows valuable Weeks, thus RCI deposits their Week in this situation and takes out the better Week. RCI can do this per the Settlement that allows exchanges within three "Trading Power Segements". Also, this can all be done in seconds with computer software, even while RCI advertises to renters.



Steve, the problem is that RCI is the sole judge of the rating/value assigned to each week. Those of us who have completed a large number of exchanges know that there are many resorts rated gold or silver crown (formerly RID--Resort of International Distinction) that do not deserve that high a rating. 

Since RCI and Wyndham timeshare resorts are now owned by the same parent company, Wyndham Worldwide (having been spun off from Cendant), the potential for deliberate rating tampering is higher than ever. 

New resorts,while in active sales, give RCI many free weeks which they hope will be given to RCI members as exchanges. They hope the exchange guests will like the resort and decide to purchase a week while they are vacationing there. Those resorts always seem to have a high rating, whether they deserve it or not. How else can they convince a person to buy a week there if they cannot brag about how it is a Gold Crown Resort and will therefore be an excellent trader?

And even if RCI actually aimed to be scrupulously honest :hysterical: in determining the correct ratings, RCI has such a long history of bungling and ineptness, that there would likely still be many major mistakes in their ratings. 

For instance, a TUG member I know personally deposited a prime one bedroom week at a resort where he owns several weeks. When searching for a different (but comparable season) week at the same home resort with his own week at that resort (what we used to refer to as an "internal exchange") he was told he did not have "strong enough trade power" to pull it BUT his low value off-season studio unit in another part of the country pulled it. I'm sure many TUGgers can attest to similar experiences.

So, unless there is oversight and accountability for the way RCI assigns a value rating to a week, it will not matter how many "segments" are used to determine the comparability of an exchange or for"swapping out" weeks from the spacebank.


----------



## Jennie

BigElm said:


> Apart from the email, I got my postcard today (bottom left showing "Second Notice").
> 
> Anyway, as to Susan's post, I can agree with everything as an Objector but the fact that a deposited week is available for rent at the same time, concerns me. I believe that after a period of time that a deposited weeks sits in the exchange pool, it should then become available for rent AFTER a given period of time from it's deposit date.
> 
> It would be nice to see RCI put deposit dates on those units that are available when doing a search; but who's to say that RCI won't alter the date to move it to a rental pool sooner. Unless members keep a close watch of their desposits and see them available online, this may help keep RCI on their toes.



Would it concern you even more to know that Susan and some other objectors want the settlement to include a legal *mandate* that if RCI rents a timeshare week, it must be at a price equal to, or greater than the maintenance fees an owner would pay for the same unit? I think their rationale is that unless rental price propping occurs, people will stop buying timeshares on the resale or full price market if they can rent them for less, with no on-going  responsibility to pay annual maintenance fees and possible Special Assessments.

To me, though, and many other owners with whom I have discussed the subject, the primary goal of this class action lawsuit should be to prevent RCI from renting any weeks that members have deposited in the spacebank for exchange with other members. To then say, "But if RCI is going to rent them then they should be *required* to charge a much higher price than they have been doing." To me it seems so illogical. This would be financially rewarding RCI for bad behavior and thus giving them a greater financial incentive to continue, and even escalate the activity.

Am I missing something here?


----------



## Simoncc

Jennie said:


> Would it concern you even more to know that Susan and some other objectors want the settlement to include a legal mandate that if RCI rents a timeshare week, it must be at a price equal to, or greater than the maintenance fees an owner would pay for the same unit?
> 
> To me, though, and many other owners with whom I have discussed the subject, the primary goal of this class action lawsuit should be to prevent RCI from renting any weeks that members have deposited in the spacebank for exchange with other members.
> 
> Am I missing something here?



It will be necessary to compromise if the courts are to agree to any settlement proposed by the Objectors.

Are RCI doing anything illegal by renting units out? Not in itself, but rather by deceiving (I don't think that's too strong a word) many members into thinking that the practice is a lot less widespread than it is.

No judge is going to ban RCI from renting units so the key is to come up with a proposal that is as fair as possible to all sides. As I understand it the 3 key points to Susan's proposal are:

1. A rolling exclusivity period where deposited weeks are only available for exchange - on much better terms than proposed by RCI.

2. After this period depositied weeks are still available for exchange until rented by RCI.

3. The price set by RCI to rent the units should not set at a level that threatens the viability of the resort i.e less than the annual MF.

In an ideal world, RCI wouldn't rent out any units but that just ain't going to happen. I would be happy to continue with RCI if they complied with the terms of the Susan's proposed settlement. Others may not be but if the new terms were widely distributed to members and resorts then people can make an informed choice.


----------



## Jennie

Stephan said:


> Barb, One of the objecting attorneys has said in court papers he has "spent over 100 hours studying the Settlement". His Settlement summary states.........[/b]



Is this clown having an out of body experience?

Stephan IS the attorney who filed the court papers.

He's talking about it as if someone else did it.

How weird is that


----------



## Carolinian

I do not know about your consumer protection law, but most if not all states in the US use language like that in North Carolina, which says Any unfair or deceptive act of practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful  That is pretty darn broad, and unlawful means the same thing as illegal.




Simoncc said:


> It will be necessary to compromise if the courts are to agree to a proposed settlement.
> 
> Are RCI doing anything illegal by renting units out? Not in iteslf, but rather by deceiving (I don't think that's too strong a word) many members into thinking that the practice is a lot less widespread than it is.
> 
> No judge is going to ban RCI from renting units so the key is to come up with a proposal that is as fair as possible to all sides. As I understand it the 3 key points to Susan's proposal are:
> 
> 1. A rolling exclusivity period where deposited weeks are only available for exchange - on much better terms than proposed by RCI.
> 
> 2. After this period depositied weeks are still available for exchange until rented by RCI.
> 
> 3. The price set by RCI to rent the units should not set at a level that threatens the viability of the resort i.e less than the annual MF.
> 
> In an ideal world, RCI wouldn't rent out any units but that just ain't going to happen. I would be happy to continue with RCI if they complied with the terms of the proposed settlement. Others may not be but if the new terms were widely distributed to members and resorts then people can make an informed choice.


----------



## Simoncc

Carolinian said:


> I do not know about your consumer protection law, but most if not all states in the US use language like that in North Carolina, which says Any unfair or deceptive act of practice in or affecting commerce is unlawful  That is pretty darn broad, and unlawful means the same thing as illegal.



As I said - it is not the renting of units itself that is unlawful but rather how RCI have gone about it.


----------



## Jennie

RustyS said:


> They better be up front or they'll have deceptive practices issues again..



No they won't. They won't  have any members left to file complaints or lawsuits.

Hey, if a thug, brandishing a gun, rings your doorbell and asks you to open the door so he can rob you blind,..........


----------



## Jennie

bunny217 said:


> I am wanting to send the form letter (post 497)...but am stumped as to what to write in the body....I don't know what to say in it....Barb



Don't worry at all about what to say. It's fine to just send in the form without any comments. The Judge has already been made totally aware of RCI's despicable practices. He legally he needs a large outpouring of objectors in order to justify declaring the proposed settlement unfair. 

If that happens, RCI may decide to "get real" and agree to significant changes to the settlement. Otherwise RCI is facing a trial,  either before an intelligent judge who cares about justice being done, or a jury of our "peers". If ordinary people serving as jurors hear the facts  I'll bet  that a kinder gentler RCI will be reborn.

If you decide to put a statement in your "letter" you might want to say something like this: I object to the proposed settlement because it does not stop, or severely limit, RCI from removing deposited weeks from the spacebank and renting them to the public.  

*But please, just send in the letter, even without any comment. It will help immensely.*

By the way, if you own more than one week, you just list the name and resort I.D. # of ONE week. 

If you don't know your RCI number, call and ask for it at 800-338-7777

To look up your Resort I.D. go to www.rci.com and click on "Resort Directory" at the top of the home page. You do not have to log in to view it.


----------



## BigElm

Jennie said:


> Would it concern you even more to know that Susan and some other objectors want the settlement to include a legal *mandate* that if RCI rents a timeshare week, it must be at a price equal to, or greater than the maintenance fees an owner would pay for the same unit? I think their rationale is that unless rental price propping occurs, people will stop buying timeshares on the resale or full price market if they can rent them for less, with no on-going  responsibility to pay annual maintenance fees and possible Special Assessments.
> 
> To me, though, and many other owners with whom I have discussed the subject, the primary goal of this class action lawsuit should be to prevent RCI from renting any weeks that members have deposited in the spacebank for exchange with other members. To then say, "But if RCI is going to rent them then they should be *required* to charge a much higher price than they have been doing." To me it seems so illogical. This would be financially rewarding RCI for bad behavior and thus giving them a greater financial incentive to continue, and even escalate the activity.
> 
> Am I missing something here?



I for one am not a fan of renting units but the fact is that the court will not ban RCI from renting them. The rental program which we as members can participate in, has more exposure to the publc and goes through the RCI handling and filtering of such renters; albeit at a profitable margin.  I, for one, have not nor intend on using RCI's rental program but the reality is that they can attest that their rental program "benefits" members without the legwork... Blah, blah, blah!

IF we have to compromise, then I'm just saying that there be an exclusive area next to that resort availability line showing the date of deposit made by X member and the time period left before moving it to a rental pool. The only thing I don't agree with is having those units available for rent WHILE in the exchange pool. Any renter who can fork up the money to rent, whether for high or low $, invades our ability to exchange with these units, especially if they are of compatible trading power exchanges. The renter pays the money, RCI makes a good chunk of profit and us members continue to pay maintenance, exchange and membership fees; and still get the short end of the stick because these units are not available. 

So bottom line.... Have deposited units in the exchange pool for a agreed determined amount of time before being moved to the rental pool. So, us "investing members" can have something worthwhile to look forward to when planning for out vacation.

BTW, I'm sending my Objection letter this weekend.


----------



## bunny217

*My Letter is Ready to Mail...*

I know I need to send one to the Clerk of Court...and then cc a copy to Mr. Berman and Mr. Sager (at the bottom)....do I need to send one to anyone else here or on this board?
    We're leaving next Saturday for 2 weeks down at our resort...so I'm taking some extra blank letters with me.   I wish I could explain to people as throughly as you all do as to what is going on and what the problem is.   Is there anyway to explain it in a "nutshell"?  For example.... If I meet people that are unfamiliar with it....   I'd like to explain it to them, but don't have the skills or enough knowledge to answer the questions that they may ask.    
       I have relatives that are owners, and will see them there...I have told them about the suit...I've also refered them to this site, but I'm not quite they're understanding the whole thing either.  That's why I'm taking the blank letters.
     Thank you for your help...everyone...for all that you are doing.   
                 Barb


----------



## TUGBrian

I think ill create a blank letter available for download or copy on the site for easier reference...ill try to get that up this weekend.


----------



## Born2Travel

TUGBrian said:


> I think ill create a blank letter available for download or copy on the site for easier reference...ill try to get that up this weekend.


 
I think that would be great - I can't keep up with all this AND try to think of what to say in a letter  - just too much going on.   Thank You


----------



## bunny217

*...oh...*



TUGBrian said:


> I think ill create a blank letter available for download or copy on the site for easier reference...ill try to get that up this weekend.



I copied and pasted the one from post #497....then just filled in the blanks..is that okay?    barb


----------



## TUGBrian

oh thats fine...there is no "wrong" format for writing an objection letter as long as it gets to the right person!

i was just going to make an easier one vs people having to go find post 497 =)


----------



## Golfnut7

*My message to the court*

I am planning to mail the following objection. Any problem with what I say?

I object to the proposed settlement because I believe that RCI should not be allowed to remove deposited weeks from the Spacebank and then rent them, at least until it is clear that others in the Points system don't want them.  

Every time I try to plan my vacation, the selection is pitiful in the Spacebank.  Just try to find a unit on the beach in California. Always, there is almost nothing available, but many units in the rental section.  This is simply wrong!  It is stealing our deposit and renting it to someone else!  When I deposit my week, I expect to get a week of equal value somewhere else.

Just now I ran a search for February 2010.  There is only 1 unit available in the Spacebank for Southern California, Costal and it is in Anaheim – which of course is not on the coast at all.  When I look at the rentals, there are 47 units available in the Southern Pacific Coast for the same time period.


----------



## Jennie

Golfnut7 said:


> I am planning to mail the following objection. Any problem with what I say?
> 
> I object to the proposed settlement because I believe that RCI should not be allowed to remove deposited weeks from the Spacebank and then rent them, at least until it is clear that others in the Points system don't want them.
> 
> Every time I try to plan my vacation, the selection is pitiful in the Spacebank.  Just try to find a unit on the beach in California. Always, there is almost nothing available, but many units in the rental section.  This is simply wrong!  It is stealing our deposit and renting it to someone else!  When I deposit my week, I expect to get a week of equal value somewhere else.
> 
> Just now I ran a search for February 2010.  There is only 1 unit available in the Spacebank for Southern California, Costal and it is in Anaheim – which of course is not on the coast at all.  When I look at the rentals, there are 47 units available in the Southern Pacific Coast for the same time period.



The information you are proposing to send to the court as an objection is EXCELLENT! But even just a one line statement such as: "I am objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement" or "I object to this settlement" will be fine and will be registered by the court as an objection. The more objections the court receives, the more likely the Judge will be to not approve the settlement in its present form. 

But I did want to clarify one thing. This lawsuit is on behalf of RCI WEEKS MEMBERS. There is a separate lawsuit, recently filed, on behalf of RCI POINTS members. You need to have had an RCI weeks account between January 1, 2000 AND August 31, 2009 to be eligible to file an objection in this case, and claim one of five designated "benefits" (which TUG members are derisively referring to as "trinkets"). 

Many RCI members are WEEKS members AND Points members. They are eligible to object to the terms of the present case. But if you are only an RCI Points member, you would not be a member of this class action lawsuit unless you were a Weeks member at any time between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009.. You would not be eligible to file an objection in this case. But don't worry, your tiurn will come. The Points case will hopefully get to this point sometime and we'll help get the word out for you too.


----------



## carl2591

be sure to put something on the letter to clerk of court : Courtesy of TUG2.net

might get the judge or someone interested in why so many objection's to the proposed settlement are coming from TUG members and readers. they might go online and actually read the entire 560 thread message board..


----------



## lgreenspan

*Who has sent a letter to the court?????*

I used the form letter from Goffyhobby. How many Tuggers are sending letters? Numbers count when sending objection letters to the court. Please take the time to object!!!


----------



## carl2591

lgreenspan said:


> I used the form letter from Goffyhobby. How many Tuggers are sending letters? Numbers count when sending objection letters to the court. Please take the time to object!!!



I sent one to all three of the name mentioned on form letter..


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Jennie said:


> . . . if you are only an RCI Points member, you would not be a member of this class action lawsuit.



Clarification:  This should say "unless you were a Weeks member at any time between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009."  

I know you have that in there elsewhere, but if a member switched over to Points only, that's still okay if the member was a Weeks member during the relevant period before the switch.  

Good job, though, Jennie.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Hi Bunny*



> *Bunny217 posted:* My Letter is Ready to Mail...
> 
> I know I need to send one to the Clerk of Court...and then cc a copy to Mr. Berman and Mr. Sager (at the bottom)....do I need to send one to anyone else here or on this board?
> We're leaving next Saturday for 2 weeks down at our resort...so I'm taking some extra blank letters with me. I wish I could explain to people as throughly as you all do as to what is going on and what the problem is. Is there anyway to explain it in a "nutshell"? For example.... If I meet people that are unfamiliar with it....  I'd like to explain it to them, but don't have the skills or enough knowledge to answer the questions that they may ask.
> I have relatives that are owners, and will see them there...I have told them about the suit...I've also refered them to this site, but I'm not quite they're understanding the whole thing either. That's why I'm taking the blank letters.
> Thank you for your help...everyone...for all that you are doing.
> Barb



Barb,
*GIRL YOU ROCK!!!!*​

As the "Teens" today would say, *"That's What I'm Talkin about!!!!"*

Many RCI Members as well as II Members have friends or relatives back home that they can mail the forms to or take the forms to.

If you are good with words you could type up objections with little squares to the left of each one so that folks could check off the objection(s) they want to make and leave blank the ones they don't care about *OR* in the alterntive you could simply do as has been suggested here many times. 

Simply go with the one sentence suggested in the Generic Form Letter: * "I object to (the) settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS.)*

Keep in mind the judge in the case already knows all the issues so there is no need to explain them to him over and over again.  AS JEANNIE has said time and again *WE NEED Quantity rather than Quality!* 

*In the end IT IS THE QUANITY OF OBJECTIONS THAT WILL MATTER MOST!​*
By burying the Court in Objection letters we will be sending a signal to the Judge and that signal will provide him with the leveragae to PUSH HARD for more negotiations!

The copy that Mr. Berman receives from all of the objectors should provide the Plaintiffs the INCENTIVE to push for a return to the negotiation table rather than cave to Goliath!

Meanwhile, the copies to the Counsel for the Defense will make RCI realize that they have a VERY SERIOUS "PUBLIC RELATIONS" issue to overcome!

*



WE ARE MAD AS H _ _ _!  and WE ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE THIS ANYMORE!​

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Jennie

carl2591 said:


> be sure to put something on the letter to clerk of court : Courtesy of TUG2.net. It might get the judge or someone interested in why so many objection's to the proposed settlement are coming from TUG members and readers. They might go online and actually read the entire 560 thread message board..



RCI's defense attorneys are definitely reading the posts on this Forum. They said so at the 5 hour conference held with a small group of Objectors on September 9th. I think we are their worst nightmare. 

I mentioned TUG during both of my Federal Court appearances and the Judge took note of it. I wouldn't be surprised if he's visiting this forum too. He is well aware of our valid complaints. A large number of Objection letters can make a big difference in the final outcome of this case. It's numbers that count. Don't sweat what to say. Just stating "I object to the terms of the proposed settlement" is enough. But feel free to add as much else as you want. There is no right or wrong way to express your objection.


----------



## Jennie

Stephan said:


> ... *I have argued in court* that RCI is basically using credit default rental Week swaps...



Steve, In what Court did you make that argument? You attended only one hearing in the RCI class action lawsuit--on August 16, 2009. Judge Sheridan would not allow you to speak because he said you had no legal standing in the case.


----------



## Carolinian

If you think that, then you do not understand the law or the legal issues.   Please read some of the material from TST to educate yourself.




BigElm said:


> I for one am not a fan of renting units but the fact is that the court will not ban RCI from renting them. The rental program which we as members can participate in, has more exposure to the publc and goes through the RCI handling and filtering of such renters; albeit at a profitable margin.  I, for one, have not nor intend on using RCI's rental program but the reality is that they can attest that their rental program "benefits" members without the legwork... Blah, blah, blah!
> 
> IF we have to compromise, then I'm just saying that there be an exclusive area next to that resort availability line showing the date of deposit made by X member and the time period left before moving it to a rental pool. The only thing I don't agree with is having those units available for rent WHILE in the exchange pool. Any renter who can fork up the money to rent, whether for high or low $, invades our ability to exchange with these units, especially if they are of compatible trading power exchanges. The renter pays the money, RCI makes a good chunk of profit and us members continue to pay maintenance, exchange and membership fees; and still get the short end of the stick because these units are not available.
> 
> So bottom line.... Have deposited units in the exchange pool for a agreed determined amount of time before being moved to the rental pool. So, us "investing members" can have something worthwhile to look forward to when planning for out vacation.
> 
> BTW, I'm sending my Objection letter this weekend.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*If You Want To Say More Than "I object" Consider The Following:*

You may be looking for help with the Post Card you recently received from the RCI "Weeks" Class Action Administrator. 

If you are considering an objection to the settlement recommend that you first take a look at the informational instructions provided at:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/

You can simply say something like the following:

"I object to the settlement in *In re Resort Condominiums International, LLC Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS.)*"

*THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT YOU GIVE RESONS FOR YOUR OBJECTION. *

But, once you have been to the above mentioned site you may decide that you want to say more than the one sentence above.

The following ideas are obviously not unique because we have been talking about these issues for some time.

You can use one or two or all of the provided suggested objections within the body of your objection letter. 

You may choose to use some of the wording and write your own version. 

*What you say and how you say it is up to you.*

The suggestions: 

*1)* I object to the rental of any week deposited by a RCI member into the RCI Weeks Exchange Program.  If, however, a Settlement is reached that allows for rental of weeks deposited by RCI Weeks members into the Exchange Program, I object to the proposed Section II C (Priority for Weeks Exchanges) exclusivity provision which provides a flat "31 days from the date of deposit” for weeks deposited more than 12 months in advance.

If an exclusivity provision is made part of the settlement, the time frame for exclusivity should run from the date the week is made available for exchange to other RCI members and should be a rolling exclusivity period that provides exclusivity as follows:

• 120 days for deposits 11 or more months in advance of the check-in date,
• 90 days for deposits between 6 to 10 months in advance of the check-in date, 
• 31 days for deposits between 3-6 months in advance of the check-in date.


*2)* I object to the fact that the settlement does not clarify that "Vacation Time" will be made simultaneously available for Exchange when it is used for rental or "for any other purpose."  The settlement, if it allows rentals, should state that RCI will make *ALL *“Vacation Time” available for both Exchange and Rental or another purpose, including rental, whether through RCI or through any other exchange program, partner, affiliate or other entity.


*3)* I object to the proposed “Balancing of RCI Deposits and Rented Inventory,” which allows RCI to “swap out” weeks deposited for exchange by substituting inventory acquired directly from the resorts, or from another source. If such a provision is included in a settlement the provision should clearly state that “Vacation Time” that is deposited by members and is rented or otherwise disposed of by RCI in any manner other than direct exchange by another member”; shall be replaced with inventory that is comparable as to size, season, location, demand, and RCI rating.


*4)* I object because the settlement does not address the control of misinformation. There should be an RCI employee or department for complaints about misinformation and that employee or department should be empowered to train and monitor RCI employees to ensure that they are not providing misinformation to members, more than is reasonable and occasional human error.  RCI should agree to make all reasonable efforts to ensure that misinformation is corrected.


*5) *I object because the proposed settlement does not prevent RCI from renting member’s deposited weeks for less than the annual maintenance fee that the member is required to pay to the member’s resort.  Units deposited by RCI Weeks members into the Weeks Spacebank for exchange should not be offered for rent through RCI or other exchange program, partner, affiliate or other entity for less than the annual maintenance fees, unless said Week is still available within 90 days of the start date. At the 90 day mark RCI (or its affiliate or partner) could then be free to offer said week for whatever it believes the market will bear. If a restriction is put in place, I would have no problem with the restriction excluding Weeks offered as “bonus” vacation time, as these are not "rental” weeks.


*6)* I object to the short period that the settlement program changes are to stay in place. Program changes should be made permanent or they should be required to remain in place for ten years from the date a settlement is approved by the court.  By the time a settlement is reached the alleged improper actions by RCI will have been in place for almost ten years. Any settlement program should remain in force for at least ten years.


*7) *I object to the proposed short period for disclosure of Weeks Program Activity.  As the disclosure period is the mechanism under which members can be assured that RCI is complying with the requirements of the proposed Agreement it should be in place for at least ten years. “Vacation Time” deposited less than ninety (90) days in advance should not be excluded from this disclosure, but should be reported separately. Alternately, the 90 days could be changed to 30 days, if this change is consistent throughout the agreement.


----------



## Jennie

DebbieF said:


> I just got a postcard today-didn't know about any of this since I sold my RCI affiliated resort a few years back and canceled membership.  I went online for the claim form and I had the choice of $15, or a discount if I wanted to rejoin RCI-I took the $15!



I hope you have taken (or will take) the time to send a letter to the Federal Court objecting to the terms of the proposed settlement. It must be postmarked by November 20th. There are a lot of abuses by RCI that must be stopped.

To object go to:
http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TU...ructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html 

Scroll down to Information #6 to read the rules and print out the form. 
One sentence is enough. You do not have to list any "reasons" for your objection unless you want to. A large number of objection letters is what really counts in our efforts to obtain better settlement terms . The Judge is already well aware of our complaints.

This applies to anyone who is, or has been an RCI Weeks member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 even if you are no longer a member.


----------



## kjsgrammy

I wanted to thank everyone for all their hard work on this matter - especially Susan, Jennie, Goofyhobbie, Brian.  I'm sorry if I missed anyone, but have  been reading over all the info and am kind of in a fog right now.

I did print out the letter of objection, post #497, filled it out and it will go in the mail on Monday, with a copy to Mr Berman and Mr. Sager.

TUG is a marvelous thing!!  Keep the info coming and again, THANKS!!


----------



## DeniseM

Stephan - I am very confused about what your official role is in this whole thing - can you please clear some things up for us?



> Stephan
> Guest
> 
> BBS Reg. Date: Oct 8, 09
> Location: *Escondido, CA*
> Posts: 12



1)  Do you live in Escondido, CA?



> I even suggested to Ms. Collins via email on October 9, 2009 what can *we* do to present a united response to objecting.



2)  Hasn't Ms. Collins already turned down your offer of assistance in the past?



> I suggest you consult *experienced class action counsel*.



3)  Can you please post a link to your professional website?


----------



## Carolinian

Stephan said:


> Jennie, I was hoping your attorney, Susan Collins would comment on this point and illustrate it further since you are very correct. I have written a number of posts related to this issue. RCI’s attorney, Mr. Sager even addressed this issue at our information meeting in September, 2009 and referenced where specifically in the Settlement the issue is addressed and resolved. I could site the Settlement for you, or where I argued, but not orally, this issue in court, but you should ask Ms. Collins and post your findings so everyone knows.



*Resolved?*  Horsehockey!!!!  Whose side are you really on in this matter?


----------



## Carolinian

Stephan said:


> Dave, regarding posting complex class action settlement summaries and/or actions, I suggest you consult experienced class action counsel. Even if you were to submit your proposals to the court as was done by some in the past in this case, the submission is completely meaningless!




*Meaningless?*  Horsehockey!!! Whose side are you really on in this matter?  The submissions clearly had a significant impact last time.  Are you trying to discourage submissions?  And just WHO would that help?


----------



## Jennie

Stephan said:


> RCI’s attorney, Mr. Sager even addressed this issue at our information meeting in September, 2009 and referenced where specifically in the Settlement the issue is addressed and resolved.



And when you tried to discuss your "segments issue" at the meeting, Mr. Sager had to interrupt and correct you several times when you kept mentioning "the weeks RCI owns". He and others present shook their heads in disbelief that you could not understand that RCI does not own the weeks they are substituting for weeks removed from the spacebank. 

Just a few days ago, you mentioned this same illogical belief in one of your posts here on TUG. It is clear that you are seriously lacking in fundamental knowledge about the RCI timeshare exchange program. It is the height of arrogance and stupidity for you to appoint yourself to "interpret" or explain the terms of the settlement to others.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Getting the word out is my concern.  There is no time for Timesharing Today to publish their next magazine in time.   There is no time for those of us who know to inform our boards and management companies.  

We have a Wyndham weeks account, as well as our old account of 25+ years.  Do we send in another letter, or just reference that we have two accounts?


----------



## rickandcindy23

Stephan said:


> DeniseM, You are not the only one confused.  Are your questions asking in the role as Moderator? If you would like, please respond via private email.



No.  We need you to state your role in this, and your motives.  Please answer Denise's questions for the record here on this thread.


----------



## DeniseM

Stephan said:


> DeniseM, You are not the only one confused.  Are your questions asking in the role as Moderator? If you would like, please respond via private email.



Stephan - I am asking as a TUG member and a timeshare owner.  From the beginning, you have presented yourself as one of the principals in this case, but you haven't introduced yourself or established your credibility.  You can't expect people to trust your advice, or take you seriously, when we don't even know who you are.  If you are legit, I don't see why that should be a secret...

In addition to the questions above, I'd like to know what experience and background you have with timesharing, and why you are interested in this particular case?

And since you live in Escondido, do you meet the legal requirements to have legal standing in a New Jersey court?

Please post your response here.


----------



## Jennie

Stephan said:


> DeniseM, You are not the only one confused.  Are your questions asking in the role as Moderator? If you would like, please respond via private email.



Of course Denise is not the only one who is confused. I think *you are confused*!

You have posted a lot of contradictory, inaccurate, and incomprehensible information on TUG. It's sad and annoying that you are distracting and confusing  people arriving at TUG for the first time. They have come  looking for simple factual information about the RCI lawsuit, and how they can apply for one of the five defined benefits and/or file an objection, or opt out.

Your endless rambling posts shed no light on the subject but rather confuse people and may cause them to log off instead of wasting time trying to decipher what you are trying to say.

Is this your goal--to discourage people from objecting to the proposed settlement?

Regular TUG members have already written you off as a........... Well I won't publicly embarrass you by listing some of the names being bandied about in PMs.


----------



## RustyS

Jennie said:


> ...
> Your endless rambling posts shed no light on the subject but rather confuse people and may cause them to log off instead of wasting time trying to decipher what you are trying to say.
> 
> Is this your goal--to discourage people from objecting to the proposed settlement?
> ...



If we think there is a problem with an individual posting on the boards, can't they be banned from the site?  I'm not one for stifling opposing viewpoints, or anything that would inhibit free speech and a healthy debate, but if we're being subjected to a disinformation campaign it could be warranted.

But I'd make darn sure first.  And the first step in that is for Stephen to be forthcoming with responses to the direct questions he has been asked.  Full disclosure is expected.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Posted with permission of the original sender of the PM*

*Posted by Bunny217 on Oct. 18, 2009 at 2:26 P.M as a PM to Goofyhobbie:*



> Getting ready to leave on Saturday...I have mailed my three letters to the three addresses on the letter. My nephew mailed his also.
> I printed some blank letters and then a short note with the addresses noted as well as the date of the hearing. I'm also taking envelopes and stamps. I will see my other relatives that are owners while we are there. If they do send their letters - I probably won't be able to let you know that they were sent until we get back...around the
> 16th of November.
> And...I just wanted to check...can I get in trouble at the resort by talking about this to people that I meet who may be interested? I am not confrontational at all....and would just be horrified if I got anyone in trouble or mad.
> I hate bothering you "at home" asking this stuff and hope you don't mind. Is there anyone else I should tell about sending my letter...should I post it on the board??
> Thank you...you always make so much sense!!
> Barb



*Response to Barb Oct 18, 2009 at 4:26 P.M. by PM:*



> Barb
> 
> As the old saying goes "It is a Free Country."
> 
> You do not have to post what you are doing on the Board; but I would like to see your statement and this response posted for the benefit of others.
> 
> If you are comforable posting it please do so. In the alternative you can let me know by PM and I can post the information without identifying who asked the question. You are one of my heroes and someone that I am proud to have met here on TUG.
> 
> We need more like you to spread the word when they have the opportunity to visit an RCI resort over the next few weeks.
> 
> There is no way that you can get in trouble at a resort where you are an owner or an exchanger by talking to people that you meet who may be interested in what you have to say.
> 
> If you get the chance to chat with a member of your HOA or the Resort Manager, recommend that you put a question to them this way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you aware that it is possible that RCI has been taking inventory deposited by your owners and renting those weeks to the general public for less than the cost of the maintenance fees paid by those owners?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They may have no knowledge that RCI has been renting weeks deposited by owners.
> 
> If it turns out they knew nothing about it, explain that there has been a lawsuit about the practice and that a settlement has been reached in the lawsuit against RCI about "renting weeks" that owners at the resort deposit for exchange.
> 
> Then emphaize that the settlement has not been finalized and owners have the opportunity to object to the settlement if they choose to do so.
> 
> The Manager, HOA, or other timeshae owners may then want to hear more about what restrictions or LACK of restrictions are to be implemented to reign in RCI?
> 
> That is when you can give them your TUG print out about objecting and/or suggestions about what to say when objecting.
> 
> I guarantee you there will be interest if the person you are talking to understands that RCI will be free to keep on renting deposited weeks with little or no restrictions.
> 
> They may be aware that their has been a settlement but they very well may not know that the settlement is NOT FINAL until the judge says it is final.
> 
> You could then talk to them and explain how you feel as an owner at an RCI affiliated Resort.
> 
> Points to Make:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1) Is the Resort aware that RCI has been renting "weeks" deposited by owners for exchange?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They very well may NOT be aware because RCI apparently sends "renters" using the same confirmation that an RCI Exchanger would use.
> 
> For input on how this was discovered go to the following link and read what Jeannie has had to say about that very point.
> 
> http://www.timeshareforums.com/forum...reement-7.html
> 
> The average "Manager" or HOA owner would, I believe, be upset (not at you but at RCI) to learn that RCI has been sending non-owners ("renters") instead of actual timeshare exchangers to use their Units without telling the Manager or the HOA upfront.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) A timeshare exchanger is welcome at the Resort where you will be staying because to the Manager of the Resort that timeshare exchanger is a timeshare owner who knows how to take care of the UNIT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some "Joe the Plumber" who is renting the UNIT will not necessarily be as caring about the condition of the UNIT when they depart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3) IT IS SIMPLY NOT GOOD FOR BUSINESS. THE OWNERS AT THE RESORT or the staff that have to clean-up after those Renters should be unhappy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 4)The Management or the HOA may depend on Rentals of Units for owners as extra income to the HOA.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They, the Management and HOA, should be upset to find out that RCI has been grabbing the best season weeks and renting them below what the resort management or the HOA could get for similar rentals.
Click to expand...


----------



## TSToday

*New Information*

Prior to the last hearing that resulted in the new notice being sent, the Plaintiffs Attorney sent a letter to the court saying that the new notice would only produce the same objections that have already been presented. He then listed them. While the volume of objections above the 100 or so already sent will be very powerful, it will be extremenly beneficial for those who intend to appear in court to present new information that has since come to light. The Complaint in the Points Class Action can help in that regard in that it provides a lot of informative allegations.  

Having a strong attendee turnout on November 30th will also send a strong message. 
Shep Altshuler
TimeSharing Today


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Complaint Referred To by TSToday*

To get a feel for the objections that were brought to the Court's attention during the June 16th Fairness Hearing read Jennie's first post in this thread.

Link provided here:  http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107

Timesharing Today is pointing out that there has since been new fodder for your objector cannon if you are a member of the RCI "Weeks" Class and want to object to the currently proposed settlement.  

That "new information" is well articulated in the complaint before the U. S District Court District of New Jersey in the *NEW* RCI "Points" Class Action Lawsuit. 

For those of you who have not read the Complaint in the RCI "Points" Class Action Lawsuit because you have been unable to easily access the complaint try this link:  http://tstoday.com/rciclassaction/glenz.pdf.

Timeshare Today on October 2nd made a very informative post at Timeshare Forums which elaborates on the "new information" that one could bring to the attention of the Court in the Weeks Lawsuit.

For those who want to glance at the Timeshare Forums post use this link: http://www.timeshareforums.com/forums/rci/98427-tstoday-email-update-rci-lawsuits.html

When you read the RCI "Points" complaint look for the *NEW* information that was *NOT* brought to the attention of the Judge during the RCI "Weeks" Class Action Fairness hearing on June 16, 2009.

Now consider extrapolating the information in the "Points" complaint and making that NEW information part of your objection to the proposed settlement in the "Weeks" Class Action Lawsuit.

*For Example:*

The complaint in the "Points" class action lawsuit brings up the allegation that RCI has breached the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing." 

Although RCI ostensibly sets forth in its terms and conditions the relationship between a RCI Weeks Member and RCI, that contract with RCI contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prohibiting RCI from doing anything that will destroy or injure the Weeks Member's rights to the benefits of the contract or frustrate the weeks member's expectations and the fundamental purpose of the contract. 

The proposed RCI Weeks Class Action settlement frustrates the expectations of RCI weeks members and thwarts the fundamental purpose of the contract - securing reasonable access to comparable weeks deposited by other RCI Weeks members.

Strickly limiting RCI's ability to rent or otherwise dispose of weeks deposited by the RCI Weeks membership, a limitation that RCI does not currently recognize or honor, is necessary to give effacy to the contact between RCI Weeks members and RCI.

RCI has reduced and continues to reduce the pool of deposited weeks available to weeks members in an arbitrary, unreasonable, and capricious manner. The current settlement proposal to allow deposits to stay in the RCI Spacebank exclusively for exchange for 31 days if the deposit was made a year in advance continues to frustrate the expectations of RCI weeks members and thwarts the fundamental purpose of the contract - securing access to all Weeks deposited by other RCI Weeks members which have been deposited specifically for exchange purposes. 

Allowing the 31 day exclusivity (or any other proposed restriction on RCI's business practice of skimming weeks from the Spacebank) to last for only two years just adds insult to injury and does little to repair the breach of the "implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing."


----------



## BellaWyn

*Stephan - One new member’s opinion*



Stephan said:


> DeniseM, Are your questions asking in the role as Moderator? *<--- very rude!*


Stephan’s posts affect me like a diabetic who has consumed too many carbs! Mounds of hyperbole mixed with massive amounts of verbose rhetoric smothered in turgid language.  Yum….   It gives me a headache or worse. It’s not worth energies (or keystrokes) to argue with him.

Is it possible to post something simple like: *“I opt not to respond to these misleading comments”* or *“I refuse to have a battle with an unarmed person”* or, (my favorite already-posted response)*“horsehocky!”*
Amusingly succinct but gets the point across. *It will save a LOT of scrolling for those of us trying to get to GOOD information.*

One new member's opinion and who SO appreciates the efforts of those contributing to this thread!   Thank you!

Now, back to my regularly scheduled reading of the valid threads........


----------



## brigechols

There is another alternative - use the Ignore feature available on the bulletin board and it will automatically filter out posts by a specific user.


----------



## BigElm

Carolinian said:


> If you think that, then you do not understand the law or the legal issues.   Please read some of the material from TST to educate yourself.



Your comment is too generalistic. What EXACTLY are you referring to that I need to educate myself on. I've been a TS member for over 10 yrs. so please enlighten me.


----------



## ecwinch

Stephan said:


> DeniseM, You are not the only one confused.  Are your questions asking in the role as Moderator? If you would like, please respond via private email.



Are you Steve Willet, the California attorney that sent an objection letter to the court. The one that stated that he was not a member of RCI, but was objecting on the behalf of his parents (who are members)?

The one who argued that the lawsuit should be dismissed and refiled in California where Mr. Willet could obtain a better settlement?

Only ask because because the similarities in first names and locations.


----------



## DeniseM

BigElm said:


> Your comment is too generalistic. What EXACTLY are you referring to that I need to educate myself on. I've been a TS member for over 10 yrs. so please enlighten me.



TST is Timeshare today - the various documents you can read are all referenced in this thread.


----------



## Jennie

According to papers he has filed in Federal Court, "Stephan" is:  
[Contact info. removed]

On October 16, 2009 he filed what he calls a "NOTICE" in the United States District Court.

In it he refers to Timesharing Today as an eMagazine. In previous "notices" he filed with this court, and Emails he sent to Susan Collins and me, he kept referring to 3 eMagazines--Timesharing Today, TUG, and Redweek. We repeatedly informed him that these 3 entities are not eMagazines but it "went in one ear and out the other."  

As noted in earlier posts here on TUG, we were also unable to convince Stephan that RCI does not OWN the weeks that they "swap out" for deposited weeks. He made this same ridiculous statement several times in front of 17 witnesses at a meeting with RCI. Mr. Sager, lead attorney for the Defendant (RCI)corrected him several times stating, "RCI does not own any weeks" but it did not stop Stephan from continuing to say it. We were also unable to make Stephan understand that if this lawsuit prohibits RCI from renting timeshare weeks, it will NOT prohibit timeshare owners from renting the weeks that they own.

On page 8 of the October 16th "Notice" Stephan states, "I have tried to make the Court aware in writing specifically where I feel I was critical in improving the supplemental notice to the class. Based on the knowledge and work I have conducted on this case over the past 2.5 years to achieve a level of understanding that exceeds every attorney of record on this case, I expect a fee petition to sum to about $250,000. at $475./hour as specified in my retainers for over a year now, not including local counsel fees.

Let this serve as my formal notice of appearance for [name removed]. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 102.1 leave of court is requested to withdraw as counsel for [name removed], who will personally file his own objection."


Up until now, Mr. Willett was appearing as an attorney for [name removed]. Since Stephan was not a timeshare owner, and not an RCI Weeks member, he was not a member of the class and could not voice his objections to the settlement. Shep, Susan, and I could and did speak because we own timeshare weeks and have been RCI Weeks members for several years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: I am not an attorney. I have been devoting my time to this important "cause" as a volunteer. I have paid all my own expesnse and will not be applying for, nor accepting, any fees related to my involvement in this case. I have been a TUG member since 1994. I currently own 14 weeks, 3 RCI Points packages, and 2 Wyndham-Fairfield Points packages. I have completed approximately 80 exchanges. I have a deep interest and concern about the way in which RCI operates the Weeks exchange program.


----------



## dwainwri

*Where do Canadian weeks members fit into this lawsuit?*

I've been following this thread for some time now. As an RCI member since 1994, none of this has been a surprise to me. Like many long-time TUGGERS, we can remember when making an exchange wasn't difficult and last minute availability was amazing. That began to dry up about 6-8 yrs ago and now trades are very difficult.  Renting... I have steadfastly refused to "RENT" what was obviously deposited weeks.  

I haven't sent an objection letter as I was under the impretion that a Canadian wouldn't have any standing in a U.S. court case. However, this issue seems to be picking up steam and I'm beginning to feel that RCI may be in for a surprise... 

My question is for Susan - Is there any point in Canadians objecting to the settlement? If there is, I can round up quite a few objectors fairly quickly!
What is our legal standing as Canadians???

Don Wainwright,
Toronto


----------



## DeniseM

> I expect a fee petition to sum to about $250,000. at $475./hour as specified in my retainers for over a year now, not including local counsel fees.



Does this mean that he is asking the court to award him $250,000 as part of the settlement? 


Please tell me that could NOT possibly happen!

I gue*$$* thi*$* answer*$* my question*$* about what hi*$* "intere*$*t" in this ca*$*e i*$*!


----------



## geekette

DeniseM said:


> Does this mean that he is asking the court to award him $250,000 as part of the settlement?
> 
> 
> Please tell me that could NOT possibly happen!
> 
> I gue$$ thi$ answer$ my question$ about what hi$ "intere$t" in this ca$e i$!



YEP.

If only he had enuf interest to educate himself on the basics!  

Hey, Stevie, *RCI DOESN'T OWN ANY TIMESHARE WEEKS ANYWHERE!*


----------



## Jennie

TSToday said:


> Prior to the last hearing that resulted in the new notice being sent, the Plaintiffs Attorney sent a letter to the court saying that the new notice would only produce the same objections that have already been presented. He then listed them. While the volume of objections above the 100 or so already sent will be very powerful, it will be extremenly beneficial for those who intend to appear in court to present new information that has since come to light. The Complaint in the Points Class Action can help in that regard in that it provides a lot of informative allegations.
> 
> Having a strong attendee turnout on November 30th will also send a strong message.
> Shep Altshuler
> TimeSharing Today



But are you sure that new information can be cited at this time? I'm not an attorney nor do I have any prior knowledge of class action lawsuits but I worked in the New York Criminal Court system for years. Once a criminal indictment was filed, if new information came to light prior to a trial or plea bargain, there was a need to obtain the court's permission to add the information. The defense attorney would fight against it. If the judge approved it, it was a complicated process to amend the original charges. But if the information was known/available at the time the indictment was filed, and for whatever reason was not included, the prosecutor was "out of luck." 

The current case was filed in 2006. By then the "rental permission" clause was already in the RCI "Terms and Conditions" of membership so I'm not sure it is "new" information. It's new to many RCI members but not a new development. The fact that the unconscionable contract type of clauses were not made part of the current case is unfortunate. Or perhaps the Plaintiffs had legal or strategic reasons for not "going there". I have no "inside" information about this. I'm pondering it just like the rest of us. I do have serious concerns, however, about whether the Points lawsuit will be able to overcome the obstacles encountered when a prior lawsuit brought on behalf of Wyndham-Fairfield owners was dismissed.  

I guess there's no harm in mentioning "new" things in an objection letter. But I doubt it would make much difference. Please understand that a Judge does not live in a vacuum. He/she keeps informed about any issues related to a case he/she is handling. I'm sure Judge Sheridan is aware of the Points lawsuit and has personally read it and discussed it with trusted sources.

I'd again like to emphasize my belief that the quantity of objections filed is more important than what is actually written in the letter. More people will object if they know that they don't have to "obsess" over what to say. In my humble opinion, KISS is a good motto here


----------



## Jennie

DeniseM said:


> Does this mean that he is asking the court to award him $250,000 as part of the settlement?
> 
> 
> Please tell me that could NOT possibly happen!
> 
> I gue*$$* thi*$* answer*$* my question*$* about what hi*$* "intere*$*t" in this ca*$*e i*$*!



Over 2.5 years the only known client he had is his father. He is now asking the court's permission to withdraw his representation of his father and add *one* other new client. Presumably he has no other clients? Did his father fire him?

Stephan has been asking TUG members to submit objections to him instead of following the *official instructions* set by the court that they be sent by the objector, with an original signature, *directly to the to the court*. It seems as if he may have made this request as a basis to support his goal of seekimg court fees for "representing" objectors. He keeps trying to convince TUGgers that he is far more experienced and able than Susan Collins who has been working diligently and *competently* with Shep and me since June.  

If Stephan's motive for posting on TUG is to try to justify receiving fees for representing TUG objectors, do you think this new information (Notice to the court submitted October 19, 2009) may be enough to persuade TUG Brian to remove Stephan's rambling, errors-filled "information" from TUG? I know and respect TUG's policy about not censoring information. But there is a policy about not promoting a business or anything else for personal financial gain. 

It should be noted that the court Notice filed includes allegations that I posted incorrect information ON TUG about him. He has misquoted me  . Does he get anything straight???


----------



## DeniseM

Jennie - sometimes posts are deleted, but usually, we just give people enough rope to hang themselves - as has happened here.  It's far more "informative" when they show their true colors in this fashion...

However, that's TUGBrian's call...

I wonder if Stephan knows, that we know when he is here, because his little green light is on.  He's been here for a couple hours - I am sure he will chime in at any minute and clear this all up for us!


----------



## Jennie

dwainwri said:


> I've been following this thread for some time now. As an RCI member since 1994, none of this has been a surprise to me. Like many long-time TUGGERS, we can remember when making an exchange wasn't difficult and last minute availability was amazing. That began to dry up about 6-8 yrs ago and now trades are very difficult.  Renting... I have steadfastly refused to "RENT" what was obviously deposited weeks.
> 
> I haven't sent an objection letter as I was under the impretion that a Canadian wouldn't have any standing in a U.S. court case. However, this issue seems to be picking up steam and I'm beginning to feel that RCI may be in for a surprise...
> 
> My question is for Susan - Is there any point in Canadians objecting to the settlement? If there is, I can round up quite a few objectors fairly quickly!
> What is our legal standing as Canadians???
> 
> Don Wainwright,
> Toronto



Hi Don,

I was quite sure that Canadians would be able to participate in this case. But I sent an Email to the Lead Attorney for the Plaintiffs to double-check. and this is the reply:

"Country of residence is not a factor for participation in the claims process. Hence, Canadians are welcome to participate so long as they meet the definition of a class member (are or were members of the Weeks Program)".

So, go get 'um!


----------



## TSToday

*New information*



Jennie said:


> But are you sure that new information can be cited at this time? I'm not an attorney nor do I have any prior knowledge of class action lawsuits but I worked in the Criminal Court system for years. Once a criminal indictment was filed, if new information came to light prior to a trial or plea bargain, there was a need to obtain the court's permission to add the information. The defense attorney would fight against it. If the judge approved it, it was a complicated process to amend the original charges.
> 
> The current case was filed in 2006. By then the "rental permission" clause was already in the RCI "Terms and Conditions" of membership so I'm not sure it is "new" information. It's new to many RCI members but not a new development. The fact that the unconscionable contract type of clauses were not made part of the current case is unfortunate. Or perhaps the Plaintiffs had legal or strategic reasons for not "going there". I have no "inside" information about this. I'm pondering it just like the rest of us. I do have serious concerns, however, about whether the Points lawsuit will be able to overcome the obstacles encountered when a prior lawsuit brought on behalf of Wyndham-Fairfield owners was dismissed.
> 
> I guess there's no harm in mentioning "new" things in an objection letter. But I doubt it would make much difference. Please understand that a Judge does not live in a vacuum. He/she keeps informed about any issues related to a case he/she is handling. I'm sure Judge Sheridan is aware of the Points lawsuit and has personally read it and discussed it with trusted sources.
> 
> I'd again like to emphasize my belief that the quantity of objections filed is more important than what is actually written in the letter. More people will object if they know that they don't have to "obsess" over what to say. In my humble opinion, KISS is a good motto here.



Jennie: Yes, the volume of letters from new objectors is important. The comment focused on having new information presented by those who will be *appearing in court* at the Fairness Hearing on 11/30.


----------



## TSToday

*Count down*

We are in a 4 week countdown to the November 20th deadline for filing a claim, opting-out, requesting to appear in court and objecting. This is a time to be concise and factual. 

1. In its Mar/Apr 2009 issue,  TimeSharing Today, published a summary of the proposed settlement agreement in the Weeks Members Class Action. Approximately, 80 readers sent objection letters to the Court. 
2. In June 2009, there was a Fairness Hearing in US District Court. My primary focus in appearing was to voice my objections about the inadequacy of the notice sent by RCI to its Weeks Members. Susan Collins and Caroline Lindholm added their comments about the notice and also detailed their concerns about the inadequacies of the proposed settlement agreement. 
3, The Judge agreed about the inadequacy of the notice and ordered RCI to send a new notice to the Weeks members. In early October, a postcard notice was sent by RCI to over 2 million Weeks Members and former weeks members, plus an email notice to about 500,000 members was sent. 
4. The Judge has not yet ruled on the proposed settlement agreement, which will be considered at a Fairness Hearing on November 30, 2009.
5. Although an effort has been made by Susan Collins to present a counter-proposal to the settlement agreement, there are no active discussions taking place between the Objectors and RCI's attorneys at this time.
6. Based on past observations, it is reasonable to expect that the Plaintiffs Attorneys and RCI's Attorneys are going to aggressively defend the terms of the original proposed settlement agreement. That agreement ratifies RCI right to rent deposited weeks and to use those weeks for other purposes. At a meeting on September 9, 2009, RCI defended its right to rent weeks at rates that are below the maintenance fees paid by the owner.  
7. After the November 30th Fairness Hearing, the judge will either approve or disapprove the proposed settlement agreement.
8. Because the court did not allow discovery by the Plaintiffs Attorneys, a settlement appeared to them to be the best option. But the terms of the proposed settlement are not acceptable to the Objectors.
9. However you decide to proceed, do not miss the November 20th filing date. Send in your letters early. If you want to object, send a separate letter of objection. If you want to appear, send a separate letter requesting to appear. If you want to file a claim send a separate claim form. You can object and still file a claim for benefits.  You can also take no action and you will still be included in any programmatic changes made if the proposed settlement is approved. If you previously objected, there is no need to send another objection letter.

Please note: Prior to last June's Fairness Hearing, I went to the Court to view the objection letters that were sent. If you have recently sent an objection letter to the Court, or if you are going to send an objection letter to the Court,  please help facilitate our information gathering efforts by sending a copy to TimeSharing Today as follow:
RCI Class Action
c/oTimeSharing Today
140 County Rd., Ste 114
Tenafly, NJ 07670

Shep Althsuler-Publisher
TimeSharing Today


----------



## RustyS

*Let's move past Stephen and focus on the case*



geekette said:


> YEP.
> 
> If only he had enuf interest to educate himself on the basics!



Forgive me if this looks like a flame, but _what a slime_.  Expects to be paid (handsomely) for familiarizing himself with the basics of the case since he had no knowledge, bearing, or status in the original complaint.  And people wonder why lawyers are such good joke fodder.

I recommend anyone with thoughts on this dude and his ambulance-chasing ways submit them as a PS on their objection paperwork.  Jennie, Susan, et al can't be expected to be the only ones pointing out he is trying to worm his way in and hasn't demonstrated any utility to the plaintiffs as a class, and has instead been witnessed providing erroneous instructions to class members either out of malice, greed, or ignorance.  If the court is aware of many independent concerns as to his standing perhaps they'll factor that in as they review his statements.

But lets move past him, ignoring him as we go by, and focus on the looming deadline for objections.  Hopefully all interested parties will submit theirs, even without lots of detail, as I agree with those that point out the number of objections will have meaning.  Someone will provide the details.  Don't not file (sometimes a double-negative is warranted) because you don't have anything to add, raising your hand to be counted is valuable enough on it's own.


----------



## DeniseM

Stephan said:


> Before things become too hostile, I thought I should at least try and reply. *Yes, no, & no *to the post’s questions. .




These are the questions that Stephan is answering and his responses:



> 1) Do you live in Escondido, CA?  *YES*
> 
> 2) Hasn't Ms. Collins already turned down your offer of assistance in the past?  *NO*
> 
> 3) Can you please post a link to your professional website?  *NO*
> __________________


----------



## geekette

Thank you, Denise.  

It made no sense to me that he was saying he answered everything and referenced a post that he didn't write!


----------



## DeniseM

geekette said:


> Thank you, Denise.
> 
> It made no sense to me that he was saying he answered everything and referenced a post that he didn't write!



I wrote post 581, and the way I read his response, I believe he is saying he has already answered my questions from post 581.


----------



## Stricky

The bottom of this page has some info on him: http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/Ob...t_opinion_on_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

(I belive that site was set up by Brian)


----------



## GadgetRick

Stephan said:


> Before things become too hostile, I thought I should at least try and reply. Yes, no, & no to the post’s questions. In reference to Post 581, all those questions have been answered in posts on this thread. As you should know that is the big problem with BBs since there is too much information. Anyway, after the National Class Action Conference this week, I will provide a more detailed response. Also, my legal statement on the RCI Weeks Class Action Settlement on this site describes all the personal information I am comfortable sharing publicly, and there is a personal email provided if further inquiry is desired.


What is the mystery? Who are are you? What's your interest in all of this? You've not answered these questions that I can see. They're simple questions, take you a couple of minutes to type out. I'm sure you can find time in your busy conference schedule.

Quite frankly, I don't know anything about you but it certainly seems as if we should _not_ trust you as you're being quite the mysterious person around here. Not trying to be hostile, just being honest. If you're trying to help, then help but this game you seem to be playing with who you are, etc. is almost comical. Others here have actually been helping and seem to have our best interests in mind. Honestly, I have no idea what you have in mind...

If you were to clear everything up, just explain everything then maybe we would have more respect for what you're saying here.


----------



## Fredm

*RCI Rental Rates*

A fellow TUGGER (nodge) just compiled current rental rates from RCI for Sheraton Vistana Resort. 

FYI, HOA fees are $923/year.

Now, if anyone doubts that RCI is destroying owner equity you live on another planet.


----------



## DeniseM

> Originally Posted by Stephan
> Before things become too hostile, I thought I should at least try and reply. Yes, no, & no to the post’s questions.
> 
> 1) Do you live in Escondido, CA? YES



Can you please clarify one thing?  If you live in Escondido, why did you list another state of residence on your court documents (a matter of public record) and why do your email address and IP address both originate from the East Coast?


----------



## urple2

Finished my objection letters, including one for TSToday.

Will Mail in the AM.


----------



## kirby2000

*Did RCI pay anything to the resorts?*

First, I want to thank ALL OF YOU that have been providing the informational posts! You all have provided a wealth of info to the countless numbers of us that have not posted but instead we check in to read the current status and to get educated opinions. In no particular order I'd like to extend a special thanks to Brian, Dave (Goofyhobbie), DeniseM, Jennie, RustyS, Shep, and Susan! I apologize to the many that contributed just as much but I failed to list.

Second, I understand the short version of the Class Act is the fact that RCI was taking the better weeks that were deposited for exchange purposes and they were renting them to the public thereby reducing or eliminating a pool of desirable weeks to exchange for, and RCI pocketed the rent money too. Also, the rental rates were less than the maintenance fees and HOA fees that most Owners pay annually thereby reducing the value of the weeks owned. This is only a short version so I can get to my third thought....

Third, as I look over my maintenance fee invoice that just arrived today and yet again is the "Replacement Reserve" fee that increases my Maintenance Fees by about 25% -- the question must be asked: did any of the rent money taken in by RCI ever get back to the resorts to contribute towards the replacement reserves? It comes down to the Owners are paying fees to keep the "rental property" in top shape for RCI's "customers"! The RCI database must contain how many units they rented at each resort, directly or indirectly through other avenues.   

Fourth, continuing along the same lines -- along with my maintenance fee invoice is a copy of the 2009 and 2010 Operating Budgets. So, again, the Owners covered the 16.5 million dollars ($16,500,000.00) in operating expenses for 2009 while RCI used the resort and units as rental properties? For every owner that used a unit there were facility expenses but likewise for every renter there were the same facility expenses; payroll and operating expenses for: administration, admin support costs, front desk, reservations, maintenance, housekeeping, common area, grounds department, pool department, purchasing department, activities department, restaurant, store, and security. An interesting Note along with the budget, "Distribution of expenses was based on a review of variable costs by unit style, including costs to clean and stock each unit style, based on the projected usage of each unit style...". So my maintenance fees and replacement reserve fund fees are based on projected usage - and I as an Owner have no way to know how much of that is rental usage? Very hard to accept that the Operating Budget for 2010 will be a half million dollars higher than 2009! Is there any request for RCI to relinquish profits from the Weeks, possibly directly to the resorts to offset future operating costs?

Last, I apologize for the long and rambling post! Thanks again to all that have diligently stayed on top of the issue and provided so much information to the rest of us. I'll definitely submit an objection prior to November 20.


----------



## Jennie

Hi Kirby,

Your post is anything but rambling. You very intelligently articulate one of the many complaints all timeshare owners should have about RCI's rental to the public weeks that members deposited into the spacebank, expecting that it would be used by another member as an exchange. 

In Court on June 16, 2009, RCI's attorney stated that they needed to rent all weeks that were deposited within 90 days of the check-in date, otherwise they would go to waste or be "spoiled" inventory  (or words to that effect). Susan Collins and I argued against this stating that unused weeks reduce the wear and tear on the unit, and lower the overall cost of operating the resort e.g. by lowering the cost of laundry, housekeeping services, towels and chairs used at the pool or beach, disposal of trash. etc... 

When a timeshare owner vacations in his own unit, or one obtained as an exchange, he is much more likely than a renter to "respect" the unit and comply with the resort rules. In most cases he will turn off the air conditioner when going out for several hours. He will keep the kitchen area clean, and not let garbage pile up, thus reducing the potential for insect or rodent infestation. He will strip the beds, and place dirty kitchen items in the dishwasher before checking out--thus cutting down on the amount of staff needed to get the units ready for the next guest. 

Of course, RCI could care less about any of this. It's not coming out of their pocket. We pay the bills, we pay for RCI membership, and they take our deposited weeks and rent them to the public, and keep all of the rental income.  And on top of that, they rent at prices below what the owner pays for maintenance fees, real estate taxes, reserve fund deposits, and possible Special Assesments--not to mention the initial cost of purchasing the week.  What a racket! It's mind-boggling how they think they can get away with this. I guess they've been counting on the fact that most owners had no clue this was happening, and would never find out.

I hope enough of us get the message out to RCI and the court via objection letters.


----------



## Jennie

TSToday said:


> Jennie: Yes, the volume of letters from new objectors is important. The comment focused on having new information presented by those who will be *appearing in court* at the Fairness Hearing on 11/30.



OOPS, sorry, I misunderstood


----------



## grest

I apologize...this becomes cumbersome and overwhelming to me.  A simple question (I know, it's never that simple):  If I object to RCI's rental of weeks that could be exchanged, how should I respond to the postcard?


----------



## Jennie

grest said:


> I apologize...this becomes cumbersome and overwhelming to me.  A simple question (I know, it's never that simple):  If I object to RCI's rental of weeks that could be exchanged, how should I respond to the postcard?



The postcard is just informing you about the lawsuit and your rights and options. It lists a website you can go to for details:
www.weeksprogramsettlement.com

TUG members found that some of the information there was contradictory or unclear. So after obtaining clarification from the attorneys, TUG member goofyhobbie was kind enough to compose a clearer summary to guide us:
http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TU...ructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html 

There is no official form for filing an objection. You can use the sample "goofy" prepared. Or handwrite or type your own. Just include the Case number and your required personal information--name of at least one person on the RCI Weeks account, address, phone number, and the name of only  *one* resort at which you own a week, plus the resort I.D.number.

*You can write one simple sentence: "I object to the terms of the proposed settlement"*

You can add some reasons if you wish but it is not necessary.

Send the signed original to the court plus a copy of it to 2 attorneys. The 3 addresses are listed at both of the above-noted web sites.

It shouldn't take more than 5-10 minutes to do it. Make sure all 3 envelopes are postmarked no later than November 20th.

You can also go to www.weeksprogramsettlement.com to file a claim on-line for one of 5 benefits. Or you can call the 800 number on the postcard and request that a claim form be sent to you by mail. 

But your objection can only be filed by mail.


----------



## BigElm

Seriously, I think we need to stop feeding "Stephan" the TROLL! This thread isn't about him and all these questions are just cluttering a very good informative thread. 
Ignore feature is your friend... So can we move on with what's really important here please?!

In the meantime, I'm waiting for Susan to send me some documents to finalize the objection process. 

Jennie, I fully agree with your posts and did not in anyway question them. I threw an "idea" out there but I realize it's not 'ideal' at this time as we fight to prove to RCI that they can't do whatever the heck they please with us!


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



kirby2000 said:


> . . .  the question must be asked: did any of the rent money taken in by RCI ever get back to the resorts to contribute towards the replacement reserves?



Kirby, I will respond only to a part of the your post that Jennie did not already address in her very good response.  I think I can answer this question, if you can be patient with my desire to provide some background.  

The answer is that we have absolutely no indication, and no reason whatever to believe, that RCI "shares" what it sees as its legitimate "profits" with the resorts.  That is not to say that some of the resorts get nothing if they turn over weeks to RCI -- but this is not the same as the weeks taken from the spacebank which were deposited by *members*.  

There are some resorts with whom RCI has negotiated to take unused weeks off their hands.  My understanding is that this used to consist largely of unsold weeks from new resorts in active sales, and that the resorts wanted the units occupied because it's harder to sell timeshare weeks when the resort looks deserted.  Also, I have read that timeshare owners are three times more likely to buy another timeshare than non-owners are to buy a first timeshare.  Therefore, new resorts in active sales used to give RCI blocks of time, which RCI put into the spacebank.  This caused an excess of units in the spacebank.  RCI would therefore give these reosrts "bonus certificates" to be given out as the resorts saw fit.  (I understand that there were other benfits also, such as marketing.)  Once upon a time, if you took a timeshare sales presentation, your benefit for doing so was often a bonus certificate which you could redeem from excess inventory for about $149 or so.  The system worked well for both the resorts and for members.  

However, it appears that once RCI got bought out by the big corporations, an executive decision was made that this was "non-maximization of potential profits," because RCI was not actually benefitting from the exchanges -- except, of course, from membership renewls, exchange fees, bonus fees, etc.  (What a concept!  RCI had merely provided services at a reasonable price!)  Enter:  Corporate Greed.

RCI has apparently now decided that it has a stake in all these unused units which WE OWN AND PAY FOR!  (To understand why RCI feels this way, it is only necessary to think of a spoiled child in a toy store.  All those "pretties" to be had!)  The fact that the PLAINTIFFS' attorneys themselves told the judge on June 16 that unused weeks "spoil" shows that they are (or were) also on board with this concept of maximizing profits -- but not for the resorts, or for the members.    

I have been told that RCI now gets weeks directly from resorts in various ways, including paying the resorts for these weeks.  I cannot say which resorts these are, but I know that one of my resorts negotiated a contract with RCI for some unused weeks.  Now, if RCI rented THESE weeks, or turned these weeks over to another exchange or rental pool under another name, then that would not upset a whole lot of members (except perhaps for the owners at that same resort), and the resorts who negotiated the contracts would have only themselves to blame if they found that they could not sell weeks to new owners, because the new owners could rent them elsewhere cheaper than they would pay in annual maintenance fees.  Make sense?  

However, RCI is not limited to renting THESE weeks, or use THESE weeks to "dispose of in any other manner."  They SWAP these weeks out for weeks that were deposited by owners for exchange.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, this practice is legitimized.  The Plaintiffs' attorneys say that one of the big advantages iof the settlement is that RCI is now limited to swapping out on a week-for-week basis using the same criteria that a member must use for making an exchange.  Even if this were so, every RCI member knows that some weeks are "more equal than others"!  In addition, this is one of the terms of the contract that I do not read the same as the Plaintiffs' attorneys describe it.  I see the words "aggregate value" and don't necessarily see that other provisions specifically negate this.  (Here, I heartily invite TUG members who are trained in the law to send me a PM so that we can review and discuss the contract terms.)  

The main problem I see is that even if RCI pays the full maintenance fee (doubtful!) for each week it gets from a resort with unused but desirable weeks, RCI then has the "right" (per the proposed agreement) to swap these out with weeks it deems more rental worthy at another unsuspecting resort, who now (along with its owners) actually incur the burden of seeing its weeks used by persons who don't own and will likely never buy at that resort, especially if they can rent weeks for an amount that's lower than that maintenance fees!  To check this out, go to Post No,. 610, where Fredm posts a link to "nodge's" list of rental rates for Sheridan Vistana Resort, where you can see that units are available for rent for substantially less than the maintenance fees.  And not just at the last minute, either.  These units are available through May or June next year. 

There is, of course, the question of just how successful we "little guys" may be in fighting this whole profit-making setup.  Frankly, I doubt there is a single other attorney on this case who wouldn't like to see me go away.  Without Shep and Jennie and me appearing in person on June 16, no new notice would have been sent out, and it is also likely that the agreement would have been approved, despite the written objections.  (I brought another 100 objections with me, most of whom had not known about the lawsuit or the settlement.  TS Today's efforts to get the word out was invaluable.)  

Plaintiffs's attorneys are trying to muzzle me, saying that I am "soliciting clients."  To borrow another TUGger's phrase, "Horsehocky!"  I do, however, want to get the word out about the settlement to people who may not know how this proposed settlement agreement will affect them, and let them decide just how and whether they want to respond.  

Okay, getting off the soapbox now . . .


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Ah! You look so good up there!*

Susan,

Thanks for taking the time to share more of your insight with TUGGERS and guests of TUG.  Most of us have not had the benefit of your experience and perception which has developed over the last few months as both a timeshare owner who has had first hand experience with RCI as an exchanger and as an attorney interacting face to face with RCI corporate executives and their attorneys. 

We appreciate your efforts and the efforts of Jeannie, Shep, and other objectors who have supported the "grass roots" effort to see the proposed settlement go down in flames!


----------



## brigechols

Stricky said:


> The bottom of this page has some info on him: http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/Ob...t_opinion_on_RCI_class_action_settlement.html
> 
> (I belive that site was set up by Brian)



Thanks for the link.  He is a patent attorney who also investigates and files plaintiff class action consumer lawsuits. Very unusual combination. Love this statement: _I [Stephan] am a patent attorney that has worked extensively with Computer Networks, and based on my knowledge of software and the present capabilities of the Weeks’ exchange software used by RCI, I feel I am one of the most knowledgeable individuals of the RCI exchange process_.:hysterical: :rofl:


----------



## london

*Class Action Suit*



brigechols said:


> Thanks for the link.  He is a patent attorney who also investigates and files plaintiff class action consumer lawsuits. Very unusual combination. Love this statement: _I [Stephan] am a patent attorney that has worked extensively with Computer Networks, and based on my knowledge of software and the present capabilities of the Weeks’ exchange software used by RCI, I feel I am one of the most knowledgeable individuals of the RCI exchange process_.:hysterical: :rofl:



It will be interesting to see what the final agreed weeks settlement will consist of. Hopefully, weeks owners will be in a better trading position.

Mr. Willet may be paid via the court.


----------



## TSToday

*Switching Points to Weeks*

Did you ever switch from Points back to Weeks? Please provide details as to how this was accomplished. 
Shep Altshuler
Publisher
TimeSharing Today


----------



## joestein

I have posted on these boards for many years so even though some of my opinions might run towards RCI, I hope everyone knows I am not a shill of any sort.

RCI is a company. It is only interested in profit, our investments in our timeshares in none of their concern or care.  There only concern should be that their action could hurt (but isn't at this time) an industry that they are dependant on for their liveihood.

In connection to the idea of spoilage of weeks that are under 90 days, I understand and agree with RCI's stance.  They are there to make profits and if a unit has not been exchanged within 90 days they should have the right to rent it out for whatever they can get for it so that they could make a profit on it.  Remember if a unit has not been exchanged, they dont make a fee so they need to make it up somewhere.  Whether a owner takes better care of a unit than a renter is none of their concern, nor should it be.

The problem as I see it has do with the pooling of weeks for a particular timeshare.  An example as I understand how it works is that if 100 good weeks of a timeshare has been deposited and they go buy 100 junk weeks from the timeshare itself, they figure they have the right to 100 weeks, so they take the good weeks to rent and leave the junk for exchanges.  I wonder if they do the same for weeks that hit the 90 day mark( i.e. consider themselves the owners of the a "week" of that timeshare now, rather than the owner of a particular week that is less than 90 days out.)

I think the solution that is being sought in court is going in the wrong direction, I think we would be better served by a solution that un-pooled timeshare weeks.  Each week would be a distinctive week by itself.  What ever weeks RCI buys from a timeshare would stay out of the exchange pool.  RCI could be allowed to exchange their weeks in the pool, but it would have to be guided by the same rules that guide our exchanges.

This would allow better weeks to stay in the pool, and if they get to within 90 days, then hell, RCI gets the right to rent it out.

The only problem with this is that RCI would most likely stop buying junk weeks and this would mean a considerable maintenance increase in many timeshares.

Joe


----------



## dneuser

joestein said:


> In connection to the idea of spoilage of weeks that are under 90 days, I understand and agree with RCI's stance.  They are there to make profits and if a unit has not been exchanged within 90 days they should have the right to rent it out for whatever they can get for it so that they could make a profit on it.  Remember if a unit has not been exchanged, they dont make a fee so they need to make it up somewhere.  Whether a owner takes better care of a unit than a renter is none of their concern, nor should it be.



There is another very fine option to renting units that have not been picked up prior to 90 day "limit".  RCI can remove the ever-elusive and never fully explained trading power filters and open access to all weeks members for exchange.  I'm fairly certain that those who have been complaining for years about loss of trading power would jump at the chance to trade into some of those units that have been out of reach except through rental.  

When RCI accepted the week for deposit from member they were willing to accept $169 or $199 for its exchange from another member.  Why within 90 days should they suddenly be entitled to $1500 for the same week?  Instead, they should open the opportunity for exchange to a member who will gladly give them the $169/$199 for the exchange even up until 30 days prior to check-in.


----------



## Hophop4

My objection letters just got mailed today.


----------



## joestein

dneuser said:


> There is another very fine option to renting units that have not been picked up prior to 90 day "limit".  RCI can remove the ever-elusive and never fully explained trading power filters and open access to all weeks members for exchange.  I'm fairly certain that those who have been complaining for years about loss of trading power would jump at the chance to trade into some of those units that have been out of reach except through rental.
> 
> When RCI accepted the week for deposit from member they were willing to accept $169 or $199 for its exchange from another member.  Why within 90 days should they suddenly be entitled to $1500 for the same week?  Instead, they should open the opportunity for exchange to a member who will gladly give them the $169/$199 for the exchange even up until 30 days prior to check-in.



They should do both concurrently.  Let the unit go to a renter or exchanger- whichever comes first at the 90 day point.  But I thought they made all properties available to all exchangers at the 90 day point (or is that 45 days?)

But lets be realistic for a second.... How many quality weeks would really be available past 90 days anyway?

Joe

Joe


----------



## doubleos

*Quality Weeks*

JoeStein wrote:
But lets be realistic for a second.... How many quality weeks would really be available past 90 days anyway?

Joe

Hi Joe,
I have to take you at your word that you are not a shill, but if not, you seem very naive.  I know for a fact that a week I put up for exchange went up immediately for rent and not exchange and it is extremely easy for me to find weeks that I would exchange for that are only available for rent.  If you are right that quality weeks would not last past 90 days then I assume you are also saying that were we able to exchange during that same period that these weeks would not be available for rent either.  I think you have given great support for the argument of those of us who object to the settlement.
Lewis


----------



## joestein

doubleos said:


> JoeStein wrote:
> But lets be realistic for a second.... How many quality weeks would really be available past 90 days anyway?
> 
> Joe
> 
> Hi Joe,
> I have to take you at your word that you are not a shill, but if not, you seem very naive.  I know for a fact that a week I put up for exchange went up immediately for rent and not exchange and it is extremely easy for me to find weeks that I would exchange for that are only available for rent.  If you are right that quality weeks would not last past 90 days then I assume you are also saying that were we able to exchange during that same period that these weeks would not be available for rent either.  I think you have given great support for the argument of those of us who object to the settlement.
> Lewis




Listen, most people deposit their weeks early to get good trading power.  If a good week is deposited a year before the date of the week, and RCI didn't steal it, what is the chance it would still be around at 90 days?  Pretty much Nil.

Joe


----------



## Jennie

You'd be surprised how many people don't get around to depositing their week until it's almost too late to do so. 

And many people who reserved a week way in advance cancel it close to the check-in date when a job or health issue or some other unforseen circumstances prevent them from going on the planned vacation. 

I've picked up a lot of great last minute cancellations this way. I've also had to toss back some very desirable weeks I had reserved a year of more in advance because of a last minute problem.


----------



## joestein

I know that DoubleOS called me nieve, but I think it is most of you out there who are nieve.

If anyone thinks that RCI is going to change tremendously the way they operate, they are kidding themselves.  RCI is just here to make money, and will change only when forced and even then it has to be in a way in which it feels it can live with.

Personally, I think the current settlement is near to useless for the long run, but if they were make the changes permanet, then I think it would be good (as we could reasonably get).  Is it everything the people who post on this board want?  Not even close, but at least it is a realistic goal.

I think that my idea of "un-pooling" the weeks would work great, but I know that it not realistic to think that RCI would ever do that, it works against them too much.

To the people who deposit late or change their plans at the last minute, tough noogies!  If as a time share owner you don't plan in advance, then you are probably better served by selling your timeshare.

Joe


----------



## rickandcindy23

Maybe RCI should be in the business of educating people on late deposits, Joe.  

RCI could give statistics on your week, specifically:
Deposit at one year out and see XXX available units
Deposit at six months out and see XXX units
Deposit at 2 months out and see X units

Unhappy exchangers want to walk away from their timeshares, because the concept isn't as it was presented by the salespeople in the first place, and aren't we all saying that availability is less because RCI chooses to rent?  Some owners just stop paying, while others go to extremes at getting rid of their unwanted timeshares.  RCI is destroying the very product it promotes, through their own timeshare rental program.  Resorts should be outraged that RCI is making owners want to walk away from the obligations, simply because RCI reduces the trading power of their weeks in one system upgrade (okay, yes I am still ranting about that one). 

*You have a lot of disillusioned owners, and RCI never suffers because of it.  *

Another point I wanted to make but haven't yet: Alternative exchange companies like Trading Places, Trading Places Maui, Hawaiian Timeshare Exchange, etc., all offer one-to-one exchanges for your weeks.  Hawaiian only takes red weeks, but you will get Hawaii in return, even if you own a January Orlando week.  I don't even know if TP Maui requires a red deposit, but I don't think they do.  Considering all of the wonderful opportunities we have for joining these alternate companies, I think RCI should have to list those in a letter to all owners, basically saying, "we are in the business of renting timeshares, so we want you to know about these other companies that don't charge annual fees, or charge less than we do, all with cheaper exchange fees."  I just want RCI to say, "You have choices."  But resorts bear some of the responsibility for that.  

Okay, well that would be something the judge would never do, but still, I think RCI should PAY for their sins.


----------



## Carolinian

The ''settlement'' is really a sell-out by greedy plaintiffs attorneys who are looking for big fees for their own pockets.  It does little and for a limited period.  Timesharers are much better off rolling the dice with the court and taking this on to trial.  The consumer protection laws are on our side.





joestein said:


> I know that DoubleOS called me nieve, but I think it is most of you out there who are nieve.
> 
> If anyone thinks that RCI is going to change tremendously the way they operate, they are kidding themselves.  RCI is just here to make money, and will change only when forced and even then it has to be in a way in which it feels it can live with.
> 
> Personally, I think the current settlement is near to useless for the long run, but if they were make the changes permanet, then I think it would be good (as we could reasonably get).  Is it everything the people who post on this board want?  Not even close, but at least it is a realistic goal.
> 
> I think that my idea of "un-pooling" the weeks would work great, but I know that it not realistic to think that RCI would ever do that, it works against them too much.
> 
> To the people who deposit late or change their plans at the last minute, tough noogies!  If as a time share owner you don't plan in advance, then you are probably better served by selling your timeshare.
> 
> Joe


----------



## crazyhorse

All this court action is taking place in the USA. I have been following the progress off and on for some years, but as a European member do I have any options?

The situation over here regarding exchange issues seems to be similar to USA members` experience but there are no ongoing court actions (I believe).

At least one national consumer protection organisation over here is aware of the issues and is following the legal process. So I guess it`s a case of wait and see. 

As a long time member of RCI, I am not particularly interested in the compensation side of the settlement itself, as the options are so paltry. 

However the whole business has revealed that RCI has scant regard or respect for its members. The rule that once a deposit is made (for exchange!), it becomes the sole property of RCI, is "greed gone too far".

The settlement *now* offers that RCI will not have sole possession of it until 31 days after it has been deposited. Hard to believe! 

I have to agree that the Exchange Pool should be kept distinct from the Rental Pool. No transfers should be allowed from the Exchange Pool to the Rental Pool until near to (90 days?) the Exchange Week start date.
Ideally I would also like to see the Exchange Pool inventory open for all to see, so a depositer can see where his week has gone.

Too much to ask perhaps.


----------



## DeniseM

crazyhorse said:


> All this court action is taking place in the USA. I have been following the progress off and on for some years, but as a European member do I have any options?



Yes you do - a few posts up, the same question was asked by a Canadian - see the response to that question for more info.


----------



## Jennie

DeniseM said:


> Yes you do - a few posts up, the same question was asked by a Canadian - see the response to that question for more info.



I think that if Europeans own European timeshares (and in some other areas), they belong to RCI Europe, which is a separate company. I suspect that they would not be members of the current U.S. class action lawsuit unless they own a U.S., Canadian, or Mexican timeshare that is affiliated with the RCI exchange program in the U.S.. 

But I will clarify this with the Lead Attorneys in the current case and will post the official answer when received.


----------



## GadgetRick

joestein said:


> If anyone thinks that RCI is going to change tremendously the way they operate, they are kidding themselves.  RCI is just here to make money, and will change only when forced and even then it has to be in a way in which it feels it can live with.
> 
> I think that my idea of "un-pooling" the weeks would work great, but I know that it not realistic to think that RCI would ever do that, it works against them too much.
> 
> To the people who deposit late or change their plans at the last minute, tough noogies!  If as a time share owner you don't plan in advance, then you are probably better served by selling your timeshare.
> 
> Joe


So, because RCI is a business blah blah blah, should we just not complain when they (as a business) decides to do something we (as a customer) don't like? Many businesses have made decisions based on profit only to change those decisions once they realized how much it pissed off their customers.

And everyone can't plan ahead which is why some people do things at the last minute.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Can a Non-US Citizen File an Objection with the U. S. District Court?*



> Crazyhorse said: All this court action is taking place in the USA. I have been following the progress off and on for some years, but as a European member do I have any options?



We are in the process of trying to clarify whether or not "class members" residing in countries outside of North America have standing with the U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. 

In other words we are trying to get the definitive answer to the question:

*Can a citizen of a country other than the United States and Canada send an OBJECTION to the Clerk of Court and have that Objection recognized?*

Based on Jeannie's post # 599 it appears that any Member of RCI that was a member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 can file an OBJECTION regardless of the member's country of residence. But, as stated earlier that fact is being confirmed and will be posted here with clarity as soon as possible.


----------



## joestein

GadgetRick said:


> So, because RCI is a business blah blah blah, should we just not complain when they (as a business) decides to do something we (as a customer) don't like? Many businesses have made decisions based on profit only to change those decisions once they realized how much it pissed off their customers.
> 
> And everyone can't plan ahead which is why some people do things at the last minute.



If someone likes to do things at the last minute, Timesharing is not really for them.  Most people who are happy with their timeshare experences (I know that I am) plan in advance.

As for them RCI changing because it pisses off its customers, get real.  They don't care.  Why should they?  The majority of their customers come from timeshare companies who customers have no choice in where they exchange. (i.e. Wyndham, HGVC, Worldmark, Disney, Starwood, etc. - not to mention properties that only exchange through RCI)  If you don't want to use them, your options are limited.  Most timeshare owners probably never even heard of SFX or the small exchangers.

SO..... instead of asking for the world, try for something small that might have a chance of sticking, its better than nothing.

Joe

IMHO.... The best thing we can hope for is that the changes that  RCI agreed to make for 2 years can be made permanet.


----------



## Jennie

DebbieF said:


> I just got a postcard today-didn't know about any of this since I sold my RCI affiliated resort a few years back and canceled membership.  I went online for the claim form and I had the choice of $15, or a discount if I wanted to rejoin RCI-I took the $15!



You can also file an objection to the proposed settlement. Even though you are
no longer an owner of an RCI affiliated resort, you might want to support others who are still owners and are not being treated fairly.  It could benefit your family and friends who might want to enjoy the benefits of timeshare ownership in the future, and help protect the investment that millions of people have already made, that is being destroyed by RCI's greed driven business practices. 

It will only take you about 5-10 minutes, and cost you 3 first class stamps to file an objection. You can object even though it no longer personally affects you.

Scroll down to post #617 for simple directions on how to do this, if you wish
http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107&page=25


----------



## Carolinian

Businesses do not have carte blanche to do anything they want.  When they step out of line like Enron, the old Savings and Loans, or RCI, they need to be nailed.  That's what consumer protection laws are there for.

In RCI's case, their ''product'' is not even produced by them, it is given to them in trust by their members for a particular purpose and they are abusing that trust.



GadgetRick said:


> So, because RCI is a business blah blah blah, should we just not complain when they (as a business) decides to do something we (as a customer) don't like? Many businesses have made decisions based on profit only to change those decisions once they realized how much it pissed off their customers.
> 
> And everyone can't plan ahead which is why some people do things at the last minute.


----------



## Jennie

joestein said:


> SO..... instead of asking for the world, try for something small that might have a chance of sticking, its better than nothing....The best thing we can hope for is that the changes that  RCI agreed to make for 2 years can be made permanet.



Joe, I sincerely doubt that you have read and understood how little would change for the better if the proposed settlement is approved.

For starters, every person who owns a floating week would be royally "screwed." 

If the lawsuit is settled as it stands now, RCI would be required to keep *"hands off" for 31 days of any deposit made more than a year in advance*. Almost all "floating weeks" owners would be unable to get a week reserved and deposited by their resort more than a year in advance. 

People who own fixed weeks would have to pay the maintenance fee a year in advance in order to be able to deposit more than a year in advance. (This is now the policy of almost every resort out there.) 

Thereafter, RCI can remove each and every single week the minute it is deposited unless a member has an ongoing search for the week that has enough "trading power" to pull it. And guess who determines the trading power assigned to the searching week? Since RCI is accountable to no one for divulging what the mystery trading power value is, and how they arrived at the value, it seems like a classic case of the fox guarding the hen house.

Under the proposed settlement, RCI will be required to remove no more weeks (for rental purposes) than it deposits, and the week they put in is supposed to be equal in value to the week they take out--within 3 ranges: red, white, and blue. Well those of us who have been exchanging for years know that there are many shades of red, that there is strong suspicion of inflated values being given to certain resorts for suspect reasons, and even just RCI's history of plain error or incompetence in determining the correct trade power of a particular week.

If the week "swapped out" (or snatched, as I prefer to call it) is truly equal in value to the week RCI puts in the spacebank to replace it, then why doesn't RCI just keep their grubby week and rent it directly to the public and keep their greedy paws out of the spacebank tiii? Does anyone believe RCI's explanation that they do this to give their members a greater variety of inventory to choose from?????

It gets worse. The proposed settlement would require RCI to provide reports showing the raw number of "swaps" made without providing any details of the names of the resorts or weeks. There will be no way of knowing how many truly red weeks from highly desired resorts have been taken out for rental and replaced with a glut of red Orlando weeks. 

And who receives the RCI reports? The plaintiffs' attorneys--the ones who know so little about the "fine points" of timesharing that they didn't even realize that the proposed settlement, if approved, deprives floating weeks owners of participating in any 31 day exclusivity period. This not only effects floating weeks owners, but also fixed weeks owners who will not have an opportunity to find and reserve these weeks before they are snatched the minute they come in. 

How much do you think the Plaintiffs' attorneys will be paid to analyze the reports and check for compliance?   NADA !!! So here's another fox guarding the hen house situation.We Objectors requested that a copy be sent to us.Surprise, surprise--RCI refused. 

So, Joe, please let us know what part of the proposed settlement you think makes it worth accepting, rather than filing objections and hoping that the court system can force RCI to be more ethical and fair in the treatment of their members. We know they willl never do it voluntarily or for the right reasons but modern society muddles along without total chaos because many people with a defective moral/ethical value system are deterred by the fear of punishment by the legal justice system.


----------



## JEFF H

joestein said:


> If someone likes to do things at the last minute, Timesharing is not really for them.  Most people who are happy with their timeshare experences (I know that I am) plan in advance.



Joe, Thank-you for explaining how you prefer to use your ownership.
Many owners however don't prefer to plan their vacations far in advance.
Plenty of owners in fact prefer to plan and book their vacations in that three month (90 day) window. 
Many vacation ownership plans have been sold in recent years for just that reason. Flexibility to plan and go when you the owner wants not when RCI or anyone else tells you to.
The weeks were deposited by members with the intention and expectation that they would be used for exchange purposes by other members. This banked week inventory should remain available for exchange until a member confirms it.
Heck When I first became a RCI member (1984) RCI would issue a unit return notice 14 days before check-in if a unit you deposited was not confirmed by a member. You could then use it yourself, send family or let it go to waste. 
Times have sure changed and now RCI views member deposited weeks as their property that they can use however they want to maximize their profits.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Au Contraire, Mon Frère.*




joestein said:


> If someone likes to do things at the last minute, Timesharing is not really for them.


We mainly take RCI _Last Call_ & _Instant Exchange_ reservations, which become available 45 days before check-in. 

It takes all kinds, eh ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## catcher24

> Posted by TSToday:
> Postcard notice.At the most recent hearing about the notice, I pointed out to the court, that it was very important that the notice be legible and that the type should be large enough so the reader would not have any difficulty in reading it. My recollection is that the sample RCI presented in court was larger and more legible. The postcard that I received in the mail was, in my opinion, in adequate because of a lousy printing job and the type was much too small. If you agree, I would like to have some samples of what was received sent to me. If you disagree and feel that the notice was adequate as to legibility, please advise. I am not talking about content but only legibility. RCI spends plenty of money on direct mail postcards, it should have done a better job with this one simply because of its importance to over 2 million current and prior Weeks Members.



I find it very interesting that such an important notice was sent on a 3 X 5 note card made of the cheapest possible material - something that might very conceivably get tossed out without even getting looked at. Compare that with the glossy, heavy-weight, 5 X 10 (or larger), full color cards one receives when RCI mails out their weeks rental offers on a regular basis...

I would have sent you an example of each, as I think the judge might find it informative to compare the two. Unfortunately, my paper recycling was this week and my most recent vacation week offer is gone.


----------



## catcher24

I wish to add my thanks to all of those who brought this to light, have fought RCI and are keeping us informed. I won't name names for fear of leaving someone out, but you know who you are and thank you very much! 

I plan on completing and mailing my objection notice within the next few days and will include the following statement. Any comments or suggestions regarding same?



> RCI ostensibly sets forth in its terms and conditions the relationship between a RCI Weeks Member and RCI  That contract with RCI contains an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing prohibiting RCI from doing anything that will destroy or injure the weeks member's rights to the benefits of the contract or frustrate the weeks member's expectations and the fundamental purpose of the contract.
> 
> The proposed RCI Weeks Class Action settlement frustrates the expectations of RCI weeks members and thwarts the fundamental purpose of the contract, which is securing reasonable access to comparable weeks deposited by other RCI weeks members.
> 
> It has become increasingly apparent that rather than make the best exchange weeks available to it’s weeks members for a reasonable length of time, RCI is offering these weeks for rent to non-members after only a short period of exchange availability to RCI weeks members. Additionally, these weeks are also being offered by RCI to non-members at a weekly rate that is almost invariably less than what the banking owner must pay in annual maintenance fees. RCI then offers weeks of much less exchange value to the RCI weeks members. These practices by RCI not only deprive the weeks members of the opportunity to receive an equitable exchange, but also threatens to undermine the value of the member’s time share week itself.
> 
> Hence, I believe that strictly limiting RCI's ability to rent or otherwise dispose of weeks deposited by the RCI weeks membership, a limitation that RCI does not currently recognize or honor, is necessary to give efficacy to the contract between RCI weeks members and RCI.


----------



## Jennie

catcher 24--we salute you for taking the time and effort to let the Judge, and the Plaintiffs and Defendant' s attorneys, know that we are not a bunch of dummies living in a dark cave. 

Thank you for going the extra mile on behalf of all RCI Weeks members.


----------



## Jennie

catcher24 said:


> I find it very interesting that such an important notice was sent on a 3 X 5 note card made of the cheapest possible material - something that might very conceivably get tossed out without even getting looked at. Compare that with the glossy, heavy-weight, 5 X 10 (or larger), full color cards one receives when RCI mails out their weeks rental offers on a regular basis....(



As disgraceful as the recent postcard notice is, it's a great improvement over the stunt RCI played burying the first notice on page 94 of the Endless Vacations (junk in my opinion) Magazine. 

We owe thanks to Timesharing Today Magazine www.tstoday.com for bringing the matter to the attention of readers, and urging RCI Weeks members to go to the Federal Court in Trenton, New Jersey on June 16th to protest the inadequate notice and point out the unfairness of the proposed settlement. Thay's how I became aware and involved. For information about what went on at the hearing, read Post #1 of this thread at: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Well Stated*

Catcher24,

Your statement was well thought out and an excellent example of a REASON for your objection.

To those of you who are joining us in this fight be aware that providing a REASON for your objection is not a requirement; but, a statement as eloquently written as the one provided by Catcher24 should get the attention of the Judge who will ultimately determine whether or not the current settlement is FAIR!

For any "class member" who wants to object to the proposed settlement; but is just now getting involved get information and help here:

http://tinyurl.com/Instruction-For-Objection


----------



## catcher24

Goofyhobbie said:


> Catcher24,
> 
> Your statement was well thought out and an excellent example of a REASON for your objection.
> 
> To those of you who are joining us in this fight be aware that providing a REASON for your objection is not a requirement; but, a statement as eloquently written as the one provided by Catcher24 should get the attention of the Judge who will ultimately determine whether or not the current settlement is FAIR!
> 
> For any "class member" who wants to object to the proposed settlement; but is just now getting involved get information and help here:
> 
> http://tinyurl.com/Instruction-For-Objection



Thank you for the compliment, but you should thank yourself as well.  A fair amount of that came from your example in post #586. I edited it considerably and added a new paragraph of my own, but the main idea and a good chunk of the wording is from your example! Hope that's OK.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*You Are Welcome!*

catcher24,

I am flattered that you chose to use my example in Post # 586.

When I first read your statement I knew there was a lot about it that I liked; but I admit to not making the connection until you mentioned it above.

Several of us here at TUG have been working night and day to help you and other Tuggers hurdle the bar that is necessary to make the effort to object. 

The credit goes to all who have made the effort and to those that continue to do so. 

Shep at Timeshare Today first called my attention to the "Points Class Action Complaint."  After reading the complaint and Shep's comments here and at other web sites, I came up with the EXAMPLE at # 586. I am extremely pleased that you found it helpful and made the idea your own. Great Job!


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Using Twitter To Get The Word Out!*

Folks,

I am just an old guy that has been retired since 2000. My communication skills are not as good as they once were; but I continue to try new ways to communicate.

For purposes of getting the word out I started a Twitter account on or about October 8th.  I have used the account exclusively to communicate information about the proposed RCI Class Action Settlement. 

Until tonight, however, I had not fully realized the potential of TWITTER to get the word out. 

Here is what the statistics show as of tonight:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

GoofyHobbie 

291 Following  129 Followers  21 tweets 

//////////////////////////////////////////////////

I would like to encourage any of you who use TWITTER to start putting the word out. The statistics say it all.

I have initiated 21 Tweets and sent 71 direct messages since setting up my account. With most the activity occuring tonight. 

I am following 291 individuals and/or companies that have tweet accounts and I am just getting started. 

Note that I personally have developed 129 Followers since setting up my account.

The beauty of the communication method is it's simplicity and the ability to grow contacts exponentially.

Any of you that would like to plug-in connet through my Twitter Username: Goofyhobbie


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*How You Can Use Twitter*

Open an account @ Twitter.com 

Look within the site for total strangers that you might like to communicate with through Twitter. 

Start following the ones you pick out.

Many that you follow will begin to follow you.

Some will contact you direct and thank you for following them.

*Suggestion:* Consider creating the short sentences that you want to use to respond in advance and hold them in a computer note pad or MS Word document.

Once they start sending you Direct Messages consider responding something like this.

 _________< Username> *Thanks for the follow.  Do you know anyone who owns or has owned a RCI affiliated timeshare?*

Then using words that you have already created in a computer note pad or MS Word immediately continue sending direct messages to the same contact like so:

__________ < Username> *RCI affiliated timeshare owners have until November 20th to file an objection to the proposed class action settlement.*

__________ < Username > *The Proposed RCI Settlement is unfair to RCI Weeks Owners - Let Folks know that they should Object to the settlement.

*__________ < Username > *For Facts & Information about the Proposed RCI Weeks Class Action Settlement look here: http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/*

__________ < Username > *To object to the proposed RCI settlement get instruction here:  http://tinyurl.com/Instruction-For-Objection*


*Notice the creation of a tinyurl.*  Jeannie, showed me how to do that.

(Simply go to the website http://tinyurl.com/ and use your computer's cut and paste function to paste in the specific URL for just the instructions found at http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/

Of course, once you get a following you can also send out TWEETS which are a short blast to everyone who is following you.  

We have a few million people we want to reach. This method will not reach all of them; but if enough of us do it the message will get out and be shared with thousands.


----------



## GadgetRick

joestein said:


> If someone likes to do things at the last minute, Timesharing is not really for them.  Most people who are happy with their timeshare experences (I know that I am) plan in advance.


Hmm, that's funny, I've been TSing for about 10 years and have never planned in advance. Almost all of my traveling is done at the last minute and I've not had problems. Seems like you need to do a little more research before making bold sweeping statements...




joestein said:


> As for them RCI changing because it pisses off its customers, get real.  They don't care.  Why should they?  The majority of their customers come from timeshare companies who customers have no choice in where they exchange. (i.e. Wyndham, HGVC, Worldmark, Disney, Starwood, etc. - not to mention properties that only exchange through RCI)  If you don't want to use them, your options are limited.  Most timeshare owners probably never even heard of SFX or the small exchangers.


They do care--like ALL businesses--if it impacts their bottom line. If enough people complain about something they don't like, things might get changed, if nobody complains, nothing will ever change. Again, you should do some research before making these sweeping statements. Plenty of examples of a company making a decision which benefits the company financially but hurts a large portion of their customer base. The customer base complains, the company makes changes. Does it happen ALL of the time? Absolutely not. However, it happens frequently enough to give it a try...

Maybe you should be a little more positive about things....


----------



## RustyS

GadgetRick said:


> ... They do care--like ALL businesses--if it impacts their bottom line. If enough people complain about something they don't like, things might get changed, if nobody complains, nothing will ever change...



The only way to affect their bottom line is to not pay them anything.  Exchange fees, membership fees, rental fees, *exchange deposits*, etc.  Complaining, while still being a member, will not lead to change.  In fact, with all this finally becoming public through this proceeding, future RCI members will be implicitly agreeing to participating in their scheme.

Once this is all done, unless significant changes occur in RCI's business model, I will be off their roles permanently. I think it is unlikely that RCI will change their business model because their primary customer is the shareholders, and they are better served by renting other people's property than providing a fair exchange service to a fee-paying membership. Unless we can convince the courts they are renting stolen property, they will be free to continue it with anyone silly enough to retain their membership.

*File Your Objections, with or without explanation!

And be prepared to vote with your feet if you don't like the outcome.*


----------



## kirby2000

*Object and select a Benefit too?*

I've read several times that we can select one of the Benefits, a.k.a.Options, listed on the Claim Form and we can Object too. Wording contained in the Claim Form, Section 3, item B: 

"This Claim Form will be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of New Jersey. By selecting one of the foregoing benefits and submitting or mailing this Claim Form to RCI, I consent and waive all objections to the non-exclusive personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for the purposes of all cases and controversies involving this Claim Form, the Settlement Agreement, and/or their enforcement, and I acknowledge that I am bound by the Release contained in the Settlement Agreement."

I am hung up on the wording: "...By selecting one of the foregoing benefits and submitting or mailing this Claim Form to RCI, I consent and waive all objections to..."

I realize I am hung up on one sentence...but how am I misinterpreting this? Thanks in advance.


----------



## DeniseM

Kirby - I can't explain the wording, but the attorney in this case has stated, in a previous post, that you can select a benefit AND object - both.


----------



## zgreg9

*SPREADING MESSAGE TO PUBLIC & WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE EARNINGS CONFERENCE CALL OCT 28th*

SPREADING THE MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC & WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE EARNINGS CONFERENCE CALL OCT 28TH 8:30 am ET

FYI

For latest financial information on *Group RCI’s *parent company *Wyndham Worldwide *please go to this link  http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/investors/financial_information/investor_presentation.cfm

On *October 28th at 8:30 am ET *there is *Q3 2009 Wyndham Worldwide Earnings Conference Call  * (go to link above, in upper right hand corner (orange rectangle “Upcoming Events” click on “3rd Quarter 2009 Financial Results (October 28, 2009) *or *to this link  http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=200690&p=irol-calendar 

If there are any Tuggers that have shares in Wyndham Worldwide it would be great opportunity for them to ask questions on *Weeks *and *Points class action lawsuits *during the earnings conference call.  I think Stock Analysts, Shareholders and public in general (including majority of RCI members) do NOT know about these lawsuits. I myself have only found out about Weeks Class Action Lawsuit in August this year through this web site and I have been member of RCI since 1984.  It would be interesting to find out from Tuggers that have shares in Wyndham Worldwide if they received any information in their financial statements or notices concerning Weeks and Points class action lawsuits.  

During these Earnings Conference Calls many analysts and financial reporters from largest newspapers and magazines participate.  Class action lawsuits may have impact on stock prices.  If any of these participants pick up on this and write about it, the message will get out to the public faster.

RCI is aggressively promoting rental income since it has been down lately.  Go to first link in this tread     http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/investors/financial_information/investor_presentation.cfm
 In the middle of the page (under blue rectangle “PRESENTATIONS”) view at least first two presentations to Investors.  
First one:   *Group RCI - Goldman Sachs Investor Meeting on September 29, 2009 *(less than a month ago)  http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/docs/RCI-Goldman-Sachs-Presentation-Final-Compressed.pdf 
Second one:    *Wyndham Worldwide Investor presentation  August, 2009  *http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/docs/08-01-09-WYN-General-Investor-Presentation.pdf  on page 17 please note Group RCI future strategy is to “Expand Rentals Business”  : on page 43 read both footnotes (1) & (2) for Other Member Revenues


Group RCI will promote more in future in North America in partnership with resort developers to rich clients what they call it in Europe and South Africa “rental and exchange” investment program. See direct quote from brochure link below: 
“_Our Rental & Exchange partner, Group RCI is one of the biggest and most experienced in the world with over 3 million members and boasting over 1 million reservation bookings annually. Group RCI market your property Worldwide via a range of integrated campaigns effectively exposing your property to a vast worldwide database. Maximising the income from your property. But this is not all. Uniquely you will also be able swap weeks in your own property for holidays in the Worlds most popular locations.
Through the R&E programme, owners can exchange “use time” in their assets with owners of comparable real estate assets, as well as an array of additional services.  Additionally, owners can generate income by renting their asset through Group RCI’s successful rental channels.
What’s more RCI will provide you with 70% of the rental income year after year.  Alternatively exchange your weeks for points and travel the World._ “  I would like to know for how much they rent out these places?  Most likely it will be in DVC rental rate???  Also when the owner exchanges with RCI whether their deposited inventory will be available for exchange to *all *RCI members (most likely only to POINTS members if they are lucky) or snapped up by RCI for rental just as DVC is presently.  Since deposits from these resorts will be likely equal to DVC , I see more garbage weeks dumped from POINTS inventory to WEEKS inventory and prime gold crown weeks from WEEKS inventory (just as done now)  put into RCI various RENTAL inventories.   I quess in near future WEEKS will be known as "RCI GARBAGE DUMP". 
Promotional Brochure for Whiterocks Resort (in Cyprus) partnering with Group RCI for exchanges and rental income    http://www.whiterocksbafra.com/page.php?pageID=57&slideID=0

RCI Rental & Exchange Brochure    http://www.whiterocksbafra.com/file/WhyGroupRCI.pdf

Also a link for Gordon Gurnik bio, President of Group RCI North America    http://www.grouprci.com/media_center/es/show_source.cfm?id=55
He was responsible for development of many programs in RCI.  

FYI

Greg


----------



## acuchics

We havent received any info on this.  I just received an email at our personal email address saying they sent us an important private message at TUG BBS and to log in to see it.  So my question is, What the heck is going on and when is the cut off date?  Just so I can research and we can make a decision.  The email came from someone named Goofyhobbie.  I appreciate the email Goofyhobbie, but someone and NOT Stephan, get us up to speed please.

Thanks


----------



## DeniseM

All the current info. is in this thread.  Goofyhobbie is a TUG member who has been very active in this case.

Here is a summary that was posted by the publisher of Timeshare Today on the 20th - http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107&page=25


----------



## crazyhorse

*Terms of Membership*

I have a couple of old "Directory of Resorts" books and have been comparing the wording in the Terms of Membership between then and now.

Both say that before you can request an exchange, 
" you must deposit holiday ownership rights with us *and we will put them into* *the RCI Pool of exchange accommodation"*

The previous (old book) said

"By depositing Holiday Ownership rights, you relinquish all rights to use them and agree that those Holiday Ownership rights may be used by RCI without restriction to *conduct exchanges, inspections visits, promotions and other purposes in RCI`s discretion."*

Note that this does not mention Rental, although this could have been part of "other purposes."

The current version has altered the last condition to 

"By depositing your Holiday Ownership with us, you relinquish all rights to use them and agree that they may be used by RCI *without restriction"*

Note that in the last sentence I have put in the bold type, not RCI.

Their print was pretty small! As has been mentioned above in general correspondence, RCI has not been very helpful in its notification of the settlement. It wasn`t very helpful either with the notification of the change of Terms of Membership!

Also in the Terms, the Variations paragraph suggests that any changes to the Terms will not come into effect until they (ie the changes) have been published. Again, I think they could have made a better job of informing their members regarding these changes, though I don`t expect that RCI would have revealed what they had in mind.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Welcome to the thread*

acuchics

Recommend that you go to page 20 of this thread and start with Post # 483. Then read at least through Post # 498.


----------



## Jennie

acuchics said:


> We havent received any info on this.  I just received an email at our personal email address saying they sent us an important private message at TUG BBS and to log in to see it.  So my question is, What the heck is going on and when is the cut off date?  Just so I can research and we can make a decision.  The email came from someone named Goofyhobbie.  I appreciate the email Goofyhobbie, but someone and NOT Stephan, get us up to speed please. Thanks



The official information listed on the postcards directs class members to read information at: www.weeksprogramsettlement.com 

Because some of the wording at that web site was was ambiguous, contradictory or unclear, we asked attorneys involved in the case to provide correct information.

Trusted TUG member "Goofyhobbie" then volunteered to prepare a summary of the correct information and instructions at: http://tinyurl.com/yjojo4t 

Objections must be POSTMARKED by November 20, 2009.

A claim forms for one of 5 benefits must be filed on-line or POSTMARKED by November 20, 2009

You may file an objection AND apply for one of the five specified benefits.


----------



## Carolinian

If this goes the wrong way, we all need to be proactive in getting the word out about alternatives to our resorts and their members.  Push to dual affiliate with II.  Push to get info on the independents sent out to members.  Many independents will even pay the postage for an issue of the resort newsletter if you include their brochure, which saves money for the HOA.  DAE and PI I know will do this.  

It is not just a matter of voting with our own feet, but bringing along as many others as possible.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that this does go the right way.  I would dearly love to have the ''old RCI'' back instead of the greedy imposter that is now filling its shoes.




RustyS said:


> The only way to affect their bottom line is to not pay them anything.  Exchange fees, membership fees, rental fees, *exchange deposits*, etc.  Complaining, while still being a member, will not lead to change.  In fact, with all this finally becoming public through this proceeding, future RCI members will be implicitly agreeing to participating in their scheme.
> 
> Once this is all done, unless significant changes occur in RCI's business model, I will be off their roles permanently. I think it is unlikely that RCI will change their business model because their primary customer is the shareholders, and they are better served by renting other people's property than providing a fair exchange service to a fee-paying membership. Unless we can convince the courts they are renting stolen property, they will be free to continue it with anyone silly enough to retain their membership.
> 
> *File Your Objections, with or without explanation!
> 
> And be prepared to vote with your feet if you don't like the outcome.*


----------



## crazyhorse

*Terms of Membership (AGAIN)*

The reason I wrote 662 was to show how RCI can change the terms of membership at a whim.

I believe (tell me if I am mistaken) that their new Settlement terms will have to be incorporated into their Terms of Membership.
RCI will not want to saddle themselves with a new form of T of M, which they would not be able to alter without contravening the Settlement.
Thus they have put in the Settlement the restriction that the main benefits (to any member) will only last for two years.
I am disregarding the extra freebees here!

This issue has been raised before I know in the TUGS bulletins by others including Carolinian. But it is worth restating.


The fact is that we want a reliable and transparant exchange system, that will be permanent and not last for only two years.
RCI wants to make a profit, and we would accept that. But they should run their business in a responsible manner.

The Settlement terms need to be rejected and renogotiated by the Plaintiff`s attorneys.

Personally, I would suggest the removal of the phrase regarding the 2 year period, thus making the Settlement terms permanent.

I would hope that their limitation of a deposit made " at least one year prior to its start date" *(call this X)* could be renegotiated towards *"at least 6 months prior to its start date."*

And that the period of keeping the deposited week solely in the exchange pool (call this Y) could be renegotiated from their proposed 30 days (ha ha!) to read in the form of "*at least* 90 days".

The option of not allowing RCI to put any deposited weeks into their Rental pool, though desirable is probably not an option!

With a "permanent" settlement agreed, hopefully, we could have a Exchange system which we could have confidence in.


----------



## TSToday

*Objections*

In case some of you did not see my prior request, please send a copy the objection letter you sent to Court to us:
RCI Class Action
c/o TimeSharing Today
114 County Rd, Ste 114
Tenafly, NJ 07670

Prior to the first Fairness Hearing in July, I traveled to the court to view the letters sent by Weeks Members . Sending us a copy will be very helpful in our effort to gather information. 

The November 20th deadline for filing is not too far away. 

Shep Altshuler
Publisher
staff@tstoday.com


----------



## ecwinch

DeniseM said:


> Kirby - I can't explain the wording, but the attorney in this case has stated, in a previous post, that you can select a benefit AND object - both.



Hopefully we re-open that discussion. 

My concern is the number of people that select or accept the benefit will be used as an indicator of the number who find the settlement acceptable. So why increase that number by accepting the trinket?


----------



## TUGBrian

another example of an objection letter submitted by Dave Smith, he is a member of the Florida Timeshare Owners group (ill be a guest at their meeting this sunday in venice florida btw).




> Dear Sir or Madame:
> 
> 
> 
> I object to the proposed settlement in Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS). My RCI account # is 0964-07451. Through the Waresmit Joint Trust, my wife and I own three weeks at The Coronado Beach Resort, one week in The Mayan Palace Nuevo Vallarta, and six weeks in the World Wide Vacation Club.
> 
> 
> 
> I object because:
> 
> 1. The proposed settlement does not address the core issue of RCI using weeks deposited for exchange as rentals instead of making them available to exchangers.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The remedies offered are temporary and would allow RCI to return quickly to the objectionable practices.
> 
> 
> 
> The following alternatives seem reasonable:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Decouple the rental and exchange operations of RCI requiring them to work at arms length. This would prevent the abuses of the past.  RCI would be free to operate a separate rental agency and solicit time share weeks as inventory. Others now do this.
> 
> 
> 
> 2. Require RCI to obtain the agreement of the depositor before that week is offered for rent, and to return 80% of the rental money collected to the depositor. Owners have paid RCI up front for getting an exchange. If RCI is to rent the deposit instead, the depositor should know about it and share in the rewards.
> 
> 
> 
> 3. Prevent RCI from collecting a fee for deposits at the time of banking. If they didn't collect until an exchange was made they would have a much larger financial stake in actually making exchanges. To make exchanges they would need to retain exchange inventory. This system works well for several other exchange companies.
> 
> 
> 
> 4. RCI has agreements with resorts which make it appear that owners may only exchange that resort through RCI. That is generally not true in practice, but does mislead lots of folks. Sales persons for these resorts typically describe the exchange option as only available through RCI. Eliminating any exclusivity agreements might introduce more real competition into the business. If owners felt that they had a real choice of exchange companies, they wouldn't have to accept RCI's unfavorable terms.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for your consideration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sincerely,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David H. Smith, Ph.D.


----------



## tracie15436

*What's the point?*

I'm sorry...but I've just received the postcard and begain reviewing the info on the websites, but it seems like a big waste of my time for a lousy $15 bucks or some credit from RCI.  The people that stand to benefit seem to be the lawyers.  What am I missing here?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *tracie15436 said:*I'm sorry...but I've just received the postcard and begain reviewing the info on the websites, but it seems like a big waste of my time for a lousy $15 bucks or some credit from RCI. The people that stand to benefit seem to be the lawyers. What am I missing here?



Tracie, I have been corresponding privately with other TUGGERS and I just received the following Private Message from one of them. Note what they had to say and my response.



> yeah, i don't know...i don't have time to read up on it and rci has been satisfactory to me so why complain?


 
It is NOT about the so-called Benefits you will receive. What RCI is willing to give you and other timeshare owners now and in the future isn't worth your time.  BUT OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT IS WORTH YOUR TIME!

IF the Settlement is sanctioned by the Court, RCI will be free to continue to SKIM off the best of the RCI Member deposits as soon as they are deposited and replace them with "junk," "mud weeks", or just weeks that you would not normally find desirable for an exchange. 

A Court sanctioned settlement can be pointed to by other Exchange companies and used as an excuse to RENT deposits you should have access to in the future. 

It is a VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE when it is determined that RCI can and should be able to freely take deposits and use them any way they see fit.

Yes, I too have had an excellent relationship with RCI for the last 25 years; but what they are doing to diminish the value of the Exchange System is NOT in my or YOUR best interest. 

Please take the time to review more closely at a special web page: 
http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/

To do nothing is the same as NOT VOTING - We as Individuals that enjoy timesharing have to stand up for what is best for timesharing and what RCI is about to get in the Settlement is definitely NOT GOOD for Timesharing as You and I know it!


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*YES! You Can Object and Accept a Benefit.*



> *Kirby 2000 said:* I've read several times that we can select one of the Benefits, a.k.a.Options, listed on the Claim Form and we can Object too. Wording contained in the Claim Form, Section 3, item B:
> 
> "This Claim Form will be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of New Jersey. By selecting one of the foregoing benefits and submitting or mailing this Claim Form to RCI, I consent and waive all objections to the non-exclusive personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for the purposes of all cases and controversies involving this Claim Form, the Settlement Agreement, and/or their enforcement, and I acknowledge that I am bound by the Release contained in the Settlement Agreement."
> 
> I am hung up on the wording: "...By selecting one of the foregoing benefits and submitting or mailing this Claim Form to RCI, I consent and waive all objections to..."
> 
> I realize I am hung up on one sentence...but how am I misinterpreting this? Thanks in advance.



Kirby,

It is not difficult to get hung up on a sentence that has 76 words. Long confusing sentences are the bread and butter of some attorneys.

Denise's statement that an attorney involved in the case has said that you can object and file a claim is correct. 

I am not an attorney but, I will attempt to explain the sentence that has you hung up.

Break the sentence down and focus on the words in RED. You should be able to see that the writer is talking about the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. By selecting one of the benefits you consent and waive all objections to the court's jurisdiction.



> By selecting one of the foregoing benefits and submitting or mailing this Claim Form to RCI, I consent and waive all objections to the non-exclusive personal jurisdiction of, and venue in, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey for the purposes of all cases and controversies involving this Claim Form, the Settlement Agreement, and/or their enforcement, and I acknowledge that I am bound by the Release contained in the Settlement Agreement."



Hope the explanation helps you better understand that you are not waiving your right to object to the proposed settlement if you also file a claim for a  a benefit.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *ecwinch said:* My concern is the number of people that select or accept the benefit will be used as an indicator of the number who find the settlement acceptable. So why increase that number by accepting the trinket?



Excellent point!

But, the two statistics side by side should not sway the court one way or the other.

The Court should recognize that every member of the class who does not opt-out is entitled to a benefit.  If less than 100% accept a benefit the Court will probably mark it up to apathy rather than a sign of unhappiness with the settlement itself. 

Written letters of objection, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter.  *The Court will take judicial notice of Objections.* 

In most class action lawsuits there are very few if any objectors. The fact that there were in the vicinity of 100 or more at the time of the first Fairness Hearing given the poor notice to the class got the attention of the Court. 

If we can grow that number substantially our chances of the objection campaign making a difference is huge. A significant increase in the objector group will more than likely persuade the Judge to force the attorneys to hammer out a more reasonable settlement.

A member of the class can claim a benefit and object. That point should be settled by now. 

Others will no doubt disagree; but, if I were just now considering my options and had done nothing prior, I would NOT make a claim and then object.

Doing both at the same time strikes me as counterproductive and does not send the right message. 

It is apparent, however, that many filed a claim the first time around, and some filed a claim this time without realizing how bad the settlement really is for them and for timesharing as we know it.

*Let me make this clear, I am NOT an attorney.*  However, in my humble opinion if you are a member of the class that has not opted-out you CAN and should OBJECT even if you have already requested one of the five benefits.

Once you realize how bad the settlement is for you and timesharing do not let the fact that you have made a claim deter you from doing what you would have done had you realized the situation earlier.


----------



## ecwinch

Obviously everyone should make their own decisions, but perhaps here is at least one way to look at it:

1) If you have made a claim, please file an objection
2) If you have not made a claim, file an objection and defer filing the claim

Obviously if there is any change made in the settlement, that would trigger a re-opening of the period to file a claim.


----------



## Jennie

*I think everyone should file an objection AND make a claim for one of the benefits*. 

At the court hearing on June 16, 2009 a small group of us showed up to object to the proposed settlement and to complain about the inadequate notification that had been sent to class members. 

RCI's attorneys told the Judge that 15,500 members had submitted claims for one of the special one time benefits. They stated that that should be ample proof that most of the class members saw the proposed settlement notice buried on page 94 of Endless Vacations magazine. 

The Judge responded that that was only a tiny percentage of all the members and he would have expected a much larger response for "freebies" if the majority of members had been aware of the availability.  The judge went on to criticize many of the terms of the settlement, especially that it should remain in effect for many more than two years, if it is even approved. 

So clearly the Judge did not see any incongruity between claiming one of the "trinkets" and also objecting to the settlement.  

I personally see it as a way to inflict some "punishment" (however small) upon RCI for all the profit they have made on the weeks they snatched from the exchange pool. Close to 2 million members at $15. to $20. a pop isn't "chump change." (Note: some members have instead chosen the "search first" type of one time benefit that will presumably give them a better crack at obtaining a desirable future exchange). 

So go for it! If nothing else, it will show the Court that many more RCI members have become aware of the lawsuit as a result of the second notice. With so many more people aware and now watching, it should make RCI realize that they have a much larger public relations problem on their hands than they ever anticipated. And maybe, just maybe this will motivate them to improve the settlement terms before they lose a lot more customers and business.


----------



## catcher24

*Objections in the Mai*

Leaving right now to mail my letter of objection to the settlement: original to the court; one copy to Mr. Berman; one copy to Mr. Sager. Also a copy to Mr. Altshuler at TimeSharing Today. I hope this helps, and that you have success at the appearance on the 30th!


----------



## ecwinch

*I think everyone should file an objection and pass on filing a Claim.*

Jennie,

Your comment suggests that RCI/Plaintiffs is will use the number that file a claim to support their position that the settlement is fair. Is it possible that the judges remarks were in light of the adequate notice issue - i.e. if notice was adequate and the settlement fair, why so few claims?

Having more claims would only seem to undermine the position of the Judge. It would be hard for him to raise the same concern if a large percentage of the members file a claim.

I would rather not send a mixed message and support RCI. In my mind, increasing the number of claims only supports their position that the settlement is fair. Why help them?

I would rather see the number of objectors exceed the number that accept the settlement - or at least be a meaningful number in relation to. I think that sends a better message.


----------



## TUGBrian

for my personal opinion as an owner, I'd agree.  I wouldnt file a claim for the miniscule reward if I objected to the settlement.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Folks, if you opt-out of the lawsuit you no longer have the right to object to the proposed settlement.  However, if you have "deep enough pockets" there are attorneys out there who, no doubt, will seriously consider taking you on as a client.

Think about it.  Why would an attorney such as the one who just posted come here to TUG and direct you to a "statement" where he says "make a stronger statement by opting out." 

If I were you I simply would NOT GO THERE!!!!!


----------



## DeniseM

Stephan said:


> For everyone, almost all of your questions are answered in the only attorney's statement on the fairness of the Settlement itself at http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/Ob...t_opinion_on_RCI_class_action_settlement.html.
> 
> Mr. Rogers, A better solution in my opinion is to "make a stronger statement by opting-out", as provided in my statement about the fairness of the Settlement in the link above.



Please note that this post was written by the attorney (Stephan) who is referring you to his OWN statement and who is also asking the courts to award him *$250,000* as part of the RCI settlement....


----------



## doubleos

*Opting Out of the Settlement*

Stephan, If people were to opt out I was wondering if you could recommend a QUALIFIED attorney.


----------



## Stricky

Let stop picking on the guy. If you disagree with him just state it but let's not degrade him.


----------



## london

*Good point*



Stricky said:


> Let stop picking on the guy. If you disagree with him just state it but let's not degrade him.



Well taken. Stephan is trying to state his opinion about the RCI class action suit.

All posters on the BBS have rights protected the the constitution.

Most posts on this board, are merely personal opinions, including any of mine.


----------



## doubleos

*REpting out and lawyer*

You are both right, I should have just stated that I had trouble with his recommendation and my understanding of his request for renumeration, but there is actually some subtle meat in my response, ie. I was interested in an answer to my question.  I understand that the original lawyers have stated that they intend to drop out if the objections cause RCI to reject the settlement and that Susan does not intend to continue with this if the class action goes to trial.  I know this is getting ahead of the situation, but does anyone know of a lawyer they would recommend that might take this on if RCI were to back out of any settlement.


----------



## jamstew

The only class action attorney I know who was worth a damn at one time is Fred Baron in Dallas. He made his fortune as the plaintiffs' lead (I think) counsel in the massive asbestos/toxic tort litigation. I worked as a paralegal for one of the defense firms and sat in on quite a few depositions with him. Yes, he was paid an insane (IMO) amount of money, but his clients who were really sick received good settlements, as did quite a few who (again IMO) were not. Last I heard about him, he was in some hot water over illegal campaign contributions or some such, but if I were looking for class counsel, he would be it.


----------



## tracie15436

Thanks Dave!


----------



## london

*Opt Out RCI Weeks Members*

I wonder what type of settlements will be offered to RCI weeks members who do opt out?

Would the individual settlements be private and not for disclosure by the plaintiffs?

Perhaps members would receive a great number of free trades for X years, or refunds of all past years dues payments?

The issue is not so much about money, but the pool of weeks for exchanging.

Limiting of a time frame for weeks going to the rental pool.

As I recall RCI has about a million members?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Realistically:  Nada!  Zip!  None!*



> *london said:* I wonder what type of settlements will be offered to RCI weeks members who do opt out?



When someone opts-out of a proposed Settlement in a Class Action Lawsuit they usually do so because they simply do not want to be a member of the class. They want to keep their individual options open. 

But realistically, opting out does nothing for the individual because that individual is on his own vs. RCI.  RCI has no incentive to give that person anything.

I can see where a RCI Member might opt-out to send a message to RCI that the particular Member might hire an attorney and bring a separate law suit.

But, without that person actually bringing a separate suit and prosecuting it to the end - Settlement or Trial, I don't see that person getting anything from RCI.


----------



## ecwinch

london said:


> Well taken. Stephan is trying to state his opinion about the RCI class action suit.
> 
> All posters on the BBS have rights protected the the constitution.
> 
> Most posts on this board, are merely personal opinions, including any of mine.



Personal opinions are fine, and like elbows, most of us have at least two.

But I think we have to frame a personal opinion in the proper context. Keep in mind that the opinion comes from:

- someone who has suggested that the case be dismissed and be re-filed in CA
- someone who presumably is a member of the bar in CA, and could potential become involved in the litigation if it was dismissed and refiled in CA
- someone who is a patent attorney, but has reported they are attending a conference on Class Action litigation
- someone who, as noted in their objection letter to the court, has attempted to "assist" the current Plaintiffs
- someone who now is recommending that owners "opt out" of the settlement. But previously decided to have their parent file an objection letter, rather than opt out
- someone who has been evasive when questioned directly

As much as I respect that everyone is entitled to state their opinion, I think it is reasonable to question the motivation given the information available. TUG has policies on being a shill. This is borderline at best.


----------



## ecwinch

london said:


> I wonder what type of settlements will be offered to RCI weeks members who do opt out?
> 
> Would the individual settlements be private and not for disclosure by the plaintiffs?
> 
> Perhaps members would receive a great number of free trades for X years, or refunds of all past years dues payments?
> 
> The issue is not so much about money, but the pool of weeks for exchanging.
> 
> Limiting of a time frame for weeks going to the rental pool.
> 
> As I recall RCI has about a million members?



If you opt-out, you then are back to square one - as if the lawsuit was never filed. So you have to fund a lawsuit, and hope to get to the point where RCI is motivated to settle. And since this case never made it to discovery, you really do not have a lot to go on. Now if this settlement was obtained after discovery, that would be a different story. Which is likely why RCI is motivated to settle at this point.

If you opt-out, you are only preserving your right to file a claim in the future. And all the expense of pursuing.


----------



## TUGBrian

Just to dumb this down for folk like me =)

your options at this point are

*1. do nothing *

in essence this is accepting the agreement as written as it appears that no reply will be counted towards people who dont object or opt-out

*2. opt-out * 

removes you completely from the current class action suit...doesnt claim you agree or disagree...you just dont want to be a part of it...only to be used IMO if you plan on participating in a separate suit against RCI

*3. object *

writing a letter to the addresses provided claiming you object to the current settlment as written, in hopes that enough people object that the settlement will be ammended to provide MORE for RCI members than what is currently offered...and that many on TUG feel is inadequate and temporary...and ultimately not actually providing a permanent solution for the main purpose the class action suit was filed


please let me know if I have missed or misrepresented any of the options.  I dont need a dissertation or splitting hairs, im just trying to provide an easy summary of options for those who dont want to read 700 posts =)


----------



## Jennie

ecwinch said:


> Personal opinions are fine, and like elbows, most of us have at least two.
> 
> But I think we have to frame a personal opinion in the proper context. Keep in mind that the opinion comes from:
> 
> - someone who has suggested that the case be dismissed and be re-filed in CA
> - someone who presumably is a member of the bar in CA, and could potential become involved in the litigation if it was dismissed and refiled in CA
> - someone who is a patent attorney, but has reported they are attending a conference on Class Action litigation
> - someone who, as noted in their objection letter to the court, *has attempted to "assist" the current Plaintiffs*
> - someone who now is recommending that owners "opt out" of the settlement. But previously decided to have their parent file an objection letter, rather than opt out
> - someone who has been evasive when questioned directly
> 
> As much as I respect that everyone is entitled to state their opinion, I think it is reasonable to question the motivation given the information available. TUG has policies on being a shill. This is borderline at best.



I believe he was trying to state that he wanted to  "assist" the Objectors-- Susan Collins, Shep Altshuler, and me. Because of his convoluted writing "style" it's often difficult to figure out what Stephan means. He did submit  papers asking the Court to appoint *him *"Lead Attorney For Objectors." It was not granted.


----------



## AdamCort77

It is amazing how much information is out here on this website that I did not have any idea about until this week!  This website (and the entire class action) was referenced to me just 2 weeks ago while on vacation in Orange Lake in Orlando (Through an Extra Vacation though!).

I'd like to preface everything by first stating thank you to the individuals (Susan & Jennie?) that look as if they have put countless hours towards a resolution here.  Your selfless efforts are without a doubt inspiring.

That being said, I have some concerns about some of the items which this objection group is raising.  Firstly, I'd like to know why one of the largest requests to RCI is not requesting disclosure on exactly the amount of Trade Power each unit has, as well as the amount of Trade Power that is required to make the exchange?  I feel that has more power than anything else, because I know that claims of 'red weeks' getting any inventory I want is completely false.  This is what is told to us at timeshare presentations though.  Am I supposed to seriously believe that Hilton Head Island in February, just because it is a Red Week, can get me Hawaii in the Summer?  The rental rates on RCI.com for that Hilton Head inventory is under $400, why would they make this trading power high?  This would give me, and other timesharers the power when we goto these resorts knowing ahead of time what the real value is.  RCI should be required to make this something accessible to everyone, not just timeshare owners, on their website, and it should be prominently displayed (Meaning it should not require me to login)

Second, why are Points members not referenced here?  A points member can book inventory in my weeks pool for as low as 9,000 points!  Which means if they are given 45,000 points a year, that means they can take 5 vacations from my weeks pool for only one of their units?  As a weeks member, I do not have the power to get 5 vacations for 1 from my weeks pool of inventory, who made it ok for the Points members to get that luxury out of my weeks pool??  If they want 5 for 1, stick to Points Pool Inventory!

Thirdly, the rental requests make sense in theory, but to me are so extreme that there is no way it could be considered by the court, let alone RCI.  Make sure rental rates are above maintenance fees?  How could that possibly be done?  I can't even search for the maintenance fees for 90% of the resorts my family and I have visited in the past 10 years.  And if a resort has ridiculous maintenance fees, why should that harm me in my vacation.  I was able to goto Orange Lake this fall for $350.  I'm sure the MF's are more than that.  But that is ridiculous.  Who is going to pay $600/$700 in the fall for these units?  I sure won't be.  And clearly nobody is going to exchange into Orlando in October, there are so many units available right now.  You will end up getting all the other important requests rejected by putting this in there.

Last thing on Rental, the statement that several are making here which you may or may not be requesting in this objection list (i am not sure, the wording is confusing) is about exchange and rental available at the same time.  What does that mean?  Does that mean that if something is available to rent, that it should be available for EVERYONE to exchange?  I purchased a timeshare in Key West, Florida for a reason.  I wanted to ensure I got to see as much inventory as possible.  Now you are telling me that person that purchased some pathetic January week in Branson will see that inventory as well if the unit is available to rent?  What will stop RCI from just putting all the space for rental, and then basically making every unit of inventory available to all members, and it being a free-for-all??  That will just deteriorate things even more!

As someone that has generally been very happy with my RCI experiences, I do not want that to change.  I have been able to exchange into some great destinations, including some Hyatt hotel rooms just this year, which I know I cannot get through any other timeshare portal.  Having asked the Hyatt staff when they started a timeshare program, the look I was given was just shock.  From what I can tell, this space is not 'timeshare' space at all, but just regular hotel rooms.  The fact that I was able to exchange my week for a week at a very nice Hotel in a location that we'll never see timeshare (this was Houston, Texas) was very valuable to me, and a nice change from the typical caribbean, mexico, etc...  Now I want to see the numbers of how much space RCI is putting in compared to how much they are renting.  But if they are limited in renting, could this mean that they will no longer put this Hyatt space for me to travel to?  I do not want that either.

Again, thank you for your effort, but these are at least the concerns of one experienced timesharer.


----------



## GadgetRick

london said:


> Well taken. Stephan is trying to state his opinion about the RCI class action suit.
> 
> All posters on the BBS have rights protected the the constitution.
> 
> Most posts on this board, are merely personal opinions, including any of mine.



Problem is he's on here representing himself as an ATTORNEY giving LEGAL advice yet he won't answer simple questions regarding exactly WHO he is, etc. If he was really trying to HELP people he'd be open and honest about who he is, etc.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> If this goes the wrong way, we all need to be proactive in getting the word out about alternatives to our resorts and their members.  Push to dual affiliate with II.  Push to get info on the independents sent out to members.  Many independents will even pay the postage for an issue of the resort newsletter if you include their brochure, which saves money for the HOA.  DAE and PI I know will do this.
> 
> It is not just a matter of voting with our own feet, but bringing along as many others as possible.
> 
> I am keeping my fingers crossed that this does go the right way.  I would dearly love to have the ''old RCI'' back instead of the greedy imposter that is now filling its shoes.



I absolutely agree that competition can be the best consumer protection possible.  I also miss the "old RCI."  However, I want to caution readers that it appears that II is also renting out weeks deposited for exchange.  

I base this on conversations with personnel at resorts whose units appear in II's rental pool, who claim that the resorts have not given units to II for rental.   (That's not the same as proof, but it's the best we're likely to get at present.)  

READERS:  If you see your resorts offered for rent, either through RCI or II (or any other exchange company) and this concerns you, call your resort management and ask if they know and approve of this.  Sometimes, management personal are quite surprised.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Goofyhobbie said:


> Kirby,
> 
> It is not difficult to get hung up on a sentence that has 76 words. Long confusing sentences are the bread and butter of some attorneys.
> 
> Denise's statement that an attorney involved in the case has said that you can object and file a claim is correct.
> 
> I am not an attorney but, I will attempt to explain the sentence that has you hung up.
> 
> Break the sentence down and focus on the words in RED. You should be able to see that the writer is talking about the jurisdiction of the Federal Court. By selecting one of the benefits you consent and waive all objections to the court's jurisdiction.
> 
> Hope the explanation helps you better understand that you are not waiving your right to object to the proposed settlement if you also file a claim for a  a benefit.



Dave, that is how I read the wording as well, meaning that by accepting a benefit, the class member is accepting the jurisdiction of the Court.

Susan


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ecwinch said:


> *I think everyone should file an objection and pass on filing a Claim.*
> 
> Jennie,
> 
> Your comment suggests that RCI/Plaintiffs is will use the number that file a claim to support their position that the settlement is fair. Is it possible that the judges remarks were in light of the adequate notice issue - i.e. if notice was adequate and the settlement fair, why so few claims?
> 
> Having more claims would only seem to undermine the position of the Judge. It would be hard for him to raise the same concern if a large percentage of the members file a claim.
> 
> I would rather not send a mixed message and support RCI. In my mind, increasing the number of claims only supports their position that the settlement is fair. Why help them?
> 
> I would rather see the number of objectors exceed the number that accept the settlement - or at least be a meaningful number in relation to. I think that sends a better message.



I would add one thing here:  While I agree that getting $15 is hardly worth filling out the paperwork for, and while I agree that the $100 "cruise discount" is of very little if any value, there is another benefit which class members might find worthwhile.  This is the provision that allows a one-time option of searching for an exchange without releasing one's week for deposit.  

For some class members, especially for those who are very disenchanted with RCI, this may be of significant value.  Furthermore, since this choice requires a change in RCI's current policy, I don't see this as sending a "mixed message."


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



doubleos said:


> . . . I understand that the original lawyers have stated that they intend to drop out if the objections cause RCI to reject the settlement and that Susan does not intend to continue with this if the class action goes to trial. . .



I don't know where you are getting your information, but I do not believe that you are correct on either point.  

First and foremost, my reading of New Jersey court rules is that court approval is required for an attorney to withdraw, unless substitute counsel has been selected AND the case is not yet scheduled for trial.  That isn't the same as saying that the Plaintiffs' attorneys will be absolutely compelled to take the case to trial, or that they don't have any other options, but it does mean that it's not necessarily a simple decision not to continue (if such a decision has even been made).

A TUG member previously inquired whether I would be willing to substitute for the Plaintiffs' attorneys, and although I am flattered, I responded that I frankly do not feel that I am qualified to take on RCI at trial by myself.  (This is something that I believe would take a team of attorneys, and my trial experience is mainly in the fields of custody, divorce and child support.  Furthermore, since I have yet to see a family situation which is *improved* by a trial, I prefer to settle cases than to try them, so my trial experience is not vast.)  

However, that being said, I *do* feel that my involvement would be of some assistance to the plaintiffs, and I intend to see this through.  I consider this case to be very important, and the outcome to be of serious significance to the American consumer in general, and to every timeshare owner in particular.

Susan


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



TUGBrian said:


> Just to dumb this down for folk like me =)
> 
> your options at this point are
> 
> *1. do nothing *
> 
> in essence this is accepting the agreement as written as it appears that no reply will be counted towards people who dont object or opt-out
> 
> *2. opt-out *
> 
> removes you completely from the current class action suit...doesnt claim you agree or disagree...you just dont want to be a part of it...only to be used IMO if you plan on participating in a separate suit against RCI
> 
> *3. object *
> 
> writing a letter to the addresses provided claiming you object to the current settlment as written, in hopes that enough people object that the settlement will be ammended to provide MORE for RCI members than what is currently offered...and that many on TUG feel is inadequate and temporary...and ultimately not actually providing a permanent solution for the main purpose the class action suit was filed
> 
> 
> please let me know if I have missed or misrepresented any of the options.  I dont need a dissertation or splitting hairs, im just trying to provide an easy summary of options for those who dont want to read 700 posts =)



Brian, I don't see any missed points or misrepresentations in what you've written.  

Susan


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



AdamCort77 said:


> . . . I have some concerns about some of the items which this objection group is raising.  Firstly, I'd like to know why one of the largest requests to RCI is not requesting disclosure on exactly the amount of Trade Power each unit has, as well as the amount of Trade Power that is required to make the exchange?  I feel that has more power than anything else, because I know that claims of 'red weeks' getting any inventory I want is completely false.  This is what is told to us at timeshare presentations though. . .



Agreed, Adam.  However, one of the major points of the settlement which the Plaintiffs' attorneys DID negotiate is that, prior to depositing a week, an RCI member may check the trade power of the week being considered for deposit.  (Section II A.1.a) This is one of the reasons why I disagree with members who claim that the Plaintiffs' attorneys did nothing of any value.  There are some important benefits to the settlement, but I confess that I believe that the settlement does not go far enough.  There is also a provision that the historical trading power required to obtain an exchange in a particular area, broken down by month, be revealed.  (Section II A.1.b)  Personally, I don't believe that this disclosure is as relevant as it should be for months which include holidays, such as December, but my suggestion that historical trade power requirements for holiday weeks be listed separately was not received with wild enthusiasm by RCI executives.   

As far as what is represented at timeshare sales presentations, RCI has consistently denied any responsibility.  They have agreed to do some follow up with members (see Section II B), but IMO that's not enough.  RCI did not take well to the suggestion that they monitor the resort salespeople and train them when they were seen to have made misrepresentations.  (My suggestion was for experienced members to go on sales presentations as non-owners and report back to RCI regarding the representations made.)  Nor did RCI accept the suggestion that members and potential members be allowed to check the value of weeks they might wish to purchase.  In the end, my settlement request includes a provision that resorts with unsold inventory have access to the same information as members.  This is not a perfect solution, but it would at least *allow *sales people to check the comparative trade power of red weeks, and then eventually, these same sales people could hopefully be held responsible for misrepresentations.  




> Second, why are Points members not referenced here?  A points member can book inventory in my weeks pool for as low as 9,000 points!  Which means if they are given 45,000 points a year, that means they can take 5 vacations from my weeks pool for only one of their units?  As a weeks member, I do not have the power to get 5 vacations for 1 from my weeks pool of inventory, who made it ok for the Points members to get that luxury out of my weeks pool??  If they want 5 for 1, stick to Points Pool Inventory!



For better or worse, this "points" provision is intended to mirror the fact that, historically, within 45 days of the start date, RCI has dropped trade power provisions.  Many members, particularly those with blue weeks, seem to rely on this "45-day rule," and IMO it is important to protect this provision, which I believe is threatened by the provisions of the proposed settlement agreement, which allows RCI to rent weeks within 90 days of the start date without the restrictions placed on other weeks (such as substitution of other weeks and simultaneous availability for exchange).  



> Thirdly, the rental requests make sense in theory, but to me are so extreme that there is no way it could be considered by the court, let alone RCI.  Make sure rental rates are above maintenance fees?  How could that possibly be done?  I can't even search for the maintenance fees for 90% of the resorts my family and I have visited in the past 10 years.  And if a resort has ridiculous maintenance fees, why should that harm me in my vacation.  I was able to goto Orange Lake this fall for $350.  I'm sure the MF's are more than that.  But that is ridiculous.  Who is going to pay $600/$700 in the fall for these units?  I sure won't be.  And clearly nobody is going to exchange into Orlando in October, there are so many units available right now.  You will end up getting all the other important requests rejected by putting this in there.



This may be termed as a valid difference in opinion.  I, for one, have no objection to units being rented at rates lower than the maintenance fees *close to the start date*.  However, IMO renting them for less that the maintenance fees far in advance (nine months, a year, sometimes more) will hurt every resort (and every timeshare owner at those resorts) which has unsold weeks.  

I have never had a problem calling the resort sales staff and asking what the maintenance fees are.  I've done this for every resort at which I was considering buying a week, except for the first.  (Once burned . . .)



> Last thing on Rental, the statement that several are making here which you may or may not be requesting in this objection list (i am not sure, the wording is confusing) is about exchange and rental available at the same time.  What does that mean?  Does that mean that if something is available to rent, that it should be available for EVERYONE to exchange?  I purchased a timeshare in Key West, Florida for a reason.  I wanted to ensure I got to see as much inventory as possible.  Now you are telling me that person that purchased some pathetic January week in Branson will see that inventory as well if the unit is available to rent?  What will stop RCI from just putting all the space for rental, and then basically making every unit of inventory available to all members, and it being a free-for-all??  That will just deteriorate things even more!



The way I read the proposed settlement agreement (Section II C), if RCI decides to rent a week, it cannot remove that week from the exchange pool, even though it provides a substitute week acquired from another source (such as directly from the resort).  Instead, RCI must keep the week available for exchange by those members with sufficient trade power to exchange for it.  However, there seem to be exceptions, including for weeks within 90 days of the start date (Section II C.2).  There also doesn't seem to be any exchange protection for weeks which RCI transfers to another exchange system.  (Section II C.1)  Other TUGGERS have posted much on these other systems, so I won't go into that here.  

I don't think that this section of the agreement is as clear as it could be, and I have requested clarification.  Ideally, every interested member should be able to read and comprehend the agreement. 



> As someone that has generally been very happy with my RCI experiences, I do not want that to change.  I have been able to exchange into some great destinations, including some Hyatt hotel rooms just this year, which I know I cannot get through any other timeshare portal.  Having asked the Hyatt staff when they started a timeshare program, the look I was given was just shock.  From what I can tell, this space is not 'timeshare' space at all, but just regular hotel rooms.  The fact that I was able to exchange my week for a week at a very nice Hotel in a location that we'll never see timeshare (this was Houston, Texas) was very valuable to me, and a nice change from the typical caribbean, mexico, etc...  Now I want to see the numbers of how much space RCI is putting in compared to how much they are renting.  But if they are limited in renting, could this mean that they will no longer put this Hyatt space for me to travel to?  I do not want that either.



Under the terms of the proposed agreement (Section II A.3), RCI must disclose what they are putting in and what they are taking out, at least in general numbers.  However, this provision is set to expire as soon as "two years from December 31, 2008."  (This may have automatically been extended, as I have not seen any indication that the required disclosures were made for the year ending December 31, 2008.)  Section VII G also requires RCI to disclose compliance information to Plaintiffs' co-lead counsel.

Hope this answers at least some of your questions!   

Susan


----------



## Jennie

TUGBrian said:


> Just to dumb this down for folk like me =)
> 
> your options at this point are
> 
> *1. do nothing *
> 
> in essence this is accepting the agreement as written as it appears that no reply will be counted towards people who don't object or opt-out
> 
> *2. opt-out *
> 
> removes you completely from the current class action suit...doesnt claim you agree or disagree...you just don't want to be a part of it...only to be used IMO if you plan on participating in a separate suit against RCI
> 
> *3. object *
> 
> writing a letter to the addresses provided claiming you object to the current settlement as written, in hopes that enough people object that the settlement will be amended to provide MORE for RCI members than what is currently offered...and that many on TUG feel is inadequate and temporary...and ultimately not actually providing a permanent solution for the main purpose the class action suit was filed
> 
> 
> please let me know if I have missed or misrepresented any of the options.



AND you have the option to apply for one of 5 specified one time benefits even if you file an objection, (or not). This is an important point because the wording in the official court sanctioned information provided by the Rust Consulting Company is not clear on this issue. Many have interpreted it to mean that if you apply for a benefit, you cannot file an objection (or vice a versa). 

However, you cannot apply for one of the benefits if you do nothing (DUH!  ) or if you opt out  of the settlement (exclude yourself) because then you would no longer be a member of the class. 

However, even if you opt out of this lawsuit, you will still automatically receive all of the general benefits provided to RCI members as a result of the resolution of this lawsuit.


----------



## Jennie

*Here's the list of one-time benefits you can apply for*

If you are a Settlement Class Member who is currently a Member in good standing, you may select one of the following five options: 

*Option 1: *

Choose to have the opportunity to search Inventory and make an Exchange Request before actually making a deposit on your Vacation Time, and continue to the process of searching Inventory and making Exchange Requests until the date on which you effectuate an Exchange or two years after the Effective Date, whichever is sooner. 

You will not have to pay an Exchange Fee in connection with the use of Request First unless and until an Exchange Confirmation is made. If the Request First search identifies a desired Exchange, you must Deposit the Vacation Time at the Time of the Exchange to confirm the Exchange. 
If you have a previous, unexpired Deposit, you may not use it in connection with this Request First benefit, which applies only to new Deposits. You will be provided with more information about how to use this benefit, but when you are ready to use it, you will have to provide the following information to RCI: (i) the starting and ending dates, (ii) resort I.D., and (iii) the bedroom size and kitchen size of your Vacation Time to be deposited. The starting date of your Vacation Time must be at least nine months after you initiate such a search and Exchange Request in connection with this Request First benefit. 

*OPTION 2:* Membership Renewal Credit. Choose one of the following Membership Renewal Credit options, depending upon when your current membership expires. 

          (a) My RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership expires within two years of the Effective Date, and I would like a two-month extension of my RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership; OR    

          (b) My RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership expires more than two years after the Effective Date, and I would like (please select one of the following): 
1. a two-month extension of my RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership; or
2. a $20 credit toward a RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership renewal, which will be added to my current subscription term; or 
3. a $20 credit toward my next Exchange. 

*Option 3*

Prorated Refund of Subscription Fees. If you want to immediately terminate your membership in the RCI Weeks Exchange Program, and to receive a prorated refund of your Subscription Fee and a full refund of fees paid for pending Exchange Requests 

*Option 4:*
           Free Rental Night. If you want one free night stay at any RCI Rental offered as single night stays. This benefit must be used toward the same room of any paid Rental of at least one night. The Rental must be reserved within one year of the Effective Date. The Rental itself may occur at any time subject to availability. 

*Option 5:*
           Cruise Certificate. If you want a $100 discount certificate per cabin to be applied toward the purchase of any Cruise offered by RCI, with the option of receiving additional $100 discount certificates (one per cabin) toward your purchase of up to three additional cabins for the same Cruise. You will be required to book any and all such Cruises within one year from the date this option is selected. The Cruises themselves may occur at any time subject to availability.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have chosen Option 1 even though I deposit almost none of the weeks we own except our one "doggie week" (mistake made when I was young and dumb). 

The other 18 weeks we own we generally use ourselves, or rent on Redweek or TUG and then use the money to rent what we want directly from another owner, keeping greedy RCI totally out of the loop. 

We know many other owners who do the same. That's why Redweek's membership has risen to 1.3 million in the few years it has been in business. Many are RCI defectors--the ones who own the desirable (rentable) weeks that are no longer coming into the RCI spacebank.


----------



## Carolinian

Those ''benefits'' are so worthless that they are insulting.  Those inept class action lawyers thought they were accomplishing something with those?  Give me a break!  I agree with Eric that if you ask for them, RCI will twist that as saying you agree with sellout / settlement.

We also ought to be objecting to the court paying these worthless class action lawyers anything.  They stabbed their clients in the back all to get a cool 7 figure fee for themselves.  They ought to hang their heads in shame.  And if they are paid anything, they ought to be paid in these worthless trinkets they want their clients to be happy with!




Jennie said:


> AND you have the option to apply for one of 5 specified one time benefits even if you file an objection, (or not). This is an important point because the wording in the official court sanctioned information provided by the Rust Consulting Company is not clear on this issue. Many have interpreted it to mean that if you apply for a benefit, you cannot file an objection (or vice a versa).
> 
> However, you cannot apply for one of the benefits if you do nothing (DUH!  ) or if you opt out  of the settlement (exclude yourself) because then you would no longer be a member of the class.
> 
> However, even if you opt out of this lawsuit, you will still automatically receive all of the general benefits provided to RCI members as a result of the resolution of this lawsuit.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Quote  by AdamCort77* "As someone that has generally been very happy with my RCI experiences, I do not want that to change.  I have been able to exchange into some great destinations",  

I agree, as many here do with you. I too have had many great exchanges over the years. When I first heard of this Rental scam and the court case I did not fully believe it but last year during exchange requests I observed the same practice. The situation last year was quite bad, although it has improved somewhat recently. 

The court case has revealed RCI`s own thoughts on the matter with what they feel they are entitled to do with "our weeks".

Part C. of the Settlement *"Priority for Weeks Program Exchange Fullfillment" *reveals that they have offered for two years (only) the benefit that they will keep a deposited week in the Exchange Pool for 30 days.

If this is a concession by them, you can see what they would have been doing before.


----------



## Mary Lynne

*Trade Power is almost Zilch Now*

I filed an objection and mailed in my 3 letters with my reasons on Monday.  
When I recently looked for an exchange and clicked the option for rentals and exchanges, I was amazed at how many units were rentals only,(with very expensive rates), and how few(maybe 4 per page of bad time) units were available for exchange for my red week Massanutten unit. 
I have been an RCI member since 1997, and I always was able to find something good in the shoulder seasons, but now there is absolutely nothing worthwhile available.
If the judge does not overturn this decision, I will not be renewing my membership in RCI.


----------



## kwilson

Mailing my letters today.


----------



## zgreg9

*UPDATE on WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE EARNINGS CONFERENCE CALL OCT 28th @ 8:30 am*

*UPDATE: Highlights from WYNDHAM WORLDWIDE EARNINGS CONFERENCE CALL OCT 28th @ 8:30 am  *

*FYI *

Here is *partial news release *on *Oct 28, 2009* prior to *Q3 2009 Wyndham Worldwide Earnings Conference Call *at 8:30 am  (see my post *#659 *above)

“*Wyndham Exchange and Rentals*_

The Company has *renamed Group RCI *to *Wyndham Exchange and Rentals *to more accurately reflect the *two very profitable fee-based businesses *where Wyndham Worldwide has leadership positions.
Revenues were $327 million in the third quarter of 2009, an 8% decrease compared with the third quarter of 2008, primarily resulting from the impact of unfavorable foreign currency movements. Excluding the impact of foreign currency, revenues were flat.

Excluding the impact of foreign currency *annual dues and exchange revenues were flat* compared with the third quarter of 2008, *reflecting a 3% increase in the average number of members *and a *3% decline in revenue per member*. Including the impact of foreign currency, *revenues were $110 million*, a 4% decrease from the prior year period.

Excluding the impact of foreign currency *vacation rental revenues increased $5 million, or 3%*, compared with the third quarter of 2008, *primarily driven by a 2% increase in rental transaction volume and a 1% increase in average price per vacation rental*. Including the impact of foreign currency, revenues were $185 million, a 7% decrease from the prior year period.”_

For *full news release *please go to this link  http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/investors/financial_releases.cfm?id=1

For *full replay *of *Q3 2009 Wyndham Worldwide Earnings Conference Call * go to this link  http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=200690&p=irol-calendar

For *transcript* of *Q3 2009 Wyndham Worldwide Earnings Conference Call  *go to this link  http://seekingalpha.com/article/169...ings-call-transcript?source=trans_sb_previous

During the conference call *Steve Holmes*, CEO of Wyndham Worldwide Corp stated the following:

_“As we announced today, after significant and careful review of our strategic plans and with considerable *input from associates and customers*, including the over *30 exchange and rental brands *that Group RCI operates, we have decided to *rename Group RCI as Wyndham Exchange and Rentals*. This *new name will elevate the vacation rentals business to an appropriate level within our company given its contribution to overall company performance*. We'll *continue to use the RCI brand in Exchange*, which will support the world's largest membership, [inaudible] and developer base in the industry._

_Let me give you an overview of these two great businesses. _

_First, looking at the exchange business, 78% of all timeshare owners are members of exchange companies, and approximately three-fifths have participated in exchange. And RCI is the market leader. Vacation exchange generates approximately half of the segment's revenues through annual membership fees as well as steady transaction fees from timeshare inventory exchange in approximately 100 countries *by our 3.8 million members*. No exchange company today has more quality product in more countries than RCI, and we believe that RCI is and will remain the strongest brand in the industry. It's a *fee-for-service business with modest capital requirements*, high barriers to entry and a *stable customer base*. 

The *other half of the revenues* in this segment are *from vacation rentals*, currently a European-dominated business where we are also the market leader, offering over 60,000 homes, villas, cottages and condos for rental. *Our revenues are derived through commissions on rental revenues*. Again, *this is a fee-for-service business with low capital requirements *where we have great brands, a strong network and a significant market position. 
Given the size and potential of the relatively unbranded and fragmented *$65 billion global rental marketplace*, we believe that our well-established brands such as English Country Cottages, Novasol, Cuendet, and Landal can leverage the significant marketing, technology, operating and strategic sourcing synergies of the world's largest hospitality provider. 

*Wyndham Exchange and Rentals strategy *is focused on two primary areas: *optimizing and expanding exchange and expanding rentals*. 

The central initiative for optimizing and expanding exchange is *RCI.com*, the comprehensive online strategy that will support a number of goals - expanding online capabilities and efficiency, enhancing products and revenue per member, enhancing our affiliate value proposition, improving marketing efficiencies and member satisfaction, improving inventory management, and of course driving margin improvement. 

RCI.com's success to date is clear. *RCI's web share increased from 13% in the third quarter of 2008 to 23% in the third quarter of 2009*. And *in North America*, which *generates over 70% of our exchange transactions*, third quarter web share increased from 17% in 2008 to 29% in 2009. We believe that RCI.com can support margin improvement of 200 to 300 basis points over the next few years. 

Moving to our second area of focus, we intend *to expand rentals in Europe* by capitalizing on our strong base. We intend to continue to grow Landal, our Dutch park business, and expand Denmark-based Novasol. Landal recently announced the signing of two new franchise parks in Austria that will open in December of this year. This will bring the number of parks to 65 across six European countries. Novasol continued to expand its presence in Croatia, where we have gone from zero to nearly 4,000 homes in just four years.”………

…..”Looking ahead, we believe a great opportunity exists in this business from our new fee-for-service *Wyndham Asset Affiliation Model *or *WAAM*. This model offers turnkey solutions for developers or banks in possession of newly developed, nearly completed or recently finished condo or hotel inventory. We will sell this unused or unsold inventory for a fee through our extensive distribution channels. WAAM enables us to expand our resort portfolio with little or no capital deployment while providing additional channels for new owner acquisitions and growth for our fee-for-service resort management business.

We recently signed exclusive WAAM sales and marketing agreements in Orlando and Myrtle Beach. We expect to introduce these projects to our owners next year and that the resorts will be affiliated with our points-based *Club Wyndham Plus reservation system*. We anticipate sales of approximately 460 recently constructed condominium-style units over the next few years. In addition, one of these projects has the possibility of a mixed use hotel under a franchise agreement as a Wyndham Grand hotel, which will leverage our brand as well as our timeshare and hotel operations.”     _

“………question from *Steven Kent *- *Goldman Sachs*

…….*strategically*, can you just *talk a little bit more about Wyndham and changing the name*, what the reaction is and does that basically put you out of business with pursuing any hotel companies who would want to use you as an exchange company? 

answered by *Steve Holmes*

“    *With respect to *the second question on the *Group RCI being renamed Wyndham Exchange and Rental*, that we don't think will have any impact on  ………other hotel companies. Obviously, we've got some terrific hotel companies who are affiliated with Group RCI right now.

The *RCI business will retain its name within the exchange marketplace *and will continue to be the leader of exchange with great companies like Disney and Hilton as part of our portfolio. The Wyndham Exchange and Rental renaming was really meant to make sure that the world knows, including the investment community, that we've got this incredibly great business that some people think is just associated with the timeshare business.  

But the fact is, it also has a terrific rental business over in Europe which is extremely well managed, great brand names, terrific presence in the marketplace, and has performed incredibly well. I don't know that there's many companies - I probably couldn't find any within the travel industry - that on an FX-neutral basis have actually increased from 2008 to 2009. This business has, and we're not sure people actually appreciate what's there. In addition, we are *expanding the rental side of the business*. It's *already grown to half of that business*, and we thought it was appropriate to give it the umbrella name of Wyndham. 

next question come from *Patrick Scholes *- *Friedman, Billings, Ramsey*

Can I get a little more color on the trends in the RCI business of customers *booking online versus calling in?* I know you've been working hard to improve that. Where does that stand right now?

answered by *Tom Conforti*, CFO of Wyndham Worldwide

The increase has been pretty dramatic. We went from 13% web activity on RCI.com last year in the third quarter to 23% in the third quarter of this year. And in North America, which is our biggest part of the company, the biggest part of our Exchange business, we increased from 17% to 29% in 2008 third quarter to 2009 third quarter. So it has been dramatic. And the *website*, which is actually *going to have a new skin put on it mid-November*, has been very well received by the consumer community, and I welcome all of you to go online at RCI.com and see what we have available.

next question also from *Patrick Scholes *- *Friedman, Billings, Ramsey*

Do you have a *master agreement right now with Expedia*?
answered by *Steve Holmes*
*Yes, we do. *

As you can see *rental business *even in *North America *accounts now for *50%.* 

*FYI* (Please note that highlights, underscoring and bold face were added by me).

Greg


----------



## Simoncc

zgreg9 said:


> As you can see *rental business *even in *North America *accounts now for *50%.*
> 
> *FYI* (Please note that highlights, underscoring and bold face were added by me).
> 
> Greg



At the risk of being accused again of being an RCI defender I don't read the results that way.

The report states that Landal in particular is a major driver in the rental revenues (not just a cosy Alpine chalet operation). The paragraph that you highlight with the reference to 50% of the revenue coming from rental sources specifically refers to the european operations. It doesn't say that this income comes from US sources.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Landal*

Greg:

Yes, RCI have been stuffing Landal sites into the Exchange Pool since last year.
They did infer at one time, that they are not "true" Timeshare properties. (or words to that effect). Do people own them as timeshares or not? Aren`t they just European holiday camps that Windham has bought up? 

In which case, what are they doing being in the Pool? Answer pretty obvious!

:zzz:


----------



## Stricky

For some reason (ignorance) I thought all the rentals were handled by rci.com I did not know they used other web shops to offer the rentals:  http://www.wyndham-vacations.com/

(I bet $1 that is a lot like what the new RCI site will look like)


----------



## AdamCort77

Susan, thanks for your responses.  I'm not really sure how you layered your responses to my questions in your forum post, so i hope my comments and questions make sense tying back to your originals!

1st Q:  You more or less mention that the provisions Points members receive is not something you are looking to tackle because you do not want to harm similar provisions for Weeks members.  What i'm having a hard time understanding is as to why?  I would like to know how much high demand space which is deposited by Weeks members is actually taken by Points members as opposed to rented?  What if it ends up that Points members take 2x, or 5x, or 10x more high demand space than is rented?  Then what?  For all of this talk of saving our space, we don't even know through what channel it is being used.  If your argument is that it is still being used by a member, then my argument back to you is that I rent through RCI as a member, what is the difference?

As someone who is not a points member, and will not pay some unfairly high conversion fee, renting through RCI is my avenue to pursue additional vacations.  I do not have the luxury of taking 2, 3, 5 vacations through my one week.

2nd Q:  Only allowing rentals below maintenance fees close to start date.  Your argument is that if it happens further in advance, it would only hurt the resort and the member that owns there.  Am I to believe that you think that all timeshare space should be considered high demanded 9 months/1 year in advance?  I'd love to see a poll of members on this forum that believe November in Myrtle Beach is high demand.  Again it is not the fault of me, a timeshare consumer who enjoys exchanging and renting, that a resort has ridiculously high maintenance fees for low season, and that some individual decides to purchase that space.

Is it my fault that some people buy an Armani sportcoat from the Armani store for $500.  While I will purchase that same item from TJ Maxx for $100?  Should we sue TJ Maxx for hurting the value of the Armani Brand, and support the ignorant customer that purchased at full price by selling it for so much less?  I find your argument here does nothing to help the consumer group as a whole, but actually is helping the resort.  If you force rental prices to be at maintenance fees or higher, you are only providing justification to the resort that they are right to charge ridiculous fees regardless of the time of the year.

3rd Q:  You mention that under the terms of the settlement, RCI must disclose what they are putting in, and what they are taking out.  But, this will happen AFTER the settlement, and after all of this is signed into a legal contract.  My concern is if RCI today maintains that they provide inventory back into the Weeks inventory pool to compensate for what they remove - if they 'remove' less (through Rental), then by association they will put in less, correct?  That means they may no longer offer the Hyatt space I recently exchanged.  Why wouldn't you, or the Plaintiff Attorney's ask for this information beforehand?  What if RCI's statements were accurate?  Isn't this a very important piece of information to have before attempting to settle?

I'm sure my questions here seem to be biting, but I truly do appreciate your work put in.


----------



## TUGBrian

just out of curiosity, for the lawyers.

if this settlement applies to RCI...and wyndham decides to make rci 100% exchanges...and just lets the new "wyndham exchange and rentals" company take over the rental side (but still uses deposits for rentals)...would that create a loophole completely avoiding any settlement?


----------



## NickSeaGarden

How can RCI rent my unit and not give me part of the rental income??


----------



## ecwinch

TUGBrian said:


> just out of curiosity, for the lawyers.
> 
> if this settlement applies to RCI...and wyndham decides to make rci 100% exchanges...and just lets the new "wyndham exchange and rentals" company take over the rental side (but still uses deposits for rentals)...would that create a loophole completely avoiding any settlement?



If the settlement goes through, and then they take steps to circumvent the intent of the settlement, then I think that just opens the door for another lawsuit.

And I thought the crux of the settlement was not to prohibit their rentals, but to prohibit them from "cherry-picking" the rental inventory. As I understood it, they still could rent.


----------



## Jennie

*It's spreading like a cancer*

I just received a glossy Email ad from Gov.Arm.com --Government and Armed Forces Travel Cooperative. As many long-time TUG members know, they have been around for years renting timeshare units from RCI-affiliated resorts, at low prices. Most of their inventory consisted of off season weeks at mediocre resorts--the type of weeks that would be vailable as "Last Call" on RCI. 

In 2003 I called and asked how I could become a member. The lady asked if I or any member of my family was active in or retired from the military or if any of us were acive or retired city, state, federal or local government workers. I replied, "Yes." She said "great" and immediatly gave me a membership number, asking absolutely nothing about where I had worked. I booked  a last minute deal because I wanted to be with an elderly family member who was in a hospital in Florida. (I live in NY). *RCI* said there was nothing available, yet I received an* RCI* confirmation by mail from Gov.Arm. 

I shared this information with members of our NY owners group and many of them joined and booked weeks with no questions asked about their eligibility.  

Fast forward to the Email I received today.   They have a special offer for timeshare owners. 

"Plan ahead and be rewarded. If you deposit your week with Trading Places, GovArm's preferred exchange company by February 1, 2010 you'll receive a Bonus Week. Travel to your choice of hundreds of resort destinations, based on availability.
You have a CHOICE in EXCHANGE Companies!
Why Trading Places? 
•  No annual membership fees 
•  Low exchange fees 
•  Search first option 
•  New exchange online option
For more information, call Trading Places'
Exchange at 800-365-7617

AT the bottom of the page, in very fine print (words highlighted by me):

Condo Vacation Getaway Terms and Conditions
*CCondo Vacation Getaway* offers are *provided by Worldwide Vacation & Travel Inc. *(WVT), a Florida corporation with a principal place of business at 9995 S.W. 88th Street, Miami, Florida 33176-1720, *on behalf of Interval International, Inc*., a Florida corporation with a principal place of business at 6262 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33143. 

So now we see an alternate exchange company (TPI) marketing weeks through an outlet that was (and may still be) an RCI company (Gov.Arm.com) on behalf of I.I.


----------



## Carolinian

II has been in the rental business, too, but in a far more restrained way than RCI.  If RCI's ''settlement'' goes through, it will be a green light to II to do more, and we can expect that to happen.

As to TPI, their members need to rattle their cage about whether they are or will put their own deposits into this rental program.  This question should really be raised in an Ask TPI forum, but individual pointed questions sent to TPI are important, too.

I recall the demise of DAE's old Swiss office, which was a franchise.  They were caught renting exchange deposits to the general public and were kicked out of DAE for doing it.  We need to reward exchange companies with that type of integrity, while expsoing to as many fellow timesharers as possible the slimeballs which rent out our exchange deposits to the general public,





Jennie said:


> I just received a glossy Email ad from Gov.Arm.com --Government and Armed Forces Travel Cooperative. As many long-time TUG members know, they have been around for years renting timeshare units from RCI-affiliated resorts, at low prices. Most of their inventory consisted of off season weeks at mediocre resorts--the type of weeks that would be vailable as "Last Call" on RCI.
> 
> In 2003 I called and asked how I could become a member. The lady asked if I or any member of my family was active in or retired from the military or if any of us were acive or retired city, state, federal or local government workers. I replied, "Yes." She said "great" and immediatly gave me a membership number, asking absolutely nothing about where I had worked. I booked  a last minute deal because I wanted to be with an elderly family member who was in a hospital in Florida. (I live in NY). *RCI* said there was nothing available, yet I received an* RCI* confirmation by mail from Gov.Arm.
> 
> I shared this information with members of our NY owners group and many of them joined and booked weeks with no questions asked about their eligibility.
> 
> Fast forward to the Email I received today.   They have a special offer for timeshare owners.
> 
> "Plan ahead and be rewarded. If you deposit your week with Trading Places, GovArm's preferred exchange company by February 1, 2010 you'll receive a Bonus Week. Travel to your choice of hundreds of resort destinations, based on availability.
> You have a CHOICE in EXCHANGE Companies!
> Why Trading Places?
> •  No annual membership fees
> •  Low exchange fees
> •  Search first option
> •  New exchange online option
> For more information, call Trading Places'
> Exchange at 800-365-7617
> 
> AT the bottom of the page, in very fine print (words highlighted by me):
> 
> Condo Vacation Getaway Terms and Conditions
> *CCondo Vacation Getaway* offers are *provided by Worldwide Vacation & Travel Inc. *(WVT), a Florida corporation with a principal place of business at 9995 S.W. 88th Street, Miami, Florida 33176-1720, *on behalf of Interval International, Inc*., a Florida corporation with a principal place of business at 6262 Sunset Drive, Miami, Florida 33143.
> 
> So now we see an alternate exchange company (TPI) marketing weeks through an outlet that was (and may still be) an RCI company (Gov.Arm.com) on behalf of I.I.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*You Don't Like It - Do Something About It!*



> *NickSeaGarden said:* How can RCI rent my unit and not give me part of the rental income??



Nick, I am assuming that your question was not meant to be retorical.

RCI, in their opinion can do anything they want with your deposited week including rental of the week to any member of the general public.  

Until a Court of Law says they cannot RENT your unit, they are more likely than not going to go ahead and RENT IT without giving you ZIP!

If the current proposed settlement wins the approval of the U. S. District Court, RCI will be able to point to the Court decision as validation that they can RENT your Unit without giving you anything but the opportunity to request an exchange which may or may not ever be consummated. 

Once RCI gets the Court validation of the proposed settlement every other "Exchange Company" is likely to jump in the same pond. So don't count on getting good Exchanges through World Wide Exchange Companies in the futrue. 

The only realistic hope we have at this point is getting you and hundreds of other RCI Members to realize how important it is to object and to get you to spread the word!


----------



## crazyhorse

*AdamCort77* Post 712

I know I should not butt in before Susan has had a chance to answer your remarks, but on a few points:

*1st question:* A few years ago there was much discussion in the Tuggs boards about the fairness of the "benefits" that Points members had versus Weeks members. I do not want to raise these again so I won`t!
However, Points members cannot be presently too happy with their lot, *because a similar court case (to the Weeks owners) against RCI regarding their exchange practices is also going through the US courts.*

*2nd question:* I see your point regarding discounted products, and in many cases this is valid commercial business. However if a product, say your Armani coat has been obtained in a dubious manner, *then offered for sale at below* *cost price*, then the sellers may have a case to answer. Think also of "unfair" practices such as illegal downloading, copyright infringement, black market sales. Some practices are clearly against the law, but others are in "grey areas" and this is where the courts come in to argue the issues, for and against, and this is exactly where we are with this Class Action against RCI.

*3rd question:*Have you calculated exactly how much that Hyatt room cost you? *Have you added up the exchange fee, plus the maintenance fee on **your own resort?* Is this sum less than what you would have paid if you had booked directly with Hyatt, or with a Hotel Booking agency?


----------



## zgreg9

*Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report Highlights- PART 1*

*PART 1*

*2009 Annual Meeting — Held May 12, 2009*

*Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report*

http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/docs/2008-Annual-Report-on-Form-10-K.pdf

I have reviewed *Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report *to see what was contained in the report concerning legal proceedings and to see if anything was in written form concerning taking exchange weeks for rental inventory.   I found on page 14 (16 of 133) a sentence under *VACATION RENTALS  *stating that “*In addition……we market inventory from our vacation exchange business…”; *but did not explain which, why, how or under what terms and conditions they market exchange inventory for rental.  
Below please find highlights from the report.  (Bold face, highlights and underscoring are by me).

from page 9 (11 of 133) CENTRAL RESERVATIONS & INTERNET BOOKINGS through *RCI EXCHANGE CENTRES *

"*Central Reservations and Internet Bookings*
In 2008, we booked on behalf of our franchised and managed hotels approximately 3.5 million rooms by telephone, approximately 13.3 million rooms through the Internet and approximately 2.4 million rooms through
global distribution systems, with a combined value of approximately $1.5 billion in bookings. Additionally, our global sales team generated leads for bookings from group and meeting planners, tour operators, travel agents,
government and military clients, and corporate and small business accounts. *We maintain contact centers in Saint John and Fredericton, New Brunswick, Canada; Aberdeen, South Dakota; and Manila, Philippines that handle bookings generated through our toll-free brand numbers.* We maintain numerous brand websites to process online room reservations, and we utilize global distribution systems to process reservations generated by travel agents and *third-party Internet booking sources, including Orbitz.com, Hotwire.com, Travelocity.com, Expedia.com, Hotels.com
and Priceline.com. *To ensure we receive bookings by travel agents and third-party Internet booking sources, we also provide direct connections between our central reservations system and some third-party Internet booking sources.
The majority of hotel room nights are sold by our franchisees to guests who seek accommodations on a walk-in basis or through calls made directly to hotels, which we believe is attributable in part to the strength of our lodging
brands and loyalty program. Through our various channels such as telephone, Internet, loyalty program and global distribution systems, we booked approximately 33% of the total system’s gross room revenues on behalf of our
franchised and managed hotels."

For complete *Group RCI Overview *go to report link and read from page 11 (13 of 133) to page 16 (18of 133) and for complete *WYNDHAM VACATION OWNERSHIP Overview *read from page 16(18 of 133) to page 24 (26 of 133)

from page 11 & 12 (13&14 of 133) 

*GROUP RCI*
*Vacation Exchange and Rentals Industry Overview*

The estimated $44 billion global vacation exchange and rentals industry has been a growing segment of the hospitality industry. Industry providers offer products and services to both leisure travelers and vacation property
owners, including owners of second homes and vacation ownership interests. The vacation exchange and rentals industry offers leisure travelers access to a range of fully-furnished vacation properties, which include privatelyowned
vacation homes, apartments and condominiums, vacation ownership resorts, inventory at hotels and resorts, villas, cottages, boats and yachts. Providers offer leisure travelers flexibility (subject to availability) as to time of
travel and a choice of lodging options in regions to which such travelers may not typically have ease of access to such choices. *For vacation property owners, affiliations with vacation exchange companies allow such owners to
exchange their interests in vacation properties for vacation time at other properties or for other various products and services. *Additionally, affiliation with vacation rental companies provides property owners the ability to have their properties marketed and rented, as desired and, in some instances, to transfer the responsibility of managing such properties.
*The vacation exchange industry provides to owners of intervals flexibility through vacation exchanges.*Companies that offer vacation exchange services include, among others *RCI *(our global vacation exchange business and the world’s largest vacation exchange network), Interval Leisure Group, Inc. (a third-party exchange company), and *numerous smaller companies*, some of which are solely internet based. In addition, some companies that develop vacation ownership resorts and market vacation ownership interests offer exchanges through internal networks of properties. To participate in a vacation exchange, an owner generally contributes intervals to an exchange company’s network and then indicates the particular resort or geographic area to which the owner would like to travel, the size of the unit desired and the period during which the owner would like to vacation. The exchange company then rates the owner’s contributed intervals based upon a number of factors, including the location and size of the unit or units, the quality of the resort or resorts and the time period or periods during which the intervals entitle the owner to vacation. The exchange company then generally offers the owner a vacation with a comparable rating to the vacation that the owner contributed. *Exchange companies generally derive revenues from owners of intervals by charging exchange fees for facilitating exchanges and through annual membership dues.* In 2007, *78% of owners of intervals were members of vacation exchange companies*, and approximately *three-fifths of such owners exchanged their intervals *through such exchange companies.
The overall trend in the vacation exchange industry has been growth in the number of members of vacation exchange companies. We believe that current economic conditions will result in slower growth in the near term, but
believe that the longer term trends will support a return to stronger growth. *Longer term*, we believe one factor supporting growth in the vacation exchange industry will be *growth in the premium and luxury segments of the vacation ownership industry through the increased sales of vacation ownership interests at high-end luxury resorts and the development of vacation ownership properties and products around the world*. In 2007, there were approximately *6.2 million members *industry-wide who completed approximately *3.6 million exchanges*. We believe
that *existing trends within the vacation exchange industry* reflect that timeshare vacation ownership developers are enrolling members in *private label clubs*, whereby the *members have the option to exchange within the club or through external exchange channels*. Such trends have a positive impact on the average number of members, but an opposite effect on the number of exchange transactions per average member and revenue per member.The vacation rental industry offers vacation property owners the opportunity to rent their properties to leisure travelers for periods of time when the properties are unoccupied. The *vacation rental industry is not as organized as the lodging industry in that the vacation rental industry*, we believe, *has no vacation rental-specific global reservation systems or brands.* The global supply of vacation rental inventory is highly fragmented with much of it being made available by individual property owners. Although these owners sometimes rent their properties directly, vacation rental companies often assist in renting owners’ properties without the benefit of globally recognized brands or international marketing and reservation systems. Typically, vacation rental companies collect rent in advance and, after deducting the applicable commissions, remit the net amounts due to the property owners and/or property managers. In addition to commissions, vacation rental companies earn revenues from rental customers through feesthat are incidental to the rental of the properties, such as fees for travel services, local transportation, on-site services
and insurance or similar types of products.
We believe that *as of December 31, 2008*, there were approximately *1.3 million and 1.7 million vacation properties available for rental *in the *United States and Europe*, respectively. In the *United States*, the vacation properties available for rental are primarily *condominiums or stand-alone houses*. In Europe, the vacation properties available for rental include individual homes and apartments, campsites and vacation park bungalows. Individual owners of vacation properties in the United States and Europe may own their properties as investments and may
sometimes use such properties for portions of the year.
We believe that the *overall demand for vacation rentals has been growing for the following reasons: *
(i) the availability of lower-cost and flexible transportation options; 
(ii) the *increased use of the Internet as a tool for facilitating vacation rental transactions*; 
(iii) the emergence of attractive, low-cost destinations, such as Eastern
Europe; and 
(iv) *increasing awareness of vacation rental options among Americans*. 

The *demand per year for vacation rentals in Europe and the United States is approximately 48 million vacation weeks,* 28 million of which are rented by leisure travelers from Europe. Demand for vacation rental properties is often regional in that leisure travelers who rent properties often live relatively close to such properties. Some leisure travelers, however, travel relatively long distances from their homes to vacation properties in domestic or international destinations. We believe that current economic conditions will result in slower growth in the near term, but believe that the longer term trends will support a return to stronger growth.
The destinations where leisure travelers from Europe, the United States, South Africa and Australia generally rent properties vary by country of origin of the leisure travelers. Leisure travelers from Europe generally rent
properties in European destinations, including Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Italy and Portugal. Demand from European leisure travelers has recently been shifting beyond traditional Western Europe, based on political stability across Europe, increased accessibility of Eastern Europe and the expansion of the European Union. *Demand by leisure travelers from the United States is focused on rentals in seaside destinations, such as Hawaii, Florida and the Carolinas, in ski destinations such as the Rocky Mountains, and in urban centers such as Las Vegas, Nevada; San Francisco, California; and New York City. Demand is also growing for destinations in Mexico and the Caribbean by leisure travelers from the United States*.*][If your exchange falls within this demand RCI probably will take your exchange for one of their rental inventories]*We believe that the overall supply of vacation rental properties has grown primarily because of the increasing desire by existing owners of second homes to gain an earnings stream evidenced by homes not previously rented appearing on the market.

from page 14 (16 of 133) *VACATION RENTALS*  Take note that Wyndham worldwide/Group RCI states that “*In addition……we market inventory from our vacation exchange business…”; *but does not explain which, why, how or under what terms and conditions they market exchange inventory for rental.  

*Vacation Rentals*

The rental properties we market are principally privately-owned villas, cottages, bungalows and apartments that generally belong to property owners unaffiliated with us. *In addition to these properties, we market inventory from our vacation exchange business and from other sources. *We market rental properties under proprietary brand names, such as *Endless Vacation Rentals by Wyndham Worldwide*, Landal GreenParks, Cottages4You, Novasol, Cuendet by Wyndham and Canvas Holidays, and through select private-label arrangements. *Most of the rental activity under our brands* takes place in Europe, the *United States *and Mexico, although *we have the ability to source and rent inventory in approximately 100 countries*. *Our vacation rentals business currently has relationships with nearly 45,000 independent property owners in 26 countries*, including the *United States*, United Kingdom, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Germany, Greece, Austria, Croatia, andcertain countries in Eastern Europe, the Pacific Rim and Latin America. *We currently make more than 1.3 million vacation rental bookings a year*. *Our vacation rentals business also has the opportunity to provide inventory to our 3.8 million vacation exchange members*. Property owners typically enter into one year or multi-year contracts with our vacation rentals subsidiaries to market the rental of their properties within our rental portfolio. Our vacation rentals business also has an ownership interest in, or capital leases for, approximately 10% of the properties in our rental portfolio under the Landal GreenParks brand.

END OF PART 1 

Greg


----------



## zgreg9

*Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report Highlights- PART 2*

*Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report Highlights- PART 2 *
*PART 2 (cont'd)*

*2009 Annual Meeting — Held May 12, 2009*

*Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report*

http://www.wyndhamworldwide.com/docs...-Form-10-K.pdf

from page 16 (18 of 133) *NET REVENUES by quarters in 2008* – generally higher in first and third quarter. Please go to above link to page F-44 (121of 133) to see *table 24 Selected Quarterly Financial Data—(unaudited)*


Please note that *50%* of vacation rental customers book reservations within 11 weeks (*77 days*) of departure date and *70%* book reservations within 20 weeks (*140 days*) of departure date. I hope our people (*Jennie and Susan2*) involved in negotiations with RCI if not already aware of this statistical information from Group RCI take this into account.  Based on this information I see no reason for RCI taking deposited weeks presently between 12-24 months from expiration for their rental inventory.  It would be okay with me if RCI takes only those weeks that will expire within 60 or even 90 days (exact extend to be negotiated) and make them available *simultaneously* for exchange without any restrictions within the last 45 days and also for their EXTRA VACATIONS and LAST CALL vacations rental inventory.  Group RCI sophisticated booking rental reservation system is capable of handling this now.  Once this week is exchanged or rented it is removed from the other inventory.  

"*Seasonality*

*Vacation exchange and rentals revenues are generally higher in the first and third quarters* than in the second or fourth quarters. *Vacation exchange transaction revenues are normally highest in the first quarter*, which is generally when members of RCI plan and book their vacations for the year. Rental transaction revenues earned from booking vacation rentals to rental customers are usually highest in the third quarter, when vacation rentals are highest. *More than half of our vacation rental customers *book their reservations within *11 weeks of departure dates *and *more than 70% of our rental customers *book their reservations within *20 weeks of departure dates*. In 2008, these trends
changed and booking windows shortened, however, we cannot predict whether this booking trend will continue in the future."


from page 16 (18 of 133) *COMPETITION for EXCHANGE & RENTAL BUSINESSES – in U.S. - HomeAway, ResortQuest *

'*Competition*

The vacation exchange and rentals business faces competition throughout the world. Our vacation exchange business *competes with Interval Leisure Group, Inc.* which is a third-party international exchange company, *with
regional and local vacation exchange companies and with Internet-only limited service exchanges*. In addition, certain developers offer exchanges through internal networks of properties, which can be operated by us or by the developer, that offer owners of intervals access to exchanges other than those offered by our vacation exchange business. Our vacation rentals business faces competition from a broad variety of professional vacation rental managers and rent-by-owner channels that collectively use brokerage services, direct marketing and the Internet to market and rent vacation properties. For rentals in Europe these include Center Parcs, HomeAway, Interhome, Inter Chalet and Pierre et Vacances. *In the U.S., these companies include HomeAway and ResortQuest.*"

page 28 (30 of 133)  *WHERE TO FIND MORE INFORMATION*
We file annual, quarterly and current reports, proxy statements and other information with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Our SEC filings are available to the public over the Internet at the SEC’s website at
http://www.sec.gov. Our SEC filings are also available on our website at http://www.WyndhamWorldwide.com as soon as reasonably practicable after they are filed with or furnished to the SEC. You may also read and copy any
filed document at the SEC’s public reference room in Washington, D.C. at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.20549. Please call the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 for further information about public reference rooms.
We maintain an Internet site at http://www.WyndhamWorldwide.com. Our website and the information contained on or connected to that site are not incorporated into this annual report.


page 35 (37 of 133)  *ACKNOWLEGEMENT of LEGAL PROCEEDINGS*

*ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS*

*Wyndham Worldwide Litigation*
We are involved in claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of our business including but not limited to: ......... *for our vacation exchange and rentals business—breach of contract claims by both affiliates and members in connection with their respective agreements,
bad faith, and consumer protection, fraud and other statutory claims asserted by members and negligence claims by
guests for alleged injuries sustained at resorts*; 


Go to page 38&39 (40 & 41of 133) *ITEM 6. SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA *table, towards the bottom of table under OPERATING STATISTICS see VACATION EXCHANGE and RENTALS revenues for 2008 (comparison available for 2007, 2006, 2005 and 2004 also) Read appropriate footnotes for more information.  

*REVENUE from EXCHANGE DUES & TRANSACTION FEES *= 3.67mil members x $128.37/member = *approx. 463.1 mil*

*REVENUE from RENTALS *= 1.347mil rental transactions x $463.10/transaction = *approx. 623.8 mil. * (*approx. $160.7 mil more *than from Exchanges)

page 42 (44 of 133) *VACATION EXCHANGE and RENTALS  *Take note of this sentence in the middle of the paragraph  *“Our vacation rentals business primarily derives its revenues from fees, which generally average between 20% and 45% of the gross booking fees for non-proprietary inventory, as compared to properties that we own or operate under long-term capital leases where we receive 100% of the revenue.”*

"*Vacation Exchange and Rentals*

As a provider of vacation exchange services, we enter into affiliation agreements with developers of vacation ownership properties to allow owners of intervals to trade their intervals for certain other intervals within our
vacation exchange business and, for some members, for other leisure-related products and services. *Additionally, as a marketer of vacation rental properties, generally we enter into contracts for exclusive periods of time with property owners to market the rental of such properties to rental customers. Our vacation exchange business derives a majority of its revenues from annual membership dues and exchange fees from members trading their intervals. Annual dues revenue represents the annual membership fees from members who participate in our vacation exchange business and, for additional fees, have the right to exchange their intervals for certain other intervals within our vacation exchange business and, for certain members, for other leisure-related products and services*. We
record revenue from annual membership dues as deferred income on the Consolidated Balance Sheets and recognize it on a straight-line basis over the membership period during which delivery of publications, if applicable, and other services are provided to the members. Exchange fees are generated when members exchange their intervals for equivalent values of rights and services, which may include intervals at other properties within our vacation
exchange business or other leisure-related products and services. Exchange fees are recognized as revenue, net of expected cancellations, when the exchange requests have been confirmed to the member. *Our vacation rentals business primarily derives its revenues from fees, which generally average between 20% and 45% of the gross booking fees for non-proprietary inventory, as compared to properties that we own or operate under long-term
capital leases where we receive 100% of the revenue.* The majority of the time, we act on behalf of the owners of the rental properties to generate our fees. We provide reservation services to the independent property owners and receive the agreed-upon fee for the service provided. We remit the gross rental fee received from the renter to the independent property owner, net of our agreed-upon fee. Revenue from such fees is recognized in the period that the rental reservation is made, net of expected cancellations. Upon confirmation of the rental reservation, the rental customer and property owner generally have a direct relationship for additional services to be performed.
Cancellations for 2008, 2007 and 2006 each totaled less than 5% of rental transactions booked. Our revenue is earned when evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred or the services have been rendered, the seller’s price to the buyer is fixed or determinable, and collectibility is reasonably assured. We also earn rental fees in connection with properties we own or operate under long-term capital leases and such fees are recognized when the rental customer’s stay occurs, as this is the point at which the service is rendered. 

Within our *Vacation Exchange and Rentals segment,* we measure *operating performance *using the following key operating statistics: 
(i) *average number of vacation exchange members*, which represents members in our vacation exchange programs who pay annual membership dues and are entitled, for additional fees, to exchange their
intervals for intervals at other properties affiliated within our vacation exchange business and, for certain members, for other leisure-related products and services, 
(ii) *annual membership dues and exchange revenue per member*,
which represents the total annual dues and exchange fees generated for the year divided by the average number of vacation exchange members during the year, 
(iii) *vacation rental transactions*, which represents the number of
transactions that are generated in connection with customers booking their vacation rental stays through us and
(iv) *average net price per vacation rental*, which represents the net rental price generated from renting vacation properties to customers divided by the number of rental transactions."

page 67 (69 of 133) *OTHER GUARANTEES/INDEMNIFICATIONS*; *ANOTHER SOURCE FOR ACQUIREING RENTALS for GROUP RCI (now renamed WYNDHAM EXCHANGE and RENTALS) and RCI * 

"*Other Guarantees/Indemnifications*. 
In the ordinary course of business, *our vacation ownership business provides guarantees to certain owners’ associations for funds required to operate and maintain vacation ownership properties in excess of assessments collected from owners of the VOIs.(Vacation Ownership Interests) *We may be required to fund such excess as a result of unsold Company-owned VOIs or failure by owners to pay such assessments. These guarantees extend for the duration of the underlying subsidy agreements (which generally approximate one year and are renewable on an annual basis) or until a stipulated percentage (typically 80% or higher) of related VOIs are sold. The maximum *potential future payments that we could be required to make under these guarantees was approximately $350 million as of December 31, 2008. *We would only be required to pay this maximum amount if none of the owners assessed paid their assessments. Any assessments collected from the owners of the VOIs would reduce the maximum potential amount of future payments to be made by us. Additionally, *should we be required to fund the deficit through the payment of any owners’ assessments under these guarantees, we would be permitted access to the property for its own use and may use that property to engage in revenue-producing activities, such as rentals. **During 2008, 2007 and 2006, we made payments related to these guarantees of $7 million, $5 million and $6 million, respectively.* As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, we maintained a liability in connection with these guarantees of $37 million and $30 million, respectively, on our Consolidated Balance Sheets."

*END OF PART 2*

*FYI*

Greg


----------



## Carolinian

This is all very interesting.  From my knowledge of resorts on the OBX, I have never heard of an HOA-run resort having any such arrangement with RCI.  This must be a developer thing.

RCI's claim that 78% of timesharers are members of exchange companies is also something I question.  On the OBX among weeks-based HOA-run resorts, the figure as to members who deposit is 30% or under, and while some members waste their money on dues to something they do not use, I do not believe the number is that great.  In resorts I have recently traded into in Germany and France, according to the managers, it is considerably less than even that at their resorts.





zgreg9 said:


> *Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report Highlights- PART 2 *
> *PART 2 (cont'd)*
> 
> *2009 Annual Meeting — Held May 12, 2009*
> 
> *Wyndham Worldwide 2008 Annual Report*
> 
> 
> "*Other Guarantees/Indemnifications*.
> In the ordinary course of business, *our vacation ownership business provides guarantees to certain owners’ associations for funds required to operate and maintain vacation ownership properties in excess of assessments collected from owners of the VOIs.(Vacation Ownership Interests) *We may be required to fund such excess as a result of unsold Company-owned VOIs or failure by owners to pay such assessments. These guarantees extend for the duration of the underlying subsidy agreements (which generally approximate one year and are renewable on an annual basis) or until a stipulated percentage (typically 80% or higher) of related VOIs are sold. The maximum *potential future payments that we could be required to make under these guarantees was approximately $350 million as of December 31, 2008. *We would only be required to pay this maximum amount if none of the owners assessed paid their assessments. Any assessments collected from the owners of the VOIs would reduce the maximum potential amount of future payments to be made by us. Additionally, *should we be required to fund the deficit through the payment of any owners’ assessments under these guarantees, we would be permitted access to the property for its own use and may use that property to engage in revenue-producing activities, such as rentals. **During 2008, 2007 and 2006, we made payments related to these guarantees of $7 million, $5 million and $6 million, respectively.* As of December 31, 2008 and 2007, we maintained a liability in connection with these guarantees of $37 million and $30 million, respectively, on our Consolidated Balance Sheets."
> 
> *END OF PART 2*
> 
> *FYI*
> 
> Greg


----------



## Happytravels

*letters?*



Jennie said:


> Don't worry at all about what to say. It's fine to just send in the form without any comments. The Judge has already been made totally aware of RCI's despicable practices. He legally he needs a large outpouring of objectors in order to justify declaring the proposed settlement unfair.
> 
> If that happens, RCI may decide to "get real" and agree to significant changes to the settlement. Otherwise RCI is facing a trial,  either before an intelligent judge who cares about justice being done, or a jury of our "peers". If ordinary people serving as jurors hear the facts  I'll bet  that a kinder gentler RCI will be reborn.
> 
> If you decide to put a statement in your "letter" you might want to say something like this: I object to the proposed settlement because it does not stop, or severely limit, RCI from removing deposited weeks from the spacebank and renting them to the public.
> 
> *But please, just send in the letter, even without any comment. It will help immensely.*
> 
> By the way, if you own more than one week, you just list the name and resort I.D. # of ONE week.
> 
> If you don't know your RCI number, call and ask for it at 800-338-7777
> 
> To look up your Resort I.D. go to www.rci.com and click on "Resort Directory" at the top of the home page. You do not have to log in to view it.



I have my letter/s all ready to go.  Do I need to send them to all three addresses?


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



zgreg9 said:


> *PART 1*
> 
> *2009 Annual Meeting — Held May 12, 2009*
> 
> . . .
> 
> *Vacation Rentals*
> 
> . . . We market rental properties under proprietary brand names, such as . . . Cottages4You, Novasol, Cuendet by Wyndham and Canvas Holidays, and through select private-label arrangements. *Most of the rental activity under our brands* takes place in Europe, the *United States *and Mexico, . . .
> 
> Greg



Has anyone heard of these companies?  Does anyone know which properties they rent, or what their websites are?


----------



## Jennie

Happytravels said:


> I have my letter/s all ready to go.  Do I need to send them to all three addresses?



Yes, it is necessary to send your objection letter, *with an original signature*, to the Court 
AND a copy to the attorney for the complainant 
AND a copy to the attorney for the Defendant (RCI).   

The original goes to:
Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08608

In the letter include                           

RE:  In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
       Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)

I _____(your name)____________________________________object to the proposed settlement. (Optional--you can state reasons, but it is not necessary).  

Include your address, telephone number, RCI number and the name and RCI Resort I.D number of *one *resort where you own. 

At the bottom, indicate that you will be sending a copy of the letter to:

cc: David C. Berman
     A Professional Corporation
     P.O. Box 111
     Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111

cc: David S. Sager, Esq.
     DAY PITNEY LLP                              
     P.O. Box 1945
     Morristown, N.J 07962


----------



## Egret1986

*Thank you, Jennie, for putting everything needed out there one more time!*



Jennie said:


> Yes, it is necessary to send your objection letter, *with an original signature*, to the Court
> AND a copy to the attorney for the complainant
> AND a copy to the attorney for the Defendant (RCI).
> 
> The original goes to:
> Clerk of Court
> U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
> 402 East State Street
> Trenton, N.J. 08608
> 
> In the letter include
> 
> RE:  In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
> Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)
> 
> I _____(your name)____________________________________object to the proposed settlement. (Optional--you can state reasons, but it is not necessary).
> 
> Include your address, telephone number, RCI number and the name and RCI Resort I.D number of *one *resort where you own.
> 
> At the bottom, indicate that you will be sending a copy of the letter to:
> 
> cc: David C. Berman
> A Professional Corporation
> P.O. Box 111
> Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111
> 
> cc: David S. Sager, Esq.
> DAY PITNEY LLP
> P.O. Box 1945
> Morristown, N.J 07962




My 3 letters are ready to go out in tomorrow's mail.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Landal Parks*



Susan2 said:


> Has anyone heard of these companies?  Does anyone know which properties they rent, or what their websites are?



Hello,

Landal Parks website is at:
http://www.landal.com/


----------



## crazyhorse

*Landal Again*



crazyhorse said:


> Hello,
> 
> Landal Parks website is at:
> http://www.landal.com/



The website shows under "about Landal" that there are about 11000 holiday homes, (mainly in Netherland camps) and about 70% of the homes are privately owned. Some people rent out these homes, and they are rented out by Wyndham.(i.e. RCI). *Stated:Landal GreenParks is part of the division called Wyndham Exchange and Rentals.*

There is no mention of timeshare that I can see, but as I have mentioned elsewhere, the properties *do* appear in the RCI exchange Pool and Members have definitely exchanged into them.

Clearly RCI just swap one of these for a deposited week which has better monetary rewards for them.


----------



## bonniedwan

Jennie,

Thank you for all of your help. My 3 letters are going in the mail today!! Here's to hoping for a better tomorrow!!! 

Bonnie L. Johnston


----------



## Stricky

I really doubt the upper management of Wyndham have a clear understanding of the lawsuit or the issues at hand. The company is huge (take a look at the bottom of this page)

That said, if you would also like to share your displeasure with this whole situation you may communicate with the board of directors by writing to:
Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
c/o Corporate Secretary
Seven Sylvan Way
Parsippany, New Jersey 07054


----------



## Egret1986

*Huh?????  What question?  It was a "Thank You" for putting the info out there for all*



Stephan said:


> Ironically, your question whether we must mail three redundant copies of our objections will hopefully be decided this Wednesday at a court hearing and Judge Sheridan is suppose to be reviewing these posts possibly this morning.



I am simply going by the info provided through email by the Settlement Administrator, which many received.  Jennie is reiterating what is required.

From the document sent by the Settlement Administrator:

"Mail the objection to these places postmarked no later than November 20, 2009."  Then the three addresses were listed.

Redundant?  Definitely.  But that is what is stated needs to be done to object:

15.  How do I tell the Court that I don't like the settlement?

".....Be sure to include your name, address, telephone number, your signature, and the reasons you object to the settlement."


*THANK YOU AGAIN, JENNIE, FOR PUTTING THE INFO OUT THERE FOR EVERYONE!*  

Folks, if you object to what RCI is doing, then take the time and the three postage stamps and get those letters in the mail.  Don't put it off.  Today is November 2, 2009.  

PS.  Be sure to include the required info and signature.


----------



## Jennie

Stricky said:


> I really doubt the upper management of Wyndham have a clear understanding of the lawsuit or the issues at hand. The company is huge (take a look at the bottom of this page)
> 
> That said, if you would also like to share your displeasure with this whole situation you may communicate with the board of directors by writing to:
> Wyndham Worldwide Corporation
> c/o Corporate Secretary
> Seven Sylvan Way
> Parsippany, New Jersey 07054



That's an excellent idea!


----------



## FreddieJames

*ATT gets a big discount*

I learned this summer that AT&T has a new benefit, cheap RCI weeks!  Yes, as an employee, you can log in to rci.com just like a timeshare owner and rent weeks for an average of $350 per week.  As an employee I am elated, as a timeshare owner and depositor who has had a very hard time getting a decent exchange, I feel robbed.  When I called RCI about this, they assured me the weeks they rent to AT&T are not RCI member deposited weeks.  Just where else does RCI get weeks?


----------



## BigElm

FreddieJames said:


> I learned this summer that AT&T has a new benefit, cheap RCI weeks!  Yes, as an employee, you can log in to rci.com just like a timeshare owner and rent weeks for an average of $350 per week.  As an employee I am elated, as a timeshare owner and depositor who has had a very hard time getting a decent exchange, I feel robbed.  When I called RCI about this, they assured me the weeks they rent to AT&T are not RCI member deposited weeks.  Just where else does RCI get weeks?



Did you really expect RCI to tell you the truth? Heck, that's the reason we're in this thread. Fighting for our rights!


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Folks,

If you have not already sent in your Objection PLEASE do so ASAP!

Don't wait for other TUGGERS to do what you yourself should be doing.

*OBJECT!!!*​
It really is a very simple process.  TUG BRIAN has set-up a website where you can just follow the simple instructions, print out an Objection Form and OBJECT.

Check It Out:  http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html


----------



## Carolinian

RCI is lying to you.  Yes, there are some developer weeks deposited by developers who are still in sales.  But a lot of the rental weeks come from sold out Weeks-only resorts, and except for a handful associated with a cruise or PFD are member exchange deposits.  Having been on an HOA board, I have looked through the RCI rentals our sold out Weeks-only resort had come in, and they were all member exchange deposits.  Our members are pretty well educated that cruise exchanges are a rip-off and few are in Points elsewhere.  One Tugger at a nearby resort found her own exchange deposit of a prime summer week being offered by RCI as a rental.




FreddieJames said:


> I learned this summer that AT&T has a new benefit, cheap RCI weeks!  Yes, as an employee, you can log in to rci.com just like a timeshare owner and rent weeks for an average of $350 per week.  As an employee I am elated, as a timeshare owner and depositor who has had a very hard time getting a decent exchange, I feel robbed.  When I called RCI about this, they assured me the weeks they rent to AT&T are not RCI member deposited weeks.  Just where else does RCI get weeks?


----------



## Elli

Sent my 3 letters yesterday.    Elli


----------



## Jennie

Elli said:


> Sent my 3 letters yesterday.    Elli


----------



## Jennie

FreddieJames said:


> I learned this summer that AT&T has a new benefit, cheap RCI weeks!  Yes, as an employee, you can log in to rci.com just like a timeshare owner and rent weeks for an average of $350 per week.  As an employee I am elated, as a timeshare owner and depositor who has had a very hard time getting a decent exchange, I feel robbed.  When I called RCI about this, they assured me the weeks they rent to AT&T are not RCI member deposited weeks.  Just where else does RCI get weeks?



Why don't you ask them to put that in writing! 

Where RCI gets the weeks they rent to the public is their biggest secret and, we believe, for good reason. 

I have established a liaison with Managers of some of the smaller, "independent" resorts.  They are tracking the source of weeks being used via reservations from non-owners.  When an owner wants to deposit a week with RCI by phone or on-line, RCI contacts the resort to verify that the person still owns the week and is up-to-date on payment of maintenance fees and any other assessments. The Manager therefore knows the date a particular week is deposited.

When someone subsequently arrives to check-in to that unit, the Manager examines the reservation form and determines if it is a true exchange, or if it has come through a rental program. By all accounts, people who rent these deposited weeks from a variety of websites have been showing up with reservation papers that look exactly like an RCI exchange--with RCI logo and all. But there are ways to determine if it is a rental by closely examining some coded information on the form. Or by just asking the "inbound" (resort speak for arriving guest) the source of their reservation. The date the reservation is made also appears on the form. 

By looking for, and keeping records of the above, if it is found that a rented week has been reserved within the 31 day "exclusivity period", then it can be brought back to the Federal Court as a violation of the terms of the settlement, and there are severe penalties available. 

The major problem is that if the grossly inadequate proposed settlement is ratified as is, RCI would only be required to keep "hands off" *deposits made more than one year before the check-in date*, and then only for 31 days. Virtually no "floating week" member can get their week deposited in time to meet this restriction. Remember that even if you do not own a floating week, you may still be adversely affected by this rule because float weeks (which are converted into a specific week by the owner or resort at the time of depositing it) may well be weeks you would be happy to receive as an exchange.

And almost all RCI members would have to pay maintenance fees well in advance of their actual due date in order to be able to deposit the week more than one year in advance. This is an additional burden to many in these difficult economic times. Let's say you own a fixed deeded week Week 50 (mid December) and you want to deposit your 2010 and 2011 weeks now. You would have to pay the 2010 and 2011 maintenance fees now, even though the 2011 fees would ordinarily not have to be paid until December 2010. 

There really needs to be a much more robust "exclusivity period" for ALL deposits, if the settlement won't prohibit all rental of space-banked weeks.


----------



## Jennie

Carolinian said:


> . One Tugger at a nearby resort found her own exchange deposit of a prime summer week being offered by RCI as a rental.


I remember reading that post but haven't been able to find it. Do you happen to know the Forum and post # for it.

We are collecting examples of situations like this to include in the objection summary to present to the Court.

If anyone else has some proof that a desirable deposited week was rented to the public, please let me know either here on this forum, or by PM.


----------



## Tia

I am a former RCI member and don't see where the cash $15 option is in the options below, _or did I click something wrong on the online claims form somewhere_?  




Jennie said:


> If you are a Settlement Class Member who is currently a Member in good standing, you may select one of the following five options:
> 
> *Option 1: *
> 
> Choose to have the opportunity to search Inventory and make an Exchange Request before actually making a deposit on your Vacation Time, and continue to the process of searching Inventory and making Exchange Requests until the date on which you effectuate an Exchange or two years after the Effective Date, whichever is sooner.
> 
> You will not have to pay an Exchange Fee in connection with the use of Request First unless and until an Exchange Confirmation is made. If the Request First search identifies a desired Exchange, you must Deposit the Vacation Time at the Time of the Exchange to confirm the Exchange.
> If you have a previous, unexpired Deposit, you may not use it in connection with this Request First benefit, which applies only to new Deposits. You will be provided with more information about how to use this benefit, but when you are ready to use it, you will have to provide the following information to RCI: (i) the starting and ending dates, (ii) resort I.D., and (iii) the bedroom size and kitchen size of your Vacation Time to be deposited. The starting date of your Vacation Time must be at least nine months after you initiate such a search and Exchange Request in connection with this Request First benefit.
> 
> *OPTION 2:* Membership Renewal Credit. Choose one of the following Membership Renewal Credit options, depending upon when your current membership expires.
> 
> (a) My RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership expires within two years of the Effective Date, and I would like a two-month extension of my RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership; OR
> 
> (b) My RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership expires more than two years after the Effective Date, and I would like (please select one of the following):
> 1. a two-month extension of my RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership; or
> 2. a $20 credit toward a RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership renewal, which will be added to my current subscription term; or
> 3. a $20 credit toward my next Exchange.
> 
> *Option 3*
> 
> Prorated Refund of Subscription Fees. If you want to immediately terminate your membership in the RCI Weeks Exchange Program, and to receive a prorated refund of your Subscription Fee and a full refund of fees paid for pending Exchange Requests
> 
> *Option 4:*
> Free Rental Night. If you want one free night stay at any RCI Rental offered as single night stays. This benefit must be used toward the same room of any paid Rental of at least one night. The Rental must be reserved within one year of the Effective Date. The Rental itself may occur at any time subject to availability.
> 
> *Option 5:*
> Cruise Certificate. If you want a $100 discount certificate per cabin to be applied toward the purchase of any Cruise offered by RCI, with the option of receiving additional $100 discount certificates (one per cabin) toward your purchase of up to three additional cabins for the same Cruise. You will be required to book any and all such Cruises within one year from the date this option is selected. The Cruises themselves may occur at any time subject to availability.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I have chosen Option 1 even though I deposit almost none of the weeks we own except our one "doggie week" (mistake made when I was young and dumb).
> 
> The other 18 weeks we own we generally use ourselves, or rent on Redweek or TUG and then use the money to rent what we want directly from another owner, keeping greedy RCI totally out of the loop.
> 
> We know many other owners who do the same. That's why Redweek's membership has risen to 1.3 million in the few years it has been in business. Many are RCI defectors--the ones who own the desirable (rentable) weeks that are no longer coming into the RCI spacebank.


----------



## Jennie

The 5 options noted in the post above are for *current *members.

Former members (between January 1, 2001 and August 31, 2009) have only one option. If you scroll down to Section 5 C of the link I sent to you, you will see:

"If you are not currently a Member, but were a member of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009, you may select
one of the following two benefits:
(1) a $15 payment from RCI; or
(2) a $15 credit toward a new RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership.

http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/pdf's/ClaimForm4.pdf


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *Jennie said: The 5 options noted in the post above are for current members.
> 
> Former members (between January 1, 2001 and August 31, 2009) have only one option. If you scroll down to Section 5 C of the link I sent to you, you will see:
> 
> "If you are not currently a Member, but were a member of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009, you may select one of the following two benefits:
> 
> (1) a $15 payment from RCI; or
> (2) a $15 credit toward a new RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership.
> 
> http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/pdf's/ClaimForm4.pdf*



*Because of one date mistake the above post may prove confusing.*

The correct wording here should be: 



> Former members (between January 1, *2000 *and August 31, 2009) have only one option. If you scroll down to Section 5 C of the link I sent to you, you will see:



*To Tia,*

If you are a FORMER RCI MEMBER, did you leave RCI because of a lack of Exchange Opportunities?

If so YOU should be objecting to the Settlement.

A former Member of RCI can claim the $15.00 and also OBJECT to the Settlement.

Please consider filing an Objection.  It is really very simple. You don't have to give reasons for your objection.  JUST OBJECT! 

Go here to print out an objection form and mail it to the Court with a copy to the two gentlemen mentioned at the bottom of the form.

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

Thank you in advance for OBJECTING!


----------



## Carolinian

Jennie said:


> I remember reading that post but haven't been able to find it. Do you happen to know the Forum and post # for it.
> 
> We are collecting examples of situations like this to include in the objection summary to present to the Court.
> 
> If anyone else has some proof that a desirable deposited week was rented to the public, please let me know either here on this forum, or by PM.



It was on the Exchanging board and the resort was Hatteras High


----------



## Carolinian

I have noticed that the Florida AG has been very active of late on timeshare issues.  If blocking the sellout / settlement on the class action in the Fairness Hearing fails, then maybe he would be an AG who would be receptive to bringing a state Consumer Protection lawsuit against RCI on the rental issue.


----------



## bass

I have a question about the class action lawsuit.   Earlier in the year I was sent a claim form by RCI that had to be returned by April 6, 2009. At that time I (stupidly or naively) chose the option 2 - a 2 month extension of my RCI membership.  I chose this option because my subscription to RCI ends 12/2010 and I hope not to renew (I still have 1 timeshare week that I hope I won't have by the end of next year - but that's another story).  The card that I received from RCI stated - If you have previously submitted a claim form, you do not have to submit a new claim form.   Are they referring to the claim forms sent earlier in the year?   The options were different at that time.  (the 2 year extention is not included nowhere to be found in the class action lawsuit).   They sure know how to confuse us.   Thanks.

Nancy


----------



## exyeh

*worldmark membership*

Hi, I have a question: I quit RCI last April (2009). My resort is Worldmark membertship. Can I do the objection as the week's owner? (I am trying to put worldmark as resort ID). And if it doesn't work, I have sheraton mountain vista week which in 2008 belongs to RCI (now is with II) Could I put that week? Does anyone know the resort ID at that time?
Thank you very much!
emily


----------



## zgreg9

*Example of Deposited Week Used By RCI for Rental*



Jennie said:


> I remember reading that post but haven't been able to find it. Do you happen to know the Forum and post # for it.
> 
> We are collecting examples of situations like this to include in the objection summary to present to the Court.
> 
> If anyone else has some proof that a desirable deposited week was rented to the public, please let me know either here on this forum, or by PM.



*Jennie:*

A *search of TUG BBS* should provide many examples such this one below from 2004 that I came upon by browsing tonight.

Greg


http://www.tug1.net/tugbbs1/Forum23/HTML/001789.html

suskey

TUG Member 
Posts: 671
From: Middletown, NJ Owner - Vistana, Orlando, Vistana Beach Club, DIK, Casa Del Mar,Aruba Casitas Del Monte
Registered: Dec 2000 	 posted 12-20-2004 03:58                     

*Count me as another long time RCI member(since 1985) who is ready to jump ship due to *RCI's questionable rental program. 
A few days ago I needed to cancel an internal exchange at a small resort I own in Palm Springs. Just to satisy my own curiosity, *I checked both the availability for an exchange and the bonus week/rental section online right before I called and released the unit. Before...my unit did not appear in either a search or rental..after I released it..VOILA!!!- there was the week as a rental..within minutes!!! *My question is this...I am currently looking for a week in Las Vegas. There are MANY rental weeks, but no exchanges available. Does RCI ever switch from the rental section to an exchange as the date gets closer and no rental occurs and a member has an online search going on for the resort that appears as a rental? RCI seems to have no problem taking members weeks and making them rentals, so does it work the other way??? 
Oh. by the way...*after seeing the above for myself...that will be the last week I ever deposit a week in the RCI system.* Add me to the long list of dissatisfied customers who feel RCI is engaging in dishonorable business practices. 
------------------
Susan 
IP: Logged

Madge

TUG Member 
Posts: 3568
From: Carmel, IN
Registered: Jan 2003 	 posted 12-29-2004 10:17                 

Susan, 
*Rental units that are not confirmed are indeed rolled into the exchange program as travel dates get closer - usually less than 7 days before travel. *
*I've addressed the issue of rentals on TUG many times and expect it will continue to be a topic of interested discussion.* It is difficult for me to comment on a specific scenario I did not witness and cannot verify for myself. However, *it is possible for what you described to happen.* 
When members exchange their weeks for cruises or use Points Partners transactions, RCI rents space to cover the costs of those services. Since those members deposited inventory with RCI Weeks or RCI Points, but aren't taking a corresponding vacation back out, RCI has rental "credits" based on what the members deposited. These credits may or may not be redeemed in the form of the same units that were deposited. 
For example, a member who took a cruise exchange may have deposited his week a year prior and it would already have been assigned to someone for exchange. In that case, we would use something comparable to his unit for the rental credit. Comparability is based on the same guidelines as Trading Power. Or, we might use something that would provide similar rental value, but would be less scarce in the exchange program. That way, the unit in higher demand for exchanges would be kept in the exchange system. 
From a reconciliation standpoint, RCI actually has a surplus of rental credits at the moment. So, to date, the exchange system has actually benefited from the fact that more members have exchanged into non-exchange inventory than we have taken back for rental.
------------------
~ Madge


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> *Nancy asked the following question above:* I have a question about the class action lawsuit. Earlier in the year I was sent a claim form by RCI that had to be returned by April 6, 2009. At that time I (stupidly or naively) chose the option 2 - a 2 month extension of my RCI membership. I chose this option because my subscription to RCI ends 12/2010 and I hope not to renew (I still have 1 timeshare week that I hope I won't have by the end of next year - but that's another story). The card that I received from RCI stated - If you have previously submitted a claim form, you do not have to submit a new claim form. Are they referring to the claim forms sent earlier in the year? The options were different at that time. (the 2 year extention is not included nowhere to be found in the class action lawsuit). They sure know how to confuse us. Thanks.
> 
> Nancy



A member of the class in the RCI "Weeks" Class Action Lawsuit has the opportunity to OBJECT to the proposed settlement up until November 20, 2009.

The fact that the class member has submitted a claim form for one of the benefits offered by RCI does NOT prevent the class member from later sending in an Objection to the settlement.  

The right to file a claim and the right to object are separate rights provided to every member of the class.

*TO ANYONE READING THIS POST:*

If you are a member of the class, *you can object to the settlement *if you don’t like any part of it.

You do NOT have to give a reason for your objection. You can simply say:



> I object to the settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)



*NOTE:* If you do want to give reasons why you think the Court should not approve the proposed settlement please do so. The Court will consider your views.

But, if all you want to do is object and insure that the Court takes notice of your objection you can simply print out the Form Letter provided at rciclassactionlawsuit.com. To get direct access to the form letter use the link provided below.  Once at the Instruction page go to Informational Instruction # 6.  The site was set-up to help you and any other member of the class whose goal is to object.

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

Fill in the information required, send the original *SIGNED Form *to the Clerk of Court and mail a copy to each of the two gentlemen whose addresses are at the bottom of the form. 

Thank you for in advance for sending in your OBJECTION.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Sheraton Mountain Vista, Avon, CO RCI # 6060*



> *Emily said: *Hi, I have a question: I quit RCI last April (2009). My resort is Worldmark membertship. Can I do the objection as the week's owner? (I am trying to put worldmark as resort ID). And if it doesn't work, I have sheraton mountain vista week which in 2008 belongs to RCI (now is with II) Could I put that week? Does anyone know the resort ID at that time?
> Thank you very much!
> emily



Emily, the fact that you owned a week at Sheraton Mountain Vista when it was an RCI affiliated resort is sufficient for purposes of an objection to the proposed settlement.

You were a member of the class between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009.

Hopefully, you know the RCI account number that you had prior to quitting RCI.  If not you can probably get the number by simply calling RCI and asking them what your number was between 2000 and 2009.

The Sheraton Mountain Vista resort  in Avon, CO was listed in the RCI directory as RESORT # 6060.

For purposes of objecting to the settlement, I recommend that you identify RESORT # 6060 when you fill out the Form Letter which you can access at Instruction # 6 at the following Link: 

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*YES!  A EUROPEAN or British RCI MEMBER CAN OBJECT.*

On October 23rd at Post # 635 a Eurpoean that goes by the USERNAME: crazyhorse asked the following question:



> All this court action is taking place in the USA. I have been following the progress off and on for some years, but as a European member do I have any options?



*I have received a definitive answer to the following question:*



> ..., can a citizen of Continental Europe, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan or any place else in the world who owns an RCI affiliated Week participate as a "Member of the Class" in the Class Action Suit before the U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey?



The response was as follows:



> The definition of a class member does not depend on country of origin. If a person qualifies as a class member, he or she may participate in the settlement regardless of his or her country of residence or location of interval.



If you were an RCI Member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2000   and you owned a week of Vacation Time at any RCI affiliated Resort you can participate in the settlement which of course means you can also object to the proposed class action settlement or any part of the proposed settlement.

To get access to a simple Objection Form Letter go to:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

If you decide to object to the settlement get your objection postmarked and mailed on or before November 20, 2009. The earlier the better. 

Also, please share this infomation with others that you may know who are RCI Members or former RCI Members residing outside of the States.


----------



## Carolinian

This raises a serious notice issue.  Did they notify overseas members?





Goofyhobbie said:


> On October 23rd at Post # 635 a Eurpoean that goes by the USERNAME: crazyhorse asked the following question:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have received a definitive answer to the following question:*
> 
> 
> 
> The response was as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were an RCI Member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2000   and you owned a week of Vacation Time at any RCI affiliated Resort you can participate in the settlement which of course means you can also object to the proposed class action settlement or any part of the proposed settlement.
> 
> To get access to a simple Objection Form Letter go to:
> 
> http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html
> 
> If you decide to object to the settlement get your objection postmarked and mailed on or before November 20, 2009. The earlier the better.
> 
> Also, please share this infomation with others that you may know who are RCI Members or former RCI Members residing outside of the States.


----------



## Jennie

Carolinian said:


> This raises a serious notice issue.  Did they notify overseas members?



Hi Steve, I tried to contact you via TUG PM but received a message that your mailbox is full. 

Are you able to clarify for us if there is a difference between RCI Europe and the U.S. division which presumbly covers the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. And even the latter information has been received "second hand" and may not be accurate. 

Is RCI one large company with "branches" in other countries?


----------



## crazyhorse

Goofyhobbie said:


> On October 23rd at Post # 635 a Eurpoean that goes by the USERNAME: crazyhorse asked the following question:
> 
> 
> 
> *I have received a definitive answer to the following question:*
> 
> 
> 
> The response was as follows:
> 
> 
> 
> If you were an RCI Member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2000   and you owned a week of Vacation Time at any RCI affiliated Resort you can participate in the settlement which of course means you can also object to the proposed class action settlement or any part of the proposed settlement.
> 
> To get access to a simple Objection Form Letter go to:
> 
> http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html
> 
> If you decide to object to the settlement get your objection postmarked and mailed on or before November 20, 2009. The earlier the better.
> 
> Also, please share this infomation with others that you may know who are RCI Members or former RCI Members residing outside of the States.



Thanks for your research, Dave. 

As to Carolinian`s question regarding RCI notifying me regarding the situation,
I was well aware of the court case from the posts that have appeared here over the past two or three years. I was also aware of the "settlement" via this board, and had seen the posting both by RCI on their website and in one of the magazines that had been sent out. However I have not received either a personally addressed mail from them, *either through the post or via email. *
I can only assume that this is the case with other European members.

*As side issue on this*, I don`t know how _*many*_ European members have knowledge of this case nor the issues involved.      

I know that many resorts will have their own websites, but how many are featuring the situation? The clubs must know about what is going on, but are they are keeping quiet about it? Can we honestly expect any support there?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Earlier this afternoon, I sent an E-Mail to one of the counsel for the Plaintiffs in the RCI "Weeks" Class Action Lawsuit. 

*The pertinent part of my E-Mail made the following statement: *

The 2009 Directory of Affiliated Resorts (RCI publication DWK09) which was received by me in early October on page M5 says: 





> "RCI is the world's largest vacation exchange network, affiliated with more than* 4,000 resorts * in more than *100 countries*. More than *3 million member families *who live in* 200 countries *belong to RCI. A global network of more than 3,000 highly trained Vacation Guides assist members with planning their vacations. RCI.com offers 24 hour service."  (Emphasis added.)



*Then I asked the following question:*



> Please confirm whether or not the "Court-Ordered Legal Notice" from the SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR was in fact mailed to each and every one of those "WEEKS" Members that are *OR* were "Weeks" Members between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009.



*The following was the response:*



> The Court ordered notice program provided for publication notice to non US residents, in addition to the notice on RCI's website.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Msg For Any RCI Member Who Resides Outside of the United States!*

If you were an RCI “Weeks” Member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 *and you reside outside of the United States we need to hear from you.*

Please record here whether or not you received a written notice from the SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR between late September and today.

*The POST CARD should have said on the FRONT:*



> *You May be a Member of a Class Action Lawsuit About RCI Weeks® Timeshare Exchange Program*



On the opposite side of the PC you should have seen the following statement followed by other verbiage in exceptionally small print.



> *You May be a Member of a Class Action Settlement Regarding RCI Weeks® Timeshare Program and Entitled to Benefits *



If all you did was glance at the Post Card you may have gotten the impression that the overall purpose of the card was to tell you that you may be entitled to Benefits.

There was only one full sentence about objection that sentence said:



> You may also object to or comment on the Settlement


. 

That sentence was followed by this statement:



> Objections…must be filed with the Clerk of the Court by November 20, 2009 and mailed to Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant.



Even though you may NOT be a U. S. Citizen, you may be a Member of the Class and eligible to file a Claim for a Benefit and if you are a Member of the Class YOU DEFINITELY CAN SEND IN AN  OBJECTION.  

Even though the Post Card said that you must file with the Clerk of the Court by November 20, 2009 please *NOTE: * YOUR OBJECTION MUST BE POSTMARKED by November 20, 2009. 

*Again, please post here if you reside outside of the United States and did or did not get the above referenced notice.*


----------



## Jennie

If the response was:

"The Court ordered notice program provided for publication notice to non US residents, in addition to the notice on RCI's website" that would mean that RCI was allowed to publish the information in some publication instead of sending a postcard and Email notice to the members who reside outside the United States.

That's what they did the first go round with U.S. members. They published the first notice on page 94 of the March issue of Endless Vacations Magazine (that thing I toss into the reclycling bin without reading). RCI's attorneys  also said in Court that they had published it in USA Today newspaper in February. That was sure to get the attention of millions of RCI members, right?

At the "Fairness Hearing" in June, Shep Altshuler, Publisher of Timesharing Today Magazine, and Susan Collins, an attorney who is representing several Objectors, made a strong argument that the the members had received inadequate notice. The Judge agreed and ordered RCI to send a second notice by postcard and Email. 

If the members residing outside the U.S. did not receive at least an Email notice, I would think that that issue needs to be brought to the Court's attention.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Thirty One Days*

How many of us have noticed that this 31 days in the Terms of the Settlement is the maximum period that a "desirable week" would be available in the Exchange Pool?

When a member deposits his own week say a year or more out, he will have on average only 15 days to grab that "desirable" week. The reason is, that "desirable" week may have been sitting in the Pool for between zero days and 31 days, i.e. average of 15 days. The period may even be less than that, for there may be variations in time between how quickly RCI can verify deposits.

He is of course able to choose from one of the many other weeks in the Pool, some more desirable than others.


----------



## crazyhorse

crazyhorse said:


> How many of us have noticed that this 31 days in the Terms of the Settlement is the maximum period that a "desirable week" would be available in the Exchange Pool?
> 
> When a member deposits his own week say a year or more out, he will have on average only 15 days to grab that "desirable" week. The reason is, that "desirable" week may have been sitting in the Pool for between zero days and 31 days, i.e. average of 15 days. The period may even be less than that, for there may be variations in time between how quickly RCI can verify deposits.
> 
> He is of course able to choose from one of the many other weeks in the Pool, some more desirable than others.



I should say that this 15 days only applies to weeks that are in the Pool at the time (or just before) the member deposits his own week!!
Once he *has* deposited, he can still wait until a new suitable week appears, provided that new one is deposited at least a year before its start date.


----------



## regatta333

*Does RCI have to make a deposit available to an ongoing search inside of 1 Year?*

I have been reading the terms of the proposed settlement and as I understand it, RCI must make a deposit available to an ongoing search that has sufficient trading power even if it is within a year of check-in.

I have had an ongoing search request tied to a generic deposit for just over a year.  I had the VC place specific resort IDs in the search request.  Yesterday, I noticed that rental units had become available for one of the resorts for many dates in 2010, including dates that I was requesting.  When I called RCI, the guide told me that this resort ID was not in my search request.  Maybe this was simple error on the part of the VC who placed the original search request; I know it was not an error on my part as I keep records of all my requests with dates and resort IDs.  In any event, I had the resort added back to my search.  I'm probably getting paranoid about a simple error, but the resort has not been offered to me for exchange and now I guess I am out of luck.


----------



## Carolinian

Jennie said:


> Hi Steve, I tried to contact you via TUG PM but received a message that your mailbox is full.
> 
> Are you able to clarify for us if there is a difference between RCI Europe and the U.S. division which presumbly covers the U.S., Canada, Mexico, and the Caribbean. And even the latter information has been received "second hand" and may not be accurate.
> 
> Is RCI one large company with "branches" in other countries?



I am not sure if RCI North America covers the Caribbean or not.  I know there are some different policies that apply in the Caribbean as least as far as resorts are concerned.  A manager at one of the resorts there told me that they have to pay RCI an annual fee to be an affiliate, something US resorts do not have to do.  There are a number of differences that impact members between US and Europe.  Europe is a seperate division.

At one time at least two of RCI's overseas divisions were franchises, and that included South Africa.  However, I think that now they have been bought out and are all company owned.

BTW, you can PM me now if you wish.  I deleted some messages.


----------



## Kathleen

Dear Folks,

Is there a tutorial for what I'm supposed to do?

I do not log on often enough to keep up. My eyes roll back in my head every time I try to sort through these posts.

Help!

Thank you.

Kathleen


----------



## DeniseM

Here is a FAQ and a link to the form:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TU...ructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html


----------



## Kathleen

Dear Goofyhobbie,

Thanks for your speedy help.

Kathleen


----------



## Elli

Goofyhobbie said:


> If you were an RCI “Weeks” Member between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 *and you reside outside of the United States we need to hear from you.*
> 
> Please record here whether or not you received a written notice from the SETTLEMENT ADMINISTRATOR between late September and today.
> 
> *The POST CARD should have said on the FRONT:*
> 
> ​
> On the opposite side of the PC you should have seen the following statement followed by other verbiage in exceptionally small print.
> 
> ​
> If all you did was glance at the Post Card you may have gotten the impression that the overall purpose of the card was to tell you that you may be entitled to Benefits.
> 
> There was only one full sentence about objection that sentence said:
> 
> ​.
> 
> That sentence was followed by this statement:
> 
> ​
> Even though you may NOT be a U. S. Citizen, you may be a Member of the Class and eligible to file a Claim for a Benefit and if you are a Member of the Class YOU DEFINITELY CAN SEND IN AN  OBJECTION.
> 
> Even though the Post Card said that you must file with the Clerk of the Court by November 20, 2009 please *NOTE: * YOUR OBJECTION MUST BE POSTMARKED by November 20, 2009.
> 
> *Again, please post here if you reside outside of the United States and did or did not get the above referenced notice.*


Dave, I live in Canada and did not receive anything from RCI but, as mentioned in an earlier post, I did send my 3 letters.


----------



## Jennie

Kathleen said:


> Dear Folks,Is there a tutorial for what I'm supposed to do? I do not log on often enough to keep up. My eyes roll back in my head every time I try to sort through these posts.
> Help! Thank you. Kathleen



If you wish to file an objection, which most of us have decided to do, it's very simple. You can hand-write it or type it--whatever. There is no official form. Here's the procedure in a nutshell: (IT MUST BE POSTMARKED BY NOVEMBER 20TH)


Send an objection letter, *with an original signature*, to the Court
( If there are 2 or more owners listed on the RCI account, only one person's name and signature is required)
AND a copy to the attorney for the Plaintiffs 
AND a copy to the attorney for the Defendant (RCI is the defendant). 

The original goes to:
Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08608

In the letter include 

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)

I _____(your name)____________________________________object to the proposed settlement. (You can state one or more reasons for your objection, but it is not necessary to do so). 

Include your address
Telephone number 
RCI account number 
RCI Resort name and I.D number of* one* resort you own. 
If there are 2 or more owners listed on the RCI account, only one person's name and signature is required

At the bottom of your letter, indicate that you will be sending a copy to:

cc: David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111

cc: David S. Sager, Esq.
DAY PITNEY LLP 
P.O. Box 1945
Morristown, N.J 07962

If you also wish to claim one of the specified one time benefits, you can do so online at: http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/pdf's/ClaimForm4.pdf


----------



## Tia

I objected and mailed them. I  emailed a few friends who own timeshares with explainations given here re the RCI suit with links, and 2 replied saying thanks as they had not truely understood exactly what it all meant from the  tiny postcard they had gotten.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Tia,

Thanks for sending in your objection and for helping us spread the word.

The more objections we get actually sent in the better chance we have of making a difference.


----------



## Dori

I never did receive the postcard from RCI,so it's a good thing that I have been following this thread from the very beginning!  I'll be sending my objection this week.

Dori


----------



## fionahr

I am a member of RCI Asia Pacific - it's always been a separate company from the US RCI.  I've been a weeks member for 11 or 12 years.  Am I able to object or participate as well?

I really think weeks should remain in the exchange pool in trust for members, until very close to their expiry date, and then be available for rental within a short time frame.  In demand weeks would then never be available for rental, unless their owners chose to rent them instead of use them.


----------



## VCEC

I live in Canada and have not received *any* official notification of the proposed settlement.  I only learned of the importance of filing an objection at a recent Toronto TUG meeting.

Vern


----------



## Egret1986

*I mailed my three letters last week with my reasons for objecting to settlement*

I'm sorry I don't have more info at this time and it won't be available to me until some time tomorrow.  My husband indicated to me that a lawyer called and left a message on our answering machine regarding the RCI Class Action lawsuit and would like a return call.  He didn't know whether it was an RCI attorney or Plantiffs' attorney.

Has anyone else received a call like this?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Asia Pacific Has Been herard From!*



fionahr said:


> I am a member of RCI Asia Pacific - it's always been a separate company from the US RCI.  I've been a weeks member for 11 or 12 years.  Am I able to object or participate as well?
> 
> I really think weeks should remain in the exchange pool in trust for members, until very close to their expiry date, and then be available for rental within a short time frame.  In demand weeks would then never be available for rental, unless their owners chose to rent them instead of use them.



Fionahr,

Good to hear from someone who is a member of RCI Asia Pacific.  You are an RCI "Weeks" Member and therefore you are a Member of the Class in this Class Action Lawsuit. You can definitely file a claim AND most importantly you can send in an OBJECTION. 

For more on your status please go to page # 31 of this thread and start at Post # 752.  Recommend that you read through at least Post #757.

For instructions and a simple Form to make an objection go to this link:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

Thanks for letting us know of your interest and please spread the word. We need as many objections as we can get.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Many Canadians Have Not Received Notification.*



VCEC said:


> I live in Canada and have not received *any* official notification of the proposed settlement.  I only learned of the importance of filing an objection at a recent Toronto TUG meeting.
> 
> Vern



VCEC,

Thanks for checking in. 

We need your help to spread the word to others within Canada who may or may not have received an official notification. 

For informational instructions on how to object please check out this link:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Egret1986 said:


> I'm sorry I don't have more info at this time and it won't be available to me until some time tomorrow.  My husband indicated to me that a lawyer called and left a message on our answering machine regarding the RCI Class Action lawsuit and would like a return call.  He didn't know whether it was an RCI attorney or Plantiffs' attorney.
> 
> Has anyone else received a call like this?



Egret1986,

Your indication that you received a phone call from an Attorney is the first that I have heard about. Please share with us more information when it is available. It would be interesting to learn if the Plaintiff or Defense attorneys are following up after receiving their copies of our objection letters. 

I am aware that some objection letters have been received by the Court with incomplete information. Remember the Court has to be able to identify the objector as a legitimate member of the class. To do that *the Court needs **ALL of the required information about the RCI Member *including your RCI account number, Resort ID # and the name of your RCI affiliated resort.

For anyone who is not sure about what is required please go to the following link and review the Instructional Information provided. 

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

For anyone who wants to print off a FORM that provides a simple Objection Letter with places to provide all the correct information please go to the same link above and look for Informational Instruction # 6. 

We do not know at this time whether or not the Court will recognize objection letters that do not have all the information requested ; but we do know that the Clerk of Court is notating all letters about the RCI "Weeks" class action and stamping them with the date received.


----------



## HudsHut

exyeh said:


> Hi, I have a question: I quit RCI last April (2009). My resort is Worldmark membertship. Can I do the objection as the week's owner? (I am trying to put worldmark as resort ID). ...
> Thank you very much!
> emily



Does anyone know what Resort ID # to use for WorldMark?

In post 569 of this long thread, I found examples of reasons for objection to include in my letter. (I know I don't need to, but I appreciate the synopsis to quickly refer to.)

Thanks for the sample letter. Ours will go out tomorrow.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Which WorldMark?*

Hi Hudshut,

As you probably know there are many RCI Resorts within the Worldmark Club group of resorts. 

Examples:

WorldMark Wolf Creek Village Resort # 5595

WorldMark St. George  # 6382

WorldMark Bear Lake # 5880

WorldMark Oceanside # 7599

WorldMark Yosemite Northshore Estates # 4049

WorldMark Anaheim # 7602

WorldMark Wine Country Sonoma County # 7548

WorldMark Big Bear #4205

WorldMark Palm Springs # 3978

If your resort # has not been identified above share more information and I will look it up.


----------



## Egret1986

*Plantiffs Attorney Janelle Weling (on West Coast)*



Goofyhobbie said:


> Egret1986,
> 
> Your indication that you received a phone call from an Attorney is the first that I have heard about. Please share with us more information when it is available. It would be interesting to learn if the Plaintiff or Defense attorneys are following up after receiving their copies of our objection letters.
> 
> I am aware that some objection letters have been received by the Court with incomplete information. Remember the Court has to be able to identify the objector as a legitimate member of the class. To do that *the Court needs **ALL of the required information about the RCI Member *including your RCI account number, Resort ID # and the name of your RCI affiliated resort.
> 
> For anyone who is not sure about what is required please go to the following link and review the Instructional Information provided.
> 
> http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html
> 
> For anyone who wants to print off a FORM that provides a simple Objection Letter with places to provide all the correct information please go to the same link above and look for Informational Instruction # 6.
> 
> We do not know at this time whether or not the Court will recognize objection letters that do not have all the information requested ; but we do know that the Clerk of Court is notating all letters about the RCI "Weeks" class action and stamping them with the date received.



Anyone been contacted by this person?  I probably won't be able to call her until some time tomorrow.  I know I made what I considered to be some very valid points in my objection, but surely I'm not the only one to be contacted.


----------



## dneuser

Egret1986 said:


> I'm sorry I don't have more info at this time and it won't be available to me until some time tomorrow.  My husband indicated to me that a lawyer called and left a message on our answering machine regarding the RCI Class Action lawsuit and would like a return call.  He didn't know whether it was an RCI attorney or Plantiffs' attorney.
> 
> Has anyone else received a call like this?



I received such a call - and it could be very important that you answer the call if it is from Plaintiff attorney.

If the call came from Susan B. Collins - she is an attorney for Plaintiffs.  There may be others but I am not aware of their names.  She is representing my husband and I and others on this board.  How many - I'm not sure.

Reason you may be getting a call from Plaintiff Attorney - You may have sent in a letter of objection but also listed name of an attorney or no specific attorney's name but said you were being represented by an attorney in the body of the letter.  Susan has been contacting people whose letters have been questioned or rejected by RCI attorney's as being incorrectly filled out.  RCI attorney or attorney representative may be attempting to remove those objections letters as invalid such that the judge never has to consider them in his deliberations.

If you are being represented by an attorney, you need not submit an objection letter at all.  The attorney represents your interests and your objections are submitted as a group in a plea directly to the judge.  At least this way you know it gets to his ears and is heard.  Unfortunately, from what I gather, you cannot do both a letter and a legal representative.


----------



## Carolinian

If this is true, then RCI DELIBERATELY or incompetently put false information in the notice they have online.  According to section 15 of that notice, all that is required is name, address, and phone number.  That should void the notice or RCI should not be able to object when it is its own fault that people would not put that additional information in their letters.  This is just the sort of sneaky and underhanded trick one would expect from the likes of RCI.




Goofyhobbie said:


> Egret1986,
> 
> Your indication that you received a phone call from an Attorney is the first that I have heard about. Please share with us more information when it is available. It would be interesting to learn if the Plaintiff or Defense attorneys are following up after receiving their copies of our objection letters.
> 
> I am aware that some objection letters have been received by the Court with incomplete information. Remember the Court has to be able to identify the objector as a legitimate member of the class. To do that *the Court needs **ALL of the required information about the RCI Member *including your RCI account number, Resort ID # and the name of your RCI affiliated resort.
> 
> For anyone who is not sure about what is required please go to the following link and review the Instructional Information provided.
> 
> http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html
> 
> For anyone who wants to print off a FORM that provides a simple Objection Letter with places to provide all the correct information please go to the same link above and look for Informational Instruction # 6.
> 
> We do not know at this time whether or not the Court will recognize objection letters that do not have all the information requested ; but we do know that the Clerk of Court is notating all letters about the RCI "Weeks" class action and stamping them with the date received.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Tuggers Are Making A Difference!*

Good Afternoon Carolinian,



> If this is true, then RCI DELIBERATELY or incompetently put false information in the notice they have online. According to section 15 of that notice, all that is required is name, address, and phone number. That should void the notice or RCI should not be able to object when it is its own fault that people would not put that additional information in their letters. This is just the sort of sneaky and underhanded trick one would expect from the likes of RCI.



The Notice and the requirements of the Court have been inconsistent for some time. You would think that by now someone with the power to fix the inconsistencies would have done so. 

Before putting out my Informational Instructions, I did my best to get  accurate definitive information. 

The Summaries posted at RCI.com, including Section 15 of the Notice that you refer to above have left out necessary required information. 

I chose to include any information that was required in the Settlement Agreement, as filed with the Court on November 21, 2008.  In that document *more *information was required than what was published in the Summary that you referred to above.  To see the requirements which are in pdf format go to http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/courtdocs.htm and then go to page 268. 

Because the Settlement Agreement required *more rather than less information*, I chose the more information approach.

The Attorneys involved have been paid big bucks to get things right; but they are human and being human they make errors which confuse the rest of us.

*For Example: *Using the Actual Settlement Agreement as my guide, I originally published the address of the Plaintiff's Attorney to include his street address. (It was *MORE* information than was required; but the Settlement Agreement specifically included the street address.)

Guess what!  The Plaintiff's Attorney did not like the use of his street address so he indirectly contacted me and insisted that I change the address published at TUG and at www.rciclassactionlawsuit.com.

Before that address was changed to omit the street address many objection letters were filed using the Form Letter published at www.rciclassactionlawsuit.com. 

I can assure you that letters (properly completed), using the format provided meet the requirements of the Court with or without the street address of the Plaintiff's attorney included.

The fact that so many objectors have used that Form Letter is a testment to the fact that we here at TUG are making a difference.

For anyone looking for a simple way to file your objection please go directly to the Informational Instruction and scroll down to Informational Instruction # 6.  There you will find the Form Letter. A shortcut link is provided here:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html


----------



## HudsHut

Goofyhobbie said:


> Hi Hudshut,
> 
> As you probably know there are many RCI Resorts within the Worldmark Club group of resorts.
> ...
> If your resort # has not been identified above share more information and I will look it up.



Thank your for your reply. WorldMark owners do not have a "home resort", so that's why I am not sure what to put. I don't know if any WorldMark RCI # would suffice, or if there was a "generic code" that identified WorldMark owners in RCI's sytem.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

hudshut,

O. K. 

Look at your RCI Account Number.  

I called the RCI phone number for Worldmark owners (1-800-585-4833) and asked the Vacation Guide to ask his supervisor what you as a WorldMark Owner should use as your Resort Number as a claimant in the RCI "Weeks" Class Action Lawsuit. 

According to RCI the first four digits of your RCI account number would be the number you would use to identify your resort.  The resort name that you should use is simply "WorldMark."

Hope that helps.

Thank you in advance for your objection to the RCI "proposed settlement."


----------



## HudsHut

Thank you very much!


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*RE: Make a difference?‏*

Folks,

A member of the group of attorneys that we refer to as the Plaintiff's attorney's has asked me several times to have a conversation about the proposed settlement.

In her latest E-Mail she said: 



> Dear Dave,
> 
> Thus far,  you have declined my invitation to speak with me about the lawsuit, and yet I see from the chat forum that you seek to "make a difference". Just what difference do you seek to make?



My response a few minutes ago was as follows:



> O. K. you have access to the chat forum. I interact at many chat forums; but my primary interaction takes place at TUG.
> 
> On November 9th at Page 31 of the TUG thread entitled "Update: RCI Class Action Lawsuit" within my post # 770 I did say:
> 
> "The more objections we get actually sent in the better chance we have of making a difference."
> 
> If you have a problem with me publically saying I seek to make a difference that is your prerogative.
> 
> I will respond and thereby create a conversation with you at the Forum.
> 
> Look for the beginning of my conversation at 8:30 P. M. tonight.
> 
> Dave


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Open response to a request for a Conversation*

To the Plaintiff’s Attorney

The proposed RCI “Weeks” Class Action settlement in my opinion frustrates the expectations of RCI “Weeks” members who have deposited their respective “Vacation Time” for the benefit of the membership.  The settlement thwarts the fundamental purpose of the contract between RCI and their “Weeks” Membership. 

That contract that RCI refers to as its “Terms and Conditions” has since at least January 1, 2000  ostensibly set forth the relationship between a RCI “Weeks” Member and RCI.  It is known in legal circles as an adhesion contract. The essence of the contract from the perspective of the membership is to secure “Vacation Time” from the Spacebank ® which is comparable to what the member deposited for the benefit of other RCI members similarly situated.  Because the settlement that you have negotiated does not meet the expectations of the average RCI member, I am encouraging those members to object. 

Because an adhesion contract is by definition a contract where one party has significant power over the other, I feel compelled to point out to anyone who will listen that RCI is required to meet a higher standard or higher responsibility when dealing with their membership than would have been required if the contract had been drawn up at arm’s length between two reasonable individuals or businesses. 

That higher standard or responsibility carries with it an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing that in my opinion prohibits RCI from doing anything that would destroy or injure a member’s rights to the benefits of the contract.

I object to the modest restrictions in the proposed settlement.  It is extremely frustrating to any RCI member who owns timeshare weeks when RCI exploits that member’s expectation by breaching the fundamental purpose of the contract which is to effectuate exchanges with other members.  Instead of stopping RCI from breaching its implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, the settlement allows RCI to continue its practices with only very modest restriction for two years following the settlement.  

After that two year period RCI is free to do whatever it pleases regarding deposited “Vacation Time.”  If, and when RCI is forced to re-negotiate restrictions on its removal of “Vacation Time” from the Spacebank ® the new restrictions placed on RCI should be made permanent. 

RCI argues that it is replacing the valued weeks that it skims from the Space bank ® by replacing that “Vacation Time” with weeks it receives from developers, Hotels, HOAs and other sources. 

As a member of RCI, I and other members of RCI, have no objection to the rental of “Vacation Time” that RCI receives from non-member sources.  We also have no objection to RCI renting “Vacation Time” that has been deposited in exchange for the opportunity to go on a Cruise or to get other services through RCI.  But, we do not deposit our weeks so that RCI can cherry pick from those deposits and replace them with low demand weeks that are not comparable exchanges.

There is apparently nothing in the settlement that requires RCI to demonstrate to its members that RCI is treating the membership fairly when it takes deposited weeks and replaces them with weeks RCI receives from other sources.  Because of the lack of transparency, I am encouraging as many as possible to object to the settlement that the Plaintiff’s attorneys have agreed to.

RCI’s current business practice which is validated by the proposed settlement deprives a “Weeks” member (who does not have an on-going search in place) of the opportunity to access what RCI recognizes as high demand "Vacation Time" as soon as that “Vacation Time” is deposited and for a reasonable period of time thereafter.

It has been my observation that a relatively small percentage of RCI “Weeks” members can, in this economy, afford to pay their maintenance fees more than twelve months in advance of their “Vacation Time” check-in date.  So, under the terms of the proposed settlement those members have no access to the high demand “Vacation Time” that RCI chooses to skim from the Space bank ®.  Because of the inherent unfairness of the settlement in that regard I am encouraging as many members as possible to object to the settlement that the Plaintiff’s attorneys have negotiated.

I personally believe that RCI should be strictly limited in its ability to rent or otherwise dispose of weeks deposited by the RCI Weeks membership.  RCI does not recognize or honor any limitations today.  It is my opinion that the Court should not accept the proposed settlement. Seriously restricting RCI’s ability to remove “Vacation Time” for purposes other than providing that time to a dues paying exchanger is imperative to give efficacy to the contract between RCI and its Weeks members.


----------



## Egret1986

*I am aware of Susan Collins and have been reading and participating in this thread*



dneuser said:


> I received such a call - and it could be very important that you answer the call if it is from Plaintiff attorney.
> 
> If the call came from Susan B. Collins - she is an attorney for Plaintiffs.  There may be others but I am not aware of their names.  She is representing my husband and I and others on this board.  How many - I'm not sure.
> 
> Reason you may be getting a call from Plaintiff Attorney - You may have sent in a letter of objection but also listed name of an attorney or no specific attorney's name but said you were being represented by an attorney in the body of the letter.  Susan has been contacting people whose letters have been questioned or rejected by RCI attorney's as being incorrectly filled out.  RCI attorney or attorney representative may be attempting to remove those objections letters as invalid such that the judge never has to consider them in his deliberations.
> 
> If you are being represented by an attorney, you need not submit an objection letter at all.  The attorney represents your interests and your objections are submitted as a group in a plea directly to the judge.  At least this way you know it gets to his ears and is heard.  Unfortunately, from what I gather, you cannot do both a letter and a legal representative.



.....from the beginning.  As my previous post indicated, the call was from Janelle Weling who said that she was calling from the West Coast.  I will attempt to call her tomorrow.  I am just curious if anyone else has been contacted by this Plantiff attorney.


----------



## Carolinian

There is a term in the law for lawyers making such mistakes, whether intentional or negligent, and it is called malpractice.

There is another legal doctrine that _should_ stop them from being able to take advantage of their own screwup to suppress members letters, and that is the doctrine of estoppel.

The RCI and official plaintiffs lawyers really seem to be total slimeballs.



Goofyhobbie said:


> Good Afternoon Carolinian,
> 
> 
> 
> The Notice and the requirements of the Court have been inconsistent for some time. You would think that by now someone with the power to fix the inconsistencies would have done so.
> 
> 
> 
> The Summaries posted at RCI.com, including Section 15 of the Notice that you refer to above have left out necessary required information.
> 
> .
> 
> Because the Settlement Agreement required *more rather than less information*, I chose the more information approach.
> 
> The Attorneys involved have been paid big bucks to get things right; but they are human and being human they make errors which confuse the rest of us.


----------



## Jennie

Egret1986 said:


> The call was from Janelle Weling who said that she was calling from the West Coast.  I will attempt to call her tomorrow.  I am just curious if anyone else has been contacted by this Plantiff attorney.



Ms. Jenelle Welling is the Lead (or possibly co-lead) attorney from the San Francisco law firm of Green-Welling. This is the firm that brought the class action lawsuit against RCI. 

While we are not satisfied with the terms of the proposed settlement they have negotiated with RCI, Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person) who has undoubtedly tried to reach you for a valid reason. As a Plaintiffs' attorney, she and her firm represent all class members unless they have retained another attorney (such as Susan Collins) to represent them as an "objector", or have "opted out" of the settlement. Her firm receives copies of all the objections filed with the Court. You may have omitted a required piece of information, or failed to *sign* your name. She is probably contacting you to advice you of what change is needed to make your objection legally valid. 

By all means call her.


----------



## Carolinian

I would not trust the nominal ''plaintiffs counsel'' who sold us down the river on the sellout called a settlement.  They are in cahoots with RCI just to get their 7 figure legal fee.  Settling this case without having any discovery is just mindboggling and to me is completely unethical.  It does not surprise me at all that they would be trying to get objectors to withdraw their objections.  It makes their path to the gravy train of that million dollar plus fee less perilous.  That is all they seem to care about.  They certainly don't care about their clients.  If they get paid at all, let them get paid in those stupid trinkets they want us to be happy with.


----------



## DeniseM

*quote deleted*

[This is my personal opinion as a Timeshare owner - not as a Moderator]

When you read Stephan's posts, please remember that he is the guy that is asking the court to pay HIM (not his clients - HIM) *$250,000 *out of the RCI settlement.  

Notice that Stephan is only stating that he *"suspects"* that Ms. Welling is investigating Ms. Collin's client retention practices, *not that she actually is!*

Stephan has a ve$ted intere$t in trying to discredit Susan Collins, and in my _personal opinion_, this is an outrageous accusation!


----------



## london

*Lawyer Discredit*

It would appear that all the lawyers representing plaintiff's will be awarded some fee when all is said and done.

The larger law firms more fees, and the individual lawyers also a smaller fee.

Dependent on the number of clients they represent?


----------



## DeniseM

london said:


> It would appear that all the lawyers representing plaintiff's will be awarded some fee when all is said and done.
> 
> The larger law firms more fees, and the individual lawyers also a smaller fee.
> 
> Dependent on the number of clients they represent?



Not true - not all of the lawyers are ASKING for fees.


----------



## Carolinian

Susan Collins is IMHO the ONLY attorney is this action who has the interests of timesharers at heart and the ONLY one that can be trusted.  She is in it for principle not a 7 figure or even a quarter million payout.  She went to the last hearing without any expectation of being paid a cent.


----------



## thheath

*quote deleted*

I write again to emphasize it is very frustrating to be misunderstood when from day one 2.5 years ago when I started documenting the RCI exchange process I have diligently and zealously worked with no pay and at great risk to improve the RCI exchange process for class members. Ms. Collins work on this case has been tremendous and I am sure the court will reward her. There is no reason objecting attorneys goals would diverge, especially in a case like this were our main goal is to try and insure fairer exchanges.[/QUOTE]

Stephan, 
Is it true what some of the threads are saying that you are asking the court for $250K in fees and who retained you for this case?


----------



## DeniseM

thheath said:


> Stephan,
> Is it true what some of the threads are saying that you are asking the court for $250K in fees and who retained you for this case?



Just to clarify - this is not a matter of speculation - it is a fact that has been stated by Stephan, in court documents, that are a matter of public record:

1)  Until very recently his only client was his own father.  In a recent court document he stated that he is no longer representing his father, but he does have a new client, named in the document.

2)  He is asking for $250,000 from the RCI settlement.


----------



## DeniseM

Stephan said:


> Second most important question, DeniseM is Ms. Collins representing you? Again, this may raise a serious legal question.



I'll make you a deal Stephan, if you answer all the unanswered questions in this thread about YOU, I will be glad to answer your questions about ME!


----------



## stevedmatt

This is why our legal systems stinks. I have yet to meet a lawyer I trust, only those who I feel will represent my best interests because I am paying them plenty.

And a lawyer not being forthcoming is nothing new. Stephan, prove you're not an everyday lawyer and answer some questions.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> Susan Collins is IMHO the ONLY attorney is this action who has the interests of timesharers at heart and the ONLY one that can be trusted.  She is in it for principle not a 7 figure or even a quarter million payout.  She went to the last hearing without any expectation of being paid a cent.



Thanks, Carolinian! It's true that I AM in this mainly for the principle of it. What RCI is doing is simply wrong, and it's absolutely time to take a stand. 

That being said, however, at this point, your accolades (and those of DeniseM) may be undeserved.  While I ORIGINALLY had no notion of getting paid, at this point I would like very much to get paid. I have spent so much time on this case since the August hearing that I have had to turn down several paying clients just to keep up on this case. AND my personal life has been very attenuated, too (to the point of having arguments with family about my unavailability). Furthermore, my local counsel has expended so much time and energy that I think it would only be fair to see them compensated, too.  

If I were spending the time on normal and reasonable legal work (communicating with clients, responding to reasonable requests, drafting court papers based on reasonable grounds) I might feel differently.  However, the other attorneys in this case are forcing me to waste time responding to spurious claims and nonsensical allegations.  (It makes me consider the matrimonial bar in which I practice REALLY civil!)  One of these spurious claims is the oft-repeated accusation that I am somehow "soliciting" clients -- WHICH ISN'T EVEN NECESSARILY WRONG -- but which I have nevertheless NOT done, and also have repeatedly denied.  Since no one can show otherwise, there have also been claims that other clients of mine are soliciting clients on my behalf (which I have taken pains to ensure that they do not).  It doesn't even seem to matter that on my posts I have been careful NOT to eagerly accept clients who inquire about retaining me, much less suggest that they do so.  (Those who send me private messages are a different matter.)  I have also been careful to emphasize that there is no particular benefit to the people who retain me.  

Nor do I believe that if I get paid, it will be on a "per client" basis.  (I've never even heard of such a thing.)  An award of fees could be based on time spent and expenses reasonably incurred, but IMO it would make even more sense to base an award of fees (at least partially) on effectiveness of efforts for the class!   

It seems to me that the other attorneys involved are having difficulty understanding that people are attracted to what I say and do, rather than responding to some sort of "advertising."  In my regular practice, I don't advertise, either.  Not even in the telephone book, although I am listed in the yellow pages -- sometimes in tiny print, but sometimes in what is called "semi-bold."  That is, capital letters, but not bold print.  I do that so that people who are looking for me can find me among all the bolded names and advertising blurbs (not to mention all the full-page, half-page, and quarter-page ads).  I have been extremely fortunate that my clients find me without my reaching out to find them -- often by word of mouth.  

What makes me even angrier is that these other active attorneys have given grief to some of my clients who have become friends, and who have worked extremely hard on this case out of only the best of intentions, and completely unselfishly.  They have spent countless hours letting people know about the issues and the case, but their efforts have been derided, their motivations called into question, their tactics criticized, and their every public statement subjected to intense scrutiny.  All needlessly.  Some of them have been subjected to what amount to personal attacks, and feel they are being used to attack me.  As a result, some of my clients/friends have decided to represent themselves so that they are free to speak and act without casting any shadow over what I do.  Am I angry about that?  YES!!!!! (But not at my friends!)  

Lately, even people whom I do NOT represent get criticized and questioned about their relationship with me if they so much as speak up for me.  I absolutely understand if some of you out there would like me to represent you, but aren't asking because it might (somehow, out of a form of logic I am unfamiliar with) cast doubts on the veracity and sincerity of your sentiments.  

Nor has my local counsel gotten a free pass.  What can I say?  Some Indian tribe was said to have had a saying to the effect that you measured a warrior's worth by the strength of his enemies.  Well, if intensity of the efforts against me are any indication, I am apparently a worthy opponent.  But I'm angry now.  

So, at this point, Carolinian, I have added "getting paid" (by one of the parties, but NOT by my clients) to my list of objectives.  Success is the best revenge, after all, and it would tickle me no end to not only defeat this one-sided contract, and to successfully stem one small part of the tide of corporate greed, but also to get paid for my efforts to boot!  

I'm not asking for a quarter million dollars, either.  (But I sure wouldn't turn my nose up at it!) 

An attorney representing RCI recently called my local counsel apparently mainly for the purpose of telling him that RCI would never agree to paying fees either to him or to me.  Well, RCI may not AGREE to pay us, but the judge may have other ideas.  We'll see.  My local counsel and I are happy to leave this decision in the hands of the judge.  

My sincere apologies to anyone who may find my desire to be compensated disappointing.  Hey, I'm not soliciting a halo, either.   

However, I trust that even DeniseM and Carolinian will understand.  (By the way, they are NOT my clients -- at least at this point -- since somehow that seems to make a difference to SOME people.)  

Susan


----------



## DeniseM

Susan - thanks for being so frank - and thanks for everything you are doing for TS owners!  Good luck!


----------



## thheath

Susan,  

I believe that most people on this forum realize you have their best interest at heart and support you 110%.  

In my opinion you would be a fool to not want to get paid for your time and effort considering RCI will be forking over the money for the legal fees.  I would much rather see you paid then the attorneys that are trying to sell us out or any Johnny come lately...

Thank you for you efforts and honesty


----------



## Jennie

Stephan said:


> I hope Jennie is NOT speaking through her attorney, Ms. Collins.... objectors have the right to retain their own attorney.



I have been posting on TUG thousands of times since 1994 without any outside coaching. I own 19 "timeshares" including fixed-deeded weeks, one floating week (which I always use or occasionally rent), RCI Points and Wyndham Fairfield Points. I have close friends who own Marriotts, Hilton Grands, Starwood, Diamond Resorts, Shell Vacation Clubs memberships, etc...We care very much about timesharing and have years of experience that we gladly share with others. We have no financial motive whatsoever. 

Stephan is stating that "objectors" have the right to retain their own attorney. DUH! What he fails to state is that Objectors do not have to have an attorney to make their objections known to the Court. That is the whole point of sending an objection letter to the Court, postmarked by November 20th. 

RCI Weeks members, whether in favor of, or opposed to the proposed settlement, may come to court and speak for themselves without any attorney. That's how I became involved in this case. That's the first time I ever met (or knew) Ms. Collins. She spoke very knowledgeably about the reasons why the proposed settlement is inadequate and unfair, as did Shep Altshuler, Publisher of Timesharing Today Magazine.  

The next "Fairness Hearing" is scheduled for November 30th at the Federal Court in Trenton. I plan to be there. If anyone else finds it feasible to do so, please send a brief "Notice of Appearance" to the court, postmarked by November 20th.We'd love to have some moral support.


----------



## Jennie

POSTED by Stephan: "Ms. Welling is making it as difficult as possible for objectors to file objections as seen by the two court hearings held at her request this month."

In what way?


----------



## dundey

Is it too late to object to the settlement?
I've been away on business for awhile, and did not get to it as of yet.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Thanks for Asking*

No It is not too late to object. Even if you have previously submitted a claim for one of the offered benefits you still can Object.

You must however have your objection postmarked by November 20th.

For straight forward instructions and a form letter go here:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html


----------



## Carolinian

Susan - I do not begrudge you a fee at all.  You went into this as a volunteer, and got more involved than you ever expected, and that is good for all of us in timesharing.  You deserve to be compensated for your time, and you certainly deserve it more than the nominal plaintiffs lawyers.  Indeed, justice would be for you to get paid and them not, as they have been worse than useless for RCI's victims.


----------



## GadgetRick

DeniseM said:


> I'll make you a deal Stephan, if you answer all the unanswered questions in this thread about YOU, I will be glad to answer your questions about ME!



LMAO! Right. Stephan has NEVER answered questions about himself or his motivations. I don't see him coming clean now. I never trust people who are not transparent...especially lawyers...


----------



## Tia

I sent this quote to a ts owner lawyer at my one resort that helped lead the fight against our developer as feel it is so true. More power to you!  



Susan2 said:


> .... Some Indian tribe was said to have had a saying to the effect that you measured a warrior's worth by the strength of his enemies.  Well, if intensity of the efforts against me are any indication, I am apparently a worthy opponent....
> 
> 
> Susan


----------



## catcher24

I have read this entire thread, been observing what has been said and done herein, and sent my objection letters about three weeks ago. I have only owned a time share for about five years, but I have been involved in the legal system for over 35 years. For what it's worth, in my opinion the ONLY attorney in this entire fiasco that I would trust is Ms. Collins. She obviously has the best interests of her clients and other objectors at heart BECAUSE SHE BECAME INVOLVED ON HER OWN WITHOUT BEING RETAINED BY ANYONE! Please re-read that bolded statement, which pretty much says it all. How often have any of you seen an attorney put the time and effort into any type of action that Ms. Collins has into this action _before_ being retained by any parties? Never, in my experience. Now that it has developed into a full fledged battle, with the original plaintiff's attorneys apparently going over to the other side at some point (at least IMHO - the sellout, as Carolinian refers to it), I think Ms. Collins would be insane not to request compensation. As for guest Stephen, he has never to the best of my knowledge answered any questions asked of him, either on this thread or via PM, and that certainly casts his motives into doubt in my mind.

And no, Ms. Collins is not my attorney. I just believe in calling a spade a spade.


----------



## motomem

I posted this on another board but will post it here also.
= = = = =
So after finally doing some catch-up work on this lawsuit, in preparation for sending objection letters, I read the "Terms and Conditions Of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" that is posted on the RCI website.

In black and white, in section 24. RCI RIGHTS, it flatly states: "RCI may, at any time, dispose of Vacation Time in any commercially reasonable manner.".

There are no other restrictions on this statement. It appears to me, imho, that RCI has done nothing wrong. You deposit a week, they can do whatever with it at any time. I cannot find anywhere in the terms and conditions any kind of time restriction where they must hold banked weeks for a period of time so that they are available to exchangers.

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but based on this and what the lawsuit is about, there is no reason to object to any settlement because the lawsuit is basically bogus. I'm not saying I like the way they run the program, but everyone agreed to the terms and conditions when they joined the program.

It sounds like the lawsuit should be modified to be about changing the terms and conditions so that banked weeks are available for exchange up until a certain point, not based on the fact that RCI did anything "wrong" because it appears they did not. Of course, changing the terms and conditions will happen as a result of the lawsuit, but the basis of the lawsuit seems to be untrue.  Plus any changes may only be for two years.  Then they go back to their current methods.

Again, if I misread the terms and conditions somebody please let me know.


----------



## Carolinian

That is called a contract of adhesion. A business can not just bury something in the fine print, especially something that totally contradicts the way it presents itself to members to induce them to make deposits, and then get away with it.  What if your bank buried something in the fine print that said they could keep the money you deposit if they wanted to?  Or pay you back in any type of dollars they wanted, like say Hong Kong dollars?

Consumer protection law says that if a company does something that is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' it is unlawful.  The fact that they wrote a selfserving rule that says they can do it is not a defense, and may on the contrary be evidence of their intentional wrongdoing.

If they put in big letters on their materials that they could rent your deposits instead on using them for exchanges, how many deposits do you think they would get?  That is why they hide this stuff, and that is why their actions are BOTH deceptive and unfair.




motomem said:


> I posted this on another board but will post it here also.
> = = = = =
> So after finally doing some catch-up work on this lawsuit, in preparation for sending objection letters, I read the "Terms and Conditions Of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" that is posted on the RCI website.
> 
> In black and white, in section 24. RCI RIGHTS, it flatly states: "RCI may, at any time, dispose of Vacation Time in any commercially reasonable manner.".
> 
> There are no other restrictions on this statement. It appears to me, imho, that RCI has done nothing wrong. You deposit a week, they can do whatever with it at any time. I cannot find anywhere in the terms and conditions any kind of time restriction where they must hold banked weeks for a period of time so that they are available to exchangers.
> 
> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but based on this and what the lawsuit is about, there is no reason to object to any settlement because the lawsuit is basically bogus. I'm not saying I like the way they run the program, but everyone agreed to the terms and conditions when they joined the program.
> 
> It sounds like the lawsuit should be modified to be about changing the terms and conditions so that banked weeks are available for exchange up until a certain point, not based on the fact that RCI did anything "wrong" because it appears they did not. Of course, changing the terms and conditions will happen as a result of the lawsuit, but the basis of the lawsuit seems to be untrue.  Plus any changes may only be for two years.  Then they go back to their current methods.
> 
> Again, if I misread the terms and conditions somebody please let me know.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Welcome To TUG*

motomem,

Carolinian is right on target when he points out that what RCI is and has been doing is *deceptive* and *unfair*.  Just because a company has the abilty to dictate the terms of doing business that does NOT make what they choose to do legally sufficient.

Adhesion contracts such as RCI's Terms and Conditions, your auto insurance policy, credit card contract, or life insurance contract should be fair and reasonably adhere to the purpose of the contract for the good of both the consumer and the company writing the terms.

It is true that you or I as a consumer can take our business elsewhere, but isn't that just letting the Bully continue to control the playground. 

Leaving the playground with our tail between our legs just because RCI has dictated some rules that we don't like is not the way this should work out.

If the rules that RCI has dictated take advantage of you as a consumer then a Court can and should say that those rules are wrong. 

We as Consumers are not getting what we bargained for.

We need to stand up and get justice for ourselves and justice for those who otherwise will continue to do business with companies like RCI.

I object vehemently to the proposed settlement because it will do exactly what you say it will do.  It will, for the most part, rubber stamp what RCI has been doing for the last nine years and leave them free to continue to take advantage of an unknowing membership.  

RCI writing its own rules and changing them when ever it suits their purpose and their pocket book does not sit well with me!

*I AM SICK AND TIRED OF THEIR BUSINESS PRACTICE and I AM DOING SOMETHING TO GET THOSE BUSINESS PRACTICES CHANGED!*

If you agree with us please join us by submitting your own objection.

Information on how you can do that easily is provided here:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html

For more explicit information on why I object to RCI's adhesion contract take a moment of your time and read post # 788. 

You only have to go back one page.

There are roughly 200 of us who on this thread have agreed that we should OBJECT and very few who feel the way you do now.

If after considering what we have said here you decide to change your position and object we welcome you and will help you. 

Do not stand by and let RCI and the Plaintiffs Attorneys push through a settlement that is NOT IN YOUR BEST INTEREST!


----------



## motomem

Thanks for the answers, and no, I'm not an RCI plant, lol.  And I certainly cannot read all the legalese in the court documents, lol.  I was doing MY due diligence to catch-up on the lawsuit.  I am a new timeshare owner as of 2006.  I already have my objection letters printed and ready.  They will be in the mail tomorrow.

I do hope we get the chance to make some alterations to the settlement.  I'm not out to sink RCI, but I would like a fair chance at exchanges before banked weeks are opened to being rented.

And to add to my own situation, I got a call from a lawyer in CO this week saying the company that I bought that timeshare from also deeded the week, about a year later, to someone else.  They are having to foreclose on that guy and in the process found out about me, woo hoo!!   hahahaha


----------



## ecwinch

Susan2 said:


> That being said, however, at this point, your accolades (and those of DeniseM) may be undeserved.  While I ORIGINALLY had no notion of getting paid, at this point I would like very much to get paid. I have spent so much time on this case since the August hearing that I have had to turn down several paying clients just to keep up on this case. AND my personal life has been very attenuated, too (to the point of having arguments with family about my unavailability). Furthermore, my local counsel has expended so much time and energy that I think it would only be fair to see them compensated, too.



I do not dispute that you should be compensated, but in the interest of full disclosure - what might you think would be the upper range of what you will be requesting?


----------



## crazyhorse

*Terms and Conditions*



motomem said:


> I posted this on another board but will post it here also.
> = = = = =
> So after finally doing some catch-up work on this lawsuit, in preparation for sending objection letters, I read the "Terms and Conditions Of RCI Weeks Subscribing Membership" that is posted on the RCI website.
> 
> In black and white, in section 24. RCI RIGHTS, it flatly states: "RCI may, at any time, dispose of Vacation Time in any commercially reasonable manner.".
> 
> There are no other restrictions on this statement. It appears to me, imho, that RCI has done nothing wrong. You deposit a week, they can do whatever with it at any time. I cannot find anywhere in the terms and conditions any kind of time restriction where they must hold banked weeks for a period of time so that they are available to exchangers.
> 
> Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but based on this and what the lawsuit is about, there is no reason to object to any settlement because the lawsuit is basically bogus. I'm not saying I like the way they run the program, but everyone agreed to the terms and conditions when they joined the program.
> 
> It sounds like the lawsuit should be modified to be about changing the terms and conditions so that banked weeks are available for exchange up until a certain point, not based on the fact that RCI did anything "wrong" because it appears they did not. Of course, changing the terms and conditions will happen as a result of the lawsuit, but the basis of the lawsuit seems to be untrue.  Plus any changes may only be for two years.  Then they go back to their current methods.
> 
> Again, if I misread the terms and conditions somebody please let me know.



I made some comments in an earlier post 662, but here they are copied below:

*Terms of Membership*

I have a couple of old "Directory of Resorts" books and have been comparing the wording in the Terms of Membership between then and now.

Both say that before you can request an exchange,
*" you must deposit holiday ownership rights with us and we will put them into the RCI Pool of exchange accommodation"*

The previous (old book) said

*"By depositing Holiday Ownership rights, you relinquish all rights to use them and agree that those Holiday Ownership rights may be used by RCI without restriction to conduct exchanges, inspections visits, promotions and other purposes in RCI`s discretion."*

Note that this does not mention Rental, although this could have been part of "other purposes."

The current version has altered the last condition to

*"By depositing your Holiday Ownership with us, you relinquish all rights to use them and agree that they may be used by RCI without restriction"*

Note that in the last sentence I have put in the bold type, not RCI.

Their print was pretty small! As has been mentioned above in general correspondence, RCI has not been very helpful in its notification of the settlement. It wasn`t very helpful either with the notification of the change of Terms of Membership!

Also in the Terms, the Variations paragraph suggests that any changes to the Terms will not come into effect until they (ie the changes) have been published. Again, I think they could have made a better job of informing their members regarding these changes, though I don`t expect that RCI would have revealed what they had in mind.

You are correct in what the current terms of membership are and how RCI reckons they can do what they want legally -we don`t!. I will add the following:

*If RCI follows their own terms to the letter of the law they must also place each and every  deposit into the Weeks Exchange Pool. There is some evidence that they are not doing so at present, and the Settlement suggests that they will carry on in the same manner.*

p.s. my 3 letters of objection are winging their way across the pond.:deadhorse:


----------



## thheath

ecwinch said:


> I do not dispute that you should be compensated, but in the interest of full disclosure - what might you think would be the upper range of what you will be requesting?



What do you care?  

What she gets paid is just less for the other lawyers who don't have are best interests at heart.  If she is able to salvage this settlement for us and alter RCI's practices I hope she gets a $1M.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Terms and Conditions*

Stephan:

The quotes are from the RCI publication called

Holiday Directory of Resorts 2001-2002. This is the name given to the version sent out to the European Members. Copyright 2000
The quote is from section 6. Depositing your holiday ownership, and is under subsection 6.2. .

The same wording was also used in the later book called 
RCI Community Guide. This again is the same type of RCI publication as above, i.e a directory of European resorts, photos etc, including brief details of some resorts outside of Europe eg USA. It is from perhaps 2004-5 although it is not dated at the front page. The copyright is 2003.

The quote in this guide is listed under the same section and subsection as above.


----------



## ecwinch

thheath said:


> What do you care?
> 
> What she gets paid is just less for the other lawyers who don't have are best interests at heart.  If she is able to salvage this settlement for us and alter RCI's practices I hope she gets a $1M.



If that happens, I would absolutely agree with you. 

And since I am often misunderstood, let me be very clear that I am not making any allegation of any sort. I am gathering information. From everything I have seen here on TUG, Susan is a dedicated and passionate timeshare owner has taken up this cause for all the reasons she has mentioned on this board.

But I am just a little troubled by the switch from fighting this case on principle. I also do not understand the disclosure that local counsel is involved. As I said, I do not dispute that Susan should be compensated to some extent, so I am just trying to learn more and to see if this is a big deal or not. I am not saying she has gone over to the Dark side. 

Also I have not seen anything that indicates that the settlement is going to be materially better. In fact I thought one of the objectives was to derail the settlement and force the case to trial. So that we could have discovery to strengthen the case and obtain a more favorable outcome. If you go back in the thread, you will see posts to the affect. So her disclosure leaves me concerned that this is only going to end in a settlement before full discovery.

I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of  class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.

So this recent development just heightens my concern. I hope they are baseless, but I like to reach my own conclusions. So I am only asking in order to gather information to allay my concerns. Maybe I am the only one that is just a little concerned by this.

If Susan obtains significant changes in the settlement, then a mil is fine. I would just like to know what she is asking for. Her request will become part of the court record, so it is not like she would be disclosing confidential information.


----------



## DeniseM

Eric - I am not Susan, but my understanding is that because Susan doesn't practice law in New Jersey, she was required to affiliate with a local attorney.

As far as why she is now asking for reimbursement, she explained that in her post above.  When she first got involved, it was because as a timeshare owner, she was outraged by the ridiculous proposed settlement.  However, over time, she found herself putting in many more hours on the case than she realized it would take, and in fact lost time and clients in her regular law practice, to work on the RCI case.  Her work on the RCI case has caused a loss of income from her regular law practice.

Also, my understanding is that the _judge_ will decide if any of the attorneys will receive a fee, and how much it will be.

If you click on Susan's name, and then select the link to her posts and read them, you will find all the details about what changes to the settlement she is asking for in this case.



> I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.



Ms. Welling called a Tugger and left a message - Jennie was reasurring the poster, that it would be OK to call Ms. Welling back.


----------



## ecwinch

DeniseM said:


> Eric - I am not Susan, but my understanding is that because Susan doesn't practice law in New Jersey, she was required to affiliate with a local attorney.
> 
> As far as why she is now asking for reimbursement, she explained that in her post above.  When she first got involved, it was because as a timeshare owner, she was outraged by the ridiculous proposed settlement.  However, over time, she found herself putting in many more hours on the case than she realized it would take, and in fact lost time and clients in her regular law practice, to work on the RCI case.  Her work on the RCI case has caused a loss of income from her regular law practice.
> 
> Also, my understanding is that the _judge_ will decide if any of the attorneys will receive a fee, and how much it will be.
> 
> If you click on Susan's name, and then select the link to her posts and read them, you will find all the details about what changes to the settlement she is asking for in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> Ms. Welling called a Tugger and left a message - Jennie was reasurring the poster, that it would be OK to call Ms. Welling back.



Denise – thanks for pointing that out.  But I thought this was a case in US District Court, not New Jersey State court.  

And I understand the basis under which she is seeking compensation, and as I indicated I am fine with that. That was not my question. She clearly is going to have to submit a request to the court. 

It just seems that the focus is strictly on settlement now. To the extent that Susan is contemplating compensation. Clearly without a settlement that would not occur.

I had thought we wanted it to go to trial or to have the case derailed and refiled. In this thread, Susan comments on that specific outcome. So while early in the thread that seemed to be the focus, I am unclear on why that seems to have fallen off the table. So I am interested in why the shift in the desired outcome. 

Also - could you point me to a post where the proposed modifications to the settlement are outlined. I am picking up bits and pieces here and there from the posts, but I do not see a summary. If you can point me to one - that would be most appreciated. EDIT: Never mind, located one here.. I also see where she disclosed her intention to seek compensation at that time.

Thanks


----------



## motomem

*quote deleted

And don't forget that Europeans use the term "Holiday" in place of "Vacation".


----------



## Susan2

*Amount of fees?*

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ecwinch said:


> I do not dispute that you should be compensated, but in the interest of full disclosure - what might you think would be the upper range of what you will be requesting?



I'm not ignoring you, Eric.  It's a valid question.  I've been thinking about how to answer you.  

The short answer is that I have no idea.  I could elaborate considerably on that answer, because it IS a valid question, but it would just be a discussion of all the reasons why I don't have any idea.  

Frankly, at this point, the amount of my fees comes under the category of "counting my chickens before they've hatched," and I have not devoted a great deal of thought to it.  My local counsel and I have touched lightly on the topic, but mostly only to decide that we'll discuss it at a later date, since they are not class-action attorneys, either.  (Serious and knowledgeable suggestions are welcome!)  

I may get nothing at all.  I may make out like a bandit.  At this point, with the help of all the objectors, I am attempting to convince the judge to reject the settlement.  What happens if we succeed is an unknown.  Developing strategies to deal with the resulting potential turns of event are taking much more of my time than thinking about fees, which may never materialize, and which are not "real" to me at this point.   

I'm really sorry if that seems disingenuous, but it's true.  

I can tell you that I spoke to a class-action attorney who tried to convince me to be "sensible" and "realistic" and to encourage me to think of this case in terms of fees.  His thought was that the new "concessions" offered by RCI back at the end of September (which I deemed pathetic, but which terms we involved objectors are not allowed to disclose because RCI's attorneys deemed it "confidential") could be negotiated into a substantial fee by claiming that I had been instrumental in obtaining a better settlement for the class.  I, however, do not believe that the changes would have been meaningful to the class.  In the end, this other attorney concluded that we could not work together because we have differing objectives -- his being very frankly to get paid.  I appreciated his honesty, which cleared up some mysteries for me resulting from dealing with other attorneys on this subject.    

It has also been suggested that, since I have many clients, that I invite the majority of them to "opt-out" rather than to continue their objections, so that I could bring individual actions against RCI and receive compensation by getting 40% of whatever settlement they receive.  (Apparently, this is deemed a valid and appropriate legal tactic in some circles.) 

I'm honestly not at all interested in doing either one of those.  I don't want to make myself out to be "holier than thou," or to have exceptionally high ethical standards, because I'm not and I don't.  But I live a modest lifestyle, my house is paid for, I don't need a fancy car, and I have a comfortable life.  Theoretical riches would not compensate for not liking who I saw in the mirror.  

Those of you who may be skeptical are completely within your rights.  But I think most readers of these posts would make the very same choice!


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ecwinch said:


> And since I am often misunderstood, let me be very clear that I am not making any allegation of any sort.



No offense taken.  



> I also do not understand the disclosure that local counsel is involved.



DeniseM is absolutely correct.  Even though this case is in US District Court, the attorneys are subject to the laws and ethical rules of the State of New Jersey where the court is located, and local counsel are responsible for the ethical behavior of the attorneys they sponsor.  That's just the way it is.  Judge Sheridan made it crystal clear that he would not even consider an application to be admitted to the court for this case (which we call "pro hac vice" meaning literally, "for this turn") from anyone who did not already have local counsel.  



> Also I have not seen anything that indicates that the settlement is going to be materially better.



Precisely why we want the judge to reject it.  The sole change from what was originally presented is that the class includes everyone who was an RCI Weeks member until August 31, 2009, instead of November 20, 2008.  (And yes, I suppose I am responsible for that change, so let me uncork my champagne now -- NOT!)  



> In fact I thought one of the objectives was to derail the settlement and force the case to trial. So that we could have discovery to strengthen the case and obtain a more favorable outcome. If you go back in the thread, you will see posts to the affect. So her disclosure leaves me concerned that this is only going to end in a settlement before full discovery.



Okay, "forcing the case to trial" is one possible outcome.  Continued settlement discussion could be another.  I intend to argue that settlement discussions cannot be reasonably held without discovery, and that this is a major flaw underlying the current proposed settlement agreement.  I simply cannot give you the likelihood of this or other possible outcomes.  (This is one of those areas where my ignorance shows.)  But it is not a given that the case will go to trial, or that the Plaintiffs' attorneys would have to try it, if it did.  Since the class has only been provisionally certified, the Plaintiffs' attorneys could settle on behalf of their individual clients.  However, we don't know whether those named Plaintiffs would all agree, even if their attorneys tried to do that.  (The husband of one of them actually filed an objection to the proposed settlement, and says that his wife never liked the settlement, but was outvoted, so maybe they wouldn't all agree.)  

And if the Plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to walk out, would the judge allow it?  Would he allow a substitution of other named Plaintiffs and new counsel?  *Could* he allow that?  Even if that happened, who would continue the case?   (That's one of the areas I'm exploring, just in case.  It might never be necessary, but it's good to be prepared.  That way, you don't get caught with your pants down, and you can't be threatened as easily.)  



> I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of  class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.



I'm afraid that I do not share Jennie's confidence that the reason Ms. Welling might be contacting you is that she wants to ensure that your objection to the settlement she helped negotiate is valid, or something similar.  I made the definite decision to go to the fairness hearing in Newark after receiving a call from one of the other Plaintiffs' attorneys.  I had been waffling up to that point, but I felt that the purpose of the call was to dissuade me from continuing to object, and to convince me it would be a waste of my time to appear.  (Said counsel has absolutely denied that such was ever his intent, or that the purpose of the call was anything other than a courtesy.)  



> If Susan obtains significant changes in the settlement, then a mil is fine.



As the saying goes:  "From your lips to God's ear!"  



> I would just like to know what she is asking for. Her request will become part of the court record, so it is not like she would be disclosing confidential information.



Only if and when I actually make a request.  There are at least two ways that I would get paid:  1)  RCI would agree to pay me (Don't hold your breath!), or 2) the judge would order RCI to pay me.  I suppose other possibilities exist, such as my getting paid from a part of the fees awarded the Plaintiffs' attorneys.  Again, I just don't know.  

These possibilities could occur after a trial as well as after a settlement.  Or as part of a settlement.  As I said before, it's not real to me at this point, and I have no firm idea.  I am not focused on that right now.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Post Card notice was NOT given to RCI Members outside of the U. S.*

First I want to thank Jennie for providing her personal observation in Court about the following:

On August 12, 2009 Judge Sheridan ordered that E-Mail and Post Card Notice be sent to members of the class in the RCI “Weeks” class action Lawsuit.

You would think that the Judge’s order would have provided a “Second Notice” to all 3 Million current RCI account members and to all former RCI account members since January 1, 2000.   Well forget about it!    It did not go down that way!

The “Second Notice” was NOT sent to all 3 Million current and former RCI Account addresses.  Yes, the intent may have been to give better notice to all recipients; but all recipients did NOT include anyone outside of the good ole’ U. S of A. 

Had all received the “Second Notice” by post card we would have had a chance to get more objections to the proposed settlement. The Post Card you may have received said: 





> “The Settlement affects anyone who was a member of the RCI Weeks ® Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009."


  But, a lot of those folks received NO NOTICE! 

There are currently some 500,000 RCI Accounts or families that reside in countries other than the United States.  Add to that number the Former RCI Members living outside the United States.  None of those RCI Accounts received the “Second Notice.”

The Post Card Notice and apparently the E-Mail Notice was NOT sent to Members and former Members of RCI that reside outside of the United States.  While this comes as no surprise to most of us it is disconcerting to know that up to a third of the class have no clue that they are members of the class and can file objections to the proposed settlement.  They are in the dark; but will have to live with the settlement when and if it is approved by the Court. 

As stated earlier, I first learned of this fiasco a few days ago from Jennie who was at the hearing. Jennie, like other TUG Members originally thought that folks outside of North America were not part of the class or if any were included the inclusion was limited to Canada and a few other countries covered by RCI North America. 

As it turns out that assumption was incorrect. The class has since day one included all Members of RCI regardless of what country they call home. 

I sent an E-Mail yesterday to an attorney for the Plaintiffs and what I was concerned about has been confirmed.  Here are the questions that I put to Ms. Welling last night and in red you can see her answers:

*What I want to know now is exactly what did the Judge order on or about August 12th regarding NOTICE to Class Members?* He ordered that a postcard be sent to those persons to whom Endless Vacation was mailed, which contained the original summary notice. At the request of Ms. Collins, he further ordered that an email notice to those persons also be sent.

*Did the Judge specifically order that a Post Card Notice be sent to the primary address of each RCI Account Holder?* No.

*Did the Judge order that a Post Card Notice be sent to Account Holders outside of the United States?* No.

*Based on what I have been able to determine, it appears that the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting Inc., Fairbault, MN sent Post Cards to only United States Account addresses.* This is correct.

There you have it! If any TUGGER knows a way to get this information out to RCI Members around the World please do so.  We still have until Novmeber 20th to get Objections Post Marked.


----------



## jerseygirl

I was a member for a very short time (one quick trade) several years ago.  I did my one trade, then never renewed my membership or deposited any further weeks.  As such, I was no longer a recipient of the Endless Vacations magazine, and therefore did not receive the original notification of the proposed settlement.  In fact, it stands to reason that NO FORMER members received the first notice.

However, I did receive the October postcard, and quickly filed an objection.  

Just thought you might want to know that my experience does not correspond with the below statements, especially the first one.  Also, I live in the US and have had at least 5 different addresses since I did that one trade, so someone went to some effort to locate me for the second notification.



> What I want to know now is exactly what did the Judge order on or about August 12th regarding NOTICE to Class Members? He ordered that a postcard be sent to those persons to whom Endless Vacation was mailed, which contained the original summary notice. At the request of Ms. Collins, he further ordered that an email notice to those persons also be sent.
> 
> Did the Judge specifically order that a Post Card Notice be sent to the primary address of each RCI Account Holder? No.
> 
> Did the Judge order that a Post Card Notice be sent to Account Holders outside of the United States? No.
> 
> Based on what I have been able to determine, it appears that the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting Inc., Fairbault, MN sent Post Cards to only United States Account addresses. This is correct.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Jerseygirl,  I want to thank you for two reasons.*

One, because you stepped up to the plate and sent in your objection.

Second, because you have revealed something that is often overlooked about the NOTICE issue.

You are living proof that RCI has the Account Numbers and the addresses of most, if not all of its former members and/or RCI can easily get those addresses from the corresponding RESORT HOA which no doubt keeps up with your where abouts so they can send you the annual maintenance fee.

Think about it!  RCI has a tremendous marketing data base.  No wonder we get so many calls from people wanting us to sell our timeshare and from people wanting to sell us another time share. :hysterical: 

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil of Procedure came into play when the Court decided that personal notification was necessary. It is just a shame that those same rules did not cause every class member to get the same Notice that you received.


----------



## ecwinch

Susan2 said:


> No offense taken.



Susan,

Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed answer to my concerns. I completely understand your responses in the context of the overall proceedings. I also appreciate you not taking exception to the fact that I asked the questions, as sometimes can be the case. Based on your responses, I can see that those concerns are minor at this point.

While I can see the value of the discovery process, I can also see the benefit if we can obtain a settlement that is similar to the one you have proposed. 

Thanks for your response, and again - thanks for pursuing this matter. You are a credit to your profession.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



ecwinch said:


> Susan,
> 
> Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed answer to my concerns. I completely understand your responses in the context of the overall proceedings. I also appreciate you not taking exception to the fact that I asked the questions, as sometimes can be the case. Based on your responses, I can see that those concerns are minor at this point.
> 
> While I can see the value of the discovery process, I can also see the benefit if we can obtain a settlement that is similar to the one you have proposed.
> 
> Thanks for your response, and again - thanks for pursuing this matter. You are a credit to your profession.



You are welcome, Eric, and I am flattered by your response.  

However, I want to clear something up:  The settlement proposal I made to RCI was just that -- a proposal.  It is NOT the position I will be advocating in court.  

When negotiating, there is a give-and-take that reflects the spirit of compromise.  I made an offer to RCI that was geared around RCI's stated position that they would never agree to any proposal that prohibited them from renting deposited weeks.  So, with the assistance of fellow objectors, I formulated a proposal that I felt gave RCI a reasonable opportunity to make profits, and yet gave reasonable protections to members.  RCI never responded in any way to that proposal.  I therefore consider them to have rejected it.  

Now, however, we are in front of a judge.  There is no more need to consider RCI's stated position.  RCI's own attorneys will promote its position as best they are able.  The judge's job will be to consider the arguments of each side and to make a determination.  Either side could lose completely.  (That's why trial is such a risk, and why most suits settle.)

I intend to argue to the judge that RCI should be completely prohibited from renting out weeks deposited by members for exchange, EVEN IF THEY REPLACE THE INVENTORY with something they deem to be equivalent.  I intend, for example, to bring up the fact that RCI has long prohibited members from using exchange confirmations "for any commercial purpose, including rental or sale of the time period/unit. . ."  (Taken from Paragraph 8A under the "Guests" heading of the 1999 Terms and Conditions of RCI Memberships, which is the version I happen to have to hand.)  Even a recent posting (under another heading on this site) stating that at least some RCI Guides are now saying that it's okay to rent the exchanged week, specify that this "permission" is CONTINGENT ON THE MEMBER NOT MAKING A PROFIT.  (I recently emailed RCI to request clarification, but so far RCI has ignored the query, except to acknowledge that they received it.)  

I believe that Judge Sheridan will be intrigued by the fact that the very thing that is prohibited to members is demanded by RCI as a sort of "natural right" -- that is, swapping out weeks and renting the exchanges to make a profit.  And this *from weeks that the MEMBERS own*!  (Kind of reminds one of the "divine right of kings," doesn't it?)  

At any rate, my personal feeling is that RCI was foolish to ignore my proposal, which I feel was a very fair compromise.  But I often feel that way when I make what I believe is an eminently reasonable proposal which is rejected by my opponent.   

My negotiation philosophy is not universally shared.  In fact, many attorneys start out with an outrageous proposal, and then (as time goes on and negotiations continue) become more reasonable.  I do not believe that such a tactic is a good one, as it is (to me) an inefficient use of attorney time and client money.  But that's just me.  

Attorneys who don't know me sometimes find themselves at a loss to understand how continued negotiations leave them with a lesser result than they could have obtained initially.  

Let us hope that that is the end result in this case!


----------



## urple2

> I believe that Judge Sheridan will be intrigued by the fact that the very thing that is prohibited to members is demanded by RCI as a sort of "natural right" -- that is, swapping out weeks and renting the exchanges to make a profit. And this from weeks that the MEMBERS own! (Kind of reminds one of the "divine right of kings," doesn't it?)



I like and agree with your negotiating philosophy and thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

Your statement above is dead on. How can it be ok to rent our weeks but we can't rent our weeks we swap with them.

Thanks again Susan.


----------



## regatta333

Susan2 said:


> I made an offer to RCI that was geared around RCI's stated position that they would never agree to any proposal that prohibited them from renting deposited weeks.



So they finally had to admit they were renting deposited weeks after lying to members for years about it.


----------



## djyamyam

*Disclosing strategy in public?*

Susan,

I appreciate all that you are trying to do for us as members.  I also understand the need to answer questions that have been posed to you from members of this forum.  However, my concern is that you've discussed some of the legal strategies you intend to pursue.  As this is a public forum and I suspect members of opposing counsel are likely to be monitoring this thread, aren't you providing them an advance warning of your strategy and giving them the opportunity to preprare accordingly?


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



djyamyam said:


> Susan,
> 
> I appreciate all that you are trying to do for us as members.  I also understand the need to answer questions that have been posed to you from members of this forum.  However, my concern is that you've discussed some of the legal strategies you intend to pursue.  As this is a public forum and I suspect members of opposing counsel are likely to be monitoring this thread, aren't you providing them an advance warning of your strategy and giving them the opportunity to preprare accordingly?



Perhaps you are right, but in my experience, "surprise strategies" are more the stuff of television legal drama than actual practical courtroom tactics, and are not admired by most judges.  

Normally, motion papers must be submitted in advance, with sufficient opportunity for responding papers to be filed and served on opponents.  This gives both (all?) sides an opportunity to marshal their arguments, and gives the judges the best opportunity to make a fair decision.  

Written objections need to be filed by next Friday (November 20), so that gives advance notice by itself.  But maybe I am giving RCI and its attorneys an extra week to come up with a convincing argument as to why RCI should be allowed to make profits in a way that they deny their members.  

I would be really surprised if the fact that this practice constitutes a classic double standard had never occurred to them before, but if so, don't you think it's only fair to let them have an opportunity to learn of it earlier?  -- If they bother to read these postings, that is.  Such efforts should yield them SOME rewards!  But I really can't imagine that they haven't figured this out already.  There are a great many objectors who have submitted objections to the court asking the judge to prohibit RCI from renting deposited weeks.  

So this isn't really anything new to the attorneys involved in the case.  Just possibly to the timesharing owning public.  

I appreciate your concern, and the fact that you took the time to post your thoughts.  

Susan


----------



## Carolinian

If the hearing goes against us, we need a massive campaign to get the word out on RCI's rotten rental scam.  One way to do that is through Timesharing Today.  They have had a program to promote their magazine by giving resorts enough sample copies of back issues to put out in their units.  A front page article on this subject ought to be in a sample issue used for that purpose and a massive press run done.  Some of us should contribute to the costs.  And then a big effort should be made to get that sample copy out more widely in our resorts.  RCI's anti-timeshare rental fraud needs to be fully exposed to timeshare owners.  As to alternatives, most major indendepent exchange companies advertise in TST, as now does II as well.


----------



## Susan2

*Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*

_I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website._

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Carolinian said:


> As to alternatives, most major indendepent exchange companies advertise in TST, as now does II as well.



"Aye, there's the rub!"  Isn't it?    

The whole problem is that the independent exchange companies don't have the massive inventory that RCI has, do they?  So members just don't have the wide variety of choices.  (Or at least the *promise* of the wide variety of choices.  Or the variety of choices for the first few people in line.)  

While at the meeting with the RCI executives, I told one of them that we objectors were not out to destroy RCI, and that frankly if RCI did go away, timeshare owners would have to reinvent it.  He responded with, "That will never happen."  Personally, I thought he was a bit smug about it.  And I am not at all sure that his confidence is justified.  It might take years, but if RCI continues to be unresponsive to member concerns, it could happen.  

Meanwhile, RCI is the acknowledged "industry leader."  And where the industry leader goes, so follow the  . . . "industry followers"?     The other members of the industry, in any event.  

If there were a massive defection, say to Interval International (who would likely be best able to handle an enormous influx of deposits), how would timeshare owners be certain that Interval would not also start renting out weeks deposited for exchange?  They seem to be doing it right now, but -- perhaps because they are relatively small compared to RCI -- they don't seem to be getting the flak for it, do they?  

Any exchange company would have to be really large in order to offer members the wide opportunities for exchange that RCI is able to offer.  And then we're back to the problem of a large corporation doing as it chooses to make higher profits.  When RCI was privately owned, it offered members good services at reasonable prices.  But then it got bought out.  

Wouldn't it be nice to have a sort of timeshare-owners co-op?  A BIG one.  

Anyone out there have any good ideas on that?   

Failing that, I would like to see a negotiated contract with the exchange companies.  Maybe a sort of "members union" to negotiate on behalf of the members.     But what is the incentive to force RCI (or any other large corporation) to the bargaining table?  And if it isn't a large corporation, then there isn't the variety of inventory. . .  and 'round and 'round we go again . . .

The thing that makes the David and Goliath story so special is that it so rarely works out that the little guy wins.  

All I can come up with is that "here is where we make our stand."  This is the best opportunity I can see to fight for our rights.  

I'd love to hear some alternate suggestions that people think would work.


----------



## jerseygirl

Susan2 said:


> ... snip ...If there were a massive defection, say to Interval International (who would likely be best able to handle an enormous influx of deposits), how would timeshare owners be certain that Interval would not also start renting out weeks deposited for exchange?  They seem to be doing it right now, but -- perhaps because they are relatively small compared to RCI -- they don't seem to be getting the flak for it, do they?



Susan -- I've been watching II rentals VERY closely for years.  First of all, I'm very mad at them right now for reasons unrelated to rentals (long story -- has to do with them going along with Starwood on something that I think infringes upon owner rights).  But, I compare their rentals to available exchanges all the time and it does appear that, for the most part, they continue to offer last minute inventory as BOTH exchanges and rentals.  This gives value to owners of weak traders/off-season weeks, like RCI used to do in the 45-day window.  One can pay the exchange fee ... or rent.  But, at RCI ... they seem to remove the ability to exchange when they move something to the rental pool.  BIG DIFFERENCE!  

I can't really comment on whether or not some of the more expensive, further-out II rentals could be coming from exchange weeks -- but you often see getaways at resorts not even in the exchange program, so there is some indication that they're buying or brokering inventory.  I can't be 100% certain, but my gut tells me that II's rental program is on the up-and-up for the most part.  Of course, that doesn't mean it won't change drastically if RCI gets what it wants out of this lawsuit.  

Not fact ... just one frequent observer's opinion .....


----------



## Carolinian

I don't know of any independent exchange company that rents member exchange deposits to the general public, or would be likely to.

In the case of DAE they put their money where their mouth is on this one.  Their former Swiss office, a franchise, was caught renting member exchange deposits to non-members and had their franchise taken away for that transgression.  DAE lost some of the inroads the Swiss office had made into German speaking countries as a result, but they maintained their integrity.


----------



## "Roger"

See post #716 in this thread. (By the by, several years ago, on Timeshare Forums, you asked several of the Independents whether they rented units to non-members. At least one of them responsed that they won't tell you what they do with their inventory. You might look back and see which one that was.)

Secondly, my understanding is that exchange companies also trade inventory with each other.  Thus, just because a company does not directly rent to non-members does not mean that their inventory might not end up in a rental pool. A good way to get rid of inventory that is not moving would be to exchange it into a company that does rent.  

Finally, while one independent appears to rent only to its own members (they rent under the guise of bonus weeks - also, I believe that they regularly exchange with other companies), they avoid wholesale rentals by only accepting select inventory.  I don't think most timesharers would consider that a good outcome of this whole process.


----------



## Carolinian

The select weeks model of SFX is not the business model of most independent exchange companies.

TPI in post 716 is marketing II inventory, not their own.

Trading inventory with each other among independents is a GOOD thing.  That is how I got trades to the French Riviera in summer, Morritts Tortuga Club for my neices honeymoon, Knocktopher Abbey in Ireland next spring, and a summer Canaltime canal boat in the UK, all through DAE trading partners.  When independents work together, it expands members access to inventory.  Also, I might note that the oldest and best timeshare mini-system in Europe, Hapimag, does trading partner swaps through DAE and DRI, but does NOT use either RCI or II for exchange, except that they do let RCI rent weeks at one of their Florida properties.




"Roger" said:


> See post #716 in this thread. (By the by, several years ago, on Timeshare Forums, you asked several of the Independents whether they rented units to non-members. At least one of them responsed that they won't tell you what they do with their inventory. You might look back and see which one that was.)
> 
> Secondly, my understanding is that exchange companies also trade inventory with each other.  Thus, just because a company does not directly rent to non-members does not mean that their inventory might not end up in a rental pool. A good way to get rid of inventory that is not moving would be to exchange it into a company that does rent.
> 
> Finally, while one independent appears to rent only to its own members (they rent under the guise of bonus weeks - also, I believe that they regularly exchange with other companies), they avoid wholesale rentals by only accepting select inventory.  I don't think most timesharers would consider that a good outcome of this whole process.


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> The select weeks model of SFX is not the business model of most independent exchange companies.
> 
> TPI in post 716 is marketing II inventory, not their own.
> 
> Trading inventory with each other among independents is a GOOD thing.  That is how I got trades to the French Riviera in summer, Morritts Tortuga Club for my neices honeymoon, Knocktopher Abbey in Ireland next spring, and a summer Canaltime canal boat in the UK, all through DAE trading partners.  When independents work together, it expands members access to inventory.  Also, I might note that the oldest and best timeshare mini-system in Europe, Hapimag, does trading partner swaps through DAE and DRI, but does NOT use either RCI or II for exchange, except that they do let RCI rent weeks at one of their Florida properties.



I think Roger's point was that if they swap with other exchanges, then how can you know that they do not use that as a back-door for rentals - potentially doing so for the express purpose of maintaining their "non-rental" policy. 

Roger Roger?


----------



## "Roger"

Right, Eric.  I wasn't suggesting that exchange companies exchanging among themselves was a bad thing - just that who knows, when the dust clears, what might end up in a rental pool.  The whole exchange business is much more complex than what initially meets the eye.


----------



## BethTripGirl

*RCI class action suit news to me*

My husband and I own 6 weeks' of time share, 4 of them in Cabo san Lucas.  We had NO idea there was a class action suit, much less any settlement offered.  We got a postcard in late October with a November 20 deadline to file our form to join in the suit.  The card came from the settlement administrator.  If RCI had a decent case, it seems to me they should have made it loudly and clearly to the members.  They certainly have no trouble sending us emails to sell us things or charging ridiculous fees ($59 now for a "guest certificate" when we allow a married daughter to use one of our units whose name doesn't match ours).  Geez.  Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?


----------



## DeniseM

Beth H. said:


> Geez.  Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?



Because THEY can rent your deposit, but they don't want YOU to rent an exchange - pretty much what this whole lawsuit is about!  

For more info., see the link to a summary and forms in post #1.

Oh, and welcome to TUG!  Glad you found us!


----------



## Carolinian

What the independent exchange company receives is a week deposit from a trading partner that one of its members has requested.  That goes out in a confirmed exchange.  The exchange company has given a week and received a week from its trading partner.  Unless the trading partner is dumb enough to also pay cash, then it is a clean trade for the exchange company with no real backdoor for renting.




ecwinch said:


> I think Roger's point was that if they swap with other exchanges, then how can you know that they do not use that as a back-door for rentals - potentially doing so for the express purpose of maintaining their "non-rental" policy.
> 
> Roger Roger?


----------



## ecwinch

*quote deleted*

Do you not think it would relatively easy to "pierce the corporate veil" in that scenario? 

I think a robust solution that would pass court-muster to prevent "cherry-picking" is going to be problematic. Only a provision that prevents weeks from being exchanged with other exchange for a period similar to the rental exclusion would address that. That for a set period (say 30 days) inventory will only be made available to individual members.


----------



## Carolinian

You might look into the independent exchange companies.  Some of them, like DAE have FREE guest certificates.



Beth H. said:


> My husband and I own 6 weeks' of time share, 4 of them in Cabo san Lucas.  We had NO idea there was a class action suit, much less any settlement offered.  We got a postcard in late October with a November 20 deadline to file our form to join in the suit.  The card came from the settlement administrator.  If RCI had a decent case, it seems to me they should have made it loudly and clearly to the members.  They certainly have no trouble sending us emails to sell us things or charging ridiculous fees ($59 now for a "guest certificate" when we allow a married daughter to use one of our units whose name doesn't match ours).  Geez.  Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?


----------



## ecwinch

Carolinian said:


> What the independent exchange company receives is a week deposit from a trading partner that one of its members has requested.  That goes out in a confirmed exchange.  The exchange company has given a week and received a week from its trading partner.  Unless the trading partner is dumb enough to also pay cash, then it is a clean trade for the exchange company with no real backdoor for renting.



But there is nothing to prevent this scenerio:

Trading Company X has a established policy of not renting exchanges which for PR reasons they want to maintain.

They go over to the dark side and want to increase revenue.

So they cut a deal with Trading Company Y that does rentals out units.

A great rental week is deposited into Trading Company X.

They exchange it with Trading Company Y, for a dog week worth nothing. 

They have a side deal that Trading Company Y will pay 50% of the rental revenue for that week. Or alternatively Trading Company Y agrees to pay a flat fee of $300 for each week in addition to the dog week. 

The net affect is that inventory is being diverted and not available to exchangers. 

I think Stephan is raising a similar concern regarding Wyndham and RCI. Different logistics, but similar impact.


----------



## Jennie

ecwinch said:


> I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of  class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.



So sorry for the confusion.

"Egret" posted the following question: "I'm sorry I don't have more info at this time and it won't be available to me until some time tomorrow.  My husband indicated to me that a lawyer called and left a message on our answering machine regarding the RCI Class Action lawsuit and would like a return call.  He didn't know whether it was an RCI attorney or Plantiffs' attorney.

Has anyone else received a call like this?"

Subsequently "Egret" posted that the attorney was a Ms. Welling from the west coast. 

I posted a response trying to provide identifying information about the "unknown" caller so that "Egret" would know that the call was "legitimate" and to clarify Ms. Wellings' role is in the case. 

As a very active "Objector" to the proposed settlement, I have had many conversations and Email exchanges with Ms. Welling of the Green-Welling law firm in San Francisco. This is the firm that brought the lawsuit against RCI. They are known as the Plaintiffs' attorneys. Ms. Welling has always been pleasant and polite in answering my numerous questions, and discussing various aspects of the proposed settlement. 

When I offered the opinion that Ms. Welling is an ethical professional, I was commenting only upon the nature of my personal interactions with her. 

*I am in no way endorsing the proposed settlement the Green-Welling law firm agreed upon with RCI. *

I just wanted to inform "Egret" that if she returned the phone call, she would be speaking with a principle attorney in this case.  She need not worry about being pressured in any way about her objections to the settlement. This is not Ms. Wellings' role. 

One of her duties is to do her best to ensure that all of the objections are considered by the Judge. For this to happen, the objection letter must contain legally specified information including the RCI Weeks member's name, address, telephone number, RCI number, and the name and Resort I.D. number of one resort owned. The letter must be *signed* by at least one member whose name appears on the account. 

Several objections received thus far by the Court are missing one or more pieces of the required information. I was guessing that this might be the reason for the Ms. Wellings' call. 

Ms. Welling knows I am a diehard objector. She has discussed tactical reasons why her law firm allegedly believes the proposed settlement is the best they can obtain under the circumstances. I am not impressed. Nothing she has said has changed my mind. 

The legal system has complex rules. We have all heard about cases that are dismissed on technicalities e.g.a person admits to committing a serious crime but he did so without being read his Miranda rights. Is is fair? Of course not. But would you condemn the defense attorney who brought the motion to have the case dismissed? He's "playing by the rules" as he sees them. The Judge makes the final determination. If an attorney decides to defend a person accused of a heinous rape or murder, would you call him or her "slimy", even if one of his/her main purpose was to obtain a large fee? Someone must accept cases like this in order for justice to be served? What if the accused person is innocent? Attorneys play many roles. 

Sometimes a case turns out "wrong" because one adversary is "out-classed" by their opponent. Or they start out fully expecting to win but, through errors or events within or beyond their control, they get to the point where they feel that they are not likely to win, so they try to salvage the case by working out a "plea bargain." It's not a perfect world. 

The attorneys involved in situations like this may be very ethical--or not. Most attorneys will act ethically, if only to avoid the legal consequences of doing otherwise. Ms. Welling is an extremely intelligent individual. She is not going to risk her career and livelihood to say something unethical to an objector in this case.   

I have strong opinions about legal aspects of this case but do not plan to state them publicly. I just want to make it clear that many of us working as unpaid volunteers have devoted countless hours to spreading the word to RCI members about how awful the proposed settlement is. We are hoping that the Judge will declare the proposed settlement, in it's current form, to be grossly unfair. The more objection letters he receives, the better our chance are.  

P.S. If "egret" has called Ms. Welling, it would be interesting to hear what transpired, if she wishes to share the information with TUG members.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*RCI class action suit news to Beth H.*



> *Beth H. said:* My husband and I own 6 weeks' of time share, 4 of them in Cabo san Lucas. We had NO idea there was a class action suit, much less any settlement offered. We got a postcard in late October with a November 20 deadline to file our form to join in the suit. The card came from the settlement administrator. If RCI had a decent case, it seems to me they should have made it loudly and clearly to the members. They certainly have no trouble sending us emails to sell us things or charging ridiculous fees ($59 now for a "guest certificate" when we allow a married daughter to use one of our units whose name doesn't match ours). Geez. Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?



Beth, please allow me to encourage you and your husband to object to the proposed settlement. 

You can file a claim for one of the meager benefits being offered by RCI and you can also send the Court and Objection Letter.

To help you with the objection letter we have instructions and a Form Letter that you can simply print it out and fill in by going to the following link:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html


----------



## Jennie

ecwinch said:


> But there is nothing to prevent this scenerio:
> 
> Trading Company X has a established policy of not renting exchanges which for PR reasons they want to maintain.
> 
> They go over to the dark side and want to increase revenue.
> 
> So they cut a deal with Trading Company Y that does rentals out units.
> 
> A great rental week is deposited into Trading Company X.
> 
> They exchange it with Trading Company Y, for a dog week worth nothing.
> 
> They have a side deal that Trading Company Y will pay 50% of the rental revenue for that week. Or alternatively Trading Company Y agrees to pay a flat fee of $300 for each week in addition to the dog week.
> 
> The net affect is that inventory is being diverted and not available to exchangers.
> 
> I think Stephan is raising a similar concern regarding Wyndham and RCI. Different logistics, but similar impact.



In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them. 

The huge problem with this is that RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks. So they could easily manipulate the ratings of any of the weeks. They could over-rate the "swap-ins" and/or under-value the weeks being "swapped out." 

That's been a long-standing problem even when dealing only with like-for-like exchanges. We have all at one time or another been offered (or accepted) weeks that were inferior in value to the week we deposited.  It may have been an error due to incompetence in RCI's rating system, or a deliberate decision to "reward" the resorts that have "played ball" nicely with RCI e.g. resorts in sales that agree to exclusive affiliation with RCI and supply lots of new naive members, and/or resorts that give RCI lots of unsold weeks to use as rentals to lure in prospective buyers. 

Although the proposed settlement provides for reporting of raw statistics, there is virtually no one assigned to analyze and verify the data. The reports would go to the Green Welling law firm (Plaintiffs in this case) but they state that they would receive no compensation for checking on it. Ms. Collins requested that RCI send a copy to her but they have not agreed to do so.


----------



## Jennie

Over the weekend, I  attended the annual meeting at a timeshare in New Jersey. About 30 stalwart folks traveled during near hurricane conditions to get there. Most have been RCI Weeks members for years and are clearly passionate about their timeshare ownership. Only one couple said they knew about the proposed settlement and had already filed an objection. 

One lady pulled the RCI notice postcard out of her pocketbook and asked if this was what I was talking about. I said yes. She said that she has no Internet skills nor access and was thinking of calling the "800" number on the card but was afraid it was just one of those "rip off" companies wanting an upfront fee to sell her week. She said that now that I had verified it was "legit" she would file an objection because she no longer receives good exchanges like she did for years, despite depositing up to two years in advance.  

Another person said he believes he saw the postcard but thought it was junk mail and discarded it without reading it. He was quite annoyed and said it was a travesty that something "legal" and so important would be sent on a tiny flimsy piece of paper like that. He is a Board member and said that this will be the impetus needed for the resort to establish a much discussed in-house internal exchange and rental program. 

It's a shame that RCI is allowed to treat millions of memberss in such a shabby manner. I hope they all vote with their feet if needed changes aren't made.


----------



## crazyhorse

Susan2 said:


> When RCI was privately owned, it offered members good services at reasonable prices.  But then it got bought out.
> 
> Wouldn't it be nice to have a sort of timeshare-owners co-op?  A BIG one.
> 
> Anyone out there have any good ideas on that?
> 
> 
> 
> *No, I haven`t any good ideas, but here`s some bad ones!*
> 
> It seems that some Clubs already operate an in-house Exchange Pool, and in theory these could be joined up to form a kernel of a new system.
> 
> How could it operate? What would *we* like to see? Perhaps:
> 
> 
> 1. 5000 or more clubs/resorts sharing the same Exchange Pool.
> 
> 2. The Pool (run by a Co-operative) is none profit making. Any excess income is shared pro-rata back to the clubs.
> 
> 3. The Co-operative determines which timeshare clubs become (and stay) members of the Co-operative.
> 
> 4.The weeks in the Pool can only be deposited or taken out by a bona fide timeshare owner. The Pool content should be visible prior to the member making his deposit.
> 
> 5. A member can deposit his week into the Pool no sooner than 12 months before its opening date, and he must have paid his maintenance fees for this week. Terms negotiable!
> 
> 6. A member, once his week is deposited can take a week from the Pool, provided its start date is no more than 24 months later than his own (such a week may not be deposited for many months!) Terms negotiable!
> 
> 7. There is no grading of the timeshare weeks in the Pool. However, a member wishing to trade up his week will need to pay a fee, which is the difference between the maintenance fee of his week and the week he desires.There is no other fee to pay.
> 
> 8. The Co-operative needs funding to operate. This is obtained from the fees shown in clause 7 above.
> 
> 9. No weeks in the pool will be allowed to be rented out until 40 days prior to their start date.The association will have not paid for these, so any proceeds from the rental should be regarded as excess income and shared pro-rata back to the clubs.
> 
> 10. The Co-operative may run a Rental System for timeshare weeks not owned by individuals, and any income from these rentals returned to the associated clubs. No weeks in such a Rental System can be transferred into the Exchange Pool.
> 
> 
> n.b. the upgrade fee will be influenced by international currency variations, but there again, what isn`t?
> 
> How do Points Owners fit into this system?
> 
> 
> This is a rough idea of how such an association _could_ operate.


----------



## Egret1986

*After a PM from another Tugger and reading some posts, I chose not to call*

Originally Posted by ecwinch  
I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.

Then when I saw the above post by ecwinch, it summed up my own feelings.  I had previously indicated to the Tugger that PM'd me that I would continue to read this thread to stay up-to-date, but wouldn't be posting anymore on this thread.

However, since you asked Jennie, I thought I would let you know that I did not contact Ms. Welling.  I do not wish to discuss her tactical reasoning for the settlement.  I only wished to provide my objection and the reasons for my objection to the settlement.  I was very careful to include everything that was required in the letter and signed the letter.  Therefore, I do believe that there is a different reason for the telephone call.  I appreciate all the time and effort others have invested into objecting this settlement.  I have done what I feel I can do by sending in my objection letters with the required information and signatures, and do not wish to debate anything with the lawyers involved.  There are those here on TUG, as well as others, with more knowledge and better skills to do this.




Jennie said:


> So sorry for the confusion.
> 
> I posted a response trying to provide identifying information about the "unknown" caller so that "Egret" would know that the call was "legitimate" and to clarify Ms. Wellings' role is in the case.
> 
> When I offered the opinion that Ms. Welling is an ethical professional, I was commenting only upon the nature of my personal interactions with her.
> 
> *I am in no way endorsing the proposed settlement the Green-Welling law firm agreed upon with RCI. *
> 
> I just wanted to inform "Egret" that if she returned the phone call, she would be speaking with a principle attorney in this case.  She need not worry about being pressured in any way about her objections to the settlement. This is not Ms. Wellings' role.
> 
> One of her duties is to do her best to ensure that all of the objections are considered by the Judge. For this to happen, the objection letter must contain legally specified information including the RCI Weeks member's name, address, telephone number, RCI number, and the name and Resort I.D. number of one resort owned. The letter must be *signed* by at least one member whose name appears on the account.
> 
> Several objections received thus far by the Court are missing one or more pieces of the required information. I was guessing that this might be the reason for the Ms. Wellings' call.
> 
> Ms. Welling knows I am a diehard objector. She has discussed tactical reasons why her law firm allegedly believes the proposed settlement is the best they can obtain under the circumstances. I am not impressed. Nothing she has said has changed my mind.
> 
> P.S. If "egret" has called Ms. Welling, it would be interesting to hear what transpired, if she wishes to share the information with TUG members.




With regards to a later post of yours about attending a timeshare meeting and those who traveled in inclement weather to attend and were unaware of the Class Action, I believe this is typical.  If I wasn't a TUGGER, I too would probably not know about this Class Action and would have tossed the postcard that RCI sent.  There was nothing about that little postcard to draw attention to the fact that it was about something that could impact timesharing and exchanging.  I have been actively timesharing and exchanging since 1984 and feel I am more savvy than the average timesharer.  But I just wouldn't have realized the significance of that postcard notification, RCI's website notification or the notification that was indicated to be posted in their Endless Vacation magazine.  As the person indicated that spoke to you at the timeshare meeting, so much junk is received from RCI that this would have definitely been overlooked without being informed as to what is going on here on TUG.

Thank you, Jennie, and everyone else for your part in attempting to make our voices heard and providing ongoing information and updates.


----------



## ecwinch

Jennie said:


> So sorry for the confusion.
> 
> .



Jennie,

Thanks for clearing the issue up. And thanks for all the time and effort you have put in on this case. If a Susan is a credit to her profession, you are equally a credit to concerned timeshare owners.

My only observation was that in regard to your characterization as an ethical professional. I now understand fully the scope of your comments.

Thanks


----------



## jerseygirl

Jennie said:


> In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them.
> 
> The huge problem with this is that RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks. So they could easily manipulate the ratings of any of the weeks. They could over-rate the "swap-ins" and/or under-value the weeks being "swapped out."




Jennie -- Is it really as simple as:


_In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them._


Many years ago, you patiently educated me about RCI rentals.  I thought you told me that there were four sources of rental inventory, as follows:


RCI gets weeks from developers (and now hotels).  I think we can all agree they're entitled to rent anything not obtained as a member deposit.
If an RCI weeks member exchanges for a cruise, they will pull a week from inventory to rent it and make up for that "oh so generous" discount they offer.   In my opinion, this would be fair too -- if they pulled ONLY the week the member deposited (e.g., II won't let you exchange an already deposited week for a cruise -- you have to make arrangements for the cruise exchange prior to depositing, which tells me they're renting just that week).  But, back when Madge was here, she talked about the fact that many times the deposited week had already been taken for rental, I mean exchange (!), so they pulled something of equivalent value.  This has always been of great concern to me as I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them to substitute something of equal value.  This goes to your point that "RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks, and as far as I'm concerned, this is one of the scariest parts of the entire settlement.
If a points member exchanges for any "Points Partner" item (not just a cruise), the same thing happens.  And the same scary substitutions can occur.

But ... the fourth source we don't seem to be talking about is this one:  

When Madge was here, she talked about RCI's rentals of historically unused inventory in such a way that I was NEVER under the impression they had to substitute any weeks for these rentals.  If this worked like II's program (most are in the last 60 days, and the weeks stay available for exchange when they're moved to getaways, I would be okay with this also -- provided there was some short "lead time" (e.g., 3 days, 5 days, whatever) where owners of low value weeks could still grab last minutes exchange before they're offered to all in Last Call.  I think keeping these last minute weeks available for exchange only for some short time is a KEY component to keeping off-season owners in the game (i.e., paying maintenance fees).

Is this 4th "rental inventory" source addressed in the settlement?  I have to admit to not reading it line-by-line, sorry.

The bottom line for me is that not only do I not trust them to be the "the sole arbiter of the value of all weeks," I think we need to ensure that ALL inventory, regardless of deposit date, is made available exclusively for exchange for some period of time.  If that means RCI had to refuse accepting deposits at 30 days (for example), I could live with that.  What I abhor is last minute inventory (especially cancellations of good weeks) being offered as rentals to the general public before members/owners have a chance at it.

Hope this makes sense ... and if anyone knows the answer, I'm sure you do!


----------



## wilwil

*thank you!  and suspicious RCI activity*

Thanks to all that have contributed! I am a new member to TUG and have just recently learned of the RCI Lawsuit.  I have tried to scan through most of these posts over the last few days.  Our letters of objection will go in the mail tomorrow.

FYI - we reside in Canada and have NOT received any notice about this lawsuit from RCI but they are still able to mail us info or email us about new cancellation policies....

Suspicious RCI activity 
Over the last two weeks, the last one today,  I was emailed by RCI to complete some on line surveys.  Maybe I am suspicious after reading all this information, but the surveys seemed to be fishing for information.  The first one was about "online social media", but a few questions asked about how we used the internet and if we ever visited or contributed to a timeshare related forum or blog...  the timing of the survey seemed suspicious as we had been researching RCI and the frustrating experiences we were having and how it has changed from when we first joined.   
The second survey today was looking for "feedback" about some positive recent exchanges and how they could enhance the exchange/vacation process.  They seemed to want to hear to get some positive comments about recent exchanges, which we did  not give them.  Perhaps they wanted this to take to court to have a survey that out of X members a high % expressed positive experiences from a recent exchange.  Yet they never let us know about the lawsuit - which is buried on the bottom of the home page that disappears as soon as you login.  

Thanks again to all who have put so much time into this.  We even considered driving down on November 30 from Canada but could not make the adjustments to take time off of work.


We would like to find out some alternative exchange methods other than RCI.  They have gotten too greedy and now I am more educated thanks to TUG so I will not support them anymore.  They get our membership fee, then exchange fee up front with our deposited week - and we get very little in return while they profit on our gold crown red time week by renting it out. The only way they will listen is if we take our weeks elsewhere and that will eliminate their "free" inventory that we pay them to take from us....


----------



## Carolinian

*Sources of RCI rental inventory*



jerseygirl said:


> Jennie -- Is it really as simple as:
> 
> 
> _In the proposed settlement, the number and quality of weeks being "swapped out" of the exchange bank would have to be equal to the number and quantity of the weeks "swapped in" to replace them._
> 
> 
> Many years ago, you patiently educated me about RCI rentals.  I thought you told me that there were four sources of rental inventory, as follows:
> 
> 
> RCI gets weeks from developers (and now hotels).  I think we can all agree they're entitled to rent anything not obtained as a member deposit.
> If an RCI weeks member exchanges for a cruise, they will pull a week from inventory to rent it and make up for that "oh so generous" discount they offer.   In my opinion, this would be fair too -- if they pulled ONLY the week the member deposited (e.g., II won't let you exchange an already deposited week for a cruise -- you have to make arrangements for the cruise exchange prior to depositing, which tells me they're renting just that week).  But, back when Madge was here, she talked about the fact that many times the deposited week had already been taken for rental, I mean exchange (!), so they pulled something of equivalent value.  This has always been of great concern to me as I wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them to substitute something of equal value.  This goes to your point that "RCI is the sole arbiter of the value of all of the weeks, and as far as I'm concerned, this is one of the scariest parts of the entire settlement.
> If a points member exchanges for any "Points Partner" item (not just a cruise), the same thing happens.  And the same scary substitutions can occur.
> 
> But ... the fourth source we don't seem to be talking about is this one:
> 
> When Madge was here, she talked about RCI's rentals of historically unused inventory in such a way that I was NEVER under the impression they had to substitute any weeks for these rentals.  If this worked like II's program (most are in the last 60 days, and the weeks stay available for exchange when they're moved to getaways, I would be okay with this also -- provided there was some short "lead time" (e.g., 3 days, 5 days, whatever) where owners of low value weeks could still grab last minutes exchange before they're offered to all in Last Call.  I think keeping these last minute weeks available for exchange only for some short time is a KEY component to keeping off-season owners in the game (i.e., paying maintenance fees).
> 
> Is this 4th "rental inventory" source addressed in the settlement?  I have to admit to not reading it line-by-line, sorry.
> 
> The bottom line for me is that not only do I not trust them to be the "the sole arbiter of the value of all weeks," I think we need to ensure that ALL inventory, regardless of deposit date, is made available exclusively for exchange for some period of time.  If that means RCI had to refuse accepting deposits at 30 days (for example), I could live with that.  What I abhor is last minute inventory (especially cancellations of good weeks) being offered as rentals to the general public before members/owners have a chance at it.
> 
> Hope this makes sense ... and if anyone knows the answer, I'm sure you do!



As to where the bulk of RCI's rental inventory in prime season is coming from, you might want to check out the following thread:

http://www.timesharetalk.co.uk/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7761

The owner of the board checked out Anon's bonafides by asking him questions about his own RCI account that only someone with access to RCI's computers could answer, and Anon came back with all the right answers.  He is what he says he is.


----------



## jerseygirl

Carolinian --

I've always believed both Anon and Bootleg.  My history with RCI -- one deposit (and I own an embarrassing number of timeshares).  You don't need to sell me on their bad behavior -- I've been in your camp for years.

But, I'm hoping my friend Jennie can answer whether or not they're claiming they substitute inventory when they pull the "historically unrequested inventory" from the exchange pool.  I think this is an area where a lot of inventory can go out the back door if the settlement is not specific to this source of rental inventory as well.  And, my recollection of Madge's responses to questions on this point were that they did not substitute inventory for this particular pool -- they considered it theirs, free and clear.

And, believe me, my objection letter outlined my objections to the rental of ANY deposits without first offering them exclusively for open exchange (not just against existing ongoing requests) for a fair and prominently published amount of time.  I also objected to allowing them to set any substitution polices (i.e., don't allow the fox to guard the hen house).  And, I objected to the excessive fees being awarded to the attorneys who are attempting to sell out the class.  I'm on it -- truly.  I just have one one final issue (rental inventory scenario #4) that I'd like to understand.

-- Jerseygirl


----------



## Derrick229

Now I know this is off topic,

[Deleted - It is off-topic - it has nothing to do with this issue or this forum. Please feel free to start a new thread in the TUG Lounge, if you wish. - DeniseM Moderator]


----------



## RustyS

*My objections mailed yesterday*

I mailed my signed objection letter to the court and provided copies (also signed just to be sure) to the two attorneys per the instructions.  Hopefully they will arrive on time and my own bad habit of procrastination won't adversely affect my opinions being heard.  I used one of the templates posted here and/or on the various settlement sites, and for that I thank all who put the effort into making it easy on the rest of us.

I saw that TSToday has requested copies of the objections filed, but I have to admit to not having the history in the community to know if this is a good idea or not.  Anyone want to endorse this for me?  Also, in this day and age of electronic / paperless communication, I hope they accept an emailed PDF because I'm already bugged by having to send paper copies to the attorneys that have a relationship with the court.  You'd think they'd get an email of each item received as soon as it was scanned into the court's workflow management system.


----------



## RustyS

Derrick229 said:


> I got rid of my timeshare years ago (well 2007)
> 
> Blah blah blah <snipped details about your life including a veiled jab at the bulk of readers of this forum>
> ...



Well aren't you the proud one...  What's your point?


----------



## RustyS

*Cross post from another thread (sorry, but it's warranted)*

There is another thread in the Exchange forum that deals with exchanges outside of RCI, and subsequent rental of those exchanges.  In it a question was posed and our friend Denise dredged up an old post that is relevant to this thread.



DeniseM said:


> They do not allow you to swap an exchange week with someone else - see this post from an RCI Rep.



That RCI rep made statements that agree with many members as to why RCI's actions led to the class action suit, yet contradict RCI's assertions in that suit.  I'm gong to quote it here to ease any discussion.



> 1) Accurate representation of Trading Power value -- RCI has contracts with its affiliated resorts and is in a better position to influence information provided about its program.
> 
> 2) Fair exchange policy - RCI's program strives to provide a vacation that is comparable to the one you own. If members buy a deposited week from a resort they've never visited, RCI has no way to gauge their expectations.
> 
> 3) Support for timeshare sales and purchases -- Most people who want higher quality vacation exchanges invest in the purchase of higher quality weeks. When these weeks are deposited with RCI, they in turn provide exchange families with a better selection and quality of inventory from which to choose. Travelers would not be incented to upgrade their purchases if they could simply buy the "interest" for a fraction of the purchase price per year.
> 
> 4) The demand among RCI members for certain areas and times of year is overwhelming (school breaks, holidays, etc.) This is magnified when non-members can compete for the same space.
> 
> If you can't use a confimed exchange, cancel it and make the unit available to other RCI members who may be requesting it. When members rent or swap confirmed exchanges, they undermine RCI's program to the detriment of other members. If a member is waiting for a vacation, he would indeed be upset to think that prime exchange units were being offered to the general public or traded among friends instead of being released.
> 
> RCI works hard to keep its exchange program viable and to satisfy its subscribing members. Maintaining control of our inventory is crucial to our ability to do this.



Wow.  The potential for the rental process to undermine the value of a timeshare.  The potential for the rental process to upset members because prime exchange units were being traded outside the system.  Wow.

I don't know who the rep was that made these statements, nor do I know when they were made.  But if it could be proven this was the corporate position at some point in time, it would prove RCI has reversed their operating concepts and embraced actions they previously predicted would be detrimental to their membership.

If only there was a discovery process in these proceedings.  Of all the stuff I put in my objections, I forgot to point out the wealth of information that would support the action if the court would insist on hearing it.  Dang.


----------



## Judy

*Object to RCI class action lawsuit*

*Edited to remove the author's name as requested by two other TUGgers concerned about her privacy, although I think that without an author's name, the information loses its credibility. 
*
I received this in an email.  The sender said, "Please consider passing this information on to any other timeshare owners you may know."  So I'm posting it here for your information. I haven't verified it myself. I don't know why she didn't post it here herself - I hope it's not against TUG rules. 

_OBJECT TO RCI’S UNFAIR TREATMENT OF MEMBERS

If you have been an RCI Weeks member at any time between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 (even if you are no longer a member), you are automatically a member of a class action lawsuit pending in the U. S. Federal Court in Trenton, New Jersey.

RCI is accused of removing highly desirable weeks that were deposited by members into the Spacebank, and renting them to the general public, often at a price much lower than what the owner pays in annual maintenance fees. RCI admits to doing this but claims it has the right to do whatever it wants with deposited weeks!!!

The attorneys who started the lawsuit in 2006 have made an agreement with RCI's attorneys to settle the case, but it must be approved by Judge Gerald Sheridan at a "Fairness" Hearing to be held on November 30, 2009. The proposed settlement is considered by most RCI Weeks members to be very unfair.

If you are a member of the class and do not like the proposed settlement, you are urged to send an objection letter to the Court. It can be as simple as one sentence such as: “I object to the terms of the proposed settlement”. It must be postmarked by November 20th.
If a large number of letters are received by the Court, we are hopeful that it will lead to a better settlement.

You also have the right to separately file a claim for ONE of five special one-time benefits even if you are no longer a member. You can file on-line at: www.weeksprogramsettlement.com or by mail no later than November 20, 2009.

For additional information about this lawsuit, there is a long discussion going on at the TUG ”Exchanging" bulletin board/Forum: http://www.tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=100107
P.S. Please consider passing this information on to any other timeshare owners you may know.

Send an objection letter, with an original member signature, to the Court
( If there are 2 or more owners listed on the RCI account, only one person's name and signature is required)
AND send a copy to the attorney for the Plaintiffs
AND send a copy to the attorney for the Defendant (RCI is the defendant).

The original goes to:
Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08608

In the letter include

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)

I ______________________________________object to the proposed settlement. (You can state one or more reasons for your objection, but it is not necessary to do so).

Include your address and telephone number
RCI account number
RCI Resort name and I.D number of one resort you own.
If there are 2 or more owners listed on the RCI account, only one person's name and signature is required

At the bottom of your letter, indicate that you will be sending a copy to:

cc: David S. Sager, Esq. cc: David C. Berman
DAY PITNEY LLP A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 1945 P.O. Box 111
Morristown, N.J 07962 Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111

Note: There is no official form. Any type of letter is fine so long as if contains the required member identifying information and signature. Below is a sample letter you may print out and use if you wish.







Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08608

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)


I ______________________________________
object to the terms of the proposed settlement.

(original signature required)_


----------



## Stricky

She has posted it.


----------



## Carolinian

Judy, didn't you catch RCI offering the summer Hatteras High week you deposited for exchange as a rental?  Or was that someone else?  If it was you, I hope you will mention that in an objection letter.


----------



## derb

My letter went out in todays mail.


----------



## DeniseM

Judy said:


> I received this in an email from Caroline Lindholm, who according to her own post, is TUG member Jennie.  She said, "Please consider passing this information on to any other timeshare owners you may know."  So I'm posting it here for your information. I haven't verified it myself. *I don't know why she didn't post it here herself* - I hope it's not against TUG rules.



Jennie, and others, are trying to reach out to Tuggers who may not read the info. posted in the forums.  The email you posted is what this thread is all about - Jennie  started the thread and has been instrumental in this lawsuit.


----------



## Judy

Carolinian said:


> Judy, didn't you catch RCI offering the summer Hatteras High week you deposited for exchange as a rental?  Or was that someone else?  If it was you, I hope you will mention that in an objection letter.


Yes.  Good idea.


----------



## Judy

DeniseM said:


> Jennie, and others, are trying to reach out to Tuggers who may not read the info. posted in the forums.


Well it worked  Although I visit TUG often when I'm at home, I haven't had the time and patience to follow that looooooooooong sticky thread.  But the email got my attention (obviously).  My letter to the court is in the mail. 
I hope it also got the attention of a lot of other timeshare owners.  I know that it's been forwarded extensively because I also received a copy from another timeshare owners' group. Thank you, Jennie


----------



## DeniseM

Judy - If you don't want to read the "War and Peace" version,  just click on the link in Post #1 of the lawsuit thread - there is a summary and copy of the objection form there.


----------



## tombo

This is what I am going to mail in. Any suggested changes before I mail it?





Clerk of Court
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08608

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)


I _____________________________________
object to the terms of the proposed settlement.

I  believe that the court should order RCI to cease and desist from renting inventory deposited by members and RCI should be required make those weeks available for exchange only to members who have also deposited one of their owned weeks for the purpose of exchanging. 

The proposed settlement allows RCI to keep renting our weeks deposited for exchange with no limitations and RCI will give current and past members almost nothing of value in return for their past and future misuse of our deposited weeks. Please do not let RCI off with a slap on the wrist and please do not allow them to continue to rent deposited inventory that should only be available for exchange. This law suit should forever prevent RCI from renting deposited weeks.

Thanks,




Name
Address
Phone Number
RCI Account number 
Owner of numerous RCI affiliated weeks


----------



## Egret1986

*It's still not too late to mail objections! Must be postmarked by 11/20/09, FRIDAY.*



RustyS said:


> I mailed my signed objection letter to the court and provided copies (also signed just to be sure) to the two attorneys per the instructions.  Hopefully they will arrive on time and my own bad habit of procrastination won't adversely affect my opinions being heard.



There's still time to get those objections in the mail.  Including reasons for your objection is great but not required.  All you have to do is send these letters with the required info, sign them and say that you object to the settlement.


----------



## ccarr67

I am totally confused.  I just heard about this class action suit and am unclear as to what direction I should be going.  What is the difference between settling with RCI and filing an objection?  Could someone please clarify or give me more information so I can do this before the 11/20 deadline.  Thank you.

Camille


----------



## TUGBrian

http://www.rciclassactionlawsuit.com has some summarized info if you dont want to read through the whole thread.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*What You Can Do Before November 20th, 2009*

Camille,

Please allow me to be among the first to welcome you to Timeshare Users Group. You will gain tremendous insight about timesharing through interaction here and you will find that in time this website will serve you well by saving you and yours significant sums of money over time. 

Thank you for searching out how you should respond before November 20, 2009.

If you were an RCI Weeks member at any time between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2009 (even if you are not a member now), you are automatically a member of a class action lawsuit pending in the U. S. Federal Court in Trenton, New Jersey.

RCI is accused of removing highly desirable weeks that were deposited by members into the Spacebank, and RENTING them to the general public, often times at a price that is lower than what the owner pays in annual maintenance fees. RCI admits to doing this but claims it has the right to do so. 

The attorneys who started the lawsuit in 2006 have made an agreement with RCI's attorneys to settle the case, but it must be approved by Judge Peter G. Sheridan at a "Fairness" Hearing to be held on November 30, 2009.

Submitting a Claim for one of the rather insignificant benefits being offered by RCI is your right as a member of the Class. The benefit is RCI's way of saying "we have done no wrong; but because you think we have done something wrong you can accept one of the benefits being offered."

*Let me make this clear.* As a member of the class you can file a claim for one of the benefits and ALSO Object to the proposed Settlement.  

If you OBJECT to the proposed Settlement you ARE NOT excluding yourself from any Settlement "benefit" that RCI gives you as a member of the class.  

If, at some point between November 2008 and April, 2009 you submitted a claim for one of the benefits you can still OBJECT to the Settlement between now and November 20, 2009. 

If you have ever filed a claim for one of the benefits you can still Object to the proposed Settlement.

Unless you want to file a personal suit against RCI regarding their selling of deposited "Vacation Time" I humbly suggest that you NOT opt out!  Opting Out is telling RCI that you reserve the right to file suit yourself and opting out prevents you from getting one of the benefits offered and most importantly opting out prevents you from Objecting to the Proposed settlement.

Camille, the proposed settlement is considered by many RCI Weeks members to be very unfair.

If you are a member of the class and do not like the proposed settlement, you are urged to send an objection letter to the Court.

It can be as simple as one sentence, for example you can simply say: *“I object to the terms of the proposed settlement.” *

BUT, YOUR OBJECTION MUST BE Postmarked by November 20, 2009.

As TugBrian said earlier: For information about how to file an objection go to:

http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/TUG_member_information_and_instructions_for_RCI_class_action_settlement.html Informational Instruction # 6) 

WE DO NOT AS YET HAVE WHAT I CONSIDER A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF OBJECTORS.  PLEASE DO NOT LEAVE IT UP TO THE OTHER GUY TO OBJECT FOR YOU.  IF YOU DO NOT OBJECT WE MAY END UP WITH THE CURRENT SETTLEMENT WHICH WOULD BE A TERRIBLE OUTCOME!!

If a large number of objection letters are received by the Court, we are hopeful that the Court will either force a trial or force the parties back to the negotiating table. Either of those two options, I believe will be far more beneficial to class members.

Thanks again for inquiring.


----------



## TSToday

*Plain language???*

The following is from the proposed settlement agreement in the Weeks Class Action Lawsuit. Will the average readers understand it as well as its implications. *"RCI agrees that, as to those members and Former Members who reside outside of the United States as of the Execution Date and who do not submit a Claim Form under this Settlement Agreement, such Members and Former Members shall not be deemed to have consented to personal jurisdiction in New Jersey for purposes of this Settlement Agreement based solely on a consent to personal jurisdiction that may be included in an enrollment application for membership in the RCI Weeks Exchange Program." *

I asked the Attorneys for the Plaintiffs and the Denfendant to explain why the recent Postcard Notice was not sent to Weeks Members residing outside the US. I did not get a response. 
Shep Altshuler
Publisher


----------



## janna

Dave,

Thanks so much for the message and thanks to Jennie and Susan for standing up for all of us "clueless" RCI members. We had no idea about the original class action suit and even with the information sent, we still didn't understand the significance of the settlement. I don't know why I didn't think to come to TUG when we first received the mailed postcard and truly appreciate the notice! I've read the first 5 pages of this thread and the last. We'll read through the information links, finish reading the whole thread and send an objection letter tomorrow.  Again, thanks so much! - janna


----------



## Iwant2gonow

*Is anyone going on November 30th?*

I will definitely write the 3 letters tomorrow.  I am also wondering if anyone else from South Jersey may be driving up to Trenton on Nov. 30th?

Thank you to all who have taken the time to help preserve the rights we originally purchased.
Terrie


----------



## iowateach

My three letters went out yesterday.


----------



## ecwinch

Can you fax an objection in?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Apparently not.*



ecwinch said:


> Can you fax an objection in?



That would be too easy.  The "official website" specifically says the objection letters must be mailed.

To read the applicable information go to this link:

http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/faq.htm

Dave


----------



## Jennie

tombo said:


> This is what I am going to mail in. Any suggested changes before I mail it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clerk of Court
> U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
> 402 East State Street
> Trenton, N.J. 08608
> 
> RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC
> Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)
> 
> 
> I _____________________________________
> object to the terms of the proposed settlement.
> 
> I  believe that the court should order RCI to cease and desist from renting inventory deposited by members and RCI should be required make those weeks available for exchange only to members who have also deposited one of their owned weeks for the purpose of exchanging.
> 
> The proposed settlement allows RCI to keep renting our weeks deposited for exchange with no limitations and RCI will give current and past members almost nothing of value in return for their past and future misuse of our deposited weeks. Please do not let RCI off with a slap on the wrist and please do not allow them to continue to rent deposited inventory that should only be available for exchange. This law suit should forever prevent RCI from renting deposited weeks.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name
> Address
> Phone Number
> RCI Account number
> Owner of numerous RCI affiliated weeks



Great letter! Just make sure to list the name and I.D.# of ONE RCI affiliated resort that you own. And make sure to sign it.

(Someone I know prepared an "objection" letter stating that she never did and never will own an RCI week because of the unfair exchange program but she wants to "support the cause". I told her that she is not eligible to file an objection but she said "It's a free country and I'm going to express my views on their lousy business  policy anyway". And off she drove, at age 88, to bring her letter to the post office. Sweet fiesty lady


----------



## DeniseM

After administrative review, the last post on this thread has been removed.


----------



## GadgetRick

DeniseM said:


> After administrative review, the last post on this thread has been removed.



Thank you so much. Tired of seeing this guy just pop in from time to time and post something and totally ignore all of the valid questions asked of him.


----------



## rwpeterson

*Letters*

Our objection letters will be mailed out first thing in the morning.


----------



## jstapleton

Thank you. I will be sending in today.
Can I ask what the majority will be checking off?
$15 doesn't seem like the trouble but I would really like to see what is available before I make my deposit.
I have a 3 bedroom at OLCC, a 3 bedroom at Waterside in HHI and DVC but I only trade (sometimes) my OLCC.
Does that seem reasonable?
Thank you.


----------



## Tia

jstapleton said:


> ...$15 doesn't seem like the trouble but I would really like to see what is available before I make my deposit.
> I have a 3 bedroom at OLCC, a 3 bedroom at Waterside in HHI and DVC but I only trade (sometimes) my OLCC.
> Does that seem reasonable?
> Thank you.



Thousands of $15 will add up to RCI if it helps to think of it that way. I think seeing what is available before giving them yours in very reasonable.


----------



## DeniseM

jstapleton said:


> Thank you. I will be sending in today.
> Can I ask what the majority will be checking off?
> $15 doesn't seem like the trouble but I would really like to see what is available before I make my deposit.
> I have a 3 bedroom at OLCC, a 3 bedroom at Waterside in HHI and DVC but I only trade (sometimes) my OLCC.
> Does that seem reasonable?
> Thank you.



The goal is to object to the settlement, so it will not be approved, so which option you choose, is not really a big deal.


----------



## Jennie

jstapleton said:


> Thank you. I will be sending in today.
> Can I ask what the majority will be checking off?....I would really like to see what is available before I make my deposit....Does that seem reasonable?
> Thank you.



Very reasonable--that's what I personally chose. But a $20. credit toward your next exchange is tempting too. 

You can file a claim by filling out a brief claim form *on-line* at the official web site:
http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/
The deadline for doing so is November 20, 2009


*Here are the options available, per the official website*:


"Eligible current members have their choice of one of five special benefits. A current member can choose: 

(1) the opportunity to search available inventory and make an exchange request prior to depositing your vacation time; 

(2) a $20 credit that can be used toward a membership renewal or toward your next exchange; 

(3) a prorated refund of your subscription fee and a refund of fees you’ve paid for a pending exchange requests, should you decide to end your Weeks Exchange Program membership; 

(4) one free night stay at any RCI rental that can be used toward the same room of any paid rental of at least one night;  

(5) a $100 discount certificate per cabin for the purchase of any cruise offered by RCI, with the option of receiving additional $100 discount certificates toward the purchase of up to three additional cabins for the same cruise. 

_________________________________________________________________
*Eligible FORMER members* can request to receive a $15 credit toward re-joining the Weeks Exchange Program or request a $15 payment from RCI.
_________________________________________________________________

Whether or not you decide to claim one of the above special benefits, it's important to file an *objection by mail* by November 20th. 

It's a shame that one must "jump through hoops" sending 3 separate letters in order to make objections heard and considered. But those are the rules.

The more objections the Court receives, the better the chances are that this woefully inadequate proposed settlement will not be approved at the "Fairness Hearing" in Federal court on November 30th.

If you agree that the proposed settlement needs to be improved, please take the time to send an objection letter. It can be as brief as one sentence e.g. "I object to the proposed settlement." If enough people do this it can make a big difference.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Object!  Object!    Object!*

Denise,

Thank you again for pointing out the goal. 

Far too many apparently get involved in deciding how they can best stick it to RCI by filing a small claim and fail to realize exactly what is needed to be done NOW!

*THE GOAL IS TO OBJECT!*​
Get that letter of OBJECTION postmarked by November 20th. 

After you have objected you can separately go to the RCI website and file a claim for what amounts to a pittance.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*You Mean I Left Out Some Essential Step?  Sheesh.*

Shux, I signed up (on line) to be part of the class & I sent in a nice letter of objection (based on Tombo's) to the Clerk Of Court up in Trenton NJ. 

Now is there something else I have to do before November 20 in order to register an objection ?  

It's always something, eh ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Jennie

AwayWeGo said:


> Shux, I signed up (on line) to be part of the class & I sent in a nice letter of objection (based on Tombo's) to the Clerk Of Court up in Trenton NJ.
> 
> Now is there something else I have to do before November 20 in order to register an objection ?
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



You're done! The letter you sent to the Court is the official way to object.

Did you send a copy of your objection letter to each of the 2 designated attorneys--David Berman and David Sager? That's a requirement. So long as it is postmarked by November 20th, you're good to go!


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Didn't Do That Part.*




Jennie said:


> Did you send a copy of your objection letter to each of the 2 designated attorneys--David Berman and David Sager? That's a requirement. So long as it is postmarked by November 20th, you're good to go!


Goofed up & did not do that. 

Fortunately, the text of the nice letter to the Clerk Of Court is saved on the electric computer, so I can print out copies to send to the designated attorneys (with a notation that the original was sent to the Clerk Of Court yesterday). 

Can I just search this TUG-BBS discussion topic for the snail-mail addresses of the attorneys ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## lgreenspan

*Good one Stephan*

[The post you referenced has been deleted - DeniseM Moderator]

Your link goes to a debt reduction website.

Here is the correct link for the website you are refering to
http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/index.htm


----------



## Stricky

So... back to the lawsuit.

Is there any chance at this point to getting the settlement revised? Do we think the objections are going to work? i would like to think so but it feels sometimes like fighting big corporations never works out.


----------



## Stricky

AwayWeGo said:


> Goofed up & did not do that.
> 
> Fortunately, the text of the nice letter to the Clerk Of Court is saved on the electric computer, so I can print out copies to send to the designated attorneys (with a notation that the original was sent to the Clerk Of Court yesterday).
> 
> Can I just search this TUG-BBS discussion topic for the snail-mail addresses of the attorneys ?
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



cc: David S. Sager, Esq. 
DAY PITNEY LLP 
P.O. Box 1945 
Morristown, N.J 07962 

cc: David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111


----------



## motomem

Stricky said:


> So... back to the lawsuit.
> 
> Is there any chance at this point to getting the settlement revised? Do we think the objections are going to work? i would like to think so but it feels sometimes like fighting big corporations never works out.



Anyone who hasn't read this entire thread needs to.  Revisions to the settlement are being worked on by Susan2, on here, who is a lawyer and has attended at least one of the hearings in person and is working on the objectors behalf.  Susan2 is a timeshare owner.  Her and some other owners were at the hearing and they were the ones that got the postcard sent out.  If they had not been there many many many would not even now about the lawsuit therefore given the chance to object.

The revisions to the settlement are posted in this thread somewhere, I believe.  If not in this thread it might be another thread.  It would be nice if someone could post a sticky thread with the revisions which would make it easy to find for everyone.


----------



## DeniseM

Susan is preparing new info. which she will be posting soon.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Done !*




Stricky said:


> cc: David S. Sager, Esq.
> DAY PITNEY LLP
> P.O. Box 1945
> Morristown, N.J 07962
> 
> cc: David C. Berman
> A Professional Corporation
> P.O. Box 111
> Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111


Just got back from the Post Office. 

Dropped'm into the slot in time for the final pick-up of the day. 

If that gets me blackballed by RCI, so what ?

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*You Have One Full Day To Get Your Objection Postmarked!*

So far their have been no revisions that have been accepted by RCI. 

Back in September some objectors met with some RCI executives and the attorneys for both sides and talked about proposed revisions.  

RCI's attorney waited a cosiderable period of time before getting back to the objectors. When he did get back, RCI had pretty much decided to keep the Settlement as is. Therefore, the next step is the "Fairness Hearing" which takes place tomorrow. 

Thanks to everyone who sent in a written objection to the Court.

*For those that have not as yet acted there is STILL TIME.* 

A Form Letter was created sometime back and it is available at the very beginning of this thread. 

Go there, print it out, fill in the blanks and get your letter postmarked today or tomorrow November 20th.

Send the signed original to the Clerk of Court.  Make sure to also send a copy to the two gentlemen whose addresses are at the bottom of the FORM LETTER.

Many folks have been leaving out needed information by NOT using the FORM letter.  If you choose to NOT use the FORM LETTER at least pay attention to the required infomation that needs to be in your letter to the Court.  

That information includes your *RCI ACCOUNT #, **The Name of one RCI affiliated Resort that you own at*;* the RCI ID for that Resort*; *your phone number and your complete address*.


----------



## GadgetRick

Ok, this has gotten confusing. Finally got around to going to the online claim site. If I file a claim, does that mean I do not object? Does it mean I will be excluded if they do over turn the measly offer(s) they have made?


----------



## Laurie

GadgetRick said:


> Ok, this has gotten confusing. Finally got around to going to the online claim site. If I file a claim, does that mean I do not object? Does it mean I will be excluded if they do over turn the measly offer(s) they have made?


No, filing a claim doesn't mean you cannot object. (That's a lot of negatives!) 

In other words: you can file a claim and still file a valid objection. You won't be excluded from anything.

The only reason to not file a claim is if you want to retain your right to bring a separate lawsuit yourself - which you cannot do if you are part of the class, which you become if/when you file the little claim. 

But you can be part of the class, claim your crackerjack prize, and still object to the proposed terms of the settlement.

Hope that helps.


----------



## rickandcindy23

RCI raised its exchange fee just in time for the $20 credit to mean a thing.


----------



## GadgetRick

Laurie said:


> No, filing a claim doesn't mean you cannot object. (That's a lot of negatives!)
> 
> In other words: you can file a claim and still file a valid objection. You won't be excluded from anything.
> 
> The only reason to not file a claim is if you want to retain your right to bring a separate lawsuit yourself - which you cannot do if you are part of the class, which you become if/when you file the little claim.
> 
> But you can be part of the class, claim your crackerjack prize, and still object to the proposed terms of the settlement.
> 
> Hope that helps.



Ok, so let's assume someone files a claim (to be included) but doesn't know or doesn't file an objection. I'm guessing they'll be included in any proposed settlement to replace this token they're offering us?


----------



## motomem

GadgetRick said:


> Ok, so let's assume someone files a claim (to be included) but doesn't know or doesn't file an objection. I'm guessing they'll be included in any proposed settlement to replace this token they're offering us?



1. If you opt-out, you don't get one of the 'token offerings', plus you could participate in a different lawsuit for this same thing if one is ever filed.

2. If you object, you will get one of the 'token offerings' IF YOU SUBMIT A CLAIM.  You must submit a claim even if you send an objection.

3. If you do nothing, you don't get one of the 'token offerings'.

For options 2 & 3, if this settlement happens you will be included in that and cannot participate in a different lawsuit for the same thing.

For all 3 options, you will get the benefit of operational changes at RCI (may be good or not).

Now, if the judge declares the current settlement proposal is not valid, the settlement proposal can possibly be altered, but this remains to be decided.  Nobody knows what the judge will do at the end of this month.


----------



## Jennie

Stricky said:


> So... back to the lawsuit.Is there any chance at this point to getting the settlement revised? Do we think the objections are going to work? i would like to think so but it feels sometimes like fighting big corporations never works out.



A "Fairness Hearing" will take place on November 30th at the Federal Court in Trenton, New Jersey. If the Judge believes the proposed settlement is fair, he will approve it and it would become a "done deal." That's what almost happened on June 16th. If timesharing Today Magazine hadn't alerted readers to the the poor settlement terms and presented 100+ objection letters from readers, plus testified about the inadequate notice given to class members, we would already be stuck with this unconscienable agreement. 

We've been told that it is highly unusual for members of a Federal class action suit to voice objections. Most have "no clue" what the case is about. I.ve often times forgotten to cash $5.00 or $10.00 ish checks that would arrive as a result of a settlement of some case I knew nothing about. I received a check once for $39. for something to do with Microsoft. I have no idea why Microsoft was sued but the $39. was enough for me to remember to cash the check. In many such cases, the alleged "bad behavior" was discontinued a long time ago and the settlement is more or less punishment for past misdeeds, plus a deterrent to other similar companies. 

Since that fateful day, June 16th, when hubby and I decided to drive to the Federal court to support Shep Alshuler (publisher of Timesharing Today Magazine), I have been learning more and more about the theory and reality of class action suits. I now read class notices from cover to cover and follow the instructions for claiming what usually amounts to a cheap "trinket." 

But as to whether or not the objection letters will make an appreciable difference in the outcome of the RCI case, I do not have enough knowledge or experience (nor an accurate crystal ball) to be able to make make any valid predictions. I do feel confident that we have an intelligent concerned Judge. But what he can or may or may not do is not known to us. We are hoping for the best but will have to wait and see what actually happens. Obviously we'd like to believe that the objection letters will make a difference 

I do hope that making timeshare owners aware of the way in which RCI has been abusing their deposits may lead to enough loss of business to make RCI gradually re-focus on their core busines of being "the world's largest exchange network worldwide".   Meanwhile the on-going exodus of many RCI members may bring more business to the smaller exchange companies that have a better customer oriented business model but have been unable to attract enough members and deposits to be a viable alternative to RCI. 

Bottom line--nothing ventured, nothing gained. I'm glad that as young retirees with excellent pensions, my husband and I have been able to devote time and energy to this worthwhile "cause."  

We have attended many owners' meetings, and have been establishing a good "working relationships" with resort managers and HOA boards. Many have committed to engage in an education campaign to inform their owners about the alternate exchange opportunites that are available if RCI is not forced to "mend it's ways" as a result of this lawsuit. Some resorts have committed to setting up an in-house rental program to assist their owners in renting their weeks when they are unable to use them.  There are a lot of things we owners can and should do if RCI no longer meets our needs.

Per Carolinian's sage advice, Timesharing Today and other "objectors" have been in touch with consumer protection agencies, Attorney Generals offices, etc.. as a "back-up" plan. 

Stay tuned!


----------



## GadgetRick

motomem said:


> 1. If you opt-out, you don't get one of the 'token offerings', plus you could participate in a different lawsuit for this same thing if one is ever filed.
> 
> 2. If you object, you will get one of the 'token offerings' IF YOU SUBMIT A CLAIM.  You must submit a claim even if you send an objection.
> 
> 3. If you do nothing, you don't get one of the 'token offerings'.
> 
> For options 2 & 3, if this settlement happens you will be included in that and cannot participate in a different lawsuit for the same thing.
> 
> For all 3 options, you will get the benefit of operational changes at RCI (may be good or not).
> 
> Now, if the judge declares the current settlement proposal is not valid, the settlement proposal can possibly be altered, but this remains to be decided.  Nobody knows what the judge will do at the end of this month.



Cool beans. It's clear as mud now... 

Seriously, I believe I understand it all now. Sheesh, this whole thing is just as confusing as it was when I first started following it.


----------



## TSToday

*The Countdown Is Over*

Over 300 objections letters were sent to the Court. In addition to Susan Collins, Caroline Lindholm and me, the originl Objectors who appeared at the Julyl Fairness Hearings, there will now be several others who will appear on 11/30 as objectors; some are attorneys. 

There was one interesting objection letter from an 80 year old husband of one of the leading plaintiffs. I spoke to him and he said that he was unhappy with the proposed settlement and said that his wife was reluctant to comment because of an agreement she signed and that she was "afraid of going to jail" if she did. I don't believe that this would happen but Section X(E) of the Settlement Agreement does pose restrictions on the plaintiffs, including a prohibition about making disparaging remarks about the Attorneys. 

TimeSharing Today has received several email from readers expressing concerns about retaliation from RCI if they spoke out. There was one objection letter who mentioned retaliation. I contacted several management companies to gain some insight about RCI's rental practices and one person I spoke to was reluctant to speak because of the possibility of retaliation of some sort by RCI. 

I'd be interested in hearing from you about this concern. Is it real or imagined?
Shep Altshuler
Publisher
TimeSharing Today    
staff@tstoday.com


----------



## Susan2

> *Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*
> 
> I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.



The following objection to the propopsed settlement agreement ("the Agreement") was filed Friday, November 20, 2009, on behalf of my clients.  

*1.  THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE ADEQUATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PRACTICES ON WHICH THIS LAWSUIT IS BASED.*

	This suit was brought by the named Plaintiffs, inter alia, because weeks deposited by paying members for exchange with other members are taken from the inventory by RCI and rented out through various sources.  This practice results in substantial profits for the Defendant but compromises the integrity of the exchange process and reduces the availability of desirable exchanges for the members of the Class. 

	The Agreement not only does not impose adequate safeguards against this practice but it requires only minor changes in the Defendant's practice, and only for a very limited time (little more than half as long as the period from when the first papers were filed in this suit until the current court appearance).  

	Plaintiffs' attorneys have repeatedly claimed that this Agreement poses no deterrent to future litigation, but obviously the prospect of undertaking another four-year battle to obtain minor relief which might last only two years is daunting, to say the least.   

*2.  THE AGREEMENT FAILS TO ENSURE THAT WEEKS WITHDRAWN FROM RCI AND PLACED WITH OTHER ENTITIES REMAIN AVAILABLE FOR EXCHANGE BY CLASS MEMBERS.*

	The Plaintiffs' attorneys have claimed that the Agreement protects class members requiring that weeks rented by RCI will simultaneously remain available for exchange.  However, the Agreement actually requires simultaneous availability for exchange only for weeks that are rented through RCI itself.  There is no mention whatsoever of what will happen to weeks that RCI/Wyndham chooses to remove from RCI's inventory completely and rent or otherwise dispose of through its other companies or affiliates, which are only vaguely referred to elsewhere in the Agreement.  

	Plaintiffs' attorney have contended that the meaning of the settlement is that these weeks withdrawn and placed with other entities will continue to be available to RCI members for exchange, but a request that clarifying wording be inserted into the Agreement was ignored by the Defendant.  

*3.  THE AGREEMENT ALLOWS THE DEFENDANT RCI FREE USE OF ALL WEEKS WITHIN 90 DAYS OF THE START DATE, TO THE PARTICULAR DETRIMENT OF MEMBERS WHO HAVE "LOW TRADE POWER" WEEKS.*

	It has long been RCI'S policy to "drop" or ignore the elements of "trade power" within 45 days of the start of a week offered for exchange, so that any deposited week (regardless of desirability) is able to obtain in exchange any week from the spacebank which is still available a month and a half in advance of its start date.  This policy has for many years allowed members who own low-demand time to make good exchanges by waiting until the last minute to make an exchange, and being flexible about the location they will accept.  This 45-day window is also used by members whose weeks were assigned low trade power by RCI because of cancellation of a prior exchange, or because the weeks were deposited too close to the start date to be assigned full trade power.   

	This Agreement allows RCI unrestricted use of all inventory within 90 days of the start date, thereby allowing RCI to eliminate this important aspect the exchange system.  There are no requirements that other time be substituted for withdrawals within this time period, no requirement that these weeks be made simultaneously available for exchange, and no requirement that RCI even account for the number of weeks withdrawn within this period.   

	The Plaintiffs' attorneys have given no reason for this inventory to be excluded from the safeguards negotiated for other inventory, or any indication that the needs of members with low "trade power" time were even considered.  

*4.  THE AGREEMENT PERMITS RCI TO DO PRECISELY THAT WHICH RCI PROHIBITS ITS MEMBERS FROM DOING. * 

	RCI has long prohibited its members from any "commercial use" of the weeks acquired in exchange for a member's deposit, including rental or sale of the time/unit received in exchange for a deposit.  However, RCI itself now claims the right to swap units "acquired from other sources" for weeks deposited by RCI members for exchange with other members, so as to allow RCI to rent out those selfsame weeks RCI prohibits its members from renting out.  Defendant RCI staunchly maintains that its rental practices do not compromise the exchange system for members, while simultaneously continuing to prohibit members from renting weeks obtained in exchange.  Once again, the Plaintiffs' attorneys have not even commented on this discrepancy.  

	To highlight the inconsistency of this position, I would take the Court back a few years to a time when RCI had a semi-official presence on internet bulletin boards and made various postings to answer member questions via one or more RCI employees who wrote under the moniker "Madge."  In one of these postings, last re-posted in January, 2006 (coincidentally the month in which this lawsuit was first brought), the RCI representative attempted to explain to members why RCI prohibited its members from renting to others the units they received in exchange for their deposits.  

	The stated reasons for prohibiting members from renting out exchanged units included representations that RCI needed to "support . . .timeshare sales and purchases" by not allowing timeshare weeks to be rented at inappropriately low rates, and acknowledging that "Travelers would not be incented to upgrade their purchases if they could simply buy the 'interest' for a fraction of the purchase price per year."  

	Madge further stated that the "the demand among RCI members for certain areas and times of year is overwhelming (school breaks, holidays, etc.)" and that this demand "is magnified when non-members can compete for the same space."  The posting further encouraged members to cancel a confirmed exchange if they couldn't use it on the basis that "When members rent or swap confirmed exchanges, they undermine RCI's program to the detriment of other members. If a member is waiting for a vacation, he would indeed be upset to think that prime exchange units were being offered to the general public or traded among friends instead of being released."  

	Peculiarly, although these arguments were made by RCI representatives charged with communicating with its members, and the public, the current generation of RCI policymakers ignores these issues completely – except to continue to prohibit members from renting out exchanges.  Furthermore, RCI's current policy of renting out inventory impact the exchange system much more severely than members' rentals because it is such a massive and concerted effort.  When members protest RCI rentals, using the same arguments that were previously proffered by RCI, the arguments are summarily dismissed as immaterial.  

	The Agreement, as interpreted by the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, temporarily restricts RCI from substituting weeks unless a member could make the same exchange.  However, even that minor restriction is not permanent, being required only for a period of 24 months.  Furthermore, since RCI is the sole arbiter of trade power, and some of the weeks so substituted are admittedly not even timeshare units eligible for ownership by members, the "sufficient trade power" argument is fundamentally flawed.  The substituted weeks may not be of lower value, but there is no mechanism for oversight of RCI's valuation, and since no discovery was conducted, there is no way to tell whether the Agreement provides an improvement.  

	It is posited, however, that if the weeks that RCI substitutes for the inventory it chooses to remove from the spacebank for rental were truly of equal quality and desirability, then RCI could simply rent out its alternate inventory without making the exchange.  We submit that the fact that RCI sees a need to withdraw weeks deposited by members for exchange in order to obtain rental income is prima facia evidence that the weeks so withdrawn are more highly desirable than the weeks so substituted. 

*5. THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT PROTECT MEMBERS FROM RCI'S PREDATORY RENTAL PRICING.* 

	Despite its prior contentions that it has a duty to support timeshare sales, which precluded it from allowing its members to rent exchanged weeks, RCI now frequently rents timeshare units at rates that are lower than even the annual maintenance fee.  When this was brought to the attention of RCI management, RCI claimed that it is "not the market maker" and hence should be allowed to rent timeshare weeks deposited for exchange at whatever prices they choose.  

	Most timeshare owners purchased their units on the understanding that they were pre-paying for their vacations.  Most purchasers invested thousands of dollars in their timeshares.  Some invested tens of thousands of dollars.  Those same purchasers also pay hundreds of dollars (some few pay a couple of thousand dollars) in annual maintenance fees to maintain their property and their rights.  Sometimes, resorts imposed substantial assessments to fund special repair or improvement projects, which members are required to pay.  RCI's  refusal to even consider just the annual maintenance fees when setting rental prices is a clear indication that RCI is putting current profits ahead of members' interests, and even ahead of its own long-term viability.    

	The current economy has resulted in overwhelming numbers of timeshares being deeded back to the resorts because of bankruptcies, job losses, and other decreases in income.  These "deedbacks" result in no cash for the former timeshare owner, and represent a loss of the entire investment.  However, it is deemed by some timeshare owners to be desirable (or at least necessary) because it eliminate the obligation of the annual maintenance fee.  These weeks could be resold, but there is virtually no market to sell a property which can be rented for less than the annual maintenance fee.  Resorts are finding themselves hard-pressed to make up the loss of income. This raises the inequities of RCI's policies to the level of "fiddling while Rome is burning."  

	Perhaps most galling to members is the fact that in order to achieve these short-term profits, RCI is actually converting members' property to its own use.  If RCI and/or its affiliates acquired units from the resorts for rental purposes, and then rented those units out to RCI members or to the general public, then any resulting detriment to the resort in a decrease in the viability of sales would be attributable also to the resort.  However, RCI's policy of swapping units and renting out the owner-deposited weeks causes a detriment to resorts (and their owners) who did not cooperate in this process.   

*6.  THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT IMPOSE SUFFICIENT AND APPROPRIATE RESTRICTIONS ON THE IMPROPER PRACTICES OF RESORT SALES PEOPLE.*

	RCI has long maintained that it has no responsibility for inappropriate and inaccurate representations made by resort sales staff when that staff is selling timeshare weeks.  It does not claim that misrepresentations are not made; just that RCI has no responsibility for the misrepresentations.  These misrepresentations frequently overstate the exchange value of the resort weeks being sold.  

	The Agreement requires RCI to survey new members regarding their experience in buying a timeshare.  However, there is no real enforcement mechanism to ensure that only proper information is being given to prospective owners.  RCI and resorts in active sales have long played a "blame game," each denying responsibility for the fact that unsuspecting purchasers of timeshares find themselves with much less exchange availability than they were led to believe they would enjoy.  For example, it is widely accepted among knowledgeable timeshare owners that resorts in Orlando, FL have a high vacancy rate in the fall.  Nevertheless, more timeshares are continually being built.  RCI has a policy of rating all weeks in Orlando as "red" (the highest demand) time, with no discernible difference between the fall weeks which have a high vacancy rating and the spring, summer and holiday weeks, which have substantially high demand.  

	The prospective timeshare buyers are simply told by the resort sales staff that a "red" rating means that the time is in the highest-demand, and the Orlando timeshare buyer is encouraged to buy fall weeks with the promise that they can exchange for any other week of the year through RCI.  After purchase, the buyers often find themselves unable to make the exchanges they were led to believe they would be able to make.  RCI denies responsibility for the representations of timeshare sales people, and the resorts deny responsibility for RCI's practices and assignment of trade power. 

	The resorts and RCI could not exist without each other.  If people didn't own timeshares and want to exchange them for space at other timeshares, RCI would not exist.  Without the ability to exchange for time at other areas, locations and resorts, resorts would not be able to sell many timeshares.  

	A simple solution (which was proposed, but rejected by RCI) would be to amend the Agreement to include resorts with unsold (or reacquired) weeks in the provision of the Agreement which allows RCI members to obtain the relative exchange power of the weeks they own.  This would not force the resort sales staff to actually research the information, but their failure to do so could be used to eventually hold them liable for misrepresentation or for failure to make proper disclosure.  

	Indeed, we posit that the only reason to deny resorts access to the same information that would be available to members under the Agreement, and to publish the fact that the resorts could access this information, is to assist resort sales staff in any efforts to deny responsibility for misrepresentations and/or lack of proper disclosure.      

(Continued on next post)


----------



## Susan2

> *Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*
> 
> I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.



Continued from previous post:  

*7.  THE FACT THAT THE PLAINTIFFS DID NOT CONDUCT DISCOVERY PRECLUDED THE POSSIBILITY OF NEGOTIATING OF A FAIR AGREEMENT. * 

	The Plaintiffs' attorneys can only be unaware of the full nature, scope and extent of RCI's current practices, not having conducted discovery regarding these issues.  It is submitted that without having fully examined RCI's practices, there could be no meaningful negotiations.  Indeed, the named Plaintiffs could only report on their individual experiences, and could not have been aware of policies which RCI considers proprietary and confidential.  

*8.  BASED ON RCI'S PAST PRACTICES, THERE NEEDS TO BE A MECHANISM UNDER WHICH ANY CHANGES IN RCI'S PRACTICES CAN BE EFFECTIVELY MONITORED.* 

	As stated at the first Fairness Hearing on June 16, RCI employees who deal with the public were still – as of that date -- consistently and completely denying that RCI ever removes weeks deposited for exchange from the RCI "spacebank" in order to rent them, either through RCI itself or through other companies.  In court, RCI's attorneys called the rental of weeks deposited for exchange an essential part of RCI's business plan.  

	Even the Plaintiffs' attorneys have argued that RCI had and has the "right" to rent weeks deposited by members for exchange, based on RCI's ever-changing Terms and Conditions of Membership which both sets of attorneys have referred to as a "contract."  The issues of an adhesion contract will not be argued here because such a discussion would be beside the point.  The point here is that RCI has a clear history of concealing its practices, and denying those practices even when directly questioned by the members whose rights are being prejudiced, while in other contexts it defends those same practices.   This astonishing inconsistency, which is repeated in other areas, is a clear indication that oversight of RCI is absolutely needed to ensure compliance with any agreement whatsoever.  

	The Agreement provides that RCI will disclose to the Plaintiffs' counsel certain information regarding its compliance with the agreement.  By the terms of the Agreement which they negotiated, the Plaintiffs' attorneys have demonstrated that they lack the expertise to fully understand the impact of certain of RCI's business practices on RCI members.  This provision is therefore inadequate to protect the membership, and is not directed to the most appropriate recipients, which would be the RCI members themselves.  

*9.  THE COMPENSATORY DAMAGES OF THE SETTLEMENT ARE TOTALLY DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE INJURIES SUFFERED BY MEMBERS OF THE CLASS, AND ARE SO TRIVIAL AS TO BE VIRTUALLY MEANINGLESS. * 

	As stated previously, timeshare owners have a substantial investment in their timeshares, and significant ongoing obligations.  It would be very difficult to quantify the loss experienced by the membership, except that it would likely be equal to the profits that RCI has enjoyed from its years of additional profits gleaned from converting weeks deposited by members for exchange to its own use.  In truth, the amount to be paid to the named Plaintiffs, which is nearly 20 times the amount offered to current members, would not begin to compensate many class members for their losses. 

	By and large, however, objectors have not focused on the inadequacy of the compensatory damages, because the issue of injunctive relief is of even greater importance.  Past damages are past, and objectors are focused on protecting the future value of their timeshares.  However, the amounts to be paid in compensation are so trivial as to be on the verge on being insulting.  

	Despite its comparatively low importance, the inadequacy of the compensation should be at least briefly addressed.  Members who have lost the use of even one year's use of their timeshare week because of their inability to make an acceptable exchange have lost their entire maintenance fee for the year.  Those who own only one timeshare have also paid a year's membership fee to RCI and received nothing for their year's membership.  Many members who also paid an additional fee to extend the time period in which their deposits could be used, still failed to obtain an acceptable exchange because of RCI's rental of deposited weeks.  Those members who paid to extend their deposits and still could not find acceptable exchanges are offered additional compensation, but that compensation is less than the additional fee they paid RCI to extend the use of the week, much less compensation for the maintenance fees they paid to their resort and the year's membership in RCI.  

	Members who settled for exchanges that did not meet their reasonable expectations, and members who gave up searching and did not pay to extend their deposits are not even being considered, unless "consideration" in the form of $15 to $20 is deemed appropriate.  Even this nominal amount is only awarded on a per-member basis, and does not consider the greater loss suffered by members who own more than one timeshare.  In short, members are being offered a mere pittance.  Many of the objectors, and probably even more of the class, have elected not to file a claim for damages as a form of protest.  

*10.  CLASS MEMBERS NEED SPECIAL ONGOING PROTECTION, DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE RESORT AFFILIATIONS WITH RCI.* 

	It is important to understand the nature of resort affiliations with RCI in order to understand why injunctive relief is so important to RCI members.  Members who own at an RCI-affiliated resort cannot simply move to another exchange company.  Most class members are not even aware that other, smaller exchange companies exist, and many resort managers know only that the affiliation contract with RCI, on its face, clearly states that it is an exclusive contract for exchange through RCI.  

	It is entirely possible that resorts could break their exclusive contracts with RCI with impunity, based on anti-trust statues and RCI policy when relief from this provision is specifically requested by the resort.  However, it is probable that most resort managers don't realize they could do this, believing the wording of the contract to be definitive.  Indeed, the very purpose of unenforceable clauses in contracts is to inhibit litigation.  Many resort managers are so intimidated by the words of the contract that they report great reluctance to encourage their members to exchange through other sources, due to a fear of retaliation by RCI.  

	It is possible that members could learn on their own about other exchange companies, but the main source of most members' information about timeshare exchanges is their home resorts at the time of purchase and from the exchange company with whom their resort is affiliated after purchase.  

	Furthermore, articles published by RCI or the timeshare exchange industry (often freely circulated by the RCI-affiliated resorts) declare that RCI facilitates seven of ten exchanges worldwide.  There is no question that RCI is the industry giant.  No other exchange company offers the variety of exchange opportunities that RCI purports to offer.  

	For these reasons, members cannot simply walk away from RCI and go somewhere else, in the way that a shopper at K-Mart could go instead to Target or Wal-Mart, or any of a number of different stores.  As a result, this Court should take special care to insure that any agreement to settle this lawsuit is fair to the class, and to protect the class from future inequities.


----------



## Laurie

TSToday said:


> Over 300 objections letters were sent to the Court.


I'm sure there are more than that, because the cutoff postmark date was Nov 20 - so they all won't haven't arrived by Sunday, Nov 22.


----------



## jerseygirl

Susan --- That is an absolutely fantastic response.  You're the best!   

I'm so glad you addressed my question regarding the 45-day window (posted it a couple of pages ago, but it got lost in all the postings).  I firmly believe that window is key to keeping off-season players in the game and, more importantly, paying their maintenance fees.  Without it, the already high number of delinquencies will only get worse ... which could result in the demise of a lot of resorts.


----------



## Susan2

> *Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:*
> 
> I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.



Thank you, Jersey girl.  The "45-day" rule has been a big issue with all of us from the beginning, and one that "Jennie" has also zealously advocated.  

Unfortunately, there is so much wrong with the Agreement, that it would be hard to try to "tweak" it to make it good.  Let's all keep our fingers crossed that the judge rejects it completely!  

Susan

Now I've got to learn how to "double quote" so I can get the disclaimer on AND quote items I want to respond to.  Denise, can you help me out here?


----------



## DeniseM

Great job Susan, and so readable for us non-lawyer types!     

Thanks for all your hard work and best of luck on the 30th!


----------



## jerseygirl

I'm not Denise, but to quote from 2 (or more) posts, you click on the "little" quote boxes (next to the big QUOTE box) for all the posts you wish to quote from.  After you've clicked both (or all), hit post reply.  You then usually need to delete some of the stuff as you probably don't want ALL of it to be in quotes.

Most important part:  Anything you want to show up in a "quote" box must begin with [ q ]  .... but no spaces between the brackets and the q, and end with [ / q ] .... but, again, no spaces between the brackets, the slash and the q.

Hope that helps.

PS  I know "Jenny" is "passionate" about the 45-day window as well.  She taught me everything I know about RCI rentals ... and a whole lot more!     You two make a great team.


----------



## JoeWilly

Susan and Jennie,

Thanks for all your hard work.  I truly hope the proposed settlement gets rejected.


----------



## Jennie

JoeWilly said:


> Susan and Jennie,
> 
> Thanks for all your hard work.  I truly hope the proposed settlement gets rejected.



Thanks to everyone who has taken a few minutes to acknowledge our efforts. It has kept our spirits high and intensified our resolve to aggressively fight this grossly inadequate proposed settlement. 

Let's hope that RCI realizes that they can no longer fool their members, and that people will stop depositing weeks until they have verifiable assurance that the weeks will remain in the spacebank for exchange with other members, and not be rented to the general public. 

Shep Altshuler, Publisher of Timesharing Today Magazine, will be appearing in Court too on November 30th. He plans to argue that the postcards (post papers?--wasn't really a card) were inadequate. Some were barely legible. And  none were sent to the huge number of RCI members who reside outside the United States. 

The more one investigates, the more one realizes just how sleazy this company really is. Considering all the "games" RCI plays when a Federal Court is looking over their shoulder, one can just imagine how much has been going on behind our backs for years. And how likely it is to continue unless a better settlement is worked out, or RCI  loses at trial.


----------



## slvrbullet

This is so typical, what starts out as a great idea ends up in nothing more than corporate greed. Keep in mind however history has proven "The bigger they are the harder they fall!!!"


----------



## DeniseM

Jennie - Thank you to you too!  Didn't mean to leave you out!


----------



## Jennie

DeniseM said:


> Jennie - Thank you to you too!  Didn't mean to leave you out!



I want all TUGgers to know that DeniseM has provided an enormous amount of support and encouragement "behind the scenes" and has helped "the cause" in countless ways. 

Goofyhobbie has been a tireless crusader as well!


----------



## GadgetRick

Jennie said:


> I want all TUGgers to know that DeniseM has provided an enormous amount of support and encouragement "behind the scenes" and has helped "the cause" in countless ways.
> 
> Goofyhobbie has been a tireless crusader as well!



x2!!! They're the best!


----------



## RustyS

JoeWilly said:


> Susan and Jennie,
> 
> Thanks for all your hard work.  I truly hope the proposed settlement gets rejected.



Hear hear.  And Denise.  And Brian.  And TSToday...  The point is thanks to all who beat the drum, got the word out, fostered communication, and helped overcome RCI's desire to let this issue go quietly into the good night.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Thanks to Jennie and Susan, and I hope the objectors get some satisfaction.  I am one of those who sent my letter a few days before the deadline.  I actually encouraged my fellow board members at my resorts to also object, and I believe at least four or five of them did.  There was not enough time to notify all of the owners at the two resorts, and it would have taken a special mailing to accomplish it, which is a shame.  

I hope to see better trading power within 45 days for my blue weeks, which are difficult to even give away.  I cannot travel within two weeks, which is when the good inventory seems to appear.  

My goal as a board member at two resorts is to make sure all members know there are alternative exchange companies that are free to join, have lower fees, and will provide better exchanges and benefits than RCI will give.  As Susan's post points out, many resorts believe the strong language in their affiliation agreements, and therefore force owners to use RCI only.  It's nonsense, as we know, but I have experienced this myself at my own resort, so I know it happens.  Perhaps RCI should have to enlighten all management companies and developers that depositing with other companies is always an option.


----------



## motomem

So, 400 to 500 objections so far from a membership of what - 2 million??  Kind of just scratches the surface, it seems.  But, this might be a decent showing for a class action suit, I'm not sure.

Of the class, would be be helpful to find out how many are active in RCI?  RCI might have 2 million members but if only 45% of them are active the objection showing would have much more meaning.

Many memberships come from vacation clubs that "provide" membership in RCI.  Many of these owners may never use RCI to exchange.  Just a thought.


----------



## EYLive

Hi, I'm new to these forums.
My family owns a timeshare via RCI. We're pretty pissed off by their service and have been trying to end our contract.
"Brokers" have been hounding us about letting them take over the contract but they want us to send them ~$2,000.
I came upon this thread, and while I haven't read through all 37 pages, it looks like you guys are finally doing something about this scam.
Is it too late to take part in the class action suit? What do I need to know to be a part of this?

Thanks,
-EY


----------



## DeniseM

Hi EYLive - the deadline to send in an objection to the current proposal was Nov. 20th, but things are just getting interesting.  Stay tuned for more info. coming soon!

BTW - Don't pay an upfront fee to sell your TS - that is a common scam!


----------



## EYLive

Thanks. We'll sit tight.


----------



## Jennie

EYLive said:


> Hi, I'm new to these forums.
> 
> Is it too late to take part in the class action suit? What do I need to know to be a part of this? Thanks



The deadline for filing an objection, or a claim for one of the "trinkets" has passed. But you are automatically a member of the class action lawsuit, since you have not "excluded" yourself (a/k/a "opted out"). So if any beneficial changes occur as a result of the settlement, you will automatically receive them.


----------



## jerseygirl

Jennie / Susan --

How can I follow the court docket for delays, etc?  I'm thinking very seriously of coming to the hearing ... but would hate to make that long drive if there's a chance it will be postponed.

-- Jerseygirl (no longer in Jersey so it's not an insignificant drive!)


----------



## BigElm

Now we wait..... 

In the meantime, Happy Thanksgiving!!! :whoopie:


----------



## Jennie

jerseygirl said:


> Jennie / Susan --
> 
> How can I follow the court docket for delays, etc?  I'm thinking very seriously of coming to the hearing ... but would hate to make that long drive if there's a chance it will be postponed.
> 
> -- Jerseygirl (no longer in Jersey so it's not an insignificant drive!)



The "Fairness Hearing" is definitely scheduled to take place on Monday, November 30th at 2:30 p.m. at the Federal Courthouse, 402 E. State Street,  Trenton, N.J at 2:30 p.m. with Judge Peter G. Sheridan presiding. 

It would take a major event to cause a cancellation. The Court Clerk's Office can be reached at 609-989-2065 to double check.

It looks like a "knock-down drag out fight" is brewing based upon the slew of last minute papers that have been filed by the Plaintiffs' and Defendant's attorneys trying, among other things, to discredit the objections filed by RCI Weeks members. I will post excerpts soon of some of the most egregious claims being made.


----------



## Jennie

Here's one excerpt from a notice filed with the Court on 11/24/09 by one of the Plaintiffs' attorneys, David C. Berman: 

"Annexed hereto is a summary of all requests for opt-outs that have been received in this matter. This list includes all requests received to dat and not merely requests since the supplemental notice was served. Because the deadline to mail requests for exclusion was Friday, November 20, 2009, we expect to receive a few more and update this summary on or before the Fairness Hearing on November 30, 2009. 

*Significantly a review of the requests for exclusions received by this law firm discloses that as of November 19, 2009 at least 70 individuals opted out as he or she were completely satisfied with the Weeks Program Experience.  *
(The bold and underlining were added by me.)

HUH? Does this make any sense? 

It is significant to note the following instructions for opting out as listed on the official web site:  www.weeksprogramsettlement.com 

"How do I exclude myself from the settlement? 

To exclude yourself from the settlement, you must send a letter by mail saying that you want to be excluded from In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS). Be sure to include your program identification number, your name, address and telephone number. You must mail your exclusion request postmarked no later than November 20, 2009 to: 

David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, NJ 07963-0111"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is no mention about providing a reason for choosing to exclude yourself from the lawsuit. I find it incredulous to believe that at least 70 people who opted out took the time and effort to explain that they did so because they were completely satisfied with the Weeks exchange program !!!!!!!!!!! 

And especially because further research would have revealed that the main reason a member would probably want to opt out would be to reserve his or her right to bring their own separate lawsuit against RCI.

If any TUG member or guest chose to "opt out" and would care to disclose their reason for doing so, I'd very much like to hear it. I sincerely doubt that it was based upon "complete satisfaction" with the way in which RCI has been running the Weeks exchange program!


----------



## tschwa2

"There is no mention about providing a reason for choosing to exclude yourself from the lawsuit. I find it incredulous to believe that at least 70 people who opted out took the time and effort to explain that they did so because they were completely satisfied with the Weeks exchange program !!!!!!!!!!! "

Maybe the RCI executives had there own Timeshare Family and Friends Campaign to write in and opt out becuase they "love" the current RCI program so much.  They have a lot to lose and I am sure there were discussions about ways to counter the negative objections with positive ones.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Jennie, I would venture to guess that those who "opted out" were trying to object to the lawsuit and didn't know there was a difference.  

I think Timesharing Today came out in time for subscribers to write letters.  I hope so.  And I hope those who chose to opt out really meant to make that choice.


----------



## crazyhorse

*HUH? Does this make any sense?*

The PLAINTIFF`s council filing a notice with the court stating that:


Significantly a review of the requests for exclusions received by this law firm discloses that as of November 19, 2009 at least 70 individuals opted out as he or she were completely satisfied with the Weeks Program Experience. 

I don`t understand court procedure or etiquette, but I would have expected such a statement to have come *from the RCI`s* attorneys, not those acting for the plaintiffs. 

No it doesn`t make sense Jennie! Unless of course the plaintiff`s side want the settlement accepted as soon as possible.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Some Statistics*

Because we do not know exactly how many opt out notices, objection letters or claims were properly filed prior to the designated deadlines we will wait to provide statistics sometime after the Fairness Hearing on November 30th.  Stay Tuned. 


Happy Thanksgiving To All


----------



## Jennie

crazyhorse said:


> No it doesn`t make sense Jennie! Unless of course the plaintiff`s side wants the settlement accepted as soon as possible.



That's exactly the situation. The Plaintiffs' attorneys were willing and anxious for the proposed settlement to be approved by the Court at the first "Fairness Hearing" on June 16th. The Judge ruled otherwise. They are just as anxious for this seriously flawed settlement to be approved at the second "Fairness Hearing" on November 30th. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies.


----------



## WoodbridgeVA

Jennie said:


> That's exactly the situation. The Plaintiffs' attorneys were willing and anxious for the proposed settlement to be approved by the Court at the first "Fairness Hearing" on June 16th. The Judge ruled otherwise. They are just as anxious for this seriously flawed settlement to be approved at the second "Fairness Hearing" on November 30th. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies.


I suspect the "plaintiffs" attorneys are simply in it for the greenmail opportunity.  Take a look at what the settlement provides in legal fees for them vs what the actual plaintiffs recieve.  Keep in mind they do not get paid until/unless the case is finally settled.


----------



## london

*Settlement Will Not Be Finalized For 1 More Year*

I have a feeling that the final settlement will be a year or more from now.

Hopefully, RCI will make further concessions in an effort to get the class action suit resolved.


----------



## Carolinian

I think it clearly shows who's side these ''plaintiffs attorneys'' are really on.  Let RCI pay them, that is who they are really working for, and they prove it yet again.  They really do need ethics complaints filed against them after this is over.  Failure to conduct discovery, at a minimum, was gross negligence, or perhaps even collusion.




crazyhorse said:


> The PLAINTIFF`s council filing a notice with the court stating that:
> 
> 
> Significantly a review of the requests for exclusions received by this law firm discloses that as of November 19, 2009 at least 70 individuals opted out as he or she were completely satisfied with the Weeks Program Experience.
> 
> I don`t understand court procedure or etiquette, but I would have expected such a statement to have come *from the RCI`s* attorneys, not those acting for the plaintiffs.
> 
> No it doesn`t make sense Jennie! Unless of course the plaintiff`s side want the settlement accepted as soon as possible.


----------



## catcher24

> Posted by Carolinian:
> Failure to conduct discovery, at a minimum, was gross negligence, or perhaps even collusion.



I agree with this 100%. In a case of this significance and as many members in the plaintiff's class as there are, this was simply gross dereliction of duty on the part of plaintiffs' attorneys. Perhaps they thought a quick settlement and pay day were in the offing and discovery would simply be wasting time to their ultimate goal$$$$$$.


----------



## Jennie

Here's a bit of "back door" good news. One of my friends faxed me a letter received from one of her home resorts explaining that they are now newly affiliated with Interval International. Enclosed with the letter was an offer entitling her to receive 3 years I.I. membership for the price of one--under $100. total. And it described how the "search first" feature allows the owner to hold onto her week until a desired exchange is found. My friend is a senior, not very "sharp" about timeshare issues. But she said she is going to give it a try instead of renewing her soon to expire RCI membership. She said she particularly likes the fact that she can just use her week herself if she doesn't find something of interest to exchange into.

The resort explained that they took this action because of increasing owner dissatisfaction in obtaining desired RCI exchanges. They encouraged owners to give I.I. a try. This is a smaller resort with "tiger" trading power. The manager has held the position for years, and is trusted and respected by the owners so many are likely to take the advice. Hopefully more resorts will do this if the RCI lawsuit does not result in significant improvements in the way they service their members.


----------



## blueparrot

After reading of some of the seemingly strange antics of the official plaintiffs attorneys, I talked to a friend who is a lawyer.  He said the failure to take discovery was a huge red flag that something was seriously amiss.  The gag provision preventing the listed plaintiffs from saying anything bad about their attorneys was also something he found very unusual and seemed to indicate that the manner in which those attorneys handled the case made them realize that their clients would have bad things to say about them.

How do we go about filing ethics complaints about these attorneys?


----------



## JJVmom

I just found out about this lawsuit.  I bought my timeshare, in 1997, under the impression that I could trade it anywhere in the world through RCI.  After years of paying membership fees, I was never able to get the resorts I saw in the catalog.  I spent the past five years renting out my timeshare and finally just sold it at a huge loss.  Let me know if there’s anything I can do to add my part to this lawsuit.  Thanks!


----------



## Jennie

*Help Needed !!!!!!!!!*

Does anyone have any older RCI annual directories handy? We are looking for a copy of the 2 page spread that used to appear prominently near the front of the book (within the first 30 pages) touting the ability to receive exchanges within 45 days of the check-in date without regard to the usual trade power of the week deposited by the owner.

We need this to present to the Judge at the Fairness Hearing tomorrow. The proposed settlement would allow RCI to remove any and all weeks from the spacebank, to rent to the public, anytime within 90 days before the check-in date. This would leave virtually nothing available for member exchange during the 45 day period. 

RCI would not be required to replace the week with a week from other sources. 

And they would not even have to count the weeks removed within the 90 day period in the annual report they must submit showing that they did not remove more weeks than they replaced, and that the replaced weeks were of equal segment power i.e. red replaced with red, blue with blue, etc... 

Of course we all know how unreliable the ratings can be anyhow. Since RCI is the sole arbiter of the ratings, there is much room for error, deliberate or otherwise. As TUGgers have stated for years: "There are many shades of red e.g. bright red, regular red, pink, light pink, etc...."

The annual reports are to be submitted to the Plaintiffs' attorneys, and they readily admit that they will not receive any financial compensation for examining them. Why do we lack confidence that this will be a sufficient incentive/deterrent to RCI following the rules, or not?

Ms. Collins, the attorney representing several "objectors", requested that she be provided with a copy of the report each year. And/or that RCI establish a consumer panel composed of experienced RCI members who could meet a few times a years to discuss issues of mutual concern. Neither suggestion was agreed upon. 

There is so much more needed to make the proposed settlement even minimally "fair" to RCI Weeks members. We hope the Court will agree.


----------



## crazyhorse

Jennie - *Does anyone have any older RCI annual directories handy? We are looking for a copy of the 2 page spread that used to appear prominently near the front of the book (within the first 30 pages) touting the ability to receive exchanges within 45 days of the check-in date without regard to the usual trade power of the week deposited by the owner.
*
I am unable to provide you with a copy of the page which you ask as my scanner is u/s. 

I cannot see the reference to this Late Exchange offer in the current 2008/9 Directory of Resorts, and I think this benefit may have been replaced by the similarly phrased* Late Deals*, where it is not an exchange but an opportunity to obtain a holiday within the same 45 days. I assume this is a lower charge rental.

The original option for *Late Exchanges*, to which you refer, would be the earlier RCI offer which is shown in Directory of Resorts 2001-2, and RCI Community Guide (more recent year perhaps 2004-5?). These both have the same wording under a header "Your Exchange Options" These are European RCI books.

The wording is (barring my mistakes) is 

*Want a Quick Getaway? 
Try a Late Exchange. Bookable from 45 days to as little as 2 days before departure.The Trading Power rules are waived-except for the quality rating-but availability is naturally more limited. With Late Exchange payment must be made by credit card.*

(End of entry)


----------



## Jennie

Thanks Everyone,

PMs and posted messages revealed that the pages I'm looking for were in the 2001 book. I sent out an Email SOS to members of the NY timeshare owners group and one member called to let me know that he has the book. The NY members live within a 50 mile radius. As luck would have it, this couple lives within one mile of our home so I will be able to pick it up on our way to court.


----------



## DeniseM

Susan, Jennie, Shep, and everyone going to the hearing tomorrow - GOOD LUCK!  Can't wait to hear what happens!


----------



## Dori

Best of luck today.  We are all so grateful for your efforts on our behalf. Knock their socks off!

Dori


----------



## rci124

Is there any information from todays court proceedings?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Update*

To All:

I am in Florida; but I have heard by phone from one of our members who was allowed just two minutes to testify this afternoon at the Fairness Hearing. 

That's right, each objector in attendance received two minutes to speak. After each speaker or during their statements the Defense and/or the Planitiff's attorneys were allowed rebuttal; but no rebuttal was allowed for the objectors. 

*The Bad News: * Our efforts to get the proposed Settlement quashed as UNFAIR was not successful. The attorneys for the Plaintiffs will get their $1 million 775,000 payday and we as timeshare owners get a reprieve for a very short period of time before RCI is free to do whatever they please with your deposits AGAIN!

*The Good News:*  The judge would have approved a far worse settlement without the very hard fought for last minute changes in our favor that RCI finally agreed to. Your efforts by way of objection were not enough to carry the day; but the fact that you stood up and did object went along way to helping get the changes that were finally made part of the settlement.

Susan, Shep, and Jennie will no doubt fill in the details once they have returned to their respective homes and get a chance to recover. 

We all owe a round of thanks for the efforts of Susan Collins, Shep Altshuler, Jennie, Brian Rodgers, Denise and others who worked so hard to make a difference.  We have learned a lot from this effort. We are a large voice when we speak. We just need far more of us to take action when the opportunity comes in the future. For those of you who are RCI POINTS owners be prepared to act when your opportunity comes along.  

For those of you who deal with RCI from outside the United States organize and keep up the fight.  For those of you who do business with other Exchange Companies be prepared for the impact that this class action settlement will have on your ability to get fair exchanges going forward.

Once the active suits are all finalized we need to heed the call of Carolinian and get Consumer Protection agencies on the State level if not the Federal level involved. 

We did not get the proposed settlement derailed; but we did win several important concessions that would not have come about without the efforts of Shep Altshuler, Susan Collins, our own Jennie and the overwhelming efforts of all who took the time to object to the proposed settlement. 

Once the court participants have a chance to catch their breath more details will be forthcoming.  Stay Tuned!


----------



## jerseygirl

I attended the hearing and had my two minutes to speak.   Jennie, Susan and Shep did a terrific job and the last minute concessions are an improvement, although I'm certainly still disappointed with the outcome.

I'm sure Jennie, Susan and Shep will correct any inaccuracies, but here's my take on the "best" improvements to the settlement:

The original settlement proposal stated:

1)  RCI will hold any deposit made greater than 12 months in advance exclusively for exchange for 30 days

-- This has been changed to "10 months in advance," which at least ensures the float week deposits have a chance of being held exclusively for exchange.  

2)  RCI will adhere to the terms of the settlement for two years

-- This has been changed to 3 years.  As Jennie's wonderful husband said, they're selling ice to eskimos ... but, hey, 3 years is better than 2.

RCI has also agreed that all deposits pulled for rental greater than 90 days will receive substitutions that are equal in quality and quantity.  Of course, the fox is guarding the hen house on this one, but it's something.

The biggest disappointment as far as I'm concerned:

No protection whatsoever for deposits made less than 90 days in advance.  This basically ensures the official demise of the "45 day window," which I believe had very important economic benefits to the timeshare industry as a whole as it lifted trading power restrictions for those with "bad weeks" and enabled them to pick up good cancellations, last minute deposits, etc. and kept them "in the game" (i.e. paying their maintenance fees).  

I was also EXTREMELY disappointed in the judge's final remarks as he stated, not once -- but three times -- that the settlement allowed for greater trading power.  It does nothing of the sort, which was very indicative of his lack of understanding of the situation, despite the gallant efforts of the over 300 objectors who wrote letters and those who appeared in person to speak.  I think he got "most" of it, but clearly not all -- and he should not have made a decision with that basic lack of understanding still unresolved.  

Do you know what I think hurt us the most?  All attorneys (RCI's attorneys and the plaintiffs' attorney's were on the same side as their goal was to get the judge to approve the settlement) AND the judge repeatedly mentioned the over 130,000 people who accepted the "trinkets" as evidence that the vast majority of people were satisfied with the settlement.  Moral of the story -- don't accept trinkets in a class action lawsuit if you're not satisfied with the proposed settlement.

I walked with my feet a long time ago -- made one deposit about 5 years ago and did one trade.  Then, I was educated by Jennie about their rental policies and never made another deposit.  In fact, I didn't even think I was part of the class until I received the post card in October (so a great big thanks to Jennie, Susan and Shep for getting the second notification approved).  (In the interest of full disclosure, I do have a small points account that I "inherited" when I purchased something that had already been converted to points.  I'll probably continue to use that until they start screwing the points owners the same way they screw the weeks owners.)  For everyone who is unhappy with the settlement -- show it by making your deposits elsewhere.  RCI clearly wants to kill the weeks program -- help them along by using II and the independents for your "weeks" deposits.


----------



## jerseygirl

In re-reading what I posted above, I realize that I left a big hole insofar as what happens to the deposits made greater than 90 days but less than 10 months.

RCI will not pull them for rentals IF there are requests pending with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Jennie argued vallantly that many people like to "surf for exchanges" and don't place ongoing requests.  But, RCI's attorney rebutted and apparently managed to convince the judge that most people prefer to use ongoing requests and that doing so makes the system work better for all.  (I tried to rebut that point in my two minutes by stating that his argument was disingenuous -- that it shouldn't matter what method of searching is employed -- ALL deposits should be held exclusively for exchange for some period of time before being pulled for rentals --- but, obviously it didn't work).  

So, to summarize:

Deposits made greater than 10 months in advance -- will be held exclusively for exchange for 30 days, then if pulled for rental, "equal" subsitutions will be made hysterical

Deposit made more than 90 days in advance but less than 10 months in advance -- will not be pulled for rental if there are pending requests with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Again, if pulled for rental, "equal" substitutions will be made hysterical

Deposits made less than 90 days in advance -- they apparently are the sole property of RCI.  If they pull them for rentals, they do not have to make substitutions.


----------



## RustyS

jerseygirl said:


> So, to summarize:
> 
> Deposits made greater than 10 months in advance -- will be held exclusively for exchange for 30 days, then if pulled for rental, "equal" subsitutions will be made hysterical



I agree with the characterization of "equal".  They seem to think a Branson studio in February equals a two bedroom summer Lake of the Ozarks because they are in the same state.  Actually, the settlement allows them to balance on an annual basis, which explains why ski locations are unavailable when there is snow on the ground, but lots of mud weeks are posted.



jerseygirl said:


> Deposit made more than 90 days in advance but less than 10 months in advance -- will not be pulled for rental if there are pending requests with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Again, if pulled for rental, "equal" substitutions will be made hysterical



And I assume if, at the moment of deposit, no "sufficient" ongoing trade requests are on file, they can immediately move it to the rental pool, swapping in a unit from the mud weeks in the Midwest in exchange?  We should all be on notice to load the pending request files well in advance as a net to keep an exchanged week in the exchange pool.



jerseygirl said:


> Deposits made less than 90 days in advance -- they apparently are the sole property of RCI.  If they pull them for rentals, they do not have to make substitutions.



This is outrageous.  With this rule nobody, and I mean NOBODY should EVER spacebank a week less than 90 days out.

If you are _donating_ it to RCI and their shareholders you might as well call the resort and let them rent it and keep the money within your resort.  Or let them use it for a prospective buyer.  Or a treat for the cleaning staff.  Better, donate it to a local Ronald McDonald house near the unit; at least you will do some good, and potentially get a tax break.  

I have a couple of banked weeks I am trying to use up (I made them before I realize RCI regarded me as a sheep), and I have pending requests for dates greater than 12 months sitting out there to slurp up anything that matches.  Once that happens I'll be requesting my prorated refund of membership fees.  I hope everyone does the same, and spreads the word throughout their resorts how RCI has a license to steal "unused" vacations, and the judge is letting them decide the definition of "unused".

On another note, what happened to that Stephen character?


----------



## jerseygirl

jerseygirl said:


> So, to summarize:
> 
> Deposits made greater than 10 months in advance -- will be held exclusively for exchange for 30 days, then if pulled for rental, "equal" substitutions will be made hysterical





RustyS said:


> I agree with the characterization of "equal".  They seem to think a Branson studio in February equals a two bedroom summer Lake of the Ozarks because they are in the same state.  Actually, the settlement allows them to balance on an annual basis, which explains why ski locations are unavailable when there is snow on the ground, but lots of mud weeks are posted.



To be fair, RCI swears they will make substitutions that are equal "quantitatively and qualitatively." (I think if I heard that phrase one more time at the hearing I might have gone postal!).  The judge called them out on that point on a few occasions (i.e., kept making them affirm it) and I think they got the message that they will be hauled back into court for violating the settlement terms if they're caught not doing so.  What I'm unclear on is whether or not they agreed to send copies to Susan.  I know it was discussed, but I need Susan, Jenny, or Shep to clarify.  Let's just say there is some question with regard to how carefully the plaintiffs' attorney will check the reports (and understand that there was no mention of future compensation for doing so) and leave it at that.  



jerseygirl said:


> Deposit made more than 90 days in advance but less than 10 months in advance -- will not be pulled for rental if there are pending requests with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Again, if pulled for rental, "equal" substitutions will be made hysterical





RustyS said:


> And I assume if, at the moment of deposit, no "sufficient" ongoing trade requests are on file, they can immediately move it to the rental pool, swapping in a unit from the mud weeks in the Midwest in exchange?  We should all be on notice to load the pending request files well in advance as a net to keep an exchanged week in the exchange pool.



Correct -- if there are no ongoing trade requests with sufficient trading power for the deposit, they can immediately move it to the rental pool.  However ... see above regarding "quantitative and qualitative" substitution rules.

*Also very correct:  "Be on notice to load the pending request files well in advance as a net to keep an exchanged week in the exchange pool."  **If you're going to play, at least beat them at their own game.*



jerseygirl said:


> Deposits made less than 90 days in advance -- they apparently are the sole property of RCI.  If they pull them for rentals, they do not have to make substitutions.





RustyS said:


> This is outrageous.  With this rule nobody, and I mean NOBODY should EVER spacebank a week less than 90 days out.
> 
> If you are _donating_ it to RCI and their shareholders you might as well call the resort and let them rent it and keep the money within your resort.  Or let them use it for a prospective buyer.  Or a treat for the cleaning staff.  Better, donate it to a local Ronald McDonald house near the unit; at least you will do some good, and potentially get a tax break.



Couldn't have said it better myself:  *NOBODY should EVER spacebank a week less than 90 days out.  *



RustyS said:


> On another note, what happened to that Stephen character?



Hmmm ... he was there, he spoke.  In my opinion, he got nowhere with the judge.  The funniest part of the day:  He kept standing up (from the spectator area) and asking if he could speak/add something to someone else's commentary.  The judge told him NO every time ... along the lines of, "You've had your chance to speak so sit down."  It truly got comical as he tried at least 3 or 4 times ... and got the same "sit down" response every time.  I _almost_ felt sorry for him, _almost_.


----------



## DeniseM

jerseygirl said:


> Hmmm ... he was there, he spoke.  In my opinion, he got nowhere with the judge.  The funniest part of the day:  He kept standing up (from the spectator area) and asking if he could speak/add something to someone else's commentary.  The judge told him NO every time ... along the lines of, "You've had your chance to speak so sit down."  It truly got comical as he tried at least 3 or 4 times ... and got the same "sit down" response every time.  I _almost_ felt sorry for him, _almost_.



AND - did the judge award him $250,000???


----------



## jerseygirl

One more important point I just thought of:

RCI's attorney claimed that 75% of all rentals are to RCI members.  And, that the members "love the rental program."  

People -- stop renting from them !!!!!!!!!!  Go to the TUG Classifieds, Redweek, MyResortNetwork and rent from an owner.

That needs to become a new TUG mantra:  Don't rent from RCI, rent from an owner.


----------



## jerseygirl

DeniseM said:


> AND - did the judge award him $250,000???



He told him he could submit.  If I understand correctly, since it was settled, RCI will have to voluntarily agree to pay him.  I don't think they'll do so.  I could be wrong, but I don't think the judge has any further say so -- the matter was settled.  Perhaps Susan will have a different take on this matter.

Didn't the plaintiffs' attorneys originally ask for $4MM?  One of them had to explain their methodology for the amount of $1.6MM+ in fees and ~$75K in expenses.  It boiled down to this:  Their hours X their normal hourly rate came out to $1.9MM.  They voluntarily took a "haircut" down to ~$1.6MM.  So -- it's some consolation (not much, but some) that (a) they didn't get $4MM and (b) they didn't get the full amount of their (probably inflated) bill.


----------



## RustyS

jerseygirl said:


> To be fair, RCI swears they will make substitutions that are equal "quantitatively and qualitatively." (I think if I heard that phrase one more time at the hearing I might have gone postal!).  The judge called them out on that point on a few occasions (i.e., kept making them affirm it) and I think they got the message that they will be hauled back into court for violating the settlement terms if they're caught not doing so.  What I'm unclear on is whether or not they agreed to send copies to Susan.  I know it was discussed, but I need Susan, Jenny, or Shep to clarify.  Let's just say there is some question with regard to how carefully the plaintiffs' attorney will check the reports (and understand that there was no mention of future compensation for doing so) and leave it at that.



While my Branson / Lake of the Ozarks comment was hypothetical (and shows my midwest perspective on things), I was serious about the ski resorts not being available during the ski season (Dec - Mar) yet the same resorts are plentiful before and after, and <gasp> the rental pool overflows with ski weeks.  

This is my personal chase in the exchange system, and I have seen this with my own eyes.  The RCI phone staff blow it off as "people have yet to make those deposits because it's too early", which is ridiculous because Nov AND April have plenty of weeks in the exchange system.  They clearly are diverting the ski weeks to rental and substituting an "equal" week, which to them means the same place sometime during the year.  And the settlement in section II.A.2 Balancing of Deposits and Rental says they can do exactly that.  I called this one out in my objection, apparently to the deaf ears of the judge.


----------



## jerseygirl

Please know that I don't disagree with you Rusty.  There was some discussion of the "months needed to make system changes" before the settlement would actually go into effect.  So, we can only hope that the substitutions/balancing will improve ... although, they may have been talking about other changes (such as those needed for members to know their trading power, which was discussed as well -- again, I'm not totally clear on this).

Hopefully Jenny, Shep and Susan will be along shortly to provide more detailed info and correct any misstatements I may have inadvertently made.  As stated above, I didn't think I was part of the class until I received the postcard in October.  Until then, I paid very little attention to what was going on.  But, I love a good "David vs. Goliath" battle ... and had the time to write a letter and attend the hearing.  Jenny is a good friend and does so much for the Greater NY timesharing community (most of which you never hear about) -- I attended primarily to support her efforts.  To say I understand all aspects of the settlement would be incorrect.


----------



## theo

*A sad commentary...*



jerseygirl said:


> ...the judge repeatedly mentioned the over 130,000 people who accepted the "trinkets" as evidence that the vast majority of people were satisfied with the settlement.



...And accordingly, *SHAME on each and every person* who accepted one of those worthless little trinkets. Those "offerings" were, from the outset, *never* anything more than a cost-free (to RCI) mechanism to create a phony and misleading statistic suggesting "satisfaction" with the farce of a "settlement". Clearly, RCI succeeded in duping 130,000 non-thinkers. I hope they all enjoy their worthless little trinket... :annoyed:


----------



## jerseygirl

I think that's a little harsh Theo.  I didn't accept a trinket on principal, but I didn't realize doing so or not doing so would have an impact until I heard them (the attorneys primarily, but also the judge) use it to their advantage in the courtroom.  Lesson learned for future class actions ... but I can't take credit for not having done so for the right reasons (I just didn't want anything from RCI except an honest trading system).  

Even here on TUG, people were advised that it was okay to accept a trinket and object -- so I think everyone should be let off the hook this time, but be educated for the next time around.


----------



## bnoble

jerseygirl said:


> Even here on TUG, people were advised that it was okay to accept a trinket and object -- so I think everyone should be let off the hook this time, but be educated for the next time around.



Indeed.

What's more, it's important to remember that TUGgers represent a tiny fraction of "all timeshare owners".  What we do or don't do, in the grand scheme of things, is in the noise.  It's easy to think that we are representative of the average owner, but by definition, we are not.


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> Indeed.
> 
> What's more, it's important to remember that TUGgers represent a tiny fraction of "all timeshare owners".  What we do or don't do, in the grand scheme of things, is in the noise.  It's easy to think that we are representative of the average owner, but by definition, we are not.



Excellent point!  The postcards were sent to everyone, and apparently many people claimed their trinkets.  I wish every one of those people knew about TUG and could have written letters.  Maybe TUG is something we should all mention to our resorts, and hopefully the thousands of generic resorts will include that information, along with information about alternative exchange companies, in their newsletters.


----------



## Egret1986

*Agreed!  Trinkets indeed!  But I claimed one and now I wish that I had not.*



jerseygirl said:


> I think that's a little harsh Theo.  I didn't accept a trinket on principal, but I didn't realize doing so or not doing so would have an impact until I heard them (the attorneys primarily, but also the judge) use it to their advantage in the courtroom.  Lesson learned for future class actions ... but I can't take credit for not having done so for the right reasons (I just didn't want anything from RCI except an honest trading system).
> 
> Even here on TUG, people were advised that it was okay to accept a trinket and object -- so I think everyone should be let off the hook this time, but be educated for the next time around.



Enjoy the trinket?  Geez, at this point I can't remember which one I claimed since it was so insignificant.

It had nothing to do with being non-thinking.  The advice was that it was okay to accept a trinket.  At the last minute I put in the claim right after reading that advice.  It was well after I sent in my objection letters.  Had I known that it would have been used against the Class, I definitely would not have done it.  My motivation was that perhaps if enough folks claimed something, it would have some effect on RCI's bottom line.  Wrong thinking, perhaps.  Non-thinking....definitely not.

I am glad that I did not return the call from one of the Plantiffs' attorneys,  although it was suggested here on TUG that I should.  Fortunately, someone PMd me and shared their thoughts.  It appears that the Plantiffs' attorneys did not have the best interests of the Class.

Thank you to all who made an effort on behalf of the Class.  It was a valiant effort Susan, Jennie, Shep and everyone who supported the cause.


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Any Way To Pick A Different Trinket ?*




> Trinkets indeed! But I claimed one and now I wish that I had not.


Same here. 

Any way to un-choose the 1 I chose & take a different trinket instead ? 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## Carol C

Trinkets? Did I miss out on trinkets? Did you have to sit thru a 90 min presentation to get one?


----------



## AwayWeGo

*Timeshare Tour Freebies Are Worth Far More Than Any Paltry RCI Settlement Trinkets.*




Carol C said:


> Trinkets? Did I miss out on trinkets? Did you have to sit thru a 90 min presentation to get one?


I would not sit through a 90-minute sales pitch for anything so trivial as the RCI lawsuit settlement offerings. 

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## timeos2

*The outcome isn't a surprise. Why the shock?*



theo said:


> ...And accordingly, *SHAME on each and every person* who accepted one of those worthless little trinkets. Those "offerings" were, from the outset, *never* anything more than a cost-free (to RCI) mechanism to create a phony and misleading statistic suggesting "satisfaction" with the farce of a "settlement". Clearly, RCI succeeded in duping 130,000 non-thinkers. I hope they all enjoy their worthless little trinket... :annoyed:



From day 1 of the suit many predicted the exact outcome we have ended up seeing. That despite the valiant and much appreciated efforts by a dedicated group of volunteers who did their very best to turn the tide.  

A cheap trinket or a $.50 check, an agreement that codify's a process no one thinks is fair but now has court blessing and a monstrous, undeserved payday for a "whats in it for me" law firm paid for by the very members that are now shafted. Exactly why we preached don't do a class action - speak with your dollars and deposits - but the advice went largely unheeded as the great success of consumer based class actions (are there really any examples that aren't a mirror of this nightmare?) was touted as the likely result for the RCI case.  Yeah, right. 

Why anyone would continue to use RCI Weeks at this stage baffles me unless they have a clear and consistent way to derive a value out that exceeds the cost they are paying in.  Other than that it is best left to rot and fade away as RCI apparently wants it to (in a move to pure points). Fighting to keep a fatally flawed and now legally blessed corrupted system alive is just foolish.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Acceptance of Trinket*



theo said:


> ...And accordingly, *SHAME on each and every person* who accepted one of those worthless little trinkets. Those "offerings" were, from the outset, *never* anything more than a cost-free (to RCI) mechanism to create a phony and misleading statistic suggesting "satisfaction" with the farce of a "settlement". Clearly, RCI succeeded in duping 130,000 non-thinkers. I hope they all enjoy their worthless little trinket... :annoyed:



Theo,

I agree with you but at the same time I understand Jersey Girl's take on the point.  I, too, was encouraged to file a claim to stick it to RCI.

When discussing this subject behind the scenes with other objectors who were pushing for an OBJECTION effort, I suggested that we should NOT  encourage going for the Trinket to "hurt" RCI in the pocket book.

Like you Theo, I saw the claiming of a trinket as admitting that the proposed settlement was O. K. *NOT!!!!*

There were some who thought that getting as many as possible to respond to the NOTICE in some way even if it was to only file a Claim would send the right message to RCI. 

Although I did not agree with that philosophy personally, I understood the reasoning behind it.  I felt the need to emphaize that one could do both because  I was concerned that many TUGGERS may have already filed a claim thinking that they could not then object. That is why at the Informational Instructions posted on TUG and at www.rciclassactionlawsuit.com I chose to simply say:

 • You can object to the proposed settlement (This option allows you as an Objector to accept one of the benefits offered while also objecting.)" 

Although I disagreed with the message that the above statement sent to TUGGERS it was a factually correct statement. 

Repeatedly, when I posted on TUG that a class member could file a claim *and* also object, my intention was to encourage objection EVEN if a class member had already made a claim . 

*Keep in mind that we were encouraging OBJECION as the primary goal.*​
Because of the way we were given Notice it was easy for the average class member to think that if he had already filed a clam he was blocked from objecting. We wanted OBJECTIONS from everyone who remained a member of the class even if they had already filed a claim previously.

In my personal objection letter, I specifically pointed out to the Court that as a matter of principal  I was not going to accept one of the benefits offered even though I had the right to do so.  The offers from RCI were insufficient. 

However, I can understand the average class member, acting alone in a vacuum, putting in a claim rather than doing nothing at all. I also can understand the philosphy of encouraging everyone to put in a claim so that RCI would have had to pay out as much as $100 Million Dollars if only at the rate of $25 at a time.


----------



## motomem

jerseygirl said:


> In re-reading what I posted above, I realize that I left a big hole insofar as what happens to the deposits made greater than 90 days but less than 10 months.
> 
> RCI will not pull them for rentals IF there are requests pending with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Jennie argued vallantly that many people like to "surf for exchanges" and don't place ongoing requests.  But, RCI's attorney rebutted and apparently managed to convince the judge that most people prefer to use ongoing requests and that doing so makes the system work better for all.  (I tried to rebut that point in my two minutes by stating that his argument was disingenuous -- that it shouldn't matter what method of searching is employed -- ALL deposits should be held exclusively for exchange for some period of time before being pulled for rentals --- but, obviously it didn't work).
> 
> So, to summarize:
> 
> Deposits made greater than 10 months in advance -- will be held exclusively for exchange for 30 days, then if pulled for rental, "equal" subsitutions will be made hysterical
> 
> Deposit made more than 90 days in advance but less than 10 months in advance -- will not be pulled for rental if there are pending requests with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Again, if pulled for rental, "equal" substitutions will be made hysterical
> 
> Deposits made less than 90 days in advance -- they apparently are the sole property of RCI.  If they pull them for rentals, they do not have to make substitutions.



Again, this is only valid for 3 years.  After that RCI can instantly move it all to the rental pool if they want to.

That's what you get with an ignorant judge - ignorant to the timeshare industry.


----------



## glenb

*rci Settlement*

Found this good site last night when Googling to find the outcome of the RCI case.  Read lots of interesting comments from people about RCI selling banked weeks instead of leaving them for exchange.  I have been an RCI member since 1985 and have noticed the gradual reduction of availability of exchanges.  

A few years ago I joined a small exchange organisation called Dial an exchange.  They have several advantages over RCI. - 

1 - Free membership (apart from Gold memership) 

2 -  free guest certificates 

3 - cheaper exchanges.  For example on Friday I am going to Orlando to stay at Wyndam Bonnett Creek.  With RCI that exchange would have cost me £165 ($250). The exchange fee with Dial an exchange was about £70 ($110) - plus £30 to become a Gold member.  Gold membership gives access to newly deposited weeks - and a discount off the exchange fee.

4 - more transparent - you can search for availability anytime - even non members can search (try it).  If you see a week you want - you can then bank your week and do the exhange.  If they do not have anything then don't bank.  You can see from the list of available weeks which are newly listed and only available to gold members.

THERE IS ONE BIG DRAWBACK -

Because they are a tiny company their range of exchanges is tiny compared with RCI.  Although I live in UK I often take vacations in US - and next summer for example there are months when they have only about 20 weeks available throughout the US.  Because of this I DO NOT BANK with them until I have something they want - and after a few months wait sometimes resort to banking and booking with RCI.  Obviously if more people used them they would have more weeks to choose from and I would use them more - and I am probably not alone.

Whenever RCI send me a satisfaction questionnaire I quote Dial an  exchange prices and say if a small company can operate on free membership and low exchange fees - surely a big company with all the economies of scale should be able to  - RCI have never answered that point.

The thing that caused me to search for news of the RCI settlement last night was something on the SKY Auctions website.  They put on the website a number of vacation weeks at a set price of $229.  I have purchased these in the past when I have used all my timeshare weeks and noticed taht the choice offered is a subset of the RCI database.  The choice is more limited - but they are all RCI resorts.  So I have bought in the past for $195 a week in an RCI resort- without having to be a member of RCI (even though I happen to be one that is not a pre requisite)  or having to exchange a week.  If I booked the same week through RCI I would have paid more for the exchange fee and lost a week.  Even at $229 it is still cheaper than exchange fee.  So the day after the settlement they are selling another batch of weeks!  I have told RCI reps who ring to to get me to bank more weeks with them about the SKY Auctions weeks and they have all denied any connection to RCI - despite the search site at that time being called RCIRedemptions (they said that was some other company using their name!) - and despite the RCI redemption site being owned by Wyndhams - the hotel chain that owns RCI!

Clearly RCI have not explained why they have so many bonus weeks for sale.  I was thinking of going to California next june.  RCI had no coastal properties in June for exchange - but many as bonus weeks.  When I joined RCI they explained bonus weeks as being mainly unsold timeshare weeks.  Surely there cannot be so many more unsold weeks - often on quite old resorts?

The bottom line is RCI is not a nice fluffy club run for it's members - it is a commercial hotel company making a profit.  When I joined RCI the typical timeshare business model was an organisation owned by week owners who elected a committee to monitor the day to day running.  More recently large hotel groups have joined in.  I have stayed at many of these properties - run by Wyndham, Hilton etc - and they are often very modern well planned large resorts - but if you read reviews of them there are many complaints of high charges.  A good example if internet access - at the Fountains in Orlando they wanted more per night than I pay per year.  RESORT FEES is another new way of getting money from us.  The airline industry and ticket brokers are brilliant at thinking up new charges (will call fees, stowed bag fees, blanket fees) but timeshare companies are fast becoming as bad.

We all apy high prices for maintenance, high exchange prices and the last thing we want is to have to pay more when we get to our destination.

Glad to have got that off my chest.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Valid For Three Years*



> *John said:* Again, this is only valid for 3 years. After that RCI can instantly move it all to the rental pool if they want to.
> 
> That's what you get with an ignorant judge - ignorant to the timeshare industry.



John,

It could have been a lot worse if it had not been for our own Jennie who spoke up in Court to volunteer to receive the reports that RCI is required to disseminate.

Guess who was originally chosen to receive the reports that RCI will be required to provide so that we know that they are in fact fullfilling the new as well as the unchanged requirements of the final settlement? 

Yep! You are right if you guessed the Plaintiffs Attorneys.  

RCI will report on how they are treating the "Sheep" as they attempt to keep them satisfied in the "Sheep Pen."  The fact that the "Big Bad Wolf" is the one reporting on the happenings in the "Pen" is bad enough; but the folks designated to peruse the "Wolf's" reports are the Plaintiff's attorneys. 

Those same attorneys that have taken all the credit and $1.775 million to the bank for getting the best possible treatment for the "Sheep" were also designated as the monitors of how well RCI actually performs it's obligations during the three year term of the settlement agreement. The Plaintiff's attorneys while agreeing to be the watch dog did not provide for compensation for themselves for doing the monitoring.  SO GUESS HOW MUCH ACTUAL MONITORING WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE OVER THE NEXT THREE YEARS BY THOSE ATTORNEYS?

Based on the latest reports from those who were there, Jennie, Shep, and maybe Susan Collins will get a copy of the same reports that RCI is required to send to the Plaintiff's attorney. So, we will at least have some input as to what the "Big Bad Wolf" has to say about what they have done shortly after they susposedly have complied. 

Beyond that three year period the argument is that RCI will not revert back to across the board renting and doing as they please; but if you are wise little "Sheep" you might consider getting out of the "PEN" well before that three year period expires.


----------



## rci124

I thought I was filing an objection to the settlement when in actuality I was filing a claim for one of the trinkets.  You can call me a non-thinker but keep in mind RCI wanted to make the process of filing an objection as muddy as possible.  So yes they did succeed in duping many of us.

At least some good came out of this.  RCI will now have to be somewhat on the up and up for the next three years.  Lets hope someone that is familiar with RCI and trading power will be able to review the substitutions that are equal quantitatively and qualitatively report.  

A big thank you to all the hard working people that tried to prevent this settlement.






theo said:


> ...And accordingly, *SHAME on each and every person* who accepted one of those worthless little trinkets. Those "offerings" were, from the outset, *never* anything more than a cost-free (to RCI) mechanism to create a phony and misleading statistic suggesting "satisfaction" with the farce of a "settlement". Clearly, RCI succeeded in duping 130,000 non-thinkers. I hope they all enjoy their worthless little trinket... :annoyed:


----------



## Egret1986

*Welcome to TUG! Glad we could be here for you to unload!*



glenb said:


> Found this good site last night when Googling to find the outcome of the RCI case.  Read lots of interesting comments from people about RCI selling banked weeks instead of leaving them for exchange.
> 
> Glad to have got that off my chest.



I also became a member of RCI in early 1985 when I bought my first Blue beach week from the developer.  I just gave it away this past year.  My family got a lot of value out of that week through exchanges with RCI.  I found TUG in 2003 and over the last several years have adjusted my timesharing strategies.  Fortunately, even before I found TUG, I knew how to work the RCI exchange system and always felt we upgraded from what we owned.  I do understand the recent trade power adjustments that were made by RCI.  Fortunately, I decided a couple of years ago that I would no longer deposit my weeks with RCI.  I remain a member because I have bought a couple of RCI Points timeshare.  This system is working great for me and I will continue to remain in RCI Points until I feel it no longer is beneficial to my vacation needs.

RCI is definitely making an active effort to destroy RCI Weeks with the rentals.  While I greatly enjoy the benefits of using a paltry amount of points for last minute exchanges from the Weeks pool, I can see this as also being detrimental to RCI Weeks.


----------



## Egret1986

*Good advice!*



Goofyhobbie said:


> Beyond that three year period the argument is that RCI will not revert back to across the board renting and doing as they please; but if you are wise little "Sheep" you might consider getting out of the "PEN" well before that three year period expires.



The writing is on the wall for what we can expect from RCI.  

I bought Wk 26 and Wk 27 (2BR) at a Virginia Beach resort a few months ago.  The seller included the 2009 spacebanked weeks for free and they were placed in my RCI Weeks account.  I had not deposited into RCI Weeks for the last two years.  Maybe I didn't notice less availability of great exchanges because I was still getting what I wanted at great resorts during high season even with my blue beach week.  I am not an average exchanger though.  

However, unless a lot of inventory is deposited after the maintenance fees are paid in the next few weeks, it is surprising how little is available for 2010 and 2011 during prime times.  While I am looking during prime times, I am not looking for specific dates.  It is a wide range of areas that I am looking at and for a 12 week period.  The trade power is there because I check in RCI Weeks with my RCI Points account (no trade power restrictions) and my Weeks are seeing the same things.  

I don't like ongoing searches.  I search every day.  But I may have to start doing ongoing searches now in Weeks to utilize these two Summer beach weeks.


----------



## jerseygirl

Egret1986 said:


> I don't like ongoing searches.  I search every day.  But I may have to start doing ongoing searches now in Weeks to utilize these two Summer beach weeks.



I like searching as well -- I rarely know, in advance, where I want to go.  I just see something I like and voilà -- vacation planned!

But, if I had deposits in RCI weeks, I would definitely start placing ongoing searches given the settlement terms.


----------



## thheath

Maybe I missed it but has Jennie, Susan or gentleman from the time share magazine posted anything yet about the judge's decision?


----------



## PerryM

*Big government/courts isn't the answer folks*

Folks relying on big government, in the form of laws, or big courts, in the form of judgments to write a wrong should, by now, realize that these big institutions just don't work for us the common folk.

This outcome was forecasted, by many of us, years ago.  RCI's sole reason to exist is to make money for the folks who put up money in their company, the stockholders.  If the consumer, or employee, gets anything of value out of this arrangement that's a side benefit to them.

This is how capitalism works folks; it's the best way to conduct business.

But it won't be long before the drumbeat to sue another company starts yet another failed attempt to run another business from the jury box.  This approach has never and will never work.  But I can just hear the folks getting the pitchforks, ropes, and fire ready to save us from another villain.

We no longer use RCI, haven't for 2 years now - that is the correct way this whole thing should have been handled by all concerned.  The lawyers and courts won this round, they will win the next round too.. That's how big government and big courts work - they take care of themselves first and if we get anything out of them that's almost by accident.

So, who do we sue next?


----------



## BevL

thheath said:


> Maybe I missed it but has Jennie, Susan or gentleman from the time share magazine posted anything yet about the judge's decision?



Post 933 gives the synopsis and the posts since then have been discussing it.


----------



## crazyhorse

*GlenB*

Nice to hear from someone else other than myself (from England).
I have been following the boards for some years now regarding this subject.  

I did not go down the Points route option and do not intend to do so in the future.

Up until about last year the reduction in availability hadn`t affected me, and I always put in my deposits at least a year out. As the correspondents on this board are almost unanimously from the U.S.A., I thought that the problem was not a European one. 

Then *WHAM*-last year the exchange availability went to the dogs. For instance there was no, I repeat *NO* availability in Portugal. Availability in Europe was also badly affected. My own resort was still maintaining its status however, so that wasn`t the problem. You could see that the practice of renting out had been extended.

So I posted my comments here and also made an objection to the settlement. On principle, I did not accept a trinket.

It looks as though we now have 3 years of some improvement in the Weeks Exchange system, so if we stay with RCI we should make the best of this. Despite this, I expect a gradual drift from RCI as word continues to get around of how RCI operates. This will occur by general exposure by bulletin boards such as this and by word of mouth.

After all, (I refer to England here) as per the denomination of certain supermarket chains, there is always room for newcomers such as Morrisons, and the giant Tesco started from nothing too!


----------



## RustyS

Egret1986 said:


> I also became a member of RCI in early 1985 when I bought my first Blue beach week from the developer.



1985 must have been the year most beach resort developers were selling off their blue weeks.  I bought mine in 84 or 85 myself.  Luckily over time they promoted the Florida weeks up to Red, but it's in name only, not Trading Power (c).



Egret1986 said:


> RCI is definitely making an active effort to destroy RCI Weeks with the rentals.  While I greatly enjoy the benefits of using a paltry amount of points for last minute exchanges from the Weeks pool, I can see this as also being detrimental to RCI Weeks.



I think they've been actively trying to destroy the Weeks program since they started the Points system.  They actively recruited Weeks members to "upgrade" (for a significant fee) to the Points program, where the member would be able to see the Points inventory while still seeing those in the Weeks program.  But the Weeks folks, having not "upgraded", would not be able to see the new inventory pool created within the Points program.

And so the bleeding of the Weeks inventory began.  For example, my resort has about 2000 unit/weeks per year (40 units over 50 weeks or so).  If RCI convinced half of them to move to the Points program, that was 1,000 less beach side weeks available for the rest of you to find in the Weeks exchange pool.  But those upgraded Points members would still have access to the entire 2,000 unit/weeks.  And the same went throughout the land so I had that many less Weeks available to me from Weeks at your resorts.

I saw this when they started the Points program, but my resort wanted an upgrade price not far off the original selling price of my week, and I was not going to buy it again.  I'm still happy with that choice considering the Points system is now under assault from the Rental programs as well.

But here we are, RCI has turned their backs on the programs, operating them in name only to provide themselves an easy source of other peoples' property to steal and fence on the rental market.  And now a judge has blessed the operation.

So I am gone from their roles.  At least I will be once I get something for the weeks previously deposited (can't get them back because the dates are passed) and not exchanged due to a lack of suitable inventory that has now been made permanent.  

Or maybe I can rent a unit I pull from the weeks system, yeah, I'll exchange for something and offer a Guest Cert for rent on TUG...  Anyone want to rent a Branson week in February?  Some of the shows are still open then.


----------



## RustyS

glenb said:


> Glad to have got that off my chest.



Glad to lend an ear and a shoulder.  And all good points too.

I'll bet you thought RCI was just another way us silly ex-Brits were taking advantage of one another.   But the Internet allows some prior-subjects-of-the-crown (RCI board members in particular) to take advantage of people around the globe.


----------



## bnoble

> I don't like ongoing searches. I search every day. But I may have to start doing ongoing searches now in Weeks to utilize these two Summer beach weeks


OY, I posted the results of a small experiment comparing my daily searches of coastal US in mid-summer, Maine through South Carolina, over several months, with an ongoing search running for about one week for the same areas and dates.  The ongoing search was significantly more effective---it saw more in one week than I saw in months and months of direct searching.  That single, small experiment made me a big believer.

For what it's worth, I had almost exactly the same experience back when I was using II to exchange into DVC---ongoing searches turned up units I never, ever saw in my daily looks through the inventory.  Even after I turned various units down, they were generally never seen again in a manual search.


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> OY, I posted the results of a small experiment comparing my daily searches of coastal US in mid-summer, Maine through South Carolina, over several months, with an ongoing search running for about one week for the same areas and dates.  The ongoing search was significantly more effective---it saw more in one week than I saw in months and months of direct searching.  That single, small experiment made me a big believer.
> 
> For what it's worth, I had almost exactly the same experience back when I was using II to exchange into DVC---ongoing searches turned up units I never, ever saw in my daily looks through the inventory.  Even after I turned various units down, they were generally never seen again in a manual search.



That is very interesting to me.  I have had an ongoing search with my decent traders for months and months, and I still haven't had either of the searches filled.  I assumed it was lack of trading power, because I can no longer see all of the good stuff, though I see most of it.  It could be something as simple as nothing being available.  

I should also experiment with this.  Brian, could you post this specific search test on TUG as well?


----------



## Laurie

Goofyhobbie said:


> Like you Theo, I saw the claiming of a trinket as admitting that the proposed settlement was O. K. *NOT!!!!*


I'm sure the lawyers had that argument (claim submissions being proof of satisfaction with settlement terms) already prepared before there was even a tally. And the number of trinkets claimed by TUG etc folks was insignificant compared with the total. 

It's fine that some decided not to claim one, on principle. I did claim my trinket and don't feel bad at all about that, because I didn't and don't believe my decision had any impact either way. And I don't think anyone else who claimed one should feel bad either. 

On the other hand, as I understand it, the number of objections filed as a result of the folks posting here - Jennie, Susan, Goofyhobby etc - was an unusually high percentage, so might have had a sliver of a chance at affecting the outcome in a more permanent way, and therefore certainly worth the effort. Thank you to you 3 especially, and to TUGBrian, and to all of you!!

Everyone here did your/our best... and as so many are saying, it's time to move on from RCI as it ceases to work for us.


----------



## Stricky

PerryM said:


> We no longer use RCI, haven't for 2 years now - that is the correct way this whole thing should have been handled by all concerned.  The lawyers and courts won this round, they will win the next round too.. That's how big government and big courts work - they take care of themselves first and if we get anything out of them that's almost by accident.



Obviously RCI seems to be happy with their rental program. Although having a large percentage of members leave RCI is a nice idea, there are not enough educated members that will do so. My thought is the only way they will change is if whole resorts leave. It is up to resort managements to force a change.

Thanks to those that tried. I do wish the outcome had been better.


----------



## "Roger"

Stricky said:


> ... My thought is the only way they will change is if whole resorts leave...


To II?

They have and have always had their own rental program.  (Craig Urbane said that they couldn't survive without it.)   

They have never had any 45 day rule to help out blue week owners and are unlikely to institute one. (Several people in this thread have suggested that the resurrection of this program was of special importance within the suit.)

Bnoble tells us that ongoing searches are also the more effective way to go. within II.

Of recent, there have been some postings to the effect that they too make last minute cancellations. (Familiarity breeds discontent.  As more Tuggers have made this their favorite company ...)

No way to discover one's trading power. 

I am sure that John Chase could add his two cents...  

My point is that when you deal with large corporations, all that you can reasonably do is adjust your own behavior to what it is they offer.  Spend your money or hold back based upon the personal value that you get.

[I suspect that this will not be a popular post within this thread, so I will duck and run.]


----------



## PerryM

*White Knights are haggard these days....*



Stricky said:


> Obviously RCI seems to be happy with their rental program. Although having a large percentage of members leave RCI is a nice idea, there are not enough educated members that will do so. My thought is the only way they will change is if whole resorts leave. It is up to resort managements to force a change.
> 
> Thanks to those that tried. I do wish the outcome had been better.



I belong to the best, most user friendly timeshare exchange system out there - it's called eBay.

If folks don't like RCI or II or whatever simply rent your unit on eBay or other places and take that money and rent RCI units that are almost given away.

Anyone can do this.  

But to put your faith in the hands of lawyers seems to me to be folly.  This is just another example of how the lawyers and courts made out like bandits and all of you RCI members will pay for this in higher dues and exchange fees.

This won't cost the RCI stockholders a penny - and expect even more egregious behavior in the future now that this outcome has been reached.  The flood gates are now open, thanks to the lawyers and courts.

But I guess enough folks believe that a White Knight will rescue you - good luck on that...


----------



## AwayWeGo

*eBay Rental Results -- Good Or Bad Or So-So ?*




PerryM said:


> I belong to the best, most user friendly timeshare exchange system out there - it's called eBay.


So, how well are timeshares renting on eBay these days ? 

I'd be willing to jump through the eBay hoops once again (e.g., Square Trade, etc.) if I had confidence in eBay as a good place to offer timeshare rentals. 

If eBay is no better than, say, Craig's List & Vacation Timeshare Rentals Dot Com (free section), then I'm better off sticking with those than going through the eBay rigmarole again.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​


----------



## bnoble

> Bnoble tells us that ongoing searches are also the more effective way to go.


As a small caveat to that---I did have *another* ongoing search in RCI for anonther summer 2010 exchange that did _not _match automatically, but I did find a match for in a manual search.

So, I wouldn't just place-and-forget in RCI if I had something important to me.


----------



## PerryM

AwayWeGo said:


> So, how well are timeshares renting on eBay these days ?
> 
> I'd be willing to jump through the eBay hoops once again (e.g., Square Trade, etc.) if I had confidence in eBay as a good place to offer timeshare rentals.
> 
> If eBay is no better than, say, Craig's List & Vacation Timeshare Rentals Dot Com (free section), then I'm better off sticking with those than going through the eBay rigmarole again.
> 
> -- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​



I just rented 10 units this holiday season on eBay.

EBay allows vacation rentals to use their Classified Ad feature where it cost me $10 per month and I ran 2 ads for 2 months - total cost to me was $40 for 10 rentals.

I also used Redweek and Myresortnetwork but neither of them generated ANY sales - next year I won't even bother.

They no longer require you to pay for Square Trade - you have to fax in your proof of ownership just once direct to eBay and the cost is $0.

So before folks chuck eBay you really should explore what they have to offer for just peanuts...

P.S.
Craig's List is a cesspool infected with human debris - please be VERY careful on Craig's List.


----------



## DeniseM

Let's keep on track here, please - if you want to talk about your personal rentals, please post on the Buying, Selling, Renting Board.


----------



## krj9999

I deposited an August 2010 DE beach week several weeks ago; it never showed up as available for a trade when I searched using another deposit and it never showed up as available for rental (within RCI or at Wyndham Endless Vacations).  I assume it must have matched an ongoing request.

Right now, I have no qualms about depositing my weeks with RCI Weeks - though will admit I have pretty strong trading power with my units and I wish the exchange fees were lower.



rickandcindy23 said:


> That is very interesting to me.  I have had an ongoing search with my decent traders for months and months, and I still haven't had either of the searches filled.  I assumed it was lack of trading power, because I can no longer see all of the good stuff, though I see most of it.  It could be something as simple as nothing being available.
> 
> I should also experiment with this.  Brian, could you post this specific search test on TUG as well?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

krj9999 said:


> I deposited an August 2010 DE beach week several weeks ago; it never showed up as available for a trade when I searched using another deposit and it never showed up as available for rental (within RCI or at Wyndham Endless Vacations).  I assume it must have matched an ongoing request.
> 
> Right now, I have no qualms about depositing my weeks with RCI Weeks - though will admit I have pretty strong trading power with my units and I wish the exchange fees were lower.



krj,

You may be right on target when you assumed that your specific deposited week went immediately to another exchanger; but if an exchanger did not have a request in for your vacation time it is very likely that RCI simply grabbed the week for one or more of their affiliates to rent. 

There are many such affiliates that you would not routinely know about.  RCI skims the good weeks as soon as they are deposited and gives them to the affiliate or in the alternative RCI simply sells the Vacation Time to a company like Sky Auction for whatever they can obtain over $328.00 and the other company auctions off the property or rents it for whatever they can get over an above what they paid RCI. 

Where did I get the number $328.00?  Well think about it. RCI by being the broker in the exchange process currently gets $164 from you the depositer and $164 form the exchanger.  That comes to $328.00.  All they have to do is sell your Vacation Time for an amount above $328.00 to make a profit.  

RCI could care less about whether or not you get to fullfill your exchnage request after your deposit. (RCI already has your $164.)  RCI could also care less about the potential exchanger who wants your Vacation Time. That exchanger will have deposited his week and paid his $164 and the pipeline continues to get stuffed with similiar transactions.  

Meanwhile, RCI takes the high demand deposits gets whatever it can for those weeks and returns "mud weeks," developer left overs, HOA extras, and Hotel rooms to fullfill their end of the bargain.

Bottom line your WEEKS and the WEEKS of others are not necessarily going to show up as a visible RCI Rental or at Wyndham Endless Vacations.


----------



## krj9999

Dave, I can see an August 2011 week at my DE beach resort, which is a small older resort that is not very highly rated in reviews and neither gold or silver crown, in the exchange pool.  So I still suspect my 2010 week filled an ongoing request.

And to clarify, they don't have $164 from me upon deposit, but rather access to my week.  But the week I deposited had enough trading power to see a HGVC Grand Waikikian 1BR that I paid the $164 exchange fee for.   



Goofyhobbie said:


> krj,
> 
> You may be right on target when you assumed that your specific deposited week went immediately to another exchanger; but if an exchanger did not have a request in for your vacation time it is very likely that RCI simply grabbed the week for one or more of their affiliates to rent.
> 
> There are many such affiliates that you would not routinely know about.  RCI skims the good weeks as soon as they are deposited and gives them to the affiliate or in the alternative RCI simply sells the Vacation Time to a company like Sky Auction for whatever they can obtain over $328.00 and the other company auctions off the property or rents it for whatever they can get over an above what they paid RCI.
> 
> Where did I get the number $328.00?  Well think about it. RCI by being the broker in the exchange process currently gets $164 from you the depositer and $164 form the exchanger.  That comes to $328.00.  All they have to do is sell your Vacation Time for an amount above $328.00 to make a profit.
> 
> RCI could care less about whether or not you get to fullfill your exchnage request after your deposit. (RCI already has your $164.)  RCI could also care less about the potential exchanger who wants your Vacation Time. That exchanger will have deposited his week and paid his $164 and the pipeline continues to get stuffed with similiar transactions.
> 
> Meanwhile, RCI takes the high demand deposits gets whatever it can for those weeks and returns "mud weeks," developer left overs, HOA extras, and Hotel rooms to fullfill their end of the bargain.
> 
> Bottom line your WEEKS and the WEEKS of others are not necessarily going to show up as a visible RCI Rental or at Wyndham Endless Vacations.


----------



## taffy19

Stricky said:


> Obviously RCI seems to be happy with their rental program. Although having a large percentage of members leave RCI is a nice idea, there are not enough educated members that will do so. *My thought is the only way they will change is if whole resorts leave. It is up to resort managements to force a change.*
> 
> Thanks to those that tried. I do wish the outcome had been better.


There are so many savvy TUGgers here who own independent resorts so why don't you write your BODs and ask them to leave RCI or affiliate with other independent exchange companies too so you have a choice?

Let them know how unhappy you are with RCI when you own a week instead of points. They should be able to do this when their contract runs out with RCI and the resort wants to renew again. They should have in the contract that they are free to associate with other independent exchange companies too. 

Both our independent resorts did this so they listened to their owners.  One of them recently added II so we can choose who we want to use and I am very pleased but we were always able to exchange with a few other independent resorts already but not with II. It is our right, as a deeded timeshare owner, to choose who we want to exchange with if the exchange company will accept the resort.

After that, vote with your pocket book and leave RCI unless you have a corporate account and cannot do this. :annoyed: It's really unfair to have to have a Corporate account with an exchange company through the developer like with Starwood, Hyatt, Hilton or Wyndham. Wyndham would do it because they own RCI but why would the other developers require this too? Is it so they have more control over the exchanges and can change the rules in their favor whenever they feel like it?  

People need to get more involved with their timeshare resorts and have their voices heard. JMHO.


----------



## jerseygirl

jerseygirl said:


> So, to summarize:
> 
> Deposits made greater than 10 months in advance will be held exclusively for exchange for 30 days, then if pulled for rental, "equal" substitutions will be made hysterical
> 
> Deposit made more than 90 days in advance but less than 10 months in advance will not be pulled for rental if there are pending requests with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Again, if pulled for rental, "equal" substitutions will be made hysterical
> 
> Deposits made less than 90 days in advance -- they apparently are the sole property of RCI.  If they pull them for rentals, they do not have to make substitutions.



I spoke to someone who also attended the hearing and want to make important corrections to the above information:

Deposits made greater than 10 months in advance will be held exclusively for exchange for *31* days, then if pulled for rental, *or any other purpose*, "equal" substitutions will be made.

Note:  As most people know, RCI also pulls deposits for marketing purposes, to give to affiliates, etc.  The equal substitution clause applies to _anything_ pulled from the exchange pool.  I believe we have Susan to thank for this change.​
Deposit made more than *60* days in advance but less than 10 months in advance will not be pulled for rental if there are pending requests with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Again, if pulled for rental, *or any other purpose*, "equal" substitutions will be made.

Deposits made less than *60* days in advance -- they apparently are the sole property of RCI.  If they pull them for rentals, they do not have to make substitutions.

Note:  That's a positive change from 90 days to 60 days.​
This was in the original settlement terms, but I think it's a positive worth mentioning:  When RCI pulls something for rental, it will remain available for exchange AND rental.  Some have said that RCI has been offering the exchange option on at least some of the rentals already, but once the settlement terms go into effect, all member deposits pulled for rental will also remain available for exchange -- better than the alternative!


----------



## BigElm

Well, I'm in the minority that chose NOT to take one of the trinkets and object. So I got nothing, except a good fight from the participation of those already mentioned (again, a big THANK YOU!!!). I don't care to have any of the trinkets, so it doesn't matter at this point. 

But, goes to show that in the eyes of the court, you're either all in or all out. No matter how ethical, it doesn't seem they like the "Yes, I'm going to object, but I'll take a Scooby snack just because...."

OTOH.... question is.... What do we do from here? I'm willing to end my relationship with RCI once my membership expires or do we ride on the wave of the outcome of this settlement and see what happens? BTW, when does the outcome go into effect?


----------



## jerseygirl

BigElm said:


> ... BTW, when does the outcome go into effect?



Some changes will go into effect within 3 mos. of the effective date, some within 6 months, and some within one year.  If you have the patience, you can go to the website and compare the 2nd Stipulation Order (which defines timeframes) to the original settlement and figure out which changes match up to which timeframes.  I get a headache just looking at it ...


----------



## timeos2

*Once in they cannot drop out*



iconnections said:


> There are so many savvy TUGgers here who own independent resorts so why don't you write your BODs and ask them to leave RCI or affiliate with other independent exchange companies too so you have a choice?



While there is nothing wrong with adding affiliations with additional exchange companies a resort that has affiliated with RCI (or II or others) cannot become completely "unaffiliated" later. That is why Wastegate and some Marriotts among others that were RCI prior to the unfortunate move to II "exclusivity" are still in RCI.  The owners that chose to have a right to stay with the company they chose and the fact that new sales or Developer preference was swayed (or bought with promises) to another doesn't force them to change too. They own their use time and can use it as they please. 

The exception to this would be a pure RTU such as Disney were you actually have no ownership and thus no control. They can (and have) changed the required exchange company. As they hold all control - you are only committed to pay the fees but have no say in operations - they can force the buyers to use only the exchange company they choose to support. But that is a relatively rare situation and in most cases whatever exchange company your resort has ever been affiliated with will always be available to you as an owner.


----------



## bnoble

> What do we do from here?


I think the right thing to do is to decide whether or not RCI returns value to you.  If they do---and if they serve your needs better than the other available options---then it would be rational to continue to do business with them.  If they do not---or if other options provide superior value---then it would be smart to quit doing business with them.

For example, if another exchange company could get you satisfactory trades at a lower cost, then it would be smart to switch.  Likewise, you could decide that just using what you own is the best way to get value from your ownerships.  Or, you could decide that RCI still provides the best option for your circumstances---and while some would argue that you should leave them anyway to send a message, I'm not sure I agree.  At the end of the day, I'm invovled in timesharing for my family's vacations, nothing more.


----------



## Carolinian

The big picture is how this impacts the ongoing viability of our resorts.  The higher the proportion of owners who exchange the greater the bailout danger and this is particularly true for a high percentage of off season owners who exchange.  We need to be proactive and make certain our resorts know what is going on.  Most big management companies probably do.  Some local management companies or hired managers probably have no clue. Many HOA leaders are drawn from the own-to-use universe and may not have paid attention to this issue at all.  One of the things that can be done proactively, so that they understand the issues and some of the remedies is to email a link to this thread to your resort managers and HOA board members.

I recently exchanged to a European resort and attended the welcome meeting (sold out resort so NOT sales) something I often do not do because I would rather be out touring, and got involved in an interesting conversation after the formal ''things to do'' talk.  Only one owner at the meeting was not a member of an exchange company.  Only two of us had exchanged in, the rest being owners at the resort.  None of the owners there at the meeting deposited with RCI anymore although most had in the past.  There was a general awareness that exchange availiblity at RCI had gone seriously downhill in the last few years and that deposits there were no longer worthwhile.  Two or three were using DAE and happy with it. Others were just using their weeks at the resort.  Talking later with management, I was told that they often heard from members dissatisfied with the current situation at RCI and they were seeing more use of DAE and also even more so, use of the resort's own rental program so they could rent out their weeks and then use the money for trips elsewhere.  I was the only American, and there was lots of interest in the class action lawsuit, which the others were unaware.  Two or three were still giving weeks they owned in the Canary Islands to RCI, but not their UK weeks.  The RCI members who had traded in had done so off of a Canary Islands deposit.  One had bought RCI Points thinking it may help get better exchanges, but said it had been a waste of money.


----------



## Carolinian

Unless there is an ironclad definition of what is ''equal'' the provision of replacement with ''equal'' weeks is just blue smoke and mirrors.

One place we need to go from here is an ethics complaint against the backstabbing weasel who MISrepresented the class as their official attorney.




jerseygirl said:


> I spoke to someone who also attended the hearing and want to make important corrections to the above information:
> 
> Deposits made greater than 10 months in advance will be held exclusively for exchange for *31* days, then if pulled for rental, *or any other purpose*, "equal" substitutions will be made.
> 
> Note:  As most people know, RCI also pulls deposits for marketing purposes, to give to affiliates, etc.  The equal substitution clause applies to _anything_ pulled from the exchange pool.  I believe we have Susan to thank for this change.​
> Deposit made more than *60* days in advance but less than 10 months in advance will not be pulled for rental if there are pending requests with sufficient trading power to qualify for the exchange.  Again, if pulled for rental, *or any other purpose*, "equal" substitutions will be made.
> 
> Deposits made less than *60* days in advance -- they apparently are the sole property of RCI.  If they pull them for rentals, they do not have to make substitutions.
> 
> Note:  That's a positive change from 90 days to 60 days.​
> This was in the original settlement terms, but I think it's a positive worth mentioning:  When RCI pulls something for rental, it will remain available for exchange AND rental.  Some have said that RCI has been offering the exchange option on at least some of the rentals already, but once the settlement terms go into effect, all member deposits pulled for rental will also remain available for exchange -- better than the alternative!


----------



## taffy19

timeos2 said:


> While there is nothing wrong with adding affiliations with additional exchange companies a resort that has affiliated with RCI (or II or others) *cannot become completely "unaffiliated" later.* That is why Wastegate and some Marriotts among others that were RCI prior to the unfortunate move to II "exclusivity" are still in RCI. The owners that chose to have a right to stay with the company they chose and the fact that new sales or Developer preference was swayed (or bought with promises) to another doesn't force them to change too. They own their use time and can use it as they please.
> 
> The exception to this would be a pure RTU such as Disney were you actually have no ownership and thus no control. They can (and have) changed the required exchange company. As they hold all control - you are only committed to pay the fees but have no say in operations - they can force the buyers to use only the exchange company they choose to support. But that is a relatively rare situation and in most cases whatever exchange company your resort has ever been affiliated with will always be available to you as an owner.


You are right that a developer cannot completely "unaffiliate" later, John. I didn't think about that but the timeshare owner has a choice to no longer stay a member after the first year.

We owned a Marriott timeshare once that was affiliated with RCI first and then later with II. They signed us up with II but we could have dropped that membership a year later and stay with RCI so we had a choice. We stayed with II because we had other resorts that belong to II too and we are not planning to renew RCI if they keep renting the best condos out.

What I don't like is that some people have to belong to an exchange company because the developers makes them. What if you never exchange but are obligated to pay the yearly exchange fees anyway? So far, the Marriott hasn't done this yet and I hope they never will.

I feel that the attorneys here didn't understand the system or didn't care. They did a disfavor to all of us here because the costs of this lawsuit will be passed on to us who want or need to stay with RCI!  I also feel disappointed that the Judge didn't change her position and I wonder too if she understood what is at stake for the owners who own timeshare weeks only and have a difficult time making exchanges.

My thanks go to the members here who have kept us up to date about the lawsuit and gave their free time and knowledge of the law and even went to the Fairness Hearing too.


----------



## theo

*"She" is a "he"...*



iconnections said:


> ...disappointed that the Judge didn't change her position and I wonder too if she understood what is at stake...



An unimportant point of clarification perhaps, but Judge Peter Sheridan is male.  

I'm so glad that I prepared and submitted four typewritten pages of detailed objections. Maybe I should have saved the time, paper and postage, but I simply couldn't resist the opportunity to enumerate the many and varied faults, foibles and contrived "smoke and mirrors" deceits of RCI "deposit / exchange" practices.    

I "voted with my feet" away from RCI years ago --- and permanently, but my last membership date fell within the range of class eligibility, enabling the submission of objections to the sellout --- er --- settlement.  

What's done is done. The RCI writing (...or is it just insulting graffiti?) is now very clearly on the wall. 
Enjoy your memberships in *R*ents *C*ondos *I*nstead, one and all....


----------



## taffy19

Carolinian said:


> The big picture is how this impacts the ongoing viability of our resorts. The higher the proportion of owners who exchange the greater the bailout danger and this is particularly true for a high percentage of off season owners who exchange. *We need to be proactive and make certain our resorts know what is going on.* Most big management companies probably do. Some local management companies or hired managers probably have no clue. Many HOA leaders are drawn from the own-to-use universe and may not have paid attention to this issue at all. One of the things that can be done proactively, so that they understand the issues and some of the remedies is to email a link to this thread to your resort managers and HOA board members.
> 
> I recently exchanged to a European resort and attended the welcome meeting (sold out resort so NOT sales) something I often do not do because I would rather be out touring, and got involved in an interesting conversation after the formal ''things to do'' talk. Only one owner at the meeting was not a member of an exchange company. Only two of us had exchanged in, the rest being owners at the resort. None of the owners there deposited with RCI anymore although most had in the past. There was a general awareness that exchange availiblity at RCI had gone seriously downhill in the last few years and that deposits there were no longer worthwhile. Two or three were using DAE and happy with it. Others were just using their weeks at the resort. Talking later with management, I was told that they often heard from members dissatisfied with the current situation at RCI and they were seeing more use of DAE and also even more so, use of the resort's own rental program so they could rent out their weeks and then use the money for trips elsewhere. I was the only American, and there was lots of interest in the class action lawsuit, which the others were unaware. Two or three were still giving weeks they owned in the Canary Islands to RCI, but not their UK weeks. The RCI members who had traded in had done so off of a Canary Islands deposit. One had bought RCI Points thinking it may help get better exchanges, but said it had been a waste of money.


It is so simple to send your resort the TUG threads about any subject you are concerned about. I do it all the time and get response. If I don't, I call them in person and let them know how I feel. 

I recently did it about the high taxes in Maui and they followed up as I read about it in the newsletter. Most BODs will listen to you unless the developer is more concerned about their bottom line mainly and goodwill doesn't mean much to them. This is so shortsighted and will haunt them eventually.

In that case, you have to get more people involved and this forum is the ideal channel for that. I read the various hotel chain timeshare threads so see that this is happening already but we are only a small percentage of the owners so you need to get the word out when you are at your resort.


----------



## Jennie

I was waiting for Susan to post a summary of the final settlement but I guess she is very busy catching up on her "real life work" (her local family and matrimonial practice). Eventually we should have a comprehensive summary of all of the terms of the settlement to post as a "sticky" or perhaps as a "headline" with a link on the TUG home page. I'm sure Brian and Denise M and Makai guy and all the behind the scenes heroes will know the best way to make this important information available in one place for present and future TUG members and guests to know.

I thank "jersey girl" and "goofie hobby" for stepping up to the plate and posting such excellent interim information. If the world had more caring and altruistic people like these two, it would be a far more wonderful planet!

Susan or I will post more details in the near future. Subsequent to the court hearing on November 30th, I have been in Email communication with one of  the Lead Attroneys for the Plaintiffs. I want to obtain an official explanation of the details of some of the "fine points" of the changes to come. The attorney promises a comprehensive discussion on or about December 14th (when the critical phase of an unrelated case passes). 

In the meantime, here is some information that the Plaintiffs' attorney provided a few days ago: (I am paraphrasing *some* of it).

"There seems to be a misunderstanding about what happens now with priority for weeks member exchanges. 

Deposits made more than 10 months in advance are governed by an  "exclusivity" provision that requires that the week be available *only* for member exchanges for 31 days.

A deposit made 9 months or earlier in advance of the check-in date, even if there is no pending on-going exchange request, still must be made available for exchange, even if it is also available for rent. RCI cannot take inventory out for rental and just replace it. All inventory, no matter when deposited, must at least be simultaneously available for exchange up until 60 days before the start date. 

Nothing about the 45 day drop of trading power is impacted by the settlement. Whatever someone could do last year at 45 days out, he/she can do next year at 45 days out. 

Up until now, RCI had the right (and did) remove inventory when it was 90 days before the start date. They have been doing it for years. Now, RCI has to wait until 60 days. Nothing about that changes the opportunities for members to  exchange within 45 days of the start date, with trade power considerations eliminated . 

(By the way, RCI typically only removed 10% or so of unused inventory within 90 days of the start date.) There is absolutely no detrimental impact to the 45 day trading power drop aspect of the Weeks Program.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Okay "guys", let me know your thoughts and questions about this so I can put them on my list of questions to ask on or about December 14th


----------



## regatta333

Jennie said:


> A deposit made 9 months or earlier in advance of the check-in date, even if there is no pending on-going exchange request, still must be made available for exchange, even if it is also available for rent. RCI cannot take inventory out for rental and just replace it. All inventory, no matter when deposited, must at least be simultaneously available for exchange up until 60 days before the start date.



I guess we should expect further "trading power revisions" from RCI in the future.


----------



## DanM

Jennie said:


> Deposits made more than 10 months in advance are governed by an  "exclusivity" provision that requires that the week be available *only* for member exchanges for 31 days.
> 
> A deposit made 9 months or earlier in advance of the check-in date, even if there is no pending on-going exchange request, still must be made available for exchange, even if it is also available for rent. RCI cannot take inventory out for rental and just replace it. All inventory, no matter when deposited, must at least be simultaneously available for exchange up until 60 days before the start date.



OK, does this mean that all deposits, whether over or under 10 months and whether simultaneously offered for rental or not, will be available for exchange until at least 60 days out?


----------



## Jennie

DanM said:


> OK, does this mean that all deposits, whether over or under 10 months and whether simultaneously offered for rental or not, will be available for exchange until at least 60 days out?



That's what the attorney says.

I have to clarify when the various changes will be made. It won't be all at once. Some will occur earlier than others.


----------



## PerryM

Jennie said:


> ...
> Deposits made more than 10 months in advance are governed by an  "exclusivity" provision that requires that the week be available *only* for member exchanges for 31 days.
> ...



I would caution folks who might think that depositing weeks 10 or more months before check in means that high trading power (TP) is the result consider this, RCI controls TP and you have no idea what your week is worth nor a week you'd like to exchange into.

All RCI has to do is screw around with TP, and for very good reasons, and that week will languish for 32 days before it can be rented.

What are those very good reasons?  They are a secret of course, just like TP is.  All you RCI members agree that you are to remain ignorant as to the calculation of TP and RCI can, and probably does, mess around with them as they see fit.

There is no way to outfox RCI - no government, court, or country can outfox them.  My guess is that they will simply tinker with things that are secret and the result will remain where it has always been - in RCI's favor.

Don't like that - there are plenty of alternatives available to all who decide to exit RCI.

I can't cite RCI in the following example but II:  Some of the easiest weeks to exchange into are hot holiday weeks.  I have, for the past 3 years, exchanged a Gold Marriott Summit Watch that cost me $5k into the Marriott Maui Ocean Club, that costs 10 times as much, for President's week and 4th of July week.  The same Gold week exchanged into Christmas week at Marriott's Summit Watch in Park City.

Why is this possible?  Simple - TP.  When Marriott owners lock in a hot week they immediately deposit that week into II and the first guy to do so got tremendous TP - 1 minute later another weeks is deposited and gets less TP and that happens in the first hour after reservations open for Marriott.

My Gold week, which has low TP, snaps up the latest weeks which have low TP because the II computers detected a glut of hot holiday weeks with no open searches to snap up the new weeks; high supply and low demand causes TP to fall.

This is but 1 example how the secrets that protect the exchange company screw unwary owners.

You all agree to this lopsided arrangement every time you use RCI or II.


----------



## jerseygirl

Perry --

As part of the settlement, RCI has agreed to furnish members with their trading power.  Have you read the agreement?

Now, if I understand correctly (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), they don't have to tell members what it takes to trade into another resort (so they'll only have half the equation), but if enough people start communicating their own trading power via internet channels, the secrets will be unveiled.  It would be great if someone created an internet database for people to post their numbers -- this would create less revenue for RCI as members will know not to waste their "float" on ongoing requests that will never be matched.

The settlement was not as good as it should have been, but I don't believe it is fair to state that there are no benefits to timeshare owners as a result of the lawsuit.  Everyone just needs to figure out whether to walk permanently (my vote) or how to exploit the changes and turn the cards around.  And, if anyone can figure out how to exploit the changes, it's Tuggers.

-- Jerseygirl


----------



## PerryM

jerseygirl said:


> Perry --
> 
> As part of the settlement, RCI has agreed to furnish members with their trading power.  Have you read the agreement?
> 
> Now, if I understand correctly (someone please correct me if I'm wrong), they don't have to tell members what it takes to trade into another resort (so they'll only have half the equation), but if enough people start communicating their own trading power via internet channels, the secrets will be unveiled.  It would be great if someone created an internet database for people to post their numbers -- this would create less revenue for RCI as members will know not to waste their "float" on ongoing requests that will never be matched.
> 
> The settlement was not as good as it should have been, but I don't believe it is fair to state that there are no benefits to timeshare owners as a result of the lawsuit.  Everyone just needs to figure out whether to walk permanently (my vote) or how to exploit the changes and turn the cards around.  And, if anyone can figure out how to exploit the changes, it's Tuggers.
> 
> -- Jerseygirl



I missed the trading power disclosure.

So where will it be displayed and how will it be used?  This is a great number to have but what if RCI decides to just create a new one - the "Super Secret Trading Power"?

Just like wage and price controls are next to worthless, I'm guessing that RCI will simply decide to use something brand new for exchanges - they have every right to do so.

Also, this agreement is for just 3 years as I understand it - what then?  TP disappears?

You guys just watch - the "gains" you thing you got will simply be superseded by a fast thinking, profit motivated, company.  Our government and courts are not profit motivated.

But who knows - maybe the courts did outfox ol' RCI.


----------



## Jennie

This is what I think the class action settlement mandates RCI to do. As noted previously, I plan to work with the Plaintiffs' attorneys later this month to obtain precise information about the coming changes. They will be implemented in phases, not all at once. I think there are exact target dates, and that everything will be in place within a year. 

I think one of the provisions of the RCI class action settlement is that a member will be able to determine exactly what weeks his/her week will be able to "pull" before making a deposit. I guess this would be similar to II's "search first" feature. The results will be valid only at the precise time the inquiry is made. If the member decides not to deposit at that moment, new inquiries will have to be made subsequently. I'm not sure if this can be done online or if it will require a call to Customer Service. 

Another provision is that RCI must disclose how many weeks have been exchanged during the prior year for a particular month at a particular location, presumably to give the member information that will help him/her decide how likely it may be to obtain a particular exchange they have in mind. Ms. Collins requested that the holiday weeks be listed separately but I'm not sure if this was agreed to.

I'm sure you all know that the Objectors are not happy with the overall results of the settlement. We fought hard but obtained only a few improvements. It is what it is and we cannot change that. So the next best thing to do is to gain knowledge of the rules and figure out the best way to use them to our advantage. Or vote with our feet and take our business elsewhere. I did that a long time ago. I own where we want to stay almost every year--8 weeks in southeast Florida (Jan. to March), 3 weeks on Cape Cod in August, and other weeks that we rent easily through TUG and Redweek ads.

For years I have warned people to not buy timeshare weeks for trading. It worked well until the late 1990's when greed-driven conglomerates took over the industry. Now more than ever, people should buy where they would like to stay. For a change of pace, they can rent our their week and use the money to rent what they want from another owner.


----------



## PerryM

Jennie said:


> ...
> *For years I have warned people to not buy timeshare weeks for trading.* It worked well until the late 1990's when greed-driven conglomerates took over the industry. Now more than ever, people should buy where they would like to stay. For a change of pace, they can rent our their week and use the money to rent what they want from another owner.



This is sage advice.

However, timeshares have morphed with technology.  When the first timeshares appeared and exchange companies appeared the computer in your iPhone would take up a 50 story building and cost a trillion dollars.

Now folks want exchanging #1 and the year-after-year usage of a timeshare in last place; technology allows for unbelievable exchange systems to evolve.

RCI and II are stuck back in the early 1990's and you guys want them to change their business model through the courts - it will never happen.

There are plenty of alternatives to RCI - the members either use it as it stands or move on to alternatives.  Using the courts to micro-manage RCI will not work - RCI will adapt and leave the courts in the dust.

I quit RCI and I don't miss them a bit - give it a try...


----------



## Carolinian

I gather that all of this is still time limited, to three years rather than two.  After that, RCI will not have anything binding it from the court.  It seems to me, that may be an opportune time to pop them back into court, this time through a state AG consumer protection lawsuit.  The result of the class action might help encourage a state AG to get involved.  Otherwise maybe the core group here can find a class action firm that will sign a contract that clearly specifices ''no trinkets asked for or accepted, only permanent injunctive relief'' for any settlement.  It would seem to be a whole new ball game once this time period runs out.




Jennie said:


> This is what I think the class action settlement mandates RCI to do. As noted previously, I plan to work with the Plaintiffs' attorneys later this month to obtain precise information about the coming changes. They will be implemented in phases, not all at once. I think there are exact target dates, and that everything will be in place within a year.
> 
> I think one of the provisions of the RCI class action settlement is that a member will be able to determine exactly what weeks his/her week will be able to "pull" before making a deposit. I guess this would be similar to II's "search first" feature. The results will be valid only at the precise time the inquiry is made. If the member decides not to deposit at that moment, new inquiries will have to be made subsequently. I'm not sure if this can be done online or if it will require a call to Customer Service.
> 
> Another provision is that RCI must disclose how many weeks have been exchanged during the prior year for a particular month at a particular location, presumably to give the member information that will help him/her decide how likely it may be to obtain a particular exchange they have in mind. Ms. Collins requested that the holiday weeks be listed separately but I'm not sure if this was agreed to.
> 
> I'm sure you all know that the Objectors are not happy with the overall results of the settlement. We fought hard but obtained only a few improvements. It is what it is and we cannot change that. So the next best thing to do is to gain knowledge of the rules and figure out the best way to use them to our advantage. Or vote with our feet and take our business elsewhere. I did that a long time ago. I own where we want to stay almost every year--8 weeks in southeast Florida (Jan. to March), 3 weeks on Cape Cod in August, and other weeks that we rent easily through TUG and Redweek ads.
> 
> For years I have warned people to not buy timeshare weeks for trading. It worked well until the late 1990's when greed-driven conglomerates took over the industry. Now more than ever, people should buy where they would like to stay. For a change of pace, they can rent our their week and use the money to rent what they want from another owner.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Jennie:*

quote 

"Nothing about the 45 day drop of trading power is impacted by the settlement. Whatever someone could do last year at 45 days out, he/she can do next year at 45 days out."

Does the option of 45 day "Late Exchange" still exist?


----------



## rickandcindy23

As far as I can tell with my blue week deposits, the 45-day window is more like 20 days or less.  It used to be 45 days, and now it is a fraction of 45 days.  This means less opportunities for those blue weeks, and we almost all pay as much in fees for those blue weeks as we pay for red.  



crazyhorse said:


> *Jennie:*
> 
> quote
> 
> "Nothing about the 45 day drop of trading power is impacted by the settlement. Whatever someone could do last year at 45 days out, he/she can do next year at 45 days out."
> 
> Does the option of 45 day "Late Exchange" still exist?


----------



## beejaybeeohio

*Strategy?*

With the provisions of this settlement, would one of you very savvy Tug members, please summarize how to maximize our trading power in terms of when to deposit and when to search, put in ongoing request or look for "last-minute" exchanges?  I am trying to glean from the various posts how to make the most of this settlement, and getting a little confused. 

I suggest that this information be posted on one of the "members only" forums.

Thanks,


----------



## jerseygirl

I believe Jennie was stating that the settlement itself will not affect the 45-day window.

When I posted my earlier comments, I assumed that because RCI can pull inventory without limitation and substitution at the 60-day mark, the 45-day window was effectively gone.  However, Jennie has stated that RCI already had this ability at *90* days, and now it's been changed to *60* days ... so this is an improvement.  In other words, I shouldn't have made the jump that the 45-day window is gone.  I think Jennie was just being polite by not coming out and directly saying "jerseygirl is wrong about the 45-day window!"   

I don't have a weeks account, but I see a lot of good stuff available for 7500 points.  Can I assume that those same weeks are available to weeks members without trading power limitations?  If so, there's still some sort of a "last minute" window on the weeks side.


----------



## Carolinian

The additional drain on the 45 day window from both rentals and points is already causing bailout by off season owners who primary used weeks for trade within that window, and this can only get worse. These people have been seeing for a while that they are no longer getting the trades they used to.  This can have a substantial impact on resort finances, and thus our m/f's, as time goes on.  This is one negative from the Brave New World of RCI that has not received as much attention as it should.

Personally, it has been years since I owned a blue week, so this is all second hand, but the resort where I served on the board has been seeing bailout of the retired multi- blue week owners, who were primarily trading in the 45 day window. They make no bones about saying why they are getting out of the game.




rickandcindy23 said:


> As far as I can tell with my blue week deposits, the 45-day window is more like 20 days or less.  It used to be 45 days, and now it is a fraction of 45 days.  This means less opportunities for those blue weeks, and we almost all pay as much in fees for those blue weeks as we pay for red.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Jerseygirl:*

quote:

"Can I assume that those same weeks are available to weeks members without trading power limitations? If so, there's still some sort of a "last minute" window on the weeks side."

There does not seem to be *any* "last minute" window on the weeks side for Europe, unless you want to rent (i.e.no deposit needed). This facility is called "Late Deals". 

I asked my original question because I thought that there could be a "Late Exchange" program still operational in the States or elsewhere in the world, or perhaps something similar over in the Points System.


----------



## timeos2

*If it has no value to the owner why is it a value to someone else?*



Carolinian said:


> The additional drain on the 45 day window from both rentals and points is already causing bailout by off season owners who primary used weeks for trade within that window, and this can only get worse. These people have been seeing for a while that they are no longer getting the trades they used to.  This can have a substantial impact on resort finances, and thus our m/f's, as time goes on.  This is one negative from the Brave New World of RCI that has not received as much attention as it should.
> 
> Personally, it has been years since I owned a blue week, so this is all second hand, but the resort where I served on the board has been seeing bailout of the retired multi- blue week owners, who were primarily trading in the 45 day window. They make no bones about saying why they are getting out of the game.



I know we've gone back and forth on this question before but I am seriously interested in your take. IF the owners of those low value blue weeks are able to snag better value weeks, thus giving them a value for their fees and propping up the resort, what happens to the week THEY deposit? Who wants to cover the costs of that? Where does the "value" come from? RCI (or II, or the owners of the resort that the snagged week came from - whoever) don't owe that owner or that resort a vaue above what they or the system gets in return. It appears that the chain dies with that poor value blue week deposit and trade up - someone is left with a worthless week in this situation. How is that fair, who is supposed to eat that expense and what happens to the unwanted week that now sits there with no interest as trade, use or rental? To my eye it is the responsibility of the resort/owner at the head of the problem to find a value not third parties. What do you think the answer is?


----------



## e.bram

Maybe scaled MFs buy season would help?


----------



## DeniseM

e.bram said:


> Maybe scaled MFs buy season would help?



That wouldn't be fair to high season owners.  Maintenance costs are the same whether you own during high season or low season, so why should a high season owner subsidize a low season owner's maintenance fee?


----------



## DanM

*Blue week issue*



timeos2 said:


> I know we've gone back and forth on this question before but I am seriously interested in your take. IF the owners of those low value blue weeks are able to snag better value weeks, thus giving them a value for their fees and propping up the resort, what happens to the week THEY deposit? Who wants to cover the costs of that? Where does the "value" come from? RCI (or II, or the owners of the resort that the snagged week came from - whoever) don't owe that owner or that resort a vaue above what they or the system gets in return. It appears that the chain dies with that poor value blue week deposit and trade up - someone is left with a worthless week in this situation. How is that fair, who is supposed to eat that expense and what happens to the unwanted week that now sits there with no interest as trade, use or rental? To my eye it is the responsibility of the resort/owner at the head of the problem to find a value not third parties. What do you think the answer is?



Interesting and probably worth a new thread (a little off topic here). Anyway, seriously, who is going to find intrinsic value in a January Virginia beach week? Even if some people love them, there would never be a market unless you could trade them for something worthwhile. If there isn't an affiliated exchange company and if trade value isn't lifted at some point, the whole timeshare model falls apart. The only alternative I could see would be to restructure sales and maintenance from the development side...maybe charge nothing for the units or have a lower maintenance schedule than prime weeks, or both. But I suspect that would change the economics so that prime week costs would be too high to be competitive with renting in most areas.  On the other hand, I don't have a problem with blue week owners getting a shot at anything in the pool at 45 or 60 days out if it keeps my maintenance on a prime week down. All it requires on my part is planning a few months ahead, and if I couldn't do that I shouldn't be exchanging timeshares in the first place.  Of course, it seems like RCI is killing the old model and thus the timeshare industry willy nilly.


----------



## jerseygirl

I don't think there has to be a loser ... with millions of members, I would bet thousands (tens of thousands?) of deposits expire due to owner apathy, illness, whatever.  

I think the issue is that it worked in the past (exchanging propped the value of blue weeks) and it stopped working when RCI got into the full-time rental business.


----------



## tschwa2

DeniseM said:


> That wouldn't be fair to high season owners.  Maintenance costs are the same whether you own during high season or low season, so why should a high season owner subsidize a low season owner's maintenance fee?



A couple of thoughts I have about this.  I own a blue week at a small 30 unit Maryland beach resort.  Maryland has a law that you can't have different MF for different weeks so unless that changes, nothing can be done about it.  But from a purely MF perspective, in high season every unit is usually full with the occupancy close to the max 6 persons per unit.  There is more traffic to and from the beach bringing wet sandy clothes and beach peraphernalia in and out, wearing out the bathtubs, washing machines, carpets, vacuum cleaners faster.  There is also running the dishwasher more often, using the balcony furniture, requiring monitoring of the parking lot to ensure non guest aren't parking.

During my winter week I can't remember when there were more than 6 out of 30 checking in for the week.  I can't remember when there were more than 3 units who stayed beyond Monday or Tuesday to check out on Friday.  Occasionally there would be 1 RCI exchange (Maybe a last call, maybe a skyauction.  I doubt they paid more than $200 for the week.)  It's usually groups of 2-4 that come off season; a couple or a family with small children.  We don't usually run the dishwasher or the clothes washer/dryer more than once.  We don't usually use all the beds and we never sit out on the balcony.  The unused units don't need additonal housekeeping.  I certainly think an off season discount of $30-$50 a week would be justified.

My resort keeps fees down for everyone but when you have 144 HOA owned units&delinquencies (104 blue, 24 white, and 16 red- and RCI is generous with the red and white designation because only 1 available red week would be considered high time) and everyone has to make up for the delinquencies and HOA units and winter weeks rent for 1/2 MF and prime weeks rent for 2X MF- the blue weeks will be further tempted to walk and then high season can have the fun or paying for the expenses for all the seasons.  I think cutting the lower season some kind of break might keep them from walking.

Tracey


----------



## bnoble

> That wouldn't be fair to high season owners. Maintenance costs are the same whether you own during high season or low season, so why should a high season owner subsidize a low season owner's maintenance fee?



Fundamentally, highly-seasonal resorts with fixed per-week fees have a real problem.  If the low-season owners are forced to pay more per week than the weeks are "worth", they will increasingly abandon their ownerships.  That raises fees (due to uncollectable debt), tipping the balance for even more off-season owners, and so on.  As a concrete example, one of my (seasonal) resorts raised fees by 15% this year---largely because of increases in uncollectable MFs.

I don't see why it is RCI's job to solve this problem for these resorts.

Some highly-seasonal resorts have creative ways to deal with this.  For example, many Michigan resorts appear to have been sold in "blocks" of time, with multiple weeks on the deed---e.g. one red, two white, one blue.  Each owner pays fees based on four weeks owned, but is forced to carry a mix of weeks so that overall value is maintained.

Pure points systems (e.g. Wyndham UDI deeds) have another way around it---and they do charge based on value of time, not on proportion of costs.  MFs are charged on a per-point basis.  High weeks require more points to book than low weeks.  Bingo---costs are charged based on value, not on a strict per-week division of costs.

Unfortunately, for resorts that are already fully sold, neither of these is going to work.  It's a hard problem, for sure, and it's not clear what the solution eventually will be, other than a protracted death spiral.


----------



## DeniseM

Some people buy off-season weeks because they can travel off-season, but many people buy off-season weeks because those weeks have a cheaper purchase price.  If that's true, and I think it is, then those same folks may be less likely to be able to pay their maintenance fees if they have a down-turn in their personal finances, because they have less resources to deal with a financial crisis.  

Right now, with 3 of the resorts I own (Starwood) we have had several hundred dollars added to our 2010 MF's to cover the MF's of people who are in default.  Timeshare sales tactics are based on putting tremendous pressure on people to to buy a timeshare, whether it is a sound financial decision for the buyer or not.  They sell the dream to starry eyed vacationers and then offer payment plans with outrageous interest.  They just want to make the sale - they don't care if the person can afford it or not.  Timeshare owners are now reaping the results of that practice.  I don't know what the answer it.


----------



## Carolinian

At the point they get them, these are short shelf life inventory, which in the leisure travel industry is distressed and devalued inventory.  The fact that it may have had a much higher value when it had a longer shelf life has at that point become irrelevent.  At the juncture these exchangers get them, it is an equal trade.  The market has spoken as to their real value because they are still sitting on the shelf.

Late deposits also have much reduced trading power for the depositor for the very same reason.





timeos2 said:


> I know we've gone back and forth on this question before but I am seriously interested in your take. IF the owners of those low value blue weeks are able to snag better value weeks, thus giving them a value for their fees and propping up the resort, what happens to the week THEY deposit? Who wants to cover the costs of that? Where does the "value" come from? RCI (or II, or the owners of the resort that the snagged week came from - whoever) don't owe that owner or that resort a vaue above what they or the system gets in return. It appears that the chain dies with that poor value blue week deposit and trade up - someone is left with a worthless week in this situation. How is that fair, who is supposed to eat that expense and what happens to the unwanted week that now sits there with no interest as trade, use or rental? To my eye it is the responsibility of the resort/owner at the head of the problem to find a value not third parties. What do you think the answer is?


----------



## rickandcindy23

Brian, no one says it is RCI's problem.  What I am saying is that 45 days out, it would be nice to have some choices that aren't there at one year out, like we could get just 10-15 years ago.  I was able to get Point at Poipu, Kauai, in June of 2000 with a blue week at 45 days out.  I entered a request, and RCI fulfilled it at 45 days, almost to the day.  I could never get that again, unless it was two weeks before the date (maybe less).  At that time, we only owned one blue week that exchanged through RCI, and we also traded into Paniolo Greens with a blue week that same year, June of 2000, months ahead of check-in.  

We were so pleased with our blue weeks.  Our luck ran out, but I was a naive timeshare owner back then, because it all worked so well, I didn't see any problem with owning a blue week.  My experience is much like many owners have experienced: an obvious drop in trading power that only allows you something great at 20 days or less.  45 days is much easier to get great airfare.  20 days or less, not so easy.  

45 days is not ridiculous for RCI to loosen inventory, and it used to work very well.  Actually, if I were honest, blue weeks do get good stuff in Orlando, even at two years out, so that is how I use our weeks, but when it comes right down to it, RCI rents, very cheaply, those same weeks I can pull.  The last-minute rentals are much less than our MF's, so I have a problem with that, too.  Why rent those weeks so cheaply?  Makes me sick.  

Their rental program cheapens what we own.  :annoyed:


----------



## Carolinian

What has happened is that these resorts relied on RCI's longtime business model with the 45 day window in sustaining their own business model.  The new RCI has now kicked the financial props out from under them by a very significant change in their own model.  RCI does, indeed, bear responsibility in this since their own promotional materials that they provided for years to developers promoted the concept of buying an off season week to trade in the 45 day window.  The developers were only telling customers what RCI was telling them.

As to what the weeks are worth, RCI has also substantially depressed this by their new business plan that floods the market with cheap rentals and further reduces the value of these weeks.  RCI Rentals also destroy the exclusivity of their old ownership / exchange model.  In the old days to use a timeshare, one essentially had to own a timeshare, which made the off season weeks more marketable.

As to seasonality, many ''red all year'' areas may be whistling past the graveyard on this issue as they are far more seasonal than those red designations seem to show.  The European version of the RCI directory availibility tables for ''red all year'' areas like FLorida and the Canary Islands show that in reality both areas are in fact highly seasonal, for instance.

HOA's need to not be caught napping on this issue.  They need to identify markets for own to use buyers for the off season weeks, and in many areas, such markets can be developed.  They also need to start migrating their owners who exchange to other exchange companies who do not cut the throats of their affiliated resorts with these rental programs.

The percentage of owners who exchange also has a lot to do with the vulnerability of the resort.  On the OBX, this percentage is around 30% in the offseason.  Managers at resorts I have traded into in Germany and France have told me that their percentage of exchangers is significantly below that level, while one in the UK said it had been about 50% but was falling.




bnoble said:


> Fundamentally, highly-seasonal resorts with fixed per-week fees have a real problem.  If the low-season owners are forced to pay more per week than the weeks are "worth", they will increasingly abandon their ownerships.  That raises fees (due to uncollectable debt), tipping the balance for even more off-season owners, and so on.  As a concrete example, one of my (seasonal) resorts raised fees by 15% this year---largely because of increases in uncollectable MFs.
> 
> I don't see why it is RCI's job to solve this problem for these resorts.
> 
> Some highly-seasonal resorts have creative ways to deal with this.  For example, many Michigan resorts appear to have been sold in "blocks" of time, with multiple weeks on the deed---e.g. one red, two white, one blue.  Each owner pays fees based on four weeks owned, but is forced to carry a mix of weeks so that overall value is maintained.
> 
> Pure points systems (e.g. Wyndham UDI deeds) have another way around it---and they do charge based on value of time, not on proportion of costs.  MFs are charged on a per-point basis.  High weeks require more points to book than low weeks.  Bingo---costs are charged based on value, not on a strict per-week division of costs.
> 
> Unfortunately, for resorts that are already fully sold, neither of these is going to work.  It's a hard problem, for sure, and it's not clear what the solution eventually will be, other than a protracted death spiral.


----------



## timeos2

*Fair enough once but what if its every year?*



Carolinian said:


> At the point they get them, these are short shelf life inventory, which in the leisure travel industry is distressed and devalued inventory.  The fact that it may have had a much higher value when it had a longer shelf life has at that point become irrelevent.  At the juncture these exchangers get them, it is an equal trade.  The market has spoken as to their real value because they are still sitting on the shelf.
> 
> Late deposits also have much reduced trading power for the depositor for the very same reason.



I will agree with that but it doesn't answer the underlying problem/question. The more valuable time that is being taken had an extraordinary set of circumstances to become "equal". It may not happen again. Every year those poor value weeks are still poor value weeks no one wants - why should other resorts & systems give them a value that the home resort refuses to do?


----------



## rickandcindy23

timeos2 said:


> I will agree with that but it doesn't answer the underlying problem/question. The more valuable time that is being taken had an extraordinary set of circumstances to become "equal". It may not happen again. Every year those poor value weeks are still poor value weeks no one wants - *why should other resorts & systems give them a value that the home resort refuses to do*?



What are you saying, John?  The resorts cannot give low season weeks more value.  What do you expect the HOA and management to do that will make our off-season weeks have more value?  Almost all resort areas have a low season.

Don't use Orlando as an example, because you know RCI rents those off-season weeks for less than $200 for a 2 bedroom week.  I resent that someone else gets the same thing I get for exchange, and all they have to pay is $200. 

I am trying to give away my blue weeks, so I can take advantage of low-season weeks through RCI points.


----------



## Carolinian

timeos2 said:


> I will agree with that but it doesn't answer the underlying problem/question. The more valuable time that is being taken had an extraordinary set of circumstances to become "equal". It may not happen again. Every year those poor value weeks are still poor value weeks no one wants - why should other resorts & systems give them a value that the home resort refuses to do?



It is not the home resort that gives weeks a value. It is supply and demand in the exchange system.  And a short shelf life week is at that point in a similar situation as to value with a blue week that is still 6 months or a year away.

With fly-to destinations, the impact of short shelf life can be even more massive, because a few weeks before use date, the airfares to go to those destinations can be prohibitive.  Red all year destinations like Hawaii and the Caribbean would be examples here.  A drive-to off season week that is still 6 months or a year away may indeed have far more value.


----------



## "Roger"

I guess if we are expected to go to war over this issue, someone needs to explain why RCI and only RCI has an obligation to support blue week owners.  II has no special program for them.  The independents have no special program for them.  (SFX won't even take their weeks. Yes, I know that a blue week in London might qualify, but you know those are not the weeks at issue here.)  So why RCI alone?


----------



## bnoble

> Their rental program cheapens what we own.


You could also say that you never owned much of value to begin with, but---for a time---RCI allowed you to trade your weeks for something with more value.

Again, it's not RCI's job to turn blue weeks into something someone wants.  Even if they happened to provide this service more readily before, there is no reason why they should still do so unless it suits their own purposes.


----------



## rickandcindy23

"Roger" said:


> I guess if we are expected to go to war over this issue, someone needs to explain why RCI and only RCI has an obligation to support blue week owners.  *II has no special program for them*.  The independents have no special program for them.  (SFX won't even take their weeks. Yes, I know that a blue week in London might qualify, but you know those are not the weeks at issue here.)  So why RCI alone?



But Roger, II does have a great last-minute exchange program.  It's very easy to get something within 60 days through II, including very prime Hawaii weeks, with just a "green week" deposit.  RCI is alone in the complaints, because they don't do this anymore.  The exchanges were always great with RCI, until their rental program got in the way.  I didn't care about Hawaii a year out with blue weeks, but I would like the opportunity at 45 days.  Better yet, match II's 60 days.


----------



## timeos2

*It has to be done correctly*



rickandcindy23 said:


> What are you saying, John?  The resorts cannot give low season weeks more value.  What do you expect the HOA and management to do that will make our off-season weeks have more value?  Almost all resort areas have a low season.
> 
> Don't use Orlando as an example, because you know RCI rents those off-season weeks for less than $200 for a 2 bedroom week.  I resent that someone else gets the same thing I get for exchange, and all they have to pay is $200.
> 
> I am trying to give away my blue weeks, so I can take advantage of low-season weeks through RCI points.



Actually they can but it isn't easy. (And I'm excluding Orlando and other areas that may have periods with down demand but always have at least a good amount of demand - they are not the problem). As already mentioned some states unfortunately require equal fees for each week so step one is to split time up or combine it so it isn't all one week to avoid those rules. Points systems can do that or RTU use models where a value is assigned rather than a straight week - anything to get a different value assigned so fees can be proportional to use/trade value. 

There are some great examples of this in the Northeast I'm aware of as well as some well known resorts that have utilized RCI Points to accomplish that goal. It doesn't require points - RCI or anyone elses - but it does require effort by the resort to make things attractive to ALL owners not just those lucky or smart enough to have purchased the top demand times. I know there is a reluctance by those top owners to make changes as they currently get effectively subsidized by the poor weeks but if they look long term they are going to pay anyway OR the resort is going to go into a death spiral as fees rise and those low time owners stop paying. 

It is my opinion that seasonal resorts have to act to protect themselves not depend on others to save them. Even if RCI was/is to blame, and I don't agree that they are with the exception of the horrible undercutting of rental values they should not be allowed to do with free inventory, it is still the resort Board and owners that have to take steps to maintain value for all owners or suffer the consequences. It's past the point where RCI rules and policies are going to be changed back even if it was felt the old model was sustainable - now we have to deal with things as they are today and save our resorts by treating all owners to a fair use value for the money they pay.


----------



## Carolinian

There is another, rapidly disappearing group, that as owned these weeks.  This is the well off retirees who can travel on short notice.  I think of three owners at the resort where I was on the board who owned 4 to 6 off season weeks each and traded them.  One, whose main residence was in the Northeast, was fairly active in the HOA since he owned a whole ownership condo elsewhere on the OBX, which is where he stayed when he was in the area.  He put his toe in the water with a couple of off season t/s weeks, trading in the 45 day window, found it worked well, and ended up with 6 such weeks at our resort and another 6 at other OBX resorts.  When the 45 day window first started degrading, he picked up on it and started disposing of weeks at our resort and at the others.  Fortunately he sold or gave them away to others, so at least our resort still had new owners for those weeks.  Another in the same category with 4 weeks sold or gave away a couple of them and deeded the others back shortly thereafter.  The third person in this category, who lives of the west coast and bought his 4 weeks at the same time through a broker, has had them on the market for seveal years, as a group and at too high a price.

The 45 day window does not work like it used to for these people and they are bailing out.  No membership fees or exchange fees for RCI and no m/f in some cases for the HOA.  





DeniseM said:


> Some people buy off-season weeks because they can travel off-season, but many people buy off-season weeks because those weeks have a cheaper purchase price.  If that's true, and I think it is, then those same folks may be less likely to be able to pay their maintenance fees if they have a down-turn in their personal finances, because they have less resources to deal with a financial crisis.
> 
> Right now, with 3 of the resorts I own (Starwood) we have had several hundred dollars added to our 2010 MF's to cover the MF's of people who are in default.  Timeshare sales tactics are based on putting tremendous pressure on people to to buy a timeshare, whether it is a sound financial decision for the buyer or not.  They sell the dream to starry eyed vacationers and then offer payment plans with outrageous interest.  They just want to make the sale - they don't care if the person can afford it or not.  Timeshare owners are now reaping the results of that practice.  I don't know what the answer it.


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> You could also say that you never owned much of value to begin with, but---for a time---RCI allowed you to trade your weeks for something with more value.
> 
> Again, it's not RCI's job to turn blue weeks into something someone wants.  Even if they happened to provide this service more readily before, there is no reason why they should still do so unless it suits their own purposes.



We've owned our week for 25+ years and it worked for a good long time, as we were promised on the sales tour.  Why is it that RCI changes its business model and we lose what value we had in those weeks?  RCI is hurting timeshare, and we have owners who want to bail on their blue weeks.  

The same could be said for recent, even more drastic drops in trading power of our red weeks.


----------



## rickandcindy23

John,
One thing we have discussed at Twin Rivers (Philip, PA-, is on the board, too) is allowing all blue week owners to deed back their weeks as they want to bail, and then tell the current red week owners that those ten weeks per year X 26 units are our responsibility to maintain.  Maybe owners will rent the weeks for $200 or something reasonable, which might soften the blow, but increasing fees by 20% for the 40 red weeks seems drastic to me.  The HOA already owns about half of the blue weeks, so is it really a bad idea?  I don't know.


----------



## bnoble

> as we were promised on the sales tour.


Seriously?  You're using *this* as your reason why RCI owes this to you?

Ummm, okay.


----------



## rickandcindy23

bnoble said:


> Seriously?  You're using *this* as your reason why RCI owes this to you?
> 
> Ummm, okay.



NO!  I am using the past exchange power of our blue weeks as my reason.  AND this is the reason so many people are disenchanted with timeshare.  They had great exchanges, and now they cannot get them again.  It's how RCI is hurting timeshare.  They have helped to create the need for postcard companies.  People want OUT, because it isn't what it once was.  

II has a great window of opportunity for any ol' week, and I want that back with RCI.  

As I said, I am dumping my blue weeks.


----------



## Carolinian

The test is to look at both supply and demand across the entire year.  Some areas do have very strong demand but that is overwhelmed by supply, like the red-all-year Canary Islands.  Many blue weeks in the UK, for example, will still have more demand than there is supply, while hurricane season in much of the Caribbean and Florida are usually going to have an excess of supply over demand even though the weeks are designated as red.

HOA's need to evaluate two things.  One is how to migrate their owners who exchange across the range of exchange companies rather than putting all of their eggs in the unreliable RCI basket.  The other is to identify own-to-use markets for off season weeks.  There are resorts I am familiar with in both the UK and on the OBX who have marketed to local residents, promoting the advantage of the yearround use of resort facilities.  Some of these people use their actual week to exchange, which is then just icing on the cake not the main reason for owning, while others use the weeks for visits by relatives.  In the UK, the developers marketed the resorts from the beginning in the local area as ''a country club that is also a timeshare''.  I am also aware of a resort adjacent to a golf course on the OBX and a similar resort in the UK which have been quite successful in marketing to golfers in the off season.  Other resorts have marketed based on other sports such as hunting and fishing.  The key is to identify the market and then direct HOA resales in those segments.  This limits ''exchange exposure'' for the HOA.




timeos2 said:


> Actually they can but it isn't easy. (And I'm excluding Orlando and other areas that may have periods with down demand but always have at least a good amount of demand - they are not the problem). As already mentioned some states unfortunately require equal fees for each week so step one is to split time up or combine it so it isn't all one week to avoid those rules. Points systems can do that or RTU use models where a value is assigned rather than a straight week - anything to get a different value assigned so fees can be proportional to use/trade value.
> 
> There are some great examples of this in the Northeast I'm aware of as well as some well known resorts that have utilized RCI Points to accomplish that goal. It doesn't require points - RCI or anyone elses - but it does require effort by the resort to make things attractive to ALL owners not just those lucky or smart enough to have purchased the top demand times. I know there is a reluctance by those top owners to make changes as they currently get effectively subsidized by the poor weeks but if they look long term they are going to pay anyway OR the resort is going to go into a death spiral as fees rise and those low time owners stop paying.
> 
> It is my opinion that seasonal resorts have to act to protect themselves not depend on others to save them. Even if RCI was/is to blame, and I don't agree that they are with the exception of the horrible undercutting of rental values they should not be allowed to do with free inventory, it is still the resort Board and owners that have to take steps to maintain value for all owners or suffer the consequences. It's past the point where RCI rules and policies are going to be changed back even if it was felt the old model was sustainable - now we have to deal with things as they are today and save our resorts by treating all owners to a fair use value for the money they pay.


----------



## bnoble

> NO! I am using the past exchange power of our blue weeks as my reason.


But what you have to understand---and I'm not the first to say this---is that those weeks have no intrinsic value.  You are paying more in MFs than the usage time is worth.  Expecting to get time in return that is worth more is irrational.  

That you used to anyway is a blessing, not a promise of future performance.  Essentially, you were able to because exchange was (and still is) a very inefficient "market" in the economic sense.  For a variety of reasons---RCI's rental program being only one---the exchange market is becoming more efficient.  That means that the ability to get something for nothing is going to disappear over time.

Edited to add: ultimately, the ability of the well-informed owner to exploit the loopholes in exchange inefficiency is slowly eroding.  And, any journeyman economist will tell you that that erosion is inevitable.


----------



## Pit

rickandcindy23 said:


> John,
> One thing we have discussed at Twin Rivers (Philip, PA-, is on the board, too) is allowing all blue week owners to deed back their weeks as they want to bail, and then tell the current red week owners that those ten weeks per year X 26 units are our responsibility to maintain.  Maybe owners will rent the weeks for $200 or something reasonable, which might soften the blow, but increasing fees by 20% for the 40 red weeks seems drastic to me.  The HOA already owns about half of the blue weeks, so is it really a bad idea?  I don't know.



Since we're already way off-topic, why doesn't the HOA initiate an active rental program, or alternatively, sell the inventory in bulk to someone that's in the retail rental business (RCI?). Then, use the proceeds to reduce the burden on owners.


----------



## Carolinian

"Roger" said:


> I guess if we are expected to go to war over this issue, someone needs to explain why RCI and only RCI has an obligation to support blue week owners.  II has no special program for them.  The independents have no special program for them.  (SFX won't even take their weeks. Yes, I know that a blue week in London might qualify, but you know those are not the weeks at issue here.)  So why RCI alone?



Roger, I expected you to jump in defending RCI.

The 45 day window, devised by Crystal deHaan, founder of RCI was a win / win for everyone.  It marketed distressed short shelf-life inventory for RCI, it gave value to off season weeks which benefited the resorts, and it gave broader options to off season owners.  RCI promoted this in the materials they provided to developers which were used in sales, and also promoted it in their directory and magazines, and buyers and resorts depended on this.  That does give them some obligation.

I have never been a member of II, but I do believe that they also have a program of lifting normal trading power restrictions on short shelf life inventory.

As to independents, most will indeed accept blue weeks, and give them value. SFX is an exception, of course.  That is one big reason that resorts need to start actively migrating their owners across a range of exchange companies.


----------



## Carolinian

But, distressed last minute inventory is NOT intrinsically worth more.  Last minute inventory is devalued whether from a trading power standpoint as a last minute deposit, rental price (compare Last Call to Extra Vacations), or as a week taken as an exchange.  What it was formerly worth when it still had a long shelf life is totally and competely irrelevent at that point.

When timesharing was largely a closed system, and one had to be an owner to play, these weeks had a value of at least their m/f in most cases.  It is the shift to the massive rental system, ending the exclusivity of timesharing that has changed the equation, and it is RCI that did that.



bnoble said:


> But what you have to understand---and I'm not the first to say this---is that those weeks have no intrinsic value.  You are paying more in MFs than the usage time is worth.  Expecting to get time in return that is worth more is irrational.
> 
> That you used to anyway is a blessing, not a promise of future performance.  Essentially, you were able to because exchange was (and still is) a very inefficient "market" in the economic sense.  For a variety of reasons---RCI's rental program being only one---the exchange market is becoming more efficient.  That means that the ability to get something for nothing is going to disappear over time.
> 
> Edited to add: ultimately, the ability of the well-informed owner to exploit the loopholes in exchange inefficiency is slowly eroding.  And, any journeyman economist will tell you that that erosion is inevitable.


----------



## stevedmatt

DeniseM said:


> That wouldn't be fair to high season owners.  Maintenance costs are the same whether you own during high season or low season, so why should a high season owner subsidize a low season owner's maintenance fee?





tschwa2 said:


> A couple of thoughts I have about this.  I own a blue week at a small 30 unit Maryland beach resort.  Maryland has a law that you can't have different MF for different weeks so unless that changes, nothing can be done about it.  But from a purely MF perspective, in high season every unit is usually full with the occupancy close to the max 6 persons per unit.  There is more traffic to and from the beach bringing wet sandy clothes and beach peraphernalia in and out, wearing out the bathtubs, washing machines, carpets, vacuum cleaners faster.  There is also running the dishwasher more often, using the balcony furniture, requiring monitoring of the parking lot to ensure non guest aren't parking.
> 
> During my winter week I can't remember when there were more than 6 out of 30 checking in for the week.  I can't remember when there were more than 3 units who stayed beyond Monday or Tuesday to check out on Friday.  Occasionally there would be 1 RCI exchange (Maybe a last call, maybe a skyauction.  I doubt they paid more than $200 for the week.)  It's usually groups of 2-4 that come off season; a couple or a family with small children.  We don't usually run the dishwasher or the clothes washer/dryer more than once.  We don't usually use all the beds and we never sit out on the balcony.  The unused units don't need additonal housekeeping.  I certainly think an off season discount of $30-$50 a week would be justified.
> 
> My resort keeps fees down for everyone but when you have 144 HOA owned units&delinquencies (104 blue, 24 white, and 16 red- and RCI is generous with the red and white designation because only 1 available red week would be considered high time) and everyone has to make up for the delinquencies and HOA units and winter weeks rent for 1/2 MF and prime weeks rent for 2X MF- the blue weeks will be further tempted to walk and then high season can have the fun or paying for the expenses for all the seasons.  I think cutting the lower season some kind of break might keep them from walking.
> 
> Tracey



I really agree with Tracey here. Add to the above comments, air conditioning costs and pool maintenance costs.

As a shoulder season owner who visits when the pool is closed, I really do feel I shouldn't have to pay the same as a high season owner who runs the AC and gets to swim in a heated pool. The cost associated with such are very high. In a large unit (1000 sq. ft.+), AC in a warm climate could cost $100 for the week in electricity, not to mention the service fees to have the AC maintained. And for those unaware, pool costs are also very high. Someone has to check the PH and bacteria levels daily as well as clean the filters and keep the deck clean. At many places that provide towels, there is also the cost to launder them.

I actually think this would be location and resort specific, but I could easily see a variation of $150-200 for a week.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Something for nothing*

(and your drinks for free). Apologies to Dire Straits.

*Message from the Sales Team?*

Let me explain the advantage of buying this off season week at this beautiful resort. First, they are cheaper to buy than the Red weeks. You can still use RCI to exchange these weeks if you want to.

_Yes, but I will only be able to exchange into undesirable weeks._

No, RCI has a special arrangement that 45 days out you can get any week that is left in the Exchange Pool.

_What! any week?_

Yes, Red weeks, even larger units then this one. You have to realise though that you will still have to pay the same maintenance fees as the owner of a high season holiday week at this resort.

_That`s a bit unfair isn`t it?_

Well you pay the same rates throughout the year, back home, don`t you? And this 45 day advantage gets you into our beautiful resort at a discount.

_Well if you put it that way, I`ve got nothing to lose. But first can I trust that RCI will honour this option in the future?_

Nothing is certain in life, but RCI has been operating for decades now, it is the largest timeshare company in the world and treats its members in a very responsible manner.

_OK I`m almost convinced, but What do RCI get out of this 45 day rule?
_
Oh, the weeks didn`t cost them anything in the first place. And if you don`t give them an exchange fee for them, they can always rent them out.
Top your glass up sir?


:hysterical:


----------



## Jennie

rickandcindy23 said:


> Don't use Orlando as an example, because you know RCI rents those off-season weeks for less than $200 for a 2 bedroom week.  I resent that someone else gets the same thing I get for exchange, and all they have to pay is $200.



What's even more infuriating is that weeks rented to the public through RCI's Endless Vacations web site can be canceled within 24 (or is it 48?) hours before the scheduled check-in time and receive a full refund. If they wish to arrange for a guest certificate, guess what the cost is--FREE.

Meanwhile, if an RCI member cancels a confirmed exchange reservation, they forfeit the entire exchange fee ($144. and up) NEW RULE as of last month. Also, the trade value of the re-deposited week is recalculated as if it were being deposited on the cancellation date for the first time. Oh, but not to worry. Cancellation insurance can be purchased for $69.. But it must be purchased within the 30 day period following the exchange confirmation, so this would not be available for a trade made within the the 29 days prior to the check-in date, assuming anything is available at that time.

Oh, and don't forget there will be a $59. fee if you, an RCI member, want to obtain a guest certificate.

Bottom line: "Membership has its privileges." You, the RCI member, have the privilege of paying exorbitant prices compared to what John Q. Public is charged.


----------



## Jennie

jerseygirl said:


> I don't have a weeks account, but I see a lot of good stuff available for 7500 points.  Can I assume that those same weeks are available to weeks members without trading power limitations?  If so, there's still some sort of a "last minute" window on the weeks side.



Nope, the weeks that are pfd'd to Points are no longer visible or available through a member's Weeks account.


----------



## PerryM

*Just leave him!!  Jeeze...*

(I am not making light of the very serious problem of spousal abuse in the following post - it's just for illustration purposes only)

At least once a week, every week, the cop shows I watch on TV have a spousal abuse episode that always has me thinking back to you guys and RCI.

You know the typical situation - the cops arrive to a 911 domestic disturbance call and get in between the two folks screaming and hitting each other.  The arguments continue and the result is just about always the same - the police become the target of the couple's rage and are kicked out.

Me; I keep screaming at the TV - just leave the guy - Jeeze.

RCI has amply demonstrated that it intends to abuse you, the customer.

And what do you the customer do?  You place a 911 call to the lawyers and courts and what is the final result?  You know - you go right back to RCI and beg to be abused again.

To those of you who seem to delight in being abused by RCI - "Just leave the guy" - Jeeze...

(This is my last post on this subject since I know I'll see you guys again - calling 911 and begging the courts to meddle in RCI's business and for you to be abused once again)

Happy holiday season to all - I'm spending the holidays in II exchanges where I abused the II system - that's how it's supposed to work if you use them...


----------



## jerseygirl

Perry -- I don't think anyone on this board called the attorneys.  Some of us attempted to work with the cards we were dealt with.  Your broad strokes are a little too wide, as usual.


----------



## Carolinian

Actually, a Tugger was the lead plaintiff in one of the original cases.  I had several emails from him during the early part of the case.  The class action lawyers told him to quit posting on t/s sites and then to quit exchanging emails with members of t/s sites.  The Tugger involved was passionate about the issue and I was really suprised he sat still for what this shyster lawyer did in this case.

As I have said for years, the place to challenge this in court was with a state Attorney General consumer protection lawsuit, not a class action.


----------



## jerseygirl

I stand corrected.  However, it still doesn't change my point that Perry is blaming the very people posting NOW who tried to work with the situation as given, none of whom had anything to do with filing the original lawsuit.


----------



## jmama

Jennie said:


> What's even more infuriating is that weeks rented to the public through RCI's Endless Vacations web site can be canceled within 24 (or is it 48?) hours before the scheduled check-in time and receive a full refund. If they wish to arrange for a guest certificate, guess what the cost is--FREE.
> 
> Meanwhile, if an RCI member cancels a confirmed exchange reservation, they forfeit the entire exchange fee ($144. and up) NEW RULE as of last month. Also, the trade value of the re-deposited week is recalculated as if it were being deposited on the cancellation date for the first time. Oh, but not to worry. Cancellation insurance can be purchased for $69.. But it must be purchased within the 30 day period following the exchange confirmation, so this would not be available for a trade made within the the 29 days prior to the check-in date, assuming anything is available at that time.
> 
> Oh, and don't forget there will be a $59. fee if you, an RCI member, want to obtain a guest certificate.
> 
> Bottom line: "Membership has its privileges." You, the RCI member, have the privilege of paying exorbitant prices compared to what John Q. Public is charged.



It is infuriating to me, no doubt about that.  I appreciate all the efforts by Susan, Jennie, et al. on this case, and I think they did make a significant difference.

It is odd that RCI wants to a choose a model that eventually destroys their own business, i.e. who will deposit for exchange when the exchange pool is raided.  Or, maybe they are just relying on non-tuggers who may just keep depositing even though they can NOT get a decent trade.  If you choose not to rent from RCI because you feel RCI is cheating owners, I respect that choice.  However, I also get irritated by some ridiculous tax breaks for some arbitrary reason, but I'm certainly not going to turn those down.  I hope we can start a new thread of how to take advantage of the rentals ourselves since we are stuck with them.  

So, in response to this note, where is this mysterious site where you rent from RCI as anonymous public and get a better deal.  I might as well search there if it is the same company and cheaper....


----------



## rickandcindy23

This is why independently run and managed timeshares (not the big companies) need to tell owners to vote with their weeks and deposit them with other companies.  There are so many great choices out there.  Want to go to Hawaii but never could with RCI?  Try TP Maui, Trading Places, or HTSE.  All have inventory that is expiring soon.  There are Hawaii weeks that are going to waste on those sites, almost daily.  



jmama said:


> It is infuriating to me, no doubt about that.  I appreciate all the efforts by Susan, Jennie, et al. on this case, and I think they did make a significant difference.
> 
> It is odd that RCI wants to a choose a model that eventually destroys their own business, i.e. who will deposit for exchange when the exchange pool is raided.  Or, maybe they are just relying on non-tuggers who may just keep depositing even though they can NOT get a decent trade.  If you choose not to rent from RCI because you feel RCI is cheating owners, I respect that choice.  However, I also get irritated by some ridiculous tax breaks for some arbitrary reason, but I'm certainly not going to turn those down.  I hope we can start a new thread of how to take advantage of the rentals ourselves since we are stuck with them.
> 
> So, in response to this note, where is this mysterious site where you rent from RCI as anonymous public and get a better deal.  I might as well search there if it is the same company and cheaper....


----------



## bnoble

> where is this mysterious site where you rent from RCI as anonymous public and get a better deal.



http://www.wyndham-vacations.com

It's a subset of the stuff available for rent at rci.com, for the most part---and usually priced a little bit higher than rci.com's prices.


----------



## beejaybeeohio

bnoble said:


> http://www.wyndham-vacations.com
> 
> It's a subset of the stuff available for rent at rci.com, for the most part---and usually priced a little bit higher than rci.com's prices.



I disagree.  Extra Vacations 2 bedroom for $690-Endless (Wyndham) Vacations 3 bedroom same resort & time for $530. No brainer for me which to book!

Plus that cancellation policy that Endless offers would compensate (IMHO) for the "bit higher" price that might on occasion be quoted on Endless.


----------



## bnoble

Hence "for the most part" and "usually", as opposed to say "always".

The cancellation terms are better externally though.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Directory Changes*

Not really sure where this should appear but there have been significant changes in the On-line Resort directory. The directory used to show only _bona-fide_ timeshares.

Now, depending on the country, many other units are included. These can go from non-timeshare camping sites up through wooden lodges and up to hotel suites in cities.

For instance, the on-line directory for England now has 614 resorts (including private houses converted to apartments). The current RCI catalogue Directory of Resorts 2008/9  has only 49 resorts.

Similarly, Ireland has 50 resorts (6 in the catalogue), Spain 162 (106), France 152 (58), Italy 205 (112).

I await to see what will happen when I try for an exchange holiday as to what is offered. I am not decrying the new entries, they may be very good options, but they are not timeshare. 

*Will the new entries have any implications for the settlement?
*

Besides, can the RCI software cope?


----------



## Carolinian

Some of those new ''resorts'' that show up turn out to be trailer parks.




crazyhorse said:


> Not really sure where this should appear but there have been significant changes in the On-line Resort directory. The directory used to show only _bona-fide_ timeshares.
> 
> Now, depending on the country, many other units are included. These can go from non-timeshare camping sites up through wooden lodges and up to hotel suites in cities.
> 
> For instance, the on-line directory for England now has 614 resorts (including private houses converted to apartments). The current RCI catalogue Directory of Resorts 2008/9  has only 49 resorts.
> 
> Similarly, Ireland has 50 resorts (6 in the catalogue), Spain 162 (106), France 152 (58), Italy 205 (112).
> 
> I await to see what will happen when I try for an exchange holiday as to what is offered. I am not decrying the new entries, they may be very good options, but they are not timeshare.
> 
> *Will the new entries have any implications for the settlement?
> *
> 
> Besides, can the RCI software cope?


----------



## crazyhorse

*Carolinian:*

*quote "Some of those new ''resorts'' that show up turn out to be trailer parks."*

In England, trailers can be anything pulled by a truck (lorry), but I know what you mean-we call your trailers, "caravans".

With a trailer park, at least you would expect to have that park listed in the directory as one individual resort. But what RCI has done is to list individual trailers as  "resorts".

These new resorts can be a single house, on its own, perhaps owned by one individual. The units may also be part of a group of properties, but each one is listed as a seperate resort.

For instance, resort BH05 is number 1 Lakeview Cottage, whereas resort BH06 is number 2 Lakeview Cottage. These are identical units on the same site, in a group of 5. RCI does state this. Why have them listed seperately? They are thus given the same coverage as say resort 2932 Barnsdale, a Gold Crown resort with 49 units.

The procedure clearly swells the number of resorts tenfold for England, but for what purpose?


----------



## Laurie

crazyhorse said:


> The procedure clearly swells the number of resorts tenfold for England, but for what purpose?


To create the illusion that "the possibilities are endless" ...

Most of these have had only *one* deposit ever, and were for rental only, and very off-season at that.

How I know? Recently I had 2 European confirmation cancellations, resulting in a specialist being assigned to me, who asked me to make a list of all acceptable substitutions, so theoretically I'd have first crack. 

I painstaking went thru their entire directory and made a list of lots of those. She looked up each of their histories and related what I said above, including details on *when* the rental was for - at some point I stopped even reading them off to her because an exchange would never happen. Even a rental for a specific week in shoulder season would probably never happen. 

I agree it's weird, because that's a lot of work for their data entry folks for one measly rental - unless they're building it up for future rentals thru all their subsets, which is probably the answer to your question.


----------



## Carolinian

Laurie said:


> To create the illusion that "the possibilities are endless" ...
> 
> Most of these have had only *one* deposit ever, and were for rental only, and very off-season at that.
> 
> How I know? Recently I had 2 European confirmation cancellations, resulting in a specialist being assigned to me, who asked me to make a list of all acceptable substitutions, so theoretically I'd have first crack.
> 
> I painstaking went thru their entire directory and made a list of lots of those. She looked up each of their histories and related what I said above, including details on *when* the rental was for - at some point I stopped even reading them off to her because an exchange would never happen. Even a rental for a specific week in shoulder season would probably never happen.
> 
> I agree it's weird, because that's a lot of work for their data entry folks for one measly rental - unless they're building it up for future rentals thru all their subsets, which is probably the answer to your question.



They appear to be gradually migrating their whole system from exchanges over to rentals.  This is just one more step.


----------



## rickandcindy23

Educating owners at all independent resorts (those not with a large company like Hilton or Wyndham) of RCI's rental practices is probably the best way to win against RCI.  If no one at our resort deposits again, we have hurt RCI in a big way, but people aren't going to abandon RCI in large numbers like that.  But owners need to decide individually whether RCI is offering the same value they had five years ago, or even one year ago.


----------



## Laurie

crazyhorse said:


> I await to see what will happen when I try for an exchange holiday as to what is offered. I am not decrying the new entries, they may be very good options, but they are not timeshare.



Carolinian is right, most of these are listed for their rental business only. You will never be offered these on exchange. They won't even pluck one from their rental pool inventory (already showing up as a rental) to compensate a member for a cancelled exchange confirmation - I know this for a fact, because I requested one substitution from that pool, and was denied.  Yet they're offering some of my primetime deposits as rentals. It's a 1-way street.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Laurie*

*quote:Carolinian is right, most of these are listed for their rental business only. You will never be offered these on exchange. They won't even pluck one from their rental pool inventory (already showing up as a rental) to compensate a member for a cancelled exchange confirmation - I know this for a fact, because I requested one substitution from that pool, and was denied. Yet they're offering some of my primetime deposits as rentals. It's a 1-way street.*

I do not know at present which of the new "resorts" are intended for exchange and which for rental. Many of these new "resorts" I was referring to I wouldn`t *want* to be offered as an exchange! They are *not* timeshare and are not of good enough quality.

As might be expected, they are not showing up in the Extra Vacation section (i.e. Rental Pool). The resorts in the Extra Vacation section are generally of _bona-fide_ timeshare type.


----------



## Laurie

crazyhorse said:


> I do not know at present which of the new "resorts" are intended for exchange and which for rental. Many of these new "resorts" I was referring to I wouldn`t *want* to be offered as an exchange! They are *not* timeshare and are not of good enough quality.
> 
> As might be expected, they are not showing up in the Extra Vacation section (i.e. Rental Pool). The resorts in the Extra Vacation section are generally of _bona-fide_ timeshare type.


Being offered something as an exchange doesn't mean you'd have to accept it. Different people look for different attributes - I'm often more interested in location than "quality" or amenities. I would have accepted several of their listed cottages and/or hotels in a heartbeat. 

I want more choice in exchanges, not less choice. If they were opening up exchange inventory to more choices which are equivalent to what they're moving out of exchange into rental, I'd have less problem w/their rental program. 

By the way, you can consistently find some non-timeshares in their rental program - eg Paris hotels - but their rental prices are high compared to what you can find on the open rental market.


----------



## crazyhorse

Laurie said:


> Being offered something as an exchange doesn't mean you'd have to accept it. Different people look for different attributes - I'm often more interested in location than "quality" or amenities. I would have accepted several of their listed cottages and/or hotels in a heartbeat.
> 
> I want more choice in exchanges, not less choice. If they were opening up exchange inventory to more choices which are equivalent to what they're moving out of exchange into rental, I'd have less problem w/their rental program.
> 
> By the way, you can consistently find some non-timeshares in their rental program - eg Paris hotels - but their rental prices are high compared to what you can find on the open rental market.



1.I agree that of course you do not have to accept an exchange offered. I do it all the time.

2.Location is important too. If you want to holiday in England, the apparant (not valid) tenfold increase in that country`s inventory will help. However although the new inventory does include some desireable units, there is no certainty that when it comes down to it, that these will be offered for exchange.

3.Some of these units are available to rent on other property sites-there are many such sites in publications and on-line. I have a relative who owns an apartment in a holiday area and rents it out, either through an advertising agency or by word of mouth. It is on a main street facing the sea. It provides an alternative to say a traditional complex with a pool, restaurant etc, but I don`t think it should be included in a list originally comprising only timeshares. So, I`m not sure why RCI has added this sort of property to its inventory.

4. Why did RCI make such a significant change to its inventory without informing its membership? If it was to *our* benefit they would have given publicity to it (wouldn`t they?). Do I smell a rat?


----------



## lgreenspan

*Anyone else notice something missing from RCI website?*

Did you notice how quickly anything related to the class action was removed from the website. No updates posted of any settlement. Shouldnt the settlement agreements being posted on the website been one of the agreements of the settlement?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

RCI was required by the Settlement Agreement to provide a link to the "official" website until the effective date of the settlement.

Although the link no longer exists at RCI's website the site is still available through the following link:  http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/


----------



## Carolinian

Hiding their scams shows the lack of honesty and integrity by RCI in this business.  That is one of the reasons that I urge all Tuggers to send a link to this thread to their resort management and to all HOA board members.  Also see if you can write an article or letter to the editor to your resort newsletter.  Be sure to mention the alternatives.  Urge the resort to dual affiliate with II.  Let member know that they can use the independents and how to find them.


----------



## crazyhorse

*The Little Corner Shop*

*George:* How are we going to keep the customer`s sticky fingers off the stuff we want to have?

*Tony:* _Well we could shut the shop._

But that would upset our shareholders, and besides I`d lose my bonus.

_Well how about we put some stuff out of reach, or put it on the bottom shelf where they don`t tend to look?_

That`s a good idea, but I`ve got a better one. We could stuff the shelves with lots of other gear, so they won`t be able to tell the peas from the beans.

_Great! I can still see the gold and silver packaging though on the good stuff. We`ll have to do something about that._

No we`ll leave that for now. We all have to make some sacrifices.

_Isn`t there a risk we`ll lose customers to our competitors?_

I thought that was the idea. No, any way, how do we know that the other big chains aren`t thinking along the same lines?

_What about the little corner shops?
_
Don`t worry about them, they haven`t got anything to sell  
_
But..... _


----------



## Tonii

This is the first time I have heard about the lawsuit.  I am a member of RCI weeks but was never notified and just chanced to come upon it when visiting the tug web (of which I am also a member.)  Thank you for the notice on your web site and kudos to Jennie for her comments an update.  Betty


----------



## dukeoakley24

so do we get anything in the settlement as weeks members? I'm new to hearing baout this as well.


----------



## TUGBrian

dukeoakley24 said:


> so do we get anything in the settlement as weeks members? I'm new to hearing baout this as well.



for those of you looking for an even cheaper alternative...why not put your interval up on TUG.

tis free, you arent obligated to make an exchange if you dont want to...nor do you lose your week and can do anything you like with it at any time.

TUG saved more than a dozen TUGGERS last month alone from their usual exchange fees!


----------



## TUGBrian

TUGBrian said:


> for those of you looking for an even cheaper alternative...why not put your interval up on TUG.
> 
> tis free, you arent obligated to make an exchange if you dont want to...nor do you lose your week and can do anything you like with it at any time.
> 
> TUG saved more than a dozen TUGGERS last month alone from their usual exchange fees!



15 new exchanges posted in the last 24 hours...looks like its working =)

MOREEEE.....I WANT MORE!!!


----------



## EagleID

*An Excellent Idea - Any Response?*



beejaybeeohio said:


> With the provisions of this settlement, would one of you very savvy Tug members, please summarize how to maximize our trading power in terms of when to deposit and when to search, put in ongoing request or look for "last-minute" exchanges?  I am trying to glean from the various posts how to make the most of this settlement, and getting a little confused.
> 
> I suggest that this information be posted on one of the "members only" forums.
> 
> Thanks,



I think that the quoted post got lost in the fray.

Has anyone posted a *Strategy Going Forward *anywhere on TUG? As a Floating Weeks resort member of RCI, I too got a bit lost as to my best strategy with RCI post-settlement.

I appreciate that in the opinion of many, the best strategy may well be to leave RCI, but that's truly not the current question and has already been discussed ad infinitum.


----------



## Jennie

EagleID said:


> Has anyone posted a *Strategy Going Forward *anywhere on TUG? .



Due in part to the efforts of the "Objectors," and all the class members who filed objections, some last minute "improvemnents" occurred in the settlement. There are a few unresolved questions re: interpreting the full and final terms of the settlement. We are in the process of sorting it all out. A detailed summary will be posted soon, along with concrete suggestions about strategies for maximizing the chance of obtaining desired/deserved exchanges. 

Some of the negotiated changes will not take place immediately. But everything should be phased in within the coming year. 

Here's a mini summary of what I think the settlement requires.

All weeks deposited more than 10 months in advance of the check-in date will remain in the exchange pool/spacebank for 31 days before they can be removed and rented to the public. 

Weeks removed and made available for rent to non-members will simultaneoulsy remain available for exchange by RCI members who have  sufficient trading power. 

Weeks deposited less than 10 months in advance of the check-in date will be matched up with any on-going searches that have sufficient trade power  (as determined by the fox guarding the hen house) before they can be removed for rental or "other purposes."  

On an annual basis, the number of weeks removed for rental and other purposes cannot exceed the number of weeks deposited by RCI from other sources as replacements. (This provision does not apply to weeks removed within 60 days of the check-in ("start") date). The replacement weeks are supposed to be of the same quality e.g a red week for a red week, blue for blue, etc... But we all know how that goes, especially since RCI is the sole arbiter of the rating of the weeks coming in and going out. 

While there seems to be a lot of "wiggle room" for RCI to continue to engage in unfair practices, it is hoped that the real threat of continued loss of members, and the dwindling deposits of high quality weeks by present members who now use or rent out their own weeks, will lead RCI to conclude that it is in their best financial interest to focus on providing their members with the level of service they expect and deserve. In my opinion, this would require RCI to exceed the terms of the class action settlement.

More later.


----------



## crazyhorse

*Jennie:*

*quote:

On an annual basis, the number of weeks removed for rental and other purposes cannot exceed the number of weeks deposited by RCI from other sources as replacements. (This provision does not apply to weeks removed within 60 days of the check-in ("start") date). The replacement weeks are supposed to be of the same quality e.g a red week for a red week, blue for blue, etc... But we all know how that goes, especially since RCI is the sole arbiter of the rating of the weeks coming in and going out.*

The recent increase in the number of resorts worldwide from "over 4000" to about 5700 implies that RCI may have already deposited the required number of weeks in anticipation of the deposited weeks they wish to remove. I don`t know for certain of course until I wish to make an exchange.


----------



## Carolinian

Jennie said:


> On an annual basis, the number of weeks removed for rental and other purposes cannot exceed the number of weeks deposited by RCI from other sources as replacements. (This provision does not apply to weeks removed within 60 days of the check-in ("start") date). The replacement weeks are supposed to be of the same quality e.g a red week for a red week, blue for blue, etc... But we all know how that goes, especially since RCI is the sole arbiter of the rating of the weeks coming in and going out.
> 
> While there seems to be a lot of "wiggle room" for RCI to continue to engage in unfair practices, it is hoped that the real threat of continued loss of members, and the dwindling deposits of high quality weeks by present members who now use or rent out their own weeks, will lead RCI to conclude that it is in their best financial interest to focus on providing their members with the level of service they expect and deserve. In my opinion, this would require RCI to exceed the terms of the class action settlement.
> 
> More later.



I feel certain we will see them renting red Allen House, red Maui, red summer beach, red Sanibel, etc. and replacing it with red Canary Islands, red Orlando, red Branson, red Massanutten, etc.  They will sit back, if challenged, and say ''gee they are all red weeks!''


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*When Is The Effective Date Of The Settlement?*



dukeoakley24 said:


> so do we get anything in the settlement as weeks members? I'm new to hearing baout this as well.



On November 30, 2009, the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan held a "FINAL" hearing and approved the proposed "Weeks" Settlement Agreement.

The Court formally approved the "revised" proposed settlement by signing on December 4th the 687th Document of the Docket.

Document 687 was a proposed Final Order and Judgement submitted by David C. Berman (Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs.) On December 7th that signed document became Document number 692 and was made part of the Docket on December 7, 2009. 

As of today December 19, 2009 the Final Order and Judgement has not been posted at http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/courtdocs.htm.

If you filed a claim for one of the offered benefits, RCI will not start to process the claim forms and make them available until the so-called Effective Date of the settlement is determined. *Note:* In the Settlement Agreement the Effective Date is defined as the date (5) five calendar days from the date that an Approval Order becomes a Final Order.

The official web site for information regarding the proposed settlement is still www.weeksprogramsettlement.com.  A request to get the web site updated was sent to the Co-lead Counsel for the Plaintiffs on December 12th and again today December 19th by yours truly.   

The official website is expected to be updated shortly after the Effective Date with the time table for the distribution of the claim benefits and other related matters. 

For anyone interested, you can check back at the official website at the end of January for the exact date.

If in the mean time you have any question about whether your claim form was received and accepted, you should write the court appointed Claim Administrator. You should keep a copy of your letter for your records. The address is:

Rust Consulting, Inc.
PO Box 1966
Faribault, MN  55021-6162.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Update*

There were specific significant changes that were undoubtedly forced by the Objection Effort.  Had the effort not taken place with a major push by TUG Members we would have received far less from the proposed Settlement as it existed on August 12, 2009.  

A special thanks goes out to Brian Rogers who set up the special website devoted to this effort and worked closely with fellow TUG Members to put out accurate information at http://rciclassactionlawsuit.com/.  Kudos also to "Denise" the Exchanging Forum Moderator who worked steadily and patiently behind the scenes to promote accuracy and a smooth flow of communicaton. 

The wrong that the Plaintiffs sought to redress was RCI's alleged behavior in removing from the Spacebank® Vacation Time deposited by "Weeks" Members (especially weeks that are considered high demand deposits) and renting them without replenishing the Spacebank® with comparable vacation time to the detriment of "Weeks" members.

The Plaintiffs attorneys have said the lawsuit was 





> ...not about RCI's rental program in the abstract or about the rates at which RCI subsequently rents the inventory.



Also, according to the Plaintiffs attorneys, the lawsuit was 





> ...not aimed at ensuring each Weeks Member an equivalent opportunity to exchange irrespective of the contractual limitations to which he or she agreed in purchasing a timeshare from a third party or irrespective of the normal operation of the Weeks Program Terms and Conditions.



In short, the Plaintiffs attorneys 





> ...sought to ensure that RCI's activities in the exchange system relative to its rental program are fair, and that the fundamental purposes of the Weeks Program as RCI advertised it ---exclusive access to Weeks Member deposits and the opportunity for a properly submitted exchange request to obtain a comparable exchange ---were met.



The proposed settlement as presented to the Court in June, 2009 and modified as of August 12, 2009 was supposed to have achieved the relief sought through several fundamental changes to RCI's business practices.  But, the modified proposed settlement was found to be unfair by hundreds of  Objectors.

Because of the in-person efforts of a few objectors in Court this past June, we the "Class," were given a second chance to get a better settlement. 

Those same Objectors, primarily our own "Jennie," (in person) Susan Collins, (in person) and Shep Altshuler of TSToday (by teleconference) met with RCI Executives and other principals to discuss changes in September.     

Their tireless efforts did not by themselves get a better settlement, but, when they brought their effort to TUG and encouraged discussion and an outright objection effort we together eventually achieved some significant changes to the proposed settlement and ended up with a more fair (although not perfect outcome.) 

*To all those who came to TUG and spread the word to get Objections to the Court - Thank you for your support!*  

The Settlement in its entirety is supposed to be posted at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com.   

Personally, I have been away from my office computer for the past month.  That, in part, is why I am just now jumping in with the post that is provided below. Hopefully the post below will provide the follow-up information that  will clearly point out the changes  to the proposed Settlement that came about in late November just days before the Fairness Hearing on November 30th.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*The Extent Of The Changes*

Below, where you see the words in RED you are viewing the quoted text from the proposed settlement as it existed on August 12, 2009.  [Source: The 280 page pdf original settlement document and the First and Second Stipulation and Order Modifying the Settlement Agreement posted at the official web site.]  The words in RED that are italicized and underlined are the previous words that have been changed.  The changes shown in *GREEN* are the words inserted or changed as of the signing of the Final Order and Judgment by Judge Sheridan on December 4th.

Those words in *Green* were in large part the result of the efforts of those who engaged Susan Collins to represent them and/or took the time to write their own Objection letter and send it to the Court.  *Your active participation in the process made a difference. *

1) Pursuant to Section II.A.2: Balancing of RCI Deposits and Rented Inventory.

RCI represents that, on a calendar year basis and by Trading Power Segment, the aggregate quantity of Vacation Time that is deposited by Members and is rented * or used for any other purpose by RCI shall* be less than the aggregate quantity of Inventory and Alternative Inventory that RCI or others deposit or contribute, or that RCI otherwise permits to be contributed for Exchange, except that this representation excludes (a) the quantity of Vacation Time that Members deposit to acquire Alternative Inventory (as measured by the aggregate Trading Power of such Vacation Time), and (b) Vacation Time that is not the subject of a Confirmation _ninety_ * sixty * days prior to the start date of that Vacation Time. 

According to the Plaintiffs attorney 





> ...this "balancing" provision addresses the tension between the alleged improper skimming of quality deposits on the one hand with RCI's contractual right to remove deposits on the other. It also addresses Plaintiffs' allegation that RCI was not replenishing exchange inventory with comparable vacation time.



(2) Pursuant to Section II.A.3: Disclosure of Weeks Program Activity.

RCI agrees that, for the calendar year ending December 31, 2008 and for at least _two_ *three* calendar years thereafter, RCI shall make information available to all Members regarding activity in the RCI Weeks Exchange Program  *(excluding activity by Members serviced by RCI Japan Co. Ltd. for the calendar year ending December 31, 2008) * , by Trading Power Segment, during the prior calendar year. Such disclosure shall be in addition to any statutory disclosures RCI may or may not provide. RCI may determine the timing, frequency, and form of such disclosures, provided that the information disclosed by RCI shall be made available within six months after the Effective Date and shall include the following: (1) the total number of units of Inventory deposited more than_ ninety _ *sixty*  days prior to the starting date of the deposited Vacation Time, showing the number of such units deposited by each of Members, RCI, or others; (2) the number of Exchanges in the RCI Weeks Exchange Program completed more than_ ninety _ *sixty* days prior to the starting date of the deposited Vacation Time, including the total number of Exchanges involving Members' Vacation Time exchanged for other Members' Vacation Time, the total number of Exchanges involving Members' Vacation Time exchanged for Inventory or Alternative Inventory deposited by RCI, and the total number of Exchanges involving Members' Vacation Time exchanged for Inventory or Alternative Inventory deposited by others; (3) the total number of units of Inventory that were not the subject of an Exchange; and (4) the total number of units of Inventory that were deposited by Members and rented  * or used for any other purpose by RCI* more than _ninety (90) _  *sixty (60)*  days in advance of the starting date of the deposited Vacation Time. 

Pursuant to  Section II.C: Priority For Weeks Program Exchange Fulfillment. 

1) Commencing no later than one year after the Effective Date and continuing for a period of _two (2)_ *three*  years from the date on which the benefit provided in this Section II.C is first made available by RCI or August 31, 2012, whichever is earlier, each Deposit of Vacation Time for the purpose of an Exchange right, made more than _one year _ *ten (10) months *   in advance of the starting date of such Vacation Time, shall be available exclusively for Exchange by Members and eligible members of the RCI Points exchange program (subject to balancing as required by Section II.A(2) above) for a period of thirty-one (31) days from the date of Deposit, including the initial Deposit day, and shall not be available for any other purpose, including, without limitation, Rental.

2) It should be noted that in addition to the above exclusivity period, RCI agreed as follows:

...With respect to Deposits made less than _one year  _*10 months * in advance of the starting date of the deposited Vacation Time, RCI will make available that Vacation Time to satisfy an active and pending Exchange Request, based on the Trading Power criteria set forth in Section IX.A…

[Emphasis Added: This means sufficient trading power as described in Section IX.A.(2) of the original proposed Settlement [To get an idea of how RCI determines Trading Power see the originally proposed settlement pdf file (page 29 of 280) at http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com. 

3) If no such Exchange Request exists upon the Deposit date, RCI will make the deposited Vacation Time available for both Exchange and Rental, should RCI wish to offer the Vacation Time for Rental. Notwithstanding the foregoing in this Section II.C:

1) RCI may exchange Vacation Time with other exchange programs for the purpose of balancing exchange systems as described in subsection II.A.(2), above, or for the purpose of enhancing Member satisfaction;

2) RCI may, at any time, rent or otherwise dispose of any Vacation Time that (a) is acquired by RCI and is in excess of the amount of Vacation Time that RCI deposits or has deposited, if any, for the purpose of balancing Inventory available to Members as set forth in Section II.A.2 of this Settlement Agreement or (b) is not the subject of a Confirmation _ninety (90) _ *sixty (60)* days prior to the starting date of that Vacation Time;  

3) Although not included within the definition of a Member, RCI may, in its sole discretion, permit an Affiliated Resort to make a Deposit and perform an Exchange and provide the Deposit or resulting Confirmation to a Member subject to the terms of this Section II.C and the Terms and Conditions; and 

 4) To the extent there is a conflict between the provisions of this Section II.C and the terms of any agreement between RCI and Affiliated Resorts that may limit or otherwise relate to the availability of a Deposit, including but not limited to limitations on the ability of a Member to Exchange for Vacation Time that is located within a certain radius of the Member's Deposit, the terms of RCI's agreement with the Affiliated Resort shall control.  

Pursuant to Section II.I Time Limitation.

Except as otherwise provided herein, and without altering any shorter or longer period that is specified herein. RCI shall not be required to offer or provide any of the Class Benefits identified in this Settlement Agreement for more than _two_  *three*  years from the Effective Date.

The above represents the extent of the Changes.


----------



## jerseygirl

> Commencing no later than one year after the Effective Date and continuing for a period of two (2) three years from the date on which the benefit provided in this Section II.C is first made available by RCI or August 31, 2012, whichever is earlier



Does this mean:

If RCI has one year to implement the necessary changes, they will go into effect in approximately December 2010 .... then stop on August 31, 2012 .... so 20 months of concessions?


----------



## SBK

*Did not file claim???*

We did not file a claim.  I know, I know....

Do we have any standing or rights?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> Commencing no later than one year after the Effective Date and continuing for a period of two (2) three years from the date on which the benefit provided in this Section II.C is first made available by RCI or August 31, 2012, whichever is earlier,



Does this mean:



> jerseygirl asked: If RCI has one year to implement the necessary changes, they will go into effect in approximately December 2010 .... then stop on August 31, 2012 .... so 20 months of concessions?



Excellet point. At best we can anticipate 33 months of Settlement mandated benefit and at worse 21 months depending on both the Effective Date and when RCI implements the provisions of the Settlement.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

SBK said:


> We did not file a claim.  I know, I know....
> 
> Do we have any standing or rights?



SBK, the basic benefits of the final settlement are available to all "Weeks" members.  If you did not specificily exclude yourself from the Settlement and you are a current member of RCI, you get the benefit of the changes to RCI's operation of the Weeks Exchange Program just like the rest of us. 

Like you, I did not file a claim for the ridiculous individual benefit offered by RCI.  *I chose not to file on principle.* You did not miss much by not filing a claim. 

Hopefully you were among those who objected to the Settlement; but whether you did or did not object makes no difference if you are a "Weeks" Member you will reap the benefits of the changes in RCI's operation.


----------



## SBK

Dave --

Thanks for the explanation.  I am so grateful to those who fought the good fight for all of us.


----------



## Dan_D

*Class Action Suit*

Thanks Jennie.  I am a HGVC owner and am allowed to trade with RCI through HGVC.  Reportedly, part of my dues go to RCI, but I am not allowed to work with RCI directly or sign in to their website.  This action directly affects me, but I have not been afforded an opportunity to join the class.  Actually, your posting was my first notice of such a lawsuit.  In any event, thanks for helping all of us!!!


----------



## starchild

*Weeks Option*

Okay, I admit to being clueless when it comes to "legaleese" speak.  As far as the class action lawsuit, I've read the final ruling but still can't determine what was included.  The option I chose was to be able to search available exchange properties without having to actually deposit my week beforehand.  Can someone tell me if this option was approved for "weeks" members under the final ruling?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

starchild said:


> Okay, I admit to being clueless when it comes to "legaleese" speak.  As far as the class action lawsuit, I've read the final ruling but still can't determine what was included.  The option I chose was to be able to search available exchange properties without having to actually deposit my week beforehand.  Can someone tell me if this option was approved for "weeks" members under the final ruling?



Yes! Nothing changed regarding the measley benefits that RCI offered to Members of the Class. If you chose to accept one of the benefits offered you will eventually receive the benefit once RCI sets it up.


----------



## Dee in California

*It's not over*

Someone jumped in at the last minute and filed a notice of intent to appeal - and it was not RCI, it was a class member. It will be interesting to see who steps up and handles the appellate brief, which are extremely complicated and must be dealt with very specific Court rules.


----------



## DeniseM

Who was it?


----------



## Dee in California

I do not recall the name, I was driving on a hands-less cell and did not write it down.  You can call the New Jersey Court and ask for any case info you want to get. 866-848-6059


----------



## BigElm

This should be good! I'm hoping this someone will not let it go so easily.
Hopefully a lawyer and judge who truly understand timeshare to expose RCI.
Where is the bandwagon cause I'm getting on it


----------



## Carolinian

Dee in California said:


> Someone jumped in at the last minute and filed a notice of intent to appeal - and it was not RCI, it was a class member. It will be interesting to see who steps up and handles the appellate brief, which are extremely complicated and must be dealt with very specific Court rules.



It is extremely difficult but not impossible for a civilian to handle such matters in appellate courts.  A former client of mine had in a prior case to when I represented him managed to muddle through to get a matter considered by the federal appellate courts.  Hopefully, however, they get someone with federal appellate experience to at least help them, and even better take on all aspects of the appeal.

There are also a number of cases that get cited by Citizens Against Repressive Zoning (CARZ), a classic car group, of individuals who have braved the courts representing themselves and won.  My favoritie was a retired school teacher who had bought an old 65 Mustang, like one she had driven in her youth, with the idea to restore it.  The stormtroopers of her local government cited her for keeping a ''junk'' car on her property.  She went to the library, read up on the law, and filed her own lawsuit, represented herself and won, then represented herself in the city's appeal, which she also won.  When the city kept pestering her, in spite of her court victories, she read up on contempt of court, filed a motion and got the city held in contempt for its continued harassment.


----------



## Dee in California

That was dumb!!!  RCI can now continue to rent out our weeks for 1 or 2 years more. The judgment is not binding on them now until the appeal is heard, which could take a year or so. And the odds of the court setting aside a stipulation judgment is maybe 5% at best.  So **no thanks** for who appealed!!!!  It was a gift to RCI, and it was not them who appealed.


----------



## vacationhopeful

A shill in the court system?


----------



## wgatips

Couldn't type fast enough, Linda!
There's no reason to believe that RCI couldn't/wouldn't have a "plant" in the class for just such a recourse of action, unless of course it would be more costly to them in the end.

PS - Much overdue thanks to all involved in this fight.  I'm quite the procrastinator, but did manage to get my objection letters sent in time thanks to this thread and community of dedicated folks.


----------



## Dee in California

No, I think it was a legitimate class member. Obviously they did not look up the odds of getting a case actually reversed through the 3rd circuit court - and the huge majority of cases that are reversed are judicial decisions, not stipulated agreements.  Thanks again to whoever gave RCI 2 more years to rip us off!   RCI waived their right to appeal in the agreed judgment. They do not want to spend another fortune on their own lawyers doing this for 2 more years, and I am sure their lawyers had the legal IQ to know the pathetic odds of getting a stipulated judgment reversed.


----------



## Carolinian

Dee - I can't see this getting held up two years, unless a lawyer who knows what he is doing gets involved in it.  In that case, if the appeal is based on nothing but wishful thinking, he will likely convince the appellant that it is not worth the legal expense to proceed.  If it is someone proceeding pro se, they are most likely going to run afoul of a rule that gets them tossed out long before that time.  I never did federal appelate work, but I did do State appellate work, and one of the first things that has to be done there, and likely in the federal system too, is to contract for a transcript of the hearings.  I strongly suspect that whoever has appealed will not part with the cash to do that, and the appeal will die.

Then again, there may be a lawyer involved who has found an angle that everyone missed.  We will just have to see, but I tend to doubt it.


----------



## DeniseM

I'm wondering if it was Stephan...


----------



## Dee in California

Hard to predict. If they filed the notice before they consulted counsel and they do not intend to get counsel - then yes, they will probably have the case terminated for failure to follow procedure at some point.  However, I have seen appeals take well over a year, and close to two, before coming to decision. Even one year is too much time for RCI to continue to run amok with our weeks. In one month they make a fortune on our backs.


----------



## Dee in California

Just got off the phone with the Court. The appealing parties are Ron Hempling and Richard Renteria. Richard Renteria is represented by legal counsel in New Jersey, named Forrest Turkish.


----------



## love2travelguy

Jennie said:


> *Please click here for a summary and the form to object. - RCI Class Action Lawsuit*
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> When I spoke, I discussed the "incestuous relationship" between RCI and the resort developers and sales teams. I said that most people attend a presentation to obtain a free gift. They did not do prior research and did not plan to buy a timeshare. The main selling point is usually the promise that they will be able to exchange their week if they buy one. They are shown the RCI "wish book" and led to believe it will be easy to just pick up the phone and make a reservation anywhere in the world they want to go. Most are led to believe that the week they are being offered has great trading power, even if it is a mud week in an undesirable location.  This would not happen if there was some way for them to obtain an objective valuation of the week and its exchange potential before buying it or within the recission period, which by the way, should be much longer.



Maybe they should make it illegal to offer incentives and free gifts for attending a presentation, kind of like how the Credit Card Act of 2009 is pretty much banning the practice at college campuses or anything sponsored by a local college campus when it comes to selling student cards. 

Hey, what is the recission period anyway and how much longer do you think it should be?


----------



## Dee in California

_I said that most people attend a presentation to obtain a free gift. They did not do prior research and did not plan to buy a timeshare._

These are the same people who go to car dealers on "free BBQ" days and then blame everyone else in the world when they drive home in a new $65,000 car. People who know they have no ability to stand up to salesman should avoid these situations.  If they "did not do prior research" - whose fault is that?


----------



## london

*Members Leaving RCI*



Dee in California said:


> Hard to predict. If they filed the notice before they consulted counsel and they do not intend to get counsel - then yes, they will probably have the case terminated for failure to follow procedure at some point.  However, I have seen appeals take well over a year, and close to two, before coming to decision. Even one year is too much time for RCI to continue to run amok with our weeks. In one month they make a fortune on our backs.



I think RCI will loose many members in the next few years, as many long time members will just let the memberships expire.

Of course, we do not know how many new members will join RCI, as a result of continuing timeshare new sales and resales.

Our timeshare holdings are places we visit each year, and to Florida in winter.


----------



## Pit

DeniseM said:


> I'm wondering if it was Stephan...



On this court docket, there is a transcript request  dated 12/9/09 from Ron Hempling and the name Stephen Tsai appears in parenthesis.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

Dee in California said:


> Just got off the phone with the Court. The appealing parties are Ron Hempling and Richard Renteria. Richard Renteria is represented by legal counsel in New Jersey, named Forrest Turkish.



Ron Hempling was one of the two clients that were represented by Stephan Willet and his local New Jersey attorney Stephen Tsai.

Many of you will remember Willet who posted within this thread under the Username: Stephan. 

Mr. Willet and Mr. Tsai are apparently still representing Ron Hempling.


----------



## Carolinian

From his ramblings here, I very much doubt that any good can come out of this.  But you never know.  I once had a client insist on taking an appeal to the NC Court of Appeals, in spite of my telling him that there were absolutely no substantial grounds for appeal and he would just waste his money.  However, in a couple of weeks, opposing counsel called and offered a very sweet deal for my client to drop his appeal, which he accepted.

In the RCI case, though, it would appear that it is the lawyer, not the client, who is off the deep end.  I wonder if Stephan has thought about Rule 11 and advised his clients of its potential impact for them.

While I think there may be some other legal avenues that have potential, appealing this consent judgment is not one of them.


----------



## Dee in California

Of course... those appealing attorneys do not care if RCI can rent out our weeks for a year or so - so they can make more money for themselves!!!   I also advise clients when they do not have strong case. Not all attorneys do, of course, sadly.


----------



## Carolinian

Dee - I was wondering if you could shed any light on why the official class action attorneys failed to do any discovery whatsoever on the merits of the case before accepting a VERY weak ''settlement''?  For me that is a huge red flag that something is very seriously amiss with the way this went down.


----------



## Purplebird

*RCI still renting units instead of making them available for exchange*

First I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this very informative BBS.  My husband and I are two of those timeshare owners who were not notified of this lawsuit.  So, I guess we're not eligible for any benefits (which is ok.)  However, I was hoping that RCI would be forced to make available ALL units that were deposited available to anyone looking for an exchange.  Well, here it is January 10, 2010 and they're still renting units instead of making them available for exchange!  I printed out a listing of all the 24 units they have available for RENT (at a specific resort in Montanta - The Lake Condos at Big Sky #0175)  I also printed out a list of the 6 units available for exchange (these units are only available in Nov & Jan.)  I thought this was one of the things the lawsuit was supposed to change.  They have done this to us several times.  We've even lost our banked weeks because they could not find us an exchange anywhere near the area where we wanted to vacation.  Every year we bank our red week (in the Myrtle Beach area) and ALWAYS have difficulty exchanging it (even if we put in our request 18-20 months in advance!)  When is RCI required to implement the lawsuit changes?  Can a new class action lawsuit be brought against RCI for the owners who are still being ripped off in the year 2010?


----------



## Egret1986

*Come up with a new strategy is my suggestion*

I would not keep banking prime weeks with an exchange company only to lose them because the exchange company doesn't have what you need for when you need it.  You paid a maintenance fee for those weeks you have lost.  You pay a membership to RCI.  You say your Myrtle Beach is a red week, but is it a prime summer week (wks 25-32)? Or is it a pink week?

Obviously, you're dissatisfied.  I wouldn't keep waiting for things to get better at RCI.  I've been a member of RCI since 1984 in Weeks and now in Points.  Every year I make the most of my membership and am still satisfied, but I have adapted to the changes necessary to continue getting what I want and need from my membership.  If I ever lost a week to RCI because I couldn't get an exchange, then that would be the end of my membership.

Lake Condominiums in the summer (you don't say when you're trying to go) is a hard exchange.  Although one year I did get a mid-July week with a blue beach week.  However, this was about 4 years ago and it is very doubtful that this would happen again.

If your Myrtle Beach week is a Prime red week, you may consider renting it out instead and use the money to rent where you want to go.  I own a wk 27 at Lake Condos at Big Sky and I would never consider depositing it with RCI.  It is too valuable to me as a rental.


----------



## Dee in California

_Dee - I was wondering if you could shed any light on why the official class action attorneys failed to do any discovery whatsoever on the merits of the case before accepting a VERY weak ''settlement''? For me that is a huge red flag that something is very seriously amiss with the way this went down_

Call the class action attorney and ask them. There were six law firms involved. I have no way of knowing what went on at all six.


----------



## Carolinian

Try one of the independent exchange companies like:

www.daelive.com
www.htse.net
www.tradingplaces.com
www.sfx-resorts.com
www.platinuminterchange.com




Purplebird said:


> First I want to thank everyone who has contributed to this very informative BBS.  My husband and I are two of those timeshare owners who were not notified of this lawsuit.  So, I guess we're not eligible for any benefits (which is ok.)  However, I was hoping that RCI would be forced to make available ALL units that were deposited available to anyone looking for an exchange.  Well, here it is January 10, 2010 and they're still renting units instead of making them available for exchange!  I printed out a listing of all the 24 units they have available for RENT (at a specific resort in Montanta - The Lake Condos at Big Sky #0175)  I also printed out a list of the 6 units available for exchange (these units are only available in Nov & Jan.)  I thought this was one of the things the lawsuit was supposed to change.  They have done this to us several times.  We've even lost our banked weeks because they could not find us an exchange anywhere near the area where we wanted to vacation.  Every year we bank our red week (in the Myrtle Beach area) and ALWAYS have difficulty exchanging it (even if we put in our request 18-20 months in advance!)  When is RCI required to implement the lawsuit changes?  Can a new class action lawsuit be brought against RCI for the owners who are still being ripped off in the year 2010?


----------



## Dee in California

*Carolinian*

I am not all all sure that discovery was not done. In fact, I think they San Fransisco firm did discovery, and there was a lot of voluntary exchange of documents, as I recall. I can tell you this much. RCI never denied having rented out our weeks. They flat out said, yes we do, and we have a right to do so. So the fight became whether they did, in fact, have the right to do so, not whether they were in fact doing it. That does change the discovery demands to some degree. We did not have to go to great lengths to prove what they were up to when they admitted it. Damages were, of course, still an issue. 

I am curious if you see that same problem that I do. It seems that some people are seeking what amounts to a permanent injunction against RCI *ever* renting out weeks. The problems is, with new members, RCI renting out weeks is a perfectly valid and legal contact as long as all parties are clearly informed that that is the deal up front.  RCI snuck it in on existing members without every directly telling us of their doing so, which created grounds for the class action (along with other related issues).  However, you are not going to find a court that will issue a permanent injunction against future contracts that are valid and legal with proper notice prior to signing. (That means actually reading all of that fine print before you sign.)  

Some people seem determined to drag that desire to the Supreme Court if necessary, while RCI gleefully rents out our weeks - and the appealing will not every get what they are seeking. RCI must be very amused and very happy with this fact. They are making a fortune off of it.


----------



## Dee in California

_When is RCI required to implement the lawsuit changes? Can a new class action lawsuit be brought against RCI for the owners who are still being ripped off in the year 2010?_

The lawsuit changes will implement as soon as the appeal is done, or terminated by the 3rd circuit Court of Appeal. You can thank the appealing parties for the fact that RCI can still rent out our weeks any time they want to.  You can bet RCI is laughing all the way to their swollen bank accounts. And if the 3rd Circuit is following the usual procedures - all costs of the appeal will be assessed against the Plaintiffs when they lose!


----------



## motomem

An interesting twist on RCI's inventory.  I assume this is coming from RCI's rental inventory - this new benefit I have with Bluegreen Vacation Club.  It became available today, Jan. 18th.  Maybe this is common with other vacation clubs, I don't know.

From Bluegreen's owner website:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Use Your Points for Nightly Stays at RCI Resorts!

Now you can use your Points for nightly stays at RCI resorts instead of having to deposit a full week!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I can use my Bluegreen points to rent nightly with RCI.  Along with that a fee is involved depending on the number of nights:

1-3 Nts:  $79
4-6 Nts:  $119
7+ Nts:  $179

Normally I would have to book a full week with Bluegreen, deposit the week with RCI, then exchange.  This new benefit allows me to search real-time the availability on rci.com and then book by nights.

I think RCI is in the process of killing the weeks program all together - that's the way it looks to me anyway.


----------



## Carolinian

Even as to new members, I still think they have a contract of adhesion problem, so even if it is in the contract it is still not valid or binding.  There was discussion of this aspect of the problem at some length on the old Timeshare Beat.

Also, under consumer protection law in most states, even a valid contract is subject to challenge if it is ''unfair'' or ''deceptive''.  Burying this stuff in the fine print while implying otherwise in their general description of the program is, IMHO, always going to trip them up on these tests.




Dee in California said:


> I am not all all sure that discovery was not done. In fact, I think they San Fransisco firm did discovery, and there was a lot of voluntary exchange of documents, as I recall. I can tell you this much. RCI never denied having rented out our weeks. They flat out said, yes we do, and we have a right to do so. So the fight became whether they did, in fact, have the right to do so, not whether they were in fact doing it. That does change the discovery demands to some degree. We did not have to go to great lengths to prove what they were up to when they admitted it. Damages were, of course, still an issue.
> 
> I am curious if you see that same problem that I do. It seems that some people are seeking what amounts to a permanent injunction against RCI *ever* renting out weeks. The problems is, with new members, RCI renting out weeks is a perfectly valid and legal contact as long as all parties are clearly informed that that is the deal up front.  RCI snuck it in on existing members without every directly telling us of their doing so, which created grounds for the class action (along with other related issues).  However, you are not going to find a court that will issue a permanent injunction against future contracts that are valid and legal with proper notice prior to signing. (That means actually reading all of that fine print before you sign.)
> 
> Some people seem determined to drag that desire to the Supreme Court if necessary, while RCI gleefully rents out our weeks - and the appealing will not every get what they are seeking. RCI must be very amused and very happy with this fact. They are making a fortune off of it.


----------



## Carolinian

We REALLY do need to let our HOA's know what RCI is up to and urge them to start working to migrate their members who exchange to more honest exchange companies.




motomem said:


> An interesting twist on RCI's inventory.  I assume this is coming from RCI's rental inventory - this new benefit I have with Bluegreen Vacation Club.  It became available today, Jan. 18th.  Maybe this is common with other vacation clubs, I don't know.
> 
> From Bluegreen's owner website:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Use Your Points for Nightly Stays at RCI Resorts!
> 
> Now you can use your Points for nightly stays at RCI resorts instead of having to deposit a full week!
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> I can use my Bluegreen points to rent nightly with RCI.  Along with that a fee is involved depending on the number of nights:
> 
> 1-3 Nts:  $79
> 4-6 Nts:  $119
> 7+ Nts:  $179
> 
> Normally I would have to book a full week with Bluegreen, deposit the week with RCI, then exchange.  This new benefit allows me to search real-time the availability on rci.com and then book by nights.
> 
> I think RCI is in the process of killing the weeks program all together - that's the way it looks to me anyway.


----------



## catcher24

motomem said:


> An interesting twist on RCI's inventory.  I assume this is coming from RCI's rental inventory - this new benefit I have with Bluegreen Vacation Club.  It became available today, Jan. 18th.  Maybe this is common with other vacation clubs, I don't know.
> 
> From Bluegreen's owner website:
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> Use Your Points for Nightly Stays at RCI Resorts!
> 
> Now you can use your Points for nightly stays at RCI resorts instead of having to deposit a full week!
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> 
> I can use my Bluegreen points to rent nightly with RCI.  Along with that a fee is involved depending on the number of nights:
> 
> 1-3 Nts:  $79
> 4-6 Nts:  $119
> 7+ Nts:  $179
> 
> Normally I would have to book a full week with Bluegreen, deposit the week with RCI, then exchange.  This new benefit allows me to search real-time the availability on rci.com and then book by nights.
> 
> I think RCI is in the process of killing the weeks program all together - that's the way it looks to me anyway.




You may want to check into this a little further. I think this benefit applies to points resorts only. As an RCI points owner, I have had this option since I became a points resort owner. However, you can only book nightly stays at points resorts. If you want to stay at a weeks resort, you still must book the time in weekly blocks. And if in your case it does apply to all resorts, I'll be contacting RCI immediately to find out why Bluegreen points owners have better benefits through RCI than RCI points owners do!:annoyed:


----------



## Dee in California

*Carolinian*

_Even as to new members, I still think they have a contract of adhesion problem, so even if it is in the contract it is still not valid or binding_

I doubt it. If people want to put their weeks in knowing that RCI may or may not rent them out, they have a right to do so. As long as some weeks are made available and most people get at least semi-reasonable trades, I do not see that as being so one-sided that it is so unconscionable that the court would shut it down. People may not be able to get Hawaii for their Iowa January week, but really, that was not an equitable trade anyway - just a stroke of sheer luck.  Not saying I would do it, but what the court is willing to actually put an injunction on is a pretty high hurdle to jump.  Free trade is a concept they protect to a ridiculous degree. Consider what car dealers get away with every day!  

Well, our benefits and protections would have started January 11 - if not for the appeals.


----------



## thheath

As retired military I keep getting offers from RCI to rent weeks for $329; so nothing has changed on that front.

http://emails.fam2friends.com/w/web...ATVNOLkNPTQ__&si=&mv=R&bv=H&oc=H&sc=&k=11ExQW


----------



## Dee in California

Nothing will change as long as the appeal is pending. RCI are entirely within their rights to keep gleefully renting out weeks until the appeal is settled, adjudicated, kicked out on its merits, or the appealing parties drop their case.


----------



## motomem

catcher24 said:


> You may want to check into this a little further. I think this benefit applies to points resorts only. As an RCI points owner, I have had this option since I became a points resort owner. However, you can only book nightly stays at points resorts. If you want to stay at a weeks resort, you still must book the time in weekly blocks. And if in your case it does apply to all resorts, I'll be contacting RCI immediately to find out why Bluegreen points owners have better benefits through RCI than RCI points owners do!:annoyed:



You are probably correct that it is only points resorts.  In order to use the benefit I have to set up a points account with RCI.

It's probably not better than what you have with RCI.  For me, I would have to burn points AND pay the fee.


----------



## catcher24

motomem said:


> You are probably correct that it is only points resorts.  In order to use the benefit I have to set up a points account with RCI.
> 
> It's probably not better than what you have with RCI.  For me, I would have to burn points AND pay the fee.



I actually pay a fee to use this option too. Can't remember how much the fee is, but the figures you posted sound familiar. It is a rather handy option to have. I went to South Beach Resort in Mytrle Beach for five days in October, so only had to burn five nights worth of points rather than a full week's worth.


----------



## Carolinian

Dee, the issue goes far beyond the 45 day window (Jan. Iowa for Hawaii) issue.  And thanks to being buried in the fine print, the vast majority of members do NOT in fact know it!  Member also do not expect it, as this policy contradicts the way RCI presents itself to members.  The test in consumer protection statutes is NOT ''unfair AND deceptive'', it is ''unfair OR deceptive''.  While I belive RCI's practices meet both tests, they without a doubt meet the second one.

And the limited ''protection'' that the official class action attorneys sold out for is not all that great to begin with.




Dee in California said:


> _Even as to new members, I still think they have a contract of adhesion problem, so even if it is in the contract it is still not valid or binding_
> 
> I doubt it. If people want to put their weeks in knowing that RCI may or may not rent them out, they have a right to do so. As long as some weeks are made available and most people get at least semi-reasonable trades, I do not see that as being so one-sided that it is so unconscionable that the court would shut it down. People may not be able to get Hawaii for their Iowa January week, but really, that was not an equitable trade anyway - just a stroke of sheer luck.  Not saying I would do it, but what the court is willing to actually put an injunction on is a pretty high hurdle to jump.  Free trade is a concept they protect to a ridiculous degree. Consider what car dealers get away with every day!
> 
> Well, our benefits and protections would have started January 11 - if not for the appeals.


----------



## Dee in California

*Carolinian*

_ Member also do not expect it, as this policy contradicts the way RCI presents itself to members. The test in consumer protection statutes is NOT ''unfair AND deceptive'', it is ''unfair OR deceptive''. While I belive RCI's practices meet both tests, they without a doubt meet the second one._

I am well aware of the legal standard. I simply do not agree with you that it is met. Reasonable minds can differ.  But then, I never agreed with the cases that said that "Oh, he did not read the contract, so how could be have known?"  Moral - read what you sign! That is an ongoing and annoying concept in personal injury law - the lack of personal responsibility that sometimes goes with it. 

I suspect, after all of the dust is settles RCI will make far more of a focused point in the membership rules as to what they can do with weeks. Personally, I plan to be long gone by then from their membership roles.  I am done with that company.  


_And the limited ''protection'' that the official class action attorneys sold out for is not all that great to begin with._

While that may in some views be true, it certainly beats the continued RCI free for all, which was my point.   At least it put some kind of limitations on them until most of us can get clear and bail out!


----------



## zgreg9

*Ojection letter from OCEAN EAST RESORT CLUB ASSOCIATION*

I have not been following this thread every day since Judge Sheridan's decision.  Therefore my post is most likely not in tune with current discussion. While doing some research for a resort in Orsmond Beach area, I came across upon this objection letter from the *OCEAN EAST RESORT CLUB ASSOCIATION *to Clerk of Court addressed to Judge Sheridan.  It is an excellent letter that many other associations should have written.  Please go to this link to read it ( 3 pages long)   http://www.oceaneast.com/RCI_CA_update.pdf

Greg


----------



## jerseygirl

Wow -- what a great letter.  If only the original plaintiffs (or at least one of them) would have refused to go down a path where "the four corners of the lawsuit did not deal with RCI's right to rent weeks" (a statement made by the attorneys repeatedly during the final hearing).  I'm not an attorney, but I certainly got the feeling that the issue of whether or not RCI had the legal right to rent weeks was decided in favor of RCI long before we got to that stage (although I'm not clear on how -- I think the plaintiffs and/or their attorneys gave in on the issue -- I don't think there was a legal ruling to that effect, but I could be wrong).  

I'm not a big fan of class action suits, but I think it would be great if we could start a new one that centers completely around RCI's right to rent weeks, insists that profits made from illegal rentals be distributed to owners, etc.  

Legal question for Dee and Carolinian:  Could the objectors start another suit ... or only those who "opted out?"  I'm afraid the appeal will only center around the same issues (i.e., RCI's right to rent will continue to be outside the 4 corners of the lawsuit -- whatever the heck that means).

Before I get attacked by those who don't believe that class action suits really accomplish anything -- I agree.  However, hassling RCI is a whole lot of fun!


----------



## Carolinian

The best route to get this back in court is with a State AG consumer protection lawsuit.  The trick is to get someone high up in the state AG's office of a state to get interested in pursuing it.  State AG's usually have tools in such matters not availible to others, like pre-litigation discovery.  Just contemplating such a lawsuit, they could pop RCI with a raft of Requests for Production of Documents and Subpoenas for Depositions of company officials.

Some state AG's lately have been going after other aspects of timeshare businesses.  Maybe one could be convinced that RCI is the biggest trophy of all of timesharing to hang on their wall.





jerseygirl said:


> Wow -- what a great letter.  If only the original plaintiffs (or at least one of them) would have refused to go down a path where "the four corners of the lawsuit did not deal with RCI's right to rent weeks" (a statement made by the attorneys repeatedly during the final hearing).  I'm not an attorney, but I certainly got the feeling that the issue of whether or not RCI had the legal right to rent weeks was decided in favor of RCI long before we got to that stage (although I'm not clear on how -- I think the plaintiffs and/or their attorneys gave in on the issue -- I don't think there was a legal ruling to that effect, but I could be wrong).
> 
> I'm not a big fan of class action suits, but I think it would be great if we could start a new one that centers completely around RCI's right to rent weeks, insists that profits made from illegal rentals be distributed to owners, etc.
> 
> Legal question for Dee and Carolinian:  Could the objectors start another suit ... or only those who "opted out?"  I'm afraid the appeal will only center around the same issues (i.e., RCI's right to rent will continue to be outside the 4 corners of the lawsuit -- whatever the heck that means).
> 
> Before I get attacked by those who don't believe that class action suits really accomplish anything -- I agree.  However, hassling RCI is a whole lot of fun!


----------



## Carolinian

*Getting an AG involved - some action in Missouri?*

A timeshare owner in Missouri has PM'ed me and related that he has filed a complaint with the Missouri AG's office about RCI's rental practices and they seem to show an interest.  This has been one of the most aggressive state AG's offices in the country in working to clean up vacation industry malpractices, so maybe they will be the one to press RCI hard on its rentals. The matter is now at the stage where they have forwarded the complaint to RCI for its comments.  The person who filed the complaint relates that since it went in to RCI, RCI has suddenly started bending over backwards to be nice to him.

Right now, the most effective thing to do to help sway the Missouri AG to get actively involved is to get more complaints in.  If you are a Missouri resident or own timeshare in Missouri or are an HOA board member of a Missouri timeshare, you can help by following up with your own complaint.

If you want to coordinate directly with the original complaintant, please PM me and I will put you in contact with him.  He is a long time Tugger but not currently able to post here.


----------



## catcher24

If you could find someone in New York who was interested in filing a complaint I would bet a bundle you would get Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General, to pursue the case. Old Andy is looking for some more national exposure to build up to his run for governor this year, and going after someone like RCI would certainly embellish his credentials as AG. Not that an AG would do anything for political motivations....


----------



## CJ711

Hi all  

I'm the Admin for a little timeshare news blog called Inside the Gate. I recently got the site revamped and opened it up for comments and a couple of people left comments that I should report about the RCI settlement, so I googled it and holy cow!!! I've been looking at stuff about it for at least a couple of days now, and there's so much to plow through my head is spinning from it. TUG seems to have the most info in one place, so I've spent some time reading through this thread and following links.

I understand the basic complaint (I knew about that before but hadn't followed it), but all the legal wrangling that's gone on since has me a bit confused, and the language in the settlement itself, well, I'll need to study on that I guess to really understand it. It seems to me that basically RCI said they didn't do anything wrong and promised not to do it again, at least not for 2 years. And then they offered the complainants some trinkets and beads as compensation.

I'm not a professional writer and I do have a day job, lol, and I don't know how I'll ever be able to condense all the info into a shortish report that covers all the bases. So I'm hoping that some/one of you might help me make sense of it all, concisely? I'd be happy to give credit where it's due, link back to TUG, whatever is right. If I'm out of line with this request, please excuse me, I don't mean to step on any toes.

Thanks

CJ (a serious newshound)


----------



## Carolinian

catcher24 said:


> If you could find someone in New York who was interested in filing a complaint I would bet a bundle you would get Andrew Cuomo, NYS Attorney General, to pursue the case. Old Andy is looking for some more national exposure to build up to his run for governor this year, and going after someone like RCI would certainly embellish his credentials as AG. Not that an AG would do anything for political motivations....



Well, they say that AG really stands for ''Aspiring Governor''.

If you get the AG himself interested, that is obviously best, but usually the key would be a couple of levels down in the top ranks of the consumer protection division.  Unfortunately, a civilian sending in a complaint is almost certain to have it shunted to some lower level person who lacks much decision making authority.  The trick is to get it kicked higher.  One way to do that is for someone to already have connections higher.  The other is to have enough complaints come in that it gets their attention.  That means for example, getting enough people with Missouri connections to send in their own complaints while it has some attention in the AG's office.  One complaint by itself, if not made by someone with connections, will almost certainly go nowhere unless it gets backed up by similar complaints arriving in a timely manner.

And, of course, the AG's who have already thrown their weight around on other timeshare related issues, like Missouri, is the best place to start.


----------



## catcher24

> Well, they say that AG really stands for ''Aspiring Governor''.



:rofl:  :hysterical: 

Excellent! 

Your point is certainly well taken. It would be nice to get a lot of RCI owners who have properties in Missouri to get letters off to the Missouri AG.


----------



## thheath

catcher24 said:


> :rofl:  :hysterical:
> 
> Excellent!
> 
> Your point is certainly well taken. It would be nice to get a lot of RCI owners who have properties in Missouri to get letters off to the Missouri AG.



Just as in the past if someone who is knowledgeable were to post a sample letter to the AG (with address) it would help those with Missouri ties.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*For Consumer Complaints To AG of Missouri*

To any Missouri resident considering sending a consumer complaint to the Attorney General of the State Of Missouri a complaint form is available on line.

http://ago.mo.gov/consumercomplaint.htm

*Quoting from the AG website:*

http://ago.mo.gov/publications/timeshares2.htm



> Under state law, timeshares are defined as merchandise and fall within the guidelines of Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act, Chapter 407, Missouri Revised Statutes.
> 
> Use of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or concealment of fact by a person in connection with the sale of timeshares is subject to civil and criminal penalties that may be brought by the Attorney General.



Reading further:



> Major provisions of a state law protecting buyers include:
> 
> Explanation of timeshare exchange plans. Exchange plans usually involve trading a vacation at one timeshare facility for a vacation in another location. Limitations, restrictions or priorities regarding exchange programs must be outlined for the buyer. For example, the timeshare operator must tell a buyer if a Lake of the Ozarks vacation can be exchanged for an Alaska vacation only during December.


----------



## robbiefields

http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article283700.ece

From the RCI "Eat Cake And Have It Too" Department


----------



## ecwinch

thheath said:


> Just as in the past if someone who is knowledgeable were to post a sample letter to the AG (with address) it would help those with Missouri ties.



Unfortunately I think in most cases it really has the opposite effect. When all the letters look the same, courts and governing agencies tend to treat those complaints differently. I have read cases findings were the judge draws that observation and characterizes it more as an organized letter writing campaign.


----------



## thheath

ecwinch said:


> Unfortunately I think in most cases it really has the opposite effect. When all the letters look the same, courts and governing agencies tend to treat those complaints differently. I have read cases findings were the judge draws that observation and characterizes it more as an organized letter writing campaign.



Understandable but you know how human nature is; unless you spoon feed some people they won't do anything.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

*Update!*

The Plaintiff's Attorneys probably have the responsibility of updating the "official" RCI Class Action Lawsuit Website so, I assume it was they who  provided an "official update" on January 25th. 

A few days after the Fairness Hearing held on November 30, 2009 David C. Berman on behalf of the attorneys for the Plaintiffs submitted a "proposed" Final Order and Judgement to the Court. [Docket # 687-1] 

All Judge Sheridan had to do was cross out the word "proposed," initial the change, put in the date and sign it.  All of that was done Friday, December 4, 2009 and the Official Court Docket [Case: 2:06-cv-01222-PGS-ES] was updated December 7, 2009. 

As of my posting #1058 earlier in this thread the Final Order was not available at the "official website" maintained by the Plaintiff's Attorneys. It has however, been on the Official Website of the United States District Court District of New Jersey since December 7, 2009.

That omission was apparently corrected as of January 25 should you want to see the 12 page pdf file for yourself.

As previously reported here, RCI took the link down from their website shortly after the Judge approved the Settlement; but access is still available by going here:  http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/


----------



## Carolinian

*Missouri AG may act if sees pattern*

There is a thread on this in the Members Only forum at Timeshare Forums ( www.timeshareforums.com )

Get your complaints in to the Missouri AG.


----------



## AFARR

*RCI lawsuit....is it a Ponzi Scheme now?*

I'm in the process of buying a timeshare (working on paperwork now..yes, it's a resale, and as I mentioned in my only other post...I'm happy to use it where it is and when it is)....but as part of the buying, I'm doing research on trades...and found the info on RCI and the lawsuit.

I'm trying to see the difference between what RCI is doing and a Ponzi scheme...I really don't see much.

Let's look at a fairly recent 'Ponzi' scheme....Bernie Madoff.

He took money from people promising them something.
He used that money to do other things than what he promised (make himself money, pay for vacations, buy expensive properties, etc).
He took some of the money coming in from the newest clients and gave it to the older clients to keep them happy.
He never invested it as he was supposed to...and when his clients (and the Feds) got wind of it, he got convicted.

Now, maybe I'm mistaken...but it looks like RCI is doing roughly the same thing.
They take weeks from people who deposit them expecting to be able to exchange them.
They rent the weeks (making themselves money), they use the weeks for employee vacations, but only a little of them are actually used for exchanges.
A few of the weeks are left for exchanges to keep some of the customers from complaining.


Is that what is happening?

AFARR


----------



## Goofyhobbie

AFFAR,

As a newbie your perspective is interesting. 

All who take the time to review my posts in this thread will see that I fought as hard as anyone to get a fair settlement from RCI.  But, I do not hate RCI or feel that they are currently taking advantage of me personally.  As a realist, I will stop doing business with RCI when they no longer meet my personal needs or when the cost of doing business with them is too much. 

[In the area of cost they are darn close to driving me away; but, I will stay the course for now because they already have way to many deposits from me and until they are used up there is no benefit to me in leaving.] 

There are many RCI members who probably feel that the end result of their experience is not unlike a ponzi scheme; but I assure you that if one takes the time to fully understand how RCI works, operates within the guidelines or rules of RCI, and* proactively works the system* the result SHOULD BE WHAT A REASONABLE MEMBER OF RCI CAN LIVE WITH.

I have been an RCI member for 25 years and have made in excess of 175 exchanges using their system.

*I have never made a deposit that did not result in an exchange of equal or more value than what I deposited.*

Did I have to deposit as early as possible?  YES!

Did I have to set-up on-going searches?  YES!

Did I have to periodically do a search on line to get a good deal?  YES!

Did I have to be patient?  YES!

Did I have to have reasonable expectations and be flexible? YES!

Until, I am unable to get reasonable exchanges for what I consider a reasonable cost, I will continue to use RCI because I am no longer paying a membership fee directly to RCI [A Wyndham Fairshare Plus Member pays for their RCI membership out of Fairshare Plus Fees paid] and I am in fact still getting good exchanges. 

I have to work a little harder to get those great exchanges and have to pay increasingly higher exchange fees (9% increase for 2010); but I am still currently comfortable using RCI.       

Waiting to late to make a deposit, searching only 90, 60, or worse 30 days out for a great vacation will not usually get the job done. It is imperative that a user of RCI understand how the exchange system works and it is imperative that they work the system.


----------



## Egret1986

*I believe that's it in a nutshell and so well explained, Goofyhobbie*

Take the steps necessary by following RCI's rules, work the system to your best advantage, and allow the fees and quality of exchanges determine whether or not RCI has value for you.

I have also been a member of RCI for over 25 years.  I have never used another exchange company.  You absolutely have to be knowledgeable of the system and work it, work it, work it.  I also feel that I have always received like or better exchanges for what I have deposited.  I have never lost a deposit because I couldn't find an acceptable exchange.


----------



## Carolinian

The difference is what is availible at RCI between the pre-rental days and the present is stark.  One does have to work the system more, that is certain.  JLB has a long record of searching SW Florida and can document the vast change in weeks RCI makes availible to exchangers there.  While I have not done the systematic searches and printouts he has, my own observations on availibility in Europe are also stark.  When I use a summer week at a UK resort (that often has no availibility at all any time of year any size) to search with, I see far less than an Outer Banks blue week would see six or seven years ago.  The decrease in availibility has been dramatic.  Can you still sometimes make RCI work for you?  Yes.  Is it a lot harder than it was in the pre-rental days?  Absolutely so!

Now RCI rentals, thats another matter.  I have picked up a couple of great RCI rentals in Europe for ~$200 each.  Of course, I have also seen some off season dog weeks that I would not have traded a blue week (back when I owned one) for offered at amounts in four figures.


----------



## Jennie

Which comes first--the chicken or the egg?

Most of us believe that RCI's rental of deposited weeks to the general public has resulted in far fewer desirable weeks being available to RCI members for exchange.

However, many experienced timeshare owners like myself no longer deposit our prime weeks with RCI. Every week I have purchased  over the past 5 years (all resale, many through Ebay auctions) are at resorts where I plan to vacation every year. If I cannot do so once in awhile I rent them through ads on TUG, www.Redweek.com and/or www.myresortnetwork.com
For our Hawaii week I trade it through the San Francisco Exchange Company or Trading Places. 

RCI's rental nonsense has caused a lot of us to not deposit good weeks. It has also caused a lot of potential timeshare buyers to rent rather than purchase a week. For years people bought timeshares based upon the dream and promise of being able to easily trade them for desirable weeks each year. Media attention and websites like TUG are spreading the word that the original business model no longer works well, due in large part to corporate greed. 

I think the bottom line is that in addition to RCI's rental of deposited weeks to the general public, the huge decline in availability of quality weeks can also be attributed to owners no longer depositing desirable weeks. The Internet has made a huge difference in the way timeshare owners learn about and implement alternative options.


----------



## Egret1986

*I wholeheartedly agree with this.*



Jennie said:


> But I think the bottom line is that in addition to RCI's rental of deposited weeks to the general public, the huge decline in availability of quality weeks can also be attributed to owners no longer depositing this type of weeks. The Internet has made a huge difference in the way timeshare owners learn about and implement alternative options.



I have been a member of RCI Weeks since 1984.  In the last two years I have not personally deposited any weeks with them.  I purchased two timeshares (wks 26 and 27 East Coast beach weeks).  Part of the purchase was the spacebanking of the 2009 weeks and not having to pay the 2009 maintenance fees.  It was great to get these two free weeks even if they were deposited into RCI.  I got two very good weeks in exchange.  However, during the search, I never saw anything that would make it worthwhile to make future deposits of weeks that I could use or easily rent.

I am still in RCI because of RCI Points, which currently works very well for me.  If and when RCI Points no longer benefits me, then I will no longer be a member of RCI.


----------



## Carolinian

I went to an orientation meeting at a UK timeshare some months ago, and there was a lot of discussion about RCI.  Only two of us were there with an exchange.  Some of the local owners had used RCI in the past and had been satisfied with it in the past, but now only gave them weeks in the Canary Islands, not good UK weeks anymore, because they had all noticed the dramatic decline in exchange quality.




Jennie said:


> Which comes first--the chicken or the egg?
> 
> Most of us believe that RCI's rental of deposited weeks to the general public has resulted in far fewer desirable weeks being available to RCI members for exchange.
> 
> However, many experienced timeshare owners like myself no longer deposit our prime weeks with RCI. Every week I have purchased  over the past 5 years (all resale, many through Ebay auctions) are at resorts where I plan to vacation every year. If I cannot do so once in awhile I rent them through ads on TUG, www.Redweek.com and/or www.myresortnetwork.com
> For our Hawaii week I trade it through the San Francisco Exchange Company or Trading Places.
> 
> RCI's rental nonsense has caused a lot of us to not deposit good weeks. It has also caused a lot of potential timeshare buyers to rent rather than purchase a week. This will lead to more problems in the industry. For years people bought timeshares based upon the dream and promise of being able to trade them for different places each year. Media attention and websites like TUG are spreading the word that the original business model no longer works well, due in large part to corporate greed.
> 
> But I think the bottom line is that in addition to RCI's rental of deposited weeks to the general public, the huge decline in availability of quality weeks can also be attributed to owners no longer depositing this type of weeks. The Internet has made a huge difference in the way timeshare owners learn about and implement alternative options.


----------



## Dee in California

*It's over as far as the Class Action goes*

The appeal was settled out of court. I am not sure yet what all the terms were, other than a fairly small reduction in attorney's fees. I strongly suspect that the appealing parties had no idea about the financial costs of filing an appeal. That must have been a real case of sticker shock!


----------



## Jennie

All of the appealing parties settled for $$$$ which was apparently their main motive for filing the appeals. It was done through mediation.


----------



## Dee in California

Thrilled that they were looking out for the greater good.


----------



## brilamar

Thanks Caroline.
You are appreciated!


----------



## ncopeman123

Selling a product, even a helpful one, using TUG is a violation of TUG Posting Rules and is prohibited.  You have done this on five different occasions that I know of; continued violation of the posting rules will lead to you being banned from TUG.


----------



## fxstsrdr

*RE: RCI Lawsuit Settlement*

Came across this BBS after Google Search. 

Just deposited our week and can't exchange for ANYTHING in the Keys - yet many locations available if I want to buy the "extra" vacation. (have 2+ Bdr - Red week - WI Dells). 

Had no idea of the lawsuit, settlement, or due date of objections to the latter.  

Am I basically SOL (simply outta luck)?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

fxstsrdr,

Welcome to TUG,

You did not identify the timeshare resort, size of Unit, or period of time that you just deposited so it is rather difficult to determine whether or not your particular deposit might have a chance to secure whatever you desire in the Florida Keys.

If what you deposited was 154,000 or less Wyndham Points, you have to consider that those points represent the average value of a 2-BR Unit within the Wyndham Prime season. The points, being generic, probably would not have the trading power of say a 2-BR Unit in prime time at Shell Vacations Club at Little Sweden.

If you own Wyndham points and asked Wyndham for a "visible" deposit of a 2 BR Unit that is equivalent to a 2-BR Red Week at a Wyndham Resort, what Wyndham might have deposited is a random Unit chosen from their then current inventory and that particular Unit may not have the trading power to grab a Unit in the Keys.  

Having said that, it has always been a tough "spot search" to grab something in the Florida Keys using just about anything other than the best of the best Gold Crown resort weeks in one's portifolio. RCI has just made it tougher in recent years by skimming the great Florida Key Units put up by other exchangers and putting them in not only the "extra vacations" section of their web site; but, apparently buy selling the time to other companies who then rent them out or auction them off.

If you must have a Florida Keys Unit in exchange for your 2-BR in the Wisconsin Dells, recommed that you request an on-going search for something a six months to two years out. Then cross your fingers and legs in the hopes that you get a hit. 

In the meantime, may I suggest that you become a TUG Member and periodically watch the Private Forum we call the "Sightings Board."  On the Sightings Board other TUGGERS post Sightings of Florida Key RCI sightings and other great exchange possibilities when they see them using their "fixed week." 

For Information On How To Join TUG go to this link and scroll down to How To Join: Website Link To Instructions on How To Join 

You have obviously missed out on the "trinkets" that RCI offered to RCI Members; but take my word for it when I say that the "trinkets" were not worth signing up for.

You also missed the opportunity to object to the settlement; but you will get the benefit of the settlement if you were part of the class.  

Thanks to the efforts of hundreds of TUGGERS and other RCI Members, we were able to get a slightly improved settlement out of RCI.


----------



## fxstsrdr

*RE: RCI Class Action Lawsuit*

Thanks for the speedy reply.  I was in Afghanistan when all the lawsuit movement took place.  Bummer.  That said, the TS that we own is a "Float Week" for Jun-Jul or Aug @ Christmas Mountain in the Wisconson Dells.  2 Bedroom, two bath Villa floor plan.  Previously exchanged it for Windjammer Landings in St Lucia (sweet) after I returned from Iraq.  Also previously exchanged for Morritts in Grand Cayman (awesome). As we "speak" using it in Key Largo @ Anchorage Resort (whew, we feel gipped on this one - definately a dog.  Will be using the RV next time).


----------



## Mel

If you log into your RCI account, you can see what week has been assigned to you - when you deposited, your resort had to assign a specific week.  While you week floats within that time period, chances are you were not given the best week.  I don't know the Wisconsin school schedules, but in general, a June week is not likely to trade as well as July or August, because many families with school-age children can't travel then.  The same applies to the late August weeks, because some schools start in August.  The best week in that date range is probably a week containing July 4th, since it is a holiday week and costs one less vacation day for many people.


----------



## catcher24

It certainly appears that RCI's corporate heads learned nothing from this lawsuit. I tried to make a points reservation at Wyndham Resort at Fairfield Glade today for a week in September - no availability. Out of curiosity I searched Extra Vacations. Lo and behold, at least 20 units available for the time period I wanted to reserve! So I guess if I want to go I'll have to spend cash rather than use any of my 247,000 points!   What a joke - a bad one - RCI is becoming.


----------



## laurieb126

*New RCI Member*

I am horrified as I read this post.  My husband and I became RCI members in October, 2009.  We have not yet exchanged a week but I have called and tried to find out if certain weeks are available.  All RCI wants is to have me bank my week.  Fortunately, my mom warned me not to bank unless I have an available exchange property confirmed.  

I haven't been able to read all of the threads.  I'm hoping someone can tell me if anything has changed since the lawsuit. 

Thanks for any updates.


----------



## timeos2

laurieb126 said:


> I am horrified as I read this post.  My husband and I became RCI members in October, 2009.  We have not yet exchanged a week but I have called and tried to find out if certain weeks are available.  All RCI wants is to have me bank my week.  Fortunately, my mom warned me not to bank unless I have an available exchange property confirmed.
> 
> I haven't been able to read all of the threads.  I'm hoping someone can tell me if anything has changed since the lawsuit.
> 
> Thanks for any updates.



To summarize years of conflicting reports and observations let me say the bottom line is that RCI (& II)  is now far more interested in renting timeshare deposits than facilitating an exchange between two or more owners as they originally set out to do. Clearly it is in their best interest to do so as they get paid (annual membership) to take free inventory from members and then face a choice. Do they get the (to my feeling) high set exchange fee of $169+/- to supply the service you expect of finding you a fair trade to a different resort/date and then finding another member that wants yours (for another set fee) OR do they take your deposit, as well as many/most others, and simply dangle them in front of every possible renter for $300-$1000 and be done with it? The use cost them NOTHING so any rental money above the trade fee is gravy to them and saves the extra work/time of actually making trades as they are being paid to do. Which do you think they prefer?

Now the ill-advised lawsuit this thread refers to has given legal blessing for them to do just that - rent the free deposits they get as a standard process rather than even attempt to fulfill the actual reason for their existence - make fair TRADES for members. 

So a long standing TUG rule/advice has come to the forefront. You should only buy timeshare to USE - that is where the value is.  Owning with the idea that you want a different resort most years and paying the fees and dealing with the costs & uncertainty of trades makes owning to trade a losing proposition.  

Would I use RCI Weeks to try to trade my timeshares now? Absolutely not. There are other exchange companies that don't have rentals as their top priority and if you must trade you should look at those options. A few, far from all, are SFX, Trading Places, RedWeek - look around.  I would NOT recommend Interval International (II) as they have far too many games they also play like RCI and have both membership & annual fees in addition to exchange fees that can add up to close to another annual fee for you. 

The best thing is to use your resort OR rent it. Once you have the cash for your rental (not as easy as it sounds)  you can easily take advantage of the depressed rental market to get exactly what you want with far more choices than any trade will ever get you reliably.  Or do a direct trade with other owners looking to visit resorts outside their own. There is an active direct exchange area right here on TUG.  

Bottom line  - avoid RCI & II.  They are not member friendly and far too costly to be viable. Good luck.


----------



## laurieb126

Thank you so much for the info, John.  We went into this completely blind.  We never thought we would fall for this since we are usually savvy consumers, but unfortunately we did buy with the idea of exchanging.  We have been to our home resort in Cabo twice and we are ready to go elsewhere.  

I was not aware that I had a choice of exchange companies to use.  How can I go about using another exchange company?  

Again, thank you.


----------



## exyeh

May I ask this stupid question: I filed my $15 payment from RCI in January, this year. And I have not received the refund. I called the # of that website I filed (Settlement claim website), but no one is there but recording. Is there a way to get my refund back? How? I only have a printout of my claim. thanks.


----------



## Carolinian

laurieb126 said:


> Thank you so much for the info, John.  We went into this completely blind.  We never thought we would fall for this since we are usually savvy consumers, but unfortunately we did buy with the idea of exchanging.  We have been to our home resort in Cabo twice and we are ready to go elsewhere.
> 
> I was not aware that I had a choice of exchange companies to use.  How can I go about using another exchange company?
> 
> Again, thank you.



You can learn about them and join through their websites:

www.daelive.com

www.htse.net

www.sfx-resorts.com

www.tradingplaces.com

www.platinuminterchange.com


----------



## falmouth3

exyeh said:


> May I ask this stupid question: I filed my $15 payment from RCI in January, this year. And I have not received the refund. I called the # of that website I filed (Settlement claim website), but no one is there but recording. Is there a way to get my refund back? How? I only have a printout of my claim. thanks.



Yeah, it just occurred to me that I haven't heard anything from them yet so I looked up this thread to see if any progress has been made.


----------



## Judy

laurieb126 said:


> I was not aware that I had a choice of exchange companies to use.  How can I go about using another exchange company?


It depends upon whether your resort is affiliated only with RCI or if it's dual affiliated with both RCI and II.  You can find out by asking your resort's management or going to www.intervalworld.com and searching the Resort Directory to see if it's listed.  If you find your resort in II's online directory, you can join online.  Click the "join today" link in the upper right corner of II's home page and then follow the instructions.  II will charge you a membership fee and verify your ownership.
If your resort is not affiliated with II, you can't join or use II for exchanges. But you can join and us one or more of the independent exchange companies.  These are also a less expensive alternative to RCI and II.

www.sfx-resorts.com  This one only takes their idea of high quality weeks
www.daelive.com/  Dial an Exchange 
www.htse.net  Hawaii Timeshare Exchange
www.tradingplaces.com/  Trading Places International
www.platinuminterchange.com/   Platinum Interchange

Just follow the directions on the website if you want to join any of these.  You can communicate with the reps of several on TUG.  Look for the "Ask" forums under the "Exchanging" forum.


----------



## lizmit

*In the dark*

Jennie thank you for taking the time and effort to follow this and report to us.  I had no idea that there was a class action lawsuit, I never saw the "ad" in the magazine nor have I received any notice.

I've always thought exchanging through RCI was a pain, but assumed it was because we own a Pueblo Bonito property and have to go through a different phone number to exchange.

I'm off to search the web for more info on this - thanks again!
~ Liz


----------



## LannyPC

I just stumbled across this thread recently and haven't really had the time to read all the posts.

So, as an RCI member, am I entitled to any compensation or other benefits?  What does this mean to me?


----------



## catcher24

LannyPC said:


> I just stumbled across this thread recently and haven't really had the time to read all the posts.
> 
> So, as an RCI member, am I entitled to any compensation or other benefits?  What does this mean to me?



I believe the time for filing a claim with RCI to receive any compensation is long gone, so at this point it doesn't mean much other than RCI is allegedly going to make some policy changes in the way it handles exchanges. However, I wasn't as deeply involved (although I did file a letter with the court in support of the plaintiffs) in the case as some others on this site, so perhaps someone more knowledgeable could weigh in on your question.


----------



## MuranoJo

laurieb126 said:


> We have not yet exchanged a week but I have called and tried to find out if certain weeks are available.  All RCI wants is to have me bank my week.  Fortunately, my mom warned me not to bank unless I have an available exchange property confirmed.



From all of my past experiences with RCI, you have to bank a week before you can search or know what is available.  Now, I did hear something in the negotiations with RCI that there might be a small window where you could 'search first,' but I'm not sure that was ever put in place.

Can anyone confirm?


----------



## timeos2

*It was in there alright but*



muranojo said:


> From all of my past experiences with RCI, you have to bank a week before you can search or know what is available.  Now, I did hear something in the negotiations with RCI that there might be a small window where you could 'search first,' but I'm not sure that was ever put in place.
> 
> Can anyone confirm?



It (request first) was absolutely included in the settlement agreement - I believe for three years.  But how it was implemented - or IF it was implemented as promised -  no idea. I have no deposits in weeks nor anything I care to put in except Wyndham points as a deposit and they have always had request first with RCI (one of very few that did).  

So what the status of Request First is for the regular RCI member is an unknown. Hopefully someone has tries it and can update us all on how it works.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

John,

To help clarify, the following information is offered:

While it would have been a great benefit to Class Members, "Request First,"  was not granted to any and all RCI Members for three years following the effective date of the Settlement.

The original Settlement provided options for RCI Members to make a claim against RCI. Those options to make a claim ended in 2009 well before the Settlement became final. 

If an RCI Member chose to make a claim, what that RCI Member was to receive upon approval of the Settlement turned out to be the equivalent of "trinkets" worth very little to the RCI Member compared to the enormous benefit that RCI gained with the Court approved endorsement of their ability to rent our deposited weeks. 

Some RCI Members accepted their choice of one of the offers and objected to the Settlement. Others objected and specifically did not make a claim because they felt that making a claim would in effect contradict their objection.

But, the vast majority of RCI Members either never realized they had an option or if they did realize an option existed they chose to ignore it.

Those who chose to fill out the Claim Form and then picked the "Search First" option are allowed to make a *one-time * "Search First" between July, 2010 and July 10, 2012. 

To those who are curious or want an update, a link is provided below:

RCI CLAIM OPTIONS


----------



## Ikare

*IT appears the class action settlement is worth nothing*

I received my email July 15, 2010 advising I had received my "one night free rental" as part of the RCI settlement....all I can say is good luck trying to use it! I have tried multiple times to book a 5 night nightly rental only to be told I had to book a full week to use the one free night....but that is NOT what the settlement says. THE SETTLEMENT SAYS: "Free Rental Night. If a Settlement Class Member selects this benefit, RCI shall provide the Settlement Class Member with one free night stay at any RCI Rental offered as single night stays, subject to availability, *to be used toward the same room of any paid Rental of at least one night.* The Rental must be reserved within one year of the Effective Date.  

After all of this I feel this is another method RCI is using to not honor the settlement ordered by the courts.....shame on RCI!


----------



## taffy19

Goofyhobbie said:


> John,
> 
> To help clarify, the following information is offered:
> 
> While it would have been a great benefit to Class Members, "Request First,"  was not granted to any and all RCI Members for three years following the effective date of the Settlement.
> 
> The original Settlement provided options for RCI Members to make a claim against RCI. Those options to make a claim ended in 2009 well before the Settlement became final.
> 
> If an RCI Member chose to make a claim, what that RCI Member was to receive upon approval of the Settlement turned out to be the equivalent of "trinkets" worth very little to the RCI Member compared to the enormous benefit that RCI gained with the Court approved endorsement of their ability to rent our deposited weeks.
> 
> Some RCI Members accepted their choice of one of the offers and objected to the Settlement. Others objected and specifically did not make a claim because they felt that making a claim would in effect contradict their objection.
> 
> But, the vast majority of RCI Members either never realized they had an option or if they did realize an option existed they chose to ignore it.
> 
> Those who chose to fill out the Claim Form and then picked the "Search First" option are allowed to make a *one-time * "Search First" between July, 2010 and July 10, 2012.
> 
> To those who are curious or want an update, a link is provided below:
> 
> RCI CLAIM OPTIONS


I received a postcard from RCI to make a request first but I have no deposits.  I don't remember reading that it was good for a limited time only but may try it with my Buganvileas bonus week.  This is allowed and they even recommended it because it gives them a new prospect to give a presentation to.  I have still ten bonus weeks left so may try to see if it really works.


----------



## MuranoJo

iconnections said:


> I received a postcard from RCI to make a request first but I have no deposits.  I don't remember reading that it was good for a limited time only but may try it with my Buganvileas bonus week.  This is allowed and they even recommended it because it gives them a new prospect to give a presentation to.  I have still ten bonus weeks left so may try to see if it really works.



Let us know how it goes.  I didn't accept any trinkets so guess I missed it.  What a crock.


----------



## nightnurse613

*Got My Check from RCI*

Now that I got my $15 check from RCI as part of their settlement agreement, it must be time to look for another timeshare!!!


----------



## falmouth3

*Got my check from RCI today*

A big $15 check from the settlement.  Better than a sharp stick in the eye, I suppose. 

Sue


----------



## Darlene

We received a letter from RCI last summer about the settlement. I called them back. They said they wanted to make sure they had all my info correct, and what my RCI number was. I told them we no longer had a RCI membership. We cancelled it. We  are still waiting,  and no $15 check from RCI. 

I called RCI today, and they told me that since I cancelled my membership prior to April 2010, that we would not receive anything. I laughed so hard. Just like RCI to screw people coming and going. 
Darlene


----------



## carl2591

on ebay you could get 15 new timeshares..  

wow that a lot of money be careful with all that cash.


----------



## Goofyhobbie

With that amount of cash or the equivalent "Trinkets" you might have been able to buy all of Manhattan Island back when the local Indians sold it!


----------



## CMF

*I got my $15 Check from RCI!!!*

Jumping for joy.    I assume it must be part of a class action settlement.  Do we have a great legal system or what?!  

Charles


----------



## HudsHut

* [Moderator Note:* hudshut's comment below refers to the post by nightnurse613. That thread entitled: *Got My Check From RCI *was merged into the RCI Class Action Thread on the night of October 9, 2010 *] *


You got yours "early". Ours just arrived today.


----------



## LannyPC

Is this for that settlement that's been talked about on these boards (I believe there is a "sticky" on the exchange boards)?

I am an RCI member and I haven't received any info about this.  Did I have to file a complaint/application for this reimbursement?  Is it too late to do so?


----------



## Goofyhobbie

> Is this for that settlement that's been talked about on these boards (I believe there is a "sticky" on the exchange boards)?
> 
> I am an RCI member and I haven't received any info about this. Did I have to file a complaint/application for this reimbursement? Is it too late to do so?



LannyPC,

Yes, the thread that you originally responded to was initiated by nightnurse613 on Septermber 9, 2010 and has (as of tonight) been merged into the STICKY Thread about the RCI Class Action. 

The Class Action Lawsuit has been settled. To receive any of the "trinkets" such as the option to get a $15.00 check from RCI you would have had to respond to the offer over a year ago. 

It is now way to late to do so!


----------

