# Class action lawsuit filed against Wyndham (Worldmark)



## PA-

http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122862#122862


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte

PA- said:


> http://www.wmowners.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=122862#122862



Phil - needs a username and password for access.


----------



## cotraveller

Here's a link to a Wyndham lawsuit that works.  http://www.marlerclark.com/news/wyndham1.htm

Maybe that's the one Philip is referencing.  From 2002 over an outbreak of samonella in one of their hotels.


----------



## PA-

T_R_Oglodyte said:


> Phil - needs a username and password for access.



Sorry, it's in an area that requires registration


----------



## RichM

cotraveller said:


> Here's a link to a Wyndham lawsuit that works.  http://www.marlerclark.com/news/wyndham1.htm
> 
> Maybe that's the one Philip is referencing.  From 2002 over an outbreak of samonella in one of their hotels.




That's a different one.  The one PA's referring to is in regards to Wyndham's new TravelShare program.  His link works, but it's in a section that requires (free, open) registration.


___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PA-

RichM said:


> That's a different one.  The one PA's referring to is in regards to Wyndham's new TravelShare program.  His link works, but it's in a section that requires (free, open) registration.
> 
> 
> ___________________
> WorldMark Owners' Community -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - www.wmowners.com



I haven't yet read all 23 pages, but I haven't come across any allegations of Samonella poisoning yet.


----------



## BocaBum99

Anyone have the link to the actual complaint?  Suing over Travelshare seems to be the wrong approach.  Travelshare appears to be within the boards rights to create.  

Maybe Wyndham launched this class action against itself since they were sure they would win it.  Then, the next class action firm would be less likely to take up the case.


----------



## PerryM

*Fighting the wrong fight...*



BocaBum99 said:


> Anyone have the link to the actual complaint?  Suing over Travelshare seems to be the wrong approach.  Travelshare appears to be within the boards rights to create.
> 
> Maybe Wyndham launched this class action against itself since they were sure they would win it.  Then, the next class action firm would be less likely to take up the case.



I agree with BB!

As much as I detest TrendWest/Wyndham I don’t think their Travelshare program is illegal or is not permitted under the WM governing documents.  But, I’m not a lawyer and the courts are hundreds of years behind the rest of the world – so who knows.

I do predict the class action lawyers will win big and the WM owners will somehow pay for this in one way or the other.  So I don’t favor the legal action unless compelling evidence can be presented where TW/WN has indeed broken their own rules that they originally wrote; I don’t believe for a second that evidence exists (Well except in the eyes of the trial lawyers – both sides)

If I had to predict an outcome, the lawyers win and WM owners lose.  This is the wrong issue to focus on and could actually get in the way of other actions which might stand a chance of improving the standing of WM owners in the governing of their own club.


----------



## Carolinian

The issue in such a class action lawsuit is not whether they have broken their own rules but whether they have broken the consumer protection laws, which in most states are pretty broad.  I am not familiar enough with this particular program to hazzard an opinion as to whether or not they might have.


----------



## PerryM

*This is just another trap?*

It will be “fun” to see how the WM owners pay for all of this.

Just like corporations pay NO taxes so do they NOT pay for things like lawsuits – they just pass the costs on to their customers; in this case that would be the 250k WM owners.  This is just more legal monkey business designed to make all the lawyers involved rich.

But, how will we WM owners pay for this?  I’m guessing a $50 per year MF increase * 250,000 owners = $12.5 M per year for this lawsuit and more to come from the same firm and others who see deep pockets.  You certainly don't expect that $50 to ever go away do you?

And just what will WM owners get out of this (besides the $50 per year charge) maybe a free movie rental, at the front desk, at best.

None of these lawsuits help WM owners in their fight to regain control of the WM BOD – it’s just a distraction and one that could be tacitly endorsed by WN.  Relying on the government’s definition of consumer protection as the sole remedy is folly.

Let’s not forget the TW/WN pulled a fast one with TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) in California and get a sweetheart deal with the government to make millions from the WM owners checking in each day.  Any company smart and savvy enough to do this could use the courts to help in their efforts to thwart the owners from gaining control of their BOD/HOA.

So if your smiling at this lawsuit – you might be playing right into the hands of WN.


----------



## PA-

There are several issues in TravelShare that can be shown to be illegal.  But here's an angle I hadn't considered.

Trendwest has fiduciary obligations to the owners of Worldmark for two reasons.  First, because they control the WorldMark board of directors. And secondly, because the contractual nature of the relationship between Wyndham and Worldmark prevents Worldmark from doing business with other developers.

In a normal, arm's length contract, I would agree that Wyndham isn't obligated to look out for owner's best interests.  But when the contract requires Worldmark to use Wyndham into perpetuity, a different standard is required.

If it can be shown that the intent and result of TravelShare is to reduce competition from the resale market, that hurts owners when they sell their credits.  Does anyone doubt that one of Trendwest's objectives was to increase their sales at the expense of resales?  As evidence, it will be shown that Wyndham sales people use TravelShare as a tool to convince people to buy direct, rather than from existing owners.

While the resale market hasn't yet fallen, TravelShare is young.  I believe that TravelShare, as it is enhanced, will affect resale values.  And even if it doesn't, just having the intent to do so would be enough, I would think.


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> It will be “fun” to see how the WM owners pay for all of this.
> 
> Just like corporations pay NO taxes so do they NOT pay for things like lawsuits – they just pass the costs on to their customers; in this case that would be the 250k WM owners.  This is just more legal monkey business designed to make all the lawyers involved rich.
> 
> But, how will we WM owners pay for this?  I’m guessing a $50 per year MF increase * 250,000 owners = $12.5 M per year for this lawsuit and more to come from the same firm and others who see deep pockets.  You certainly don't expect that $50 to ever go away do you?
> 
> And just what will WM owners get out of this (besides the $50 per year charge) maybe a free movie rental, at the front desk, at best.
> 
> None of these lawsuits help WM owners in their fight to regain control of the WM BOD – it’s just a distraction and one that could be tacitly endorsed by WN.  Relying on the government’s definition of consumer protection as the sole remedy is folly.
> 
> Let’s not forget the TW/WN pulled a fast one with TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) in California and get a sweetheart deal with the government to make millions from the WM owners checking in each day.  Any company smart and savvy enough to do this could use the courts to help in their efforts to thwart the owners from gaining control of their BOD/HOA.
> 
> So if your smiling at this lawsuit – you might be playing right into the hands of WN.



Worldmark won't be paying for the legal defense of this suit, or for any judgement.  The suit is against Wyndham.  Any efforts to get money from Worldmark will lead to another suit.  Even if the suit is broadened to include the board of directors of Worldmark, it won't include Worldmark the club.  

Also, one of the reasons that the law firm is working with a small group of knowledgable owners is with the express intent of reviewing for accuracy, and possibly expanding their claims.  The suit is young and subject to modification.  Don't jump to conclusions yet.  The complaint will be widely available in 2 months or less.  It will look a lot different at that time than it does now.


----------



## PerryM

*That loud sucking sound...*



PA- said:


> Worldmark won't be paying for the legal defense of this suit, or for any judgement.  The suit is against Wyndham.
> <snip>



I’m not sure how we WM owners would ever find out if WN bills us for the legal bills – do we really understand what we pay for now?  If WN decides they need $50 for “Global warming issues” I think most WM owners would actually applaud this; most Americans buy into this issue and seem to feel guilty and thus would pay.  This $50 can be disguised hundreds of ways; the WN stockholders will not be paying for this, I think everyone knows this.

But this is now in the hands of lawyers who need a new house and this will easily pay for it.  I’m sure the lawyers are all ears and nod at every complaint we owners have against WN; they know that there are 250,000 folks who will pay for their new homes.

My forecast, just like the lawsuits against RCI, will be that companies can run rings around the courts and use the courts as a convenient excuse to make a lot more money that we, the consumers, all pay for in the end (literally).  We are getting sucked into the realm of consumer activism and the consumers always pay for it in one way or the other.  (Higher prices and/or lesser quality)

Will I be right?  Sadly it will take 5 years, and millions of dollars to probably prove me right.  That loud sucking sound is your money being sucked into the lawyer’s wallets.  What’s in their wallets?  – Your money.

P.S.
Here's another group of lawyers busy at work: http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3179470&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312&GMA=true

The bag of popcorn we pop each day is really a killer - the lawyers will save us once again.

We need Tort reform - the loser pays ALL expenses in these lawsuits - ALL of them; this stuff would instantly stop.  That one simple change would cause business to literally explode in this country - double the DOW in 3 years.


----------



## BocaBum99

PA- said:


> There are several issues in TravelShare that can be shown to be illegal.  But here's an angle I hadn't considered.
> 
> Trendwest has fiduciary obligations to the owners of Worldmark for two reasons.  First, because they control the WorldMark board of directors. And secondly, because the contractual nature of the relationship between Wyndham and Worldmark prevents Worldmark from doing business with other developers.
> 
> In a normal, arm's length contract, I would agree that Wyndham isn't obligated to look out for owner's best interests.  But when the contract requires Worldmark to use Wyndham into perpetuity, a different standard is required.
> 
> If it can be shown that the intent and result of TravelShare is to reduce competition from the resale market, that hurts owners when they sell their credits.  Does anyone doubt that one of Trendwest's objectives was to increase their sales at the expense of resales?  As evidence, it will be shown that Wyndham sales people use TravelShare as a tool to convince people to buy direct, rather than from existing owners.
> 
> While the resale market hasn't yet fallen, TravelShare is young.  I believe that TravelShare, as it is enhanced, will affect resale values.  And even if it doesn't, just having the intent to do so would be enough, I would think.



I like the argument because I have been saying for a while now that the key to a Class action lawsuit is to show a theory of damages that is big enough for a Class action law firm to be interested in working on contingency.  And, all they need to show is a $.10/credit impact to resale prices and that represents hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

I can see making this argument if it were an anti-trust case.  But, it's a class action lawsuit that has to demonstrate damages.  TravelShare hasn't been in existence long enough to do damage to owner's resale value.  I'm not sure if you can sue for anticipatory damages, can you?  Perhaps the evidence will show the dilution that has occurred over the past 5 years and TravelShare will exacerbate the situation.  The complaint will focus on the self dealing actions of the board with many of the same attributes of the FF complaint form last year.

In any event, this is good for owners.  Wyndham is clearly taking unilateral actions to devalue WorldMark owner's ownerships and proactively thwarting attempts by independents to get elected to the board.  

To me, the big win is NOT in winning the class action suit.  I don't need a $100 credit against my next developer purchase which is what I expect owners to net after all is said and done.  

The big win is if the class gets formed and the court grants the law firm access to the owners list so that they can send them a letter.   Once that access is granted, the letter will never be sent. Wyndham will settle the lawsuit and several reforms will be instituted.  Until then, expect a bitter fight to the end.


----------



## PerryM

*No lawsuit here...*

I just read the lawsuit and I don’t think WN has anything to worry about – but I’m not a lawyer.

The lawyers who cooked up this lawsuit got many things right and many things wrong.  The stuff they got wrong is what the lawsuit is all about.

Para 32 gets the definition of Fun Time mixed up with Bonus Time and is just wrong.

Para 33 ignores the fact that TravelShare (TS) sits “on top of” WM and is a service/product available to WM owners who pay for this extra service – the lawyers got it backwards.  The lawyers never considered that the WM credits discussed belong to WN in the first place and they, just like normal WM owners, have great latitude in the usage of their own credits.

Para 34 is completely wrong in all regards.

Para 35 is fundamentally flawed and leads to false conclusions.

Para 36 is absolutely correct and it is just a definition of TS.

Para 37 is the same – absolutely correct and just a definition of TS.

Para 38 deals with the resale market and is just wild guessing by the lawyers – no way to prove their allegations.

All in all a worthless lawsuit and a waste of time.  However, the lawyers will make out like bandits – both the plaintiffs and defendants.

This is almost embarrassing its so weak.

But I don't claim to be an expert on TS and maybe all the holes I see are, instead, bullet proof glass.  If I do have TS wrong, please correct me - I don't have a 100% feeling that everything I understand about TS is correct.  I welcome corrections.


----------



## Harvey Rabbit

*You are not a lawyer...*



PerryM said:


> I just read the lawsuit and I don’t think WN has anything to worry about – but I’m not a lawyer.
> 
> The lawyers who cooked up this lawsuit got many things right and many things wrong.  The stuff they got wrong is what the lawsuit is all about.
> 
> Para 32 gets the definition of Fun Time mixed up with Bonus Time and is just wrong.
> 
> Para 33 ignores the fact that TravelShare (TS) sits “on top of” WM and is a service/product available to WM owners who pay for this extra service – the lawyers got it backwards.  The lawyers never considered that the WM credits discussed belong to WN in the first place and they, just like normal WM owners, have great latitude in the usage of their own credits.
> 
> Para 34 is completely wrong in all regards.
> 
> Para 35 is fundamentally flawed and leads to false conclusions.
> 
> Para 36 is absolutely correct and it is just a definition of TS.
> 
> Para 37 is the same – absolutely correct and just a definition of TS.
> 
> Para 38 deals with the resale market and is just wild guessing by the lawyers – no way to prove their allegations.
> 
> All in all a worthless lawsuit and a waste of time.  However, the lawyers will make out like bandits – both the plaintiffs and defendants.
> 
> This is almost embarrassing its so weak.
> 
> But I don't claim to be an expert on TS and maybe all the holes I see are, instead, bullet proof glass.  If I do have TS wrong, please correct me - I don't have a 100% feeling that everything I understand about TS is correct.  I welcome corrections.



I as Phillip think we need to wait and see..  You can complain all you want about Lawyers, but the fact is they are a necessary evil in our society.  I totally disagree with you.  But time will tell.   And as Boca mentioned this will never go all the way.  WVO will pull out their wallets and make some changes before it gets to far out of control.

IMHO.....


----------



## BocaBum99

I read the complaint.  I believe it makes some pretty pursuasive arguments.  And, it is pretty well written.  

I have two problems with it.  

First, it doesn't even come close to addressing the most egregious activities of the board and Wyndham.  Perhaps that is being saved for later.  

Second, the theory of damages is quite weak.  It claims that current developer prices are around $1.77/credit and $.70/credit for resale.  And, it further claims that Travelshare will impact resale values in the future.  I really don't think you can seek anticipitory damages.

It can easily be shown that the post card companies are having a bigger impact on resale prices than developer VIP programs.


----------



## PerryM

*No harm, no foul..*

As I understand the complaint, 2 owners, (4 folks), each owning about 10k or so WM credits think they have been egregiously harmed – yet they never give ONE example of harm.  That’s the problem – they can’t demonstrate where they have been harmed and can’t put a price tag on it.

No visits to the doctor, no lab tests proving harm, no renting exactly the same condo that they could not reserve – there isn’t ONE shred of real proof that they have been harmed.  Just two owners who have a feeling that something is harming them.  But when a grandma can make $1 M from McDonalds by placing a cup of hot coffee between her legs in her grandson's car and then the kid burns rubber getting out the driveway I guess anything can happen in our court system.

Now I must admit that I did not read every word of the huge document – just what I thought were the key points.

And that’s what a jury will have to be convinced of – how were those 4 folks harmed.  The lawyers will be after the mailing lists and at 41¢ postage a letter, the lawyers will have no problem burning up $250k just to make ONE mailing to all WM owners; they will be making many.

I’m not saying that WN isn’t being sneaky and deceitful in their relationship with WM (they are) – it’s just the lawyers are just burning up money and haven’t proven a thing.  We can expect 5 years of this - burning up money and finding no proof.

P.S.
Would I join this class-action, sure; who couldn't use a free DVD rental from the front desk.  Do I expect WN to suffer any consequences - no.  Do I expect WM to pay for all of this - yep (in on way or another).

I've been forecasting falling WM credits (resale) for many years now - how in the world is a lawyer going to prove that WN's actions contribute to the already falling prices?

Heck, even the lawsuit admits that resale WM credits are easily available for 70¢ each - and you know that they are high-balling that figure to begin with.  (That number has to last thru 5 years of litigation)


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> ...
> 
> The lawyers never considered that the WM credits discussed belong to WN in the first place and they, just like normal WM owners, have great latitude in the usage of their own credits.....



I'm not a lawyer, or an expert on travelshare.  So I won't discuss the merits of the case.  But I will comment on your quote above, as I am VERY familiar with the governing documents.

No, Wyndham does NOT have great latitude in the usage of "their own credits".  In fact, they are quite limited by the governing docs as to their rights and responsibilities in relation to those credits.

Section 2.5 of the declarations states that the Declarant (Wyndham) may not perform acts that interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Property by member.  Does Fun Time interfere with the members rights to Bonus Time, which is a right spefically given to members in the Club Guidelines?  I'll let you decide for yourself if a reasonable person would make that interpretation.  My opinion is that it DOES interfere with that right.

Furthermore, section 2.15 denies the Declarant the right to charge any fees or charges for units they reserve.  Is there a fee charged for Fun Time?  I believe so.  You'll be particularly interested in that clause, I believe, since the Board is violating it with their new restrictions on rentals.

Section 2.16 allows Declarant use of the units for sales tours, when not "timely reserved and occupied by a member".

Section 3.2 of the declaration defines a member, and specifically states that Declarant is NOT a member of the club.  Therefore I don't think they're able to use their unsold credits to reserve rooms, other than for purposes of construction, developement and sales.  

Section 5.7 does appear to grant Declarant a Use Easement as to their unsold credits, but only for the "use, possession and enjoyment of the Property and the exercise of any and all rights appertaining thereto (the "Use
Easement")."  Remember, the Declarant charging a fee for someone else to use it is forbidden.  

Further, 5.7(b) seems to limit that right to construction, development and sales.  And finally, section 9.2 states that "inconsistent provisions among various Declarations shall be resolved in favor of the most restrictive
provision on the Club or Declarant and/or the most favorable provision for protecting the Members."

Exhibit A states that "In addition, Vacation Credits are not allocated to the
above Units for the Vacation Credit equivalent of three (3) weeks
per year so that time is available for Bonus Time. The Vacation
Credit equivalent of these three (3) weeks cannot be (i) sold or
offered for sale, or (ii) rented before Members have an opportunity
to reserve them as Bonus Time in accordance with the then-current
Club Guidelines (Rules)." 

It also states that 1 week is for maintainence, and has the same restrictions as the paragraph above to give owners a chance for Bonus Time, if maintenance isn't required.

Do you care to change your arguement, counselor?


----------



## PerryM

*I've been singled out, why not WN?*

PA,

Let’s talk English, only a few here understand legalese (I sure don’t)

It’s my contention that WN owns millions of WM credits that it can do with as it wants (Within the rules of the club) – hence TravelShare (TS).  As I understand what they are doing they are taking their credits and funding TS with them.  If they didn’t own the credits they could not implement TS.

Is that correct?  

I guess my feeling is that what they do I could do too if I wanted – IF I had some of the same clauses that are in the founding documents.  (Ability to put rugs in the check-in building for instance)

If WN is violating the WM rules the BOD should comment on these alleged violations.  I’m not sure how that would be done, but the BOD needs to make a rulings “Guilty” or “Not Guilty” of violating the WM rules.

Has this ever been done by the membership?  i.e. presenting the violations to the BOD and asking for a clarification.  Heck, the BOD singled out 3 WM owners for renting WM credits (I was one) – this should now be a precedence that should be used on ANY WM owner allegedly violating WM rules.

If this had been done then the lawsuit has some teeth to it; if not, it’s just another wild rumor.


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> PA,
> 
> Let’s talk English, only a few here understand legalese (I sure don’t)
> 
> It’s my contention that WN owns millions of WM credits that it can do with as it wants (Within the rules of the club) – hence TravelShare (TS).  As I understand what they are doing they are taking their credits and funding TS with them.  If they didn’t own the credits they could not implement TS.
> 
> Is that correct?  ....



No, that is not correct.  The declarations I quoted restrict Wyndham's right to reserve units.  Read em, they aren't that hard to understand.

As for the board enforcing the declarations?  Yes, Wyndham's violations have been pointed out to the board countless times by owners.  They choose to justify the actions, rather than prosecute them.


----------



## PerryM

PA- said:


> No, that is not correct.  The declarations I quoted restrict Wyndham's right to reserve units.  Read em, they aren't that hard to understand.
> 
> As for the board enforcing the declarations?  Yes, Wyndham's violations have been pointed out to the board countless times by owners.  They choose to justify the actions, rather than prosecute them.



So there is documented evidence that the above questions have been submitted to the WM BOD and we have documented evidence that they have decided to ignore these questions?

P.S.
By documented I mean a lawyer typed up the questions, sent them registered mail, and the WM BOD have ignored the questions?


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> So there is documented evidence that the above questions have been submitted to the WM BOD and we have documented evidence that they have decided to ignore these questions?
> 
> P.S.
> By documented I mean a lawyer typed up the questions, sent them registered mail, and the WM BOD have ignored the questions?



They never ignore the questions.  They always respond with justification for not enforcing the rules, or give a Wyndham spin on the issue.  

For example, when it was pointed out that Wyndham violates the "relative use-value clause, the board didn't ignore the questions or deny the allegation.  john henley typed up a lengthy explanation why Wyndham needed to violate it, and sent it via email to several owners.  Basically, he said, "market conditions have changed, and they can no longer operate with that restriction".


----------



## PerryM

*Rulings and NOT $$$ should be the goal.*

Reference: http://www.secinfo.com/d14D5a.v39G5.7.htm

*2.5 Declarant. Notwithstanding any provision herein, Declarant shall have the right to perform such acts as are necessarily incident to construction and development of the Property and sales of the Memberships without Board approval, provided such rights shall not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of the Property by Members. Declarant shall not reserve any occupancy period earlier than 45 days before the first day of that period, and all such reservations must be in accordance with Vacation Credits attributable to Declarant, whether unsold or reacquired by Club or Declarant.*

I, as a non-lawyer, read this as WN can’t make reservations before 45 days and then must follow the rules of the club.  I see no other restrictions in this para.

*3.2 Member. Each person who acquires sufficient Vacation Credits and is issued a Basic Membership in the Club is a Member. Except as otherwise specifically provided, Declarant is not to be deemed a Member based on unsold or reacquired Vacation Credits. For purposes of assessments and Voting Power, Declarant shall be deemed to hold the number of Memberships determined by dividing (the unsold or reacquired Vacation Credits) by (the average number of Vacation Credits per Membership held by Members other than Declarant), as adjusted periodically. Declarant’s “Memberships” shall each be deemed to consist of the average number of Vacation Credits per Membership held by Members other than Declarant.*

I read this that WN’s unsold WM credits count towards voting but that’s all – WN is NOT a WM member.  I don’t understand that and I’m not sure what the implications are – I’m assuming the WM BOD would rule on this confusing para.

*2.15 Renting of Units. A Member other than Declarant may charge a fee or rent for the use of a Unit during such Member’s Vacation Credit Uses by a guest or invitee. However, the WorldMark Board of Directors may determine to either restrict or place conditions on rentals at particular resorts to comply with laws or restrictions by governing entities, so that The Club can own and operate at a resort location; and so that no excessive financial burden is imposed on The Club. *

This para indicates that WN is not a member as pointed out in para 3.2.  Beyond that this para can be read many ways and again the WM BOD should clarify the above.

If the WM BOD has been asked for clarifications to the above and refused to render a decision then a legal remedy would be the next step.  However, the rulings should be the outcome and not big bucks from a Class action.


----------



## cotraveller

A different, and more likely scenario.  You book a cruise with credits and those credits go to Wyndham.  You join TravelShare and book Fun Time, the credits that paid for the cruise are used to book the reservation.  No Declarant credits are involved.  They are merely the middle man for the transfer of credits from one owner to another.  Owners do that all the time when renting credits from each other.  Let’s not shut down the credit rental market.

In this case, as in most legal actions, the lawyers are the only sure winners.


----------



## PerryM

*Believe it or Not...*



cotraveller said:


> A different, and more likely scenario.  You book a cruise with credits and those credits go to Wyndham.  You join TravelShare and book Fun Time, the credits that paid for the cruise are used to book the reservation.  No Declarant credits are involved.  They are merely the middle man for the transfer of credits from one owner to another.  Owners do that all the time when renting credits from each other.  Let’s not shut down the credit rental market.
> 
> In this case, as in most legal actions, the lawyers are the only sure winners.




Fred is correct – there might be many ways for WN to get credits that they can use for TS.  (Believe it or not; Fred and I on the same side!  That’s how wacky this lawsuit is.)


These are great questions for the WM BOD – they should respond to concerned WM owners.  If they don’t then more aggressive steps can be taken.  I'd like to see the letters sent in, proof of receipt, and the BOD's response.


My reaction to this class action is that it’s just a scheme for cleaver/////clever lawyers to become rich.  The 2 owners who started this have NOT demonstrated ANY injury.  They can’t give one single example where they have had ANY adverse outcome because of what WN is doing.

I have many grievances with WN – this is NOT the way to address them.


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:


> A different, and more likely scenario.  You book a cruise with credits and those credits go to Wyndham.  You join TravelShare and book Fun Time, the credits that paid for the cruise are used to book the reservation.  No Declarant credits are involved.  They are merely the middle man for the transfer of credits from one owner to another.  Owners do that all the time when renting credits from each other.  Let’s not shut down the credit rental market.
> 
> In this case, as in most legal actions, the lawyers are the only sure winners.




It's possible, though not necessarily "more likely" that Wyndham is banking on Cruise for Credits generating enough credits to fully fund the Fun Time program.  However, that would still pose three problems.

First, in order for the Declarant to be the middleman in this transaction, Wyndham would have to be a Worldmark Member, which they are not.

Secondly, that would definately violate the new Guideline against using "acquired" credits to operate a business.

Third, the other restrictions against the Declarant affecting use and enjoyment of credit reservations or bonus time would still apply.

Also, while it's possible, perhaps likely that the law firm will be a winner regardless of the outcome, it's also possible that they'll expend millions of dollars worth of their time and money to get a losing verdict.  In that case, it's my understanding the defendent would be entitled to reimbursement of legal fees.  In this type of class action, it's not likely the person bringing the suit will be on the hook for that money.


----------



## PA-

cotraveller said:


> A different, and more likely scenario.  You book a cruise with credits and those credits go to Wyndham.  You join TravelShare and book Fun Time, the credits that paid for the cruise are used to book the reservation.  No Declarant credits are involved.  They are merely the middle man for the transfer of credits from one owner to another.  Owners do that all the time when renting credits from each other.  Let’s not shut down the credit rental market.
> 
> In this case, as in most legal actions, the lawyers are the only sure winners.



Just thought of a fourth problem that would pose.  Fun Time reservations would probably violate other Worldmark reservation guidelines, such as restrictions on number of weekend only reservations, etc., that a member could book.  A Fun Time weekend only could go to the same owner that already has a weekend only on the books.


----------



## PA-

OK, Perry, I sent the following email to the board, as per your suggestion, I'll let you know their response:

I have a couple of questions regarding TravelShare, please.

Where does Wyndham get the right to book units for Fun Time?  Do they get them from their inventory of unsold credits, or do they use "acquired" credits that they have gotten from Cruise for Credits, sales of coffee mugs, etc.

If from their inventory of unsold credits, wouldn't that violate the declarations forbidding them from affecting use and enjoyment (sect. 2.5).  Also, wouldn't they need to be a worldmark member to book a room for this purpose?  According to the declaration, Wyndham is not a member able to reserve rooms.  According to the decs, they may reserve rooms for construction, development or sales only.  Finally, even in those cases, it seems they wouldn't be able to negatively impact ability to get bonus time.

If the credits they use for Fun Time are "acquired" credits, wouldn't that violate the board's new guideline stating that "acquired" credits may not be used to fund a business?

Thanks in advance.


----------



## PerryM

*Great!*



PA- said:


> OK, Perry, I sent the following email to the board, as per your suggestion, I'll let you know their response:
> 
> I have a couple of questions regarding TravelShare, please.
> 
> Where does Wyndham get the right to book units for Fun Time?  Do they get them from their inventory of unsold credits, or do they use "acquired" credits that they have gotten from Cruise for Credits, sales of coffee mugs, etc.
> 
> If from their inventory of unsold credits, wouldn't that violate the declarations forbidding them from affecting use and enjoyment (sect. 2.5).  Also, wouldn't they need to be a worldmark member to book a room for this purpose?  According to the declaration, Wyndham is not a member able to reserve rooms.  According to the decs, they may reserve rooms for construction, development or sales only.  Finally, even in those cases, it seems they wouldn't be able to negatively impact ability to get bonus time.
> 
> If the credits they use for Fun Time are "acquired" credits, wouldn't that violate the board's new guideline stating that "acquired" credits may not be used to fund a business?
> 
> Thanks in advance.



PA,

This is great, although I would not be surprised that your eMail address is linked to the trash file.  You might send a letter, certified mail, and this now becomes a basis for more aggressive actions later.

The WM BOD is used to double talking - they need to be held up to the intense spotlight of the truth.



PA- said:


> <snip>
> If the credits they use for Fun Time are "acquired" credits, wouldn't that violate the board's new guideline stating that "acquired" credits may not be used to fund a business?
> 
> Thanks in advance.



This warms my heart; I'll be smiling the rest of the day - this is good stuff.


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> PA,
> 
> This is great, although I would not be surprised that your eMail address is linked to the trash file.  You might send a letter, certified mail, and this now becomes a basis for more aggressive actions later.
> 
> The WM BOD is used to double talking - they need to be held up to the intense spotlight of the truth.




Dang, P, first you ask me to ask them, now you doubt they'll respond.  Or if they do respond, it'll be doubletalk.  Make up your mind.  

You gotta give them the benefit of a reply.  It'll probably take a few days, unless they already have a canned response.

Ya know, you could ask them too.  There's 2 places on the website, either in THE ANSWER PLACE or there's a form to send an email to the board.


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> This warms my heart; I'll be smiling the rest of the day - this is good stuff.



I suspected you might enjoy that reference to the new guidelines.


----------



## PerryM

PA- said:


> Dang, P, first you ask me to ask them, now you doubt they'll respond.  Or if they do respond, it'll be doubletalk.  Make up your mind.
> 
> You gotta give them the benefit of a reply.  It'll probably take a few days, unless they already have a canned response.
> 
> Ya know, you could ask them too.  There's 2 places on the website, either in THE ANSWER PLACE or there's a form to send an email to the board.



I would image you have a special notoriety at WN - I don't know if they link your eMail to the trash can or to the legal department.


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> I would image you have a special notoriety at WN - I don't know if they link your eMail to the trash can or to the legal department.



They love me there.  They're looking forward to working with me on the board.


----------



## PerryM

PA- said:


> They love me there.  They're looking forward to working with me on the board.



Do you mean water boarding?  I think that's the only board they'd love to see you on


----------



## RichM

PA- said:


> If the credits they use for Fun Time are "acquired" credits, wouldn't that violate the board's new guideline stating that "acquired" credits may not be used to fund a business?



Yes, I thought of this, too, when the idea of transferring credits from one to another was mentioned.. it would be funny it they stepped on themselves with their own (i.e. TW-controlled WM BoD-implemented) Guideline.

As far as legal fees in a losing case, if the Plaintiffs are responsible, then the Plaintiffs are the ones "on the hook" I believe... perhaps the law firm has some agreement to pay them if they're not successful, but I think technically the named plaintiffs are the ones who will be ordered to pay in the event of a negative outcome.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## PA-

PA- said:


> OK, Perry, I sent the following email to the board, as per your suggestion, I'll let you know their response:
> 
> I have a couple of questions regarding TravelShare, please.
> 
> Where does Wyndham get the right to book units for Fun Time?  Do they get them from their inventory of unsold credits, or do they use "acquired" credits that they have gotten from Cruise for Credits, sales of coffee mugs, etc.
> 
> If from their inventory of unsold credits, wouldn't that violate the declarations forbidding them from affecting use and enjoyment (sect. 2.5).  Also, wouldn't they need to be a worldmark member to book a room for this purpose?  According to the declaration, Wyndham is not a member able to reserve rooms.  According to the decs, they may reserve rooms for construction, development or sales only.  Finally, even in those cases, it seems they wouldn't be able to negatively impact ability to get bonus time.
> 
> If the credits they use for Fun Time are "acquired" credits, wouldn't that violate the board's new guideline stating that "acquired" credits may not be used to fund a business?
> 
> Thanks in advance.



OK, I got a response from Peggy Fry, copied to the entire WorldMark board, and she did give me permission to share it.  So here it is:

*Philip,
Great question, Philip! Wyndham Resort Development Corporation f/k/a Trendwest Resorts, Inc. ("Wyndham") uses Vacation Credit use rights acquired from WorldMark Owners ("FAX Credits") to operate the Fun Time program; although, Wyndham could use its inventory of unsold Vacation Credits.

If Wyndham were to use its inventory of unsold Vacation Credits to operate Fun Time, it would not be contrary to Section 2.5 of the WorldMark declaration so long as Wyndham does not book a reservation more than 45 days before the first day of occupancy.

Wyndham's use of FAX Credits to operate Fun Time is not a violation of the Club Guidelines prohibiting commercial usage of "Assigned Vacation Credits" because FAX Credits are not Assigned Vacation Credits.
Assigned Vacation Credits are defined in the Club Guidelines as Vacation Credit use rights assigned from one "Owner of Record" to another Owner.
The Club Guidelines define Owner of Record as someone who has signed a Vacation Owner Agreement (i.e., purchase contract).  Wyndham does not sign a Vacation Owner Agreement; therefore, it is not an Owner of Record.  Nor do FAX Credits fall within the definition of Assigned Vacation Credits because the transfer of Vacation Credit use rights is not between Owners (it is between an Owner and Wyndham).

You are very welcome and I trust this answers your questions.

Sincerely, 

Peggy Fry


The comments, opinions and acts of an individual WorldMark board of director member are not the comments, opinions or acts of the WorldMark board of directors or the Club, and are not binding on the WorldMark board of directors or the Club.*


----------



## BocaBum99

So, the way I read this response is that Wyndham purposefully created a rule that is a double standard.  One rule for owners and one rule for Wyndham.

The rule for owners takes away their property rights so that they can NOT elect to transfer FULL ownership rights of assigned credits to another owner like any owner of Real Property in America can do.

But, it DOES Grant Wyndham the right to do it through FUN time.

Isn't this Anti-trust behavior?  Isn't Wyndham simply trying to eliminate competition for its FAX program?


----------



## PA-

BocaBum99 said:


> So, the way I read this response is that Wyndham purposefully created a rule that is a double standard.  One rule for owners and one rule for Wyndham.
> 
> The rule for owners takes away their property rights so that they can NOT elect to transfer FULL ownership rights of assigned credits to another owner like any owner of Real Property in America can do.
> 
> But, it DOES Grant Wyndham the right to do it through FUN time.
> 
> Isn't this Anti-trust behavior?  Isn't Wyndham simply trying to eliminate competition for its FAX program?



I don't believe they considered Fun Time when they made the rule against owners renting reservations made with "assigned" credits.  It's my belief that Wyndham has always believed they had full right to reserve any units they want for any reason they want.  Or at least, that they were going to assume that right until challenged in court.  

The "assigned" credit abuse (as they termed it) was a nit. About 3 owners and less than 50 condo/weeks per year were involved.  That would have nowhere near the impact FunTime could have on owners.

The funny thing about FunTime, is that if most owners became TravelShare owners, your ability to get FunTime reservations would be the same as your current ability to get Bonus Time reservations.  But Wyndham woud have transferred huge amounts of money from owner's pockets to theirs.


----------



## BocaBum99

PA- said:


> The funny thing about FunTime, is that if most owners became TravelShare owners, your ability to get FunTime reservations would be the same as your current ability to get Bonus Time reservations.  But Wyndham woud have transferred huge amounts of money from owner's pockets to theirs.



I never considered this concept.  Before I learned this, I was just annoyed. Now, I'm really pissed off.

After reading this thread, considering the allegations against RCI regarding its rental activities and learning of the new Fairfield rules where owners cannot allow guests within 15-days of checkin, I wonder how they can get away with these very egregious, anti-owner actions.

Am I missing something?  Or is Wyndham heading in the direction of the mother of all Class action lawsuits?

It just seems so wrong what they are doing.  What am I missing?


----------



## PA-

BocaBum99 said:


> I never considered this concept.  Before I learned this, I was just annoyed. Now, I'm really pissed off.
> 
> After reading this thread, considering the allegations against RCI regarding its rental activities and learning of the new Fairfield rules where owners cannot allow guests within 15-days of checkin, I wonder how they can get away with these very egregious, anti-owner actions.
> 
> Am I missing something?  Or is Wyndham heading in the direction of the mother of all Class action lawsuits?
> 
> It just seems so wrong what they are doing.  What am I missing?



The minute I heard about a new VIP program at Worldmark (which is now called TravelShare) almost 3 years ago, I knew immediately what this meant.  That's because I've seen this tactic used many times, primarily by country clubs.

If you build a country club for $10million or so, sell 400 golf memberships at $15 or $20 thousand each, plus all the tennis and social memberships, and turn around and resell to one of the big companies (like American Golf or someone), they'll usually pay big bucks.  So say they spend $20million.  But they only get revenue from on-going dues, and the occasional member cancelling so they can resell that membership.  They're banking on appreciation, and reselling it in a few years.  But in the meantime, it's not a good return on their equity.

So the country club industry long ago came up with a cash producer.  What they do is create a new level of owner (call it a Platinum or Diamond membership).  Charge another $5000 for it.  In addition to the normal stuff (reciprocal rounds of golf at other courses they manage, etc), they offer that Diamond owners can book prime tee times at 9 days in advance, instead of 7.  After all, they haven't hurt the rights of normal owners.  They can still book at 7 days out.

Now, you'll never get a Saturday AM time if other owners have a 2 day head start.  So in order to get the benefits you used to have, you have to pay the $5000.  Problem is, as soon as most owners upgrade, you have the same exact problem getting a prime time at 9 days out as you used to have at 7 days out.  Except you're $5000 poorer.

Fortunately, there are safeguards against this activity in our bylaws and declarations.  Oops, the board hasn't read the Declarations or bylaws?  Oh well, what's a few thousand dollars among friends.


----------



## RichM

PA- said:


> Now, you'll never get a Saturday AM time if other owners have a 2 day head start.  So in order to get the benefits you used to have, you have to pay the $5000.  Problem is, as soon as most owners upgrade, you have the same exact problem getting a prime time at 9 days out as you used to have at 7 days out.  Except you're $5000 poorer.



Thanks for an excellent, concise summary of the flaw in the design...  Makes complete sense.


__________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## kapish

*How many FAX credits were available to TW in '05 and '06?*

Ms. Peggy Fry talked about FAX credits being the only credits/time that are used against "Fun Time". Are there records available that show how many FAX credits are available for this? Has anyone seen this information?


----------



## PA-

kapish said:


> Ms. Peggy Fry talked about FAX credits being the only credits/time that are used against "Fun Time". Are there records available that show how many FAX credits are available for this? Has anyone seen this information?



Peggy Fry's response says that unsold credits may be used to book rooms for FunTime.  So it's a moot point.  According to our board, Wyndham has virtually unlimited access to our rooms to give to TravelShare owners using FunTime.  Bonus time may be a thing of the past, if that's true.


----------



## PA-

The lawsuit has now been greatly expanded.

1)  The suit now includes both our beloved developer (Wyndham), and the individual members of the Board of Directors.

2)  The original suit alleged that Travelshare (and specifically FunTime) was a violation of the declaration and bylaws.  Now the complaint has been expanded to include these areas, which should be of GREAT interest to those of us that have alleged the exact same things for years:

- Violation of the "relative use value" clause in the declaration.  In other words, raising the credit values at the new resorts.  Several owners have been working on calculating damages based on this violation.  Current estimates are at about 1/2 $BILLION$.  If it can be shown that the board and Wyndham colluded on this (which should be self-evident), it may become an anti-trust issue, with treble damages.  

- The expanded complaint alleges that the Wyndham dominated board violated their fudiciary responsibility to the owners, instead catering to the profit needs of Wyndham.  Go figure?  Who woulda guessed that?

There is much more.  The details can be found on the TRAVELSHARE DISCUSSIONS section of wmowners.com  Finally, after all this time, perhaps, just perhaps, justice may be served.


----------



## PerryM

*Will the "Answers" just be new "Problems"?*



PA- said:


> The lawsuit has now been greatly expanded.
> 
> 1)  The suit now includes both our beloved developer (Wyndham), and the individual members of the Board of Directors.
> 
> 2)  The original suit alleged that Travelshare (and specifically FunTime) was a violation of the declaration and bylaws.  Now the complaint has been expanded to include these areas, which should be of GREAT interest to those of us that have alleged the exact same things for years:
> 
> - Violation of the "relative use value" clause in the declaration.  In other words, raising the credit values at the new resorts.  Several owners have been working on calculating damages based on this violation.  Current estimates are at about 1/2 $BILLION$.  If it can be shown that the board and Wyndham colluded on this (which should be self-evident), it may become an anti-trust issue, with treble damages.
> 
> - The expanded complaint alleges that the Wyndham dominated board violated their fudiciary responsibility to the owners, instead catering to the profit needs of Wyndham.  Go figure?  Who woulda guessed that?
> 
> There is much more.  The details can be found on the TRAVELSHARE DISCUSSIONS section of wmowners.com  Finally, after all this time, perhaps, just perhaps, justice may be served.




(This is not for anyone in particular - open to ALL WM owners)

And just how much money will make all this correct - and we know who will pay for this; we, the WM owners will pay for all this in one way or another.  

Are there any guesses as to:

1) How much will the law firm make?  A hard number, rounded to the nearest Million is ok.

2) What will WM owners get in coupons or other forms of compensation.  A hard number, rounded to the nearest nickel is ok.

3) What will WM/WN have to do to correct these allegations - programs cancelled or modified.

4) What possible "new" programs can replace what WN had and how these new programs could be worse.


If we can't answer these questions just why would anyone be happy - I'm not, I know exactly what will probably be the outcome.  Higher MFs or "New" fees to pay for "New" worthless benefits.


Before any of us think we can outsmart a billion dollar company with a few lawyers-for-hire we should try to envision how WN will retaliate - because they will.


I'm perfectly happy with sticking with the status quo and finding ways to exploit WN to my benefit.  I don't know how to react to forced unknowns that will, undoubtedly, benefit those slick lawyers on both sides of the fence.


----------



## PA-

PerryM said:


> ...
> 
> 1) How much will the law firm make?  A hard number, rounded to the nearest Million is ok.
> 
> *Don't care.  As a died in the wool capitalist, I assume you don't care either?*
> 
> 2) What will WM owners get in coupons or other forms of compensation.  A hard number, rounded to the nearest nickel is ok.
> 
> *Some unethical ambulance chasers may operate that way, but that wouldn't be a typical form of compensation for the clients of this particular firm.  If you look at other judgments against billion dollar corporations, they've been able to get meaningful compensation for their clients; not worthless coupons.*
> 
> 3) What will WM/WN have to do to correct these allegations - programs cancelled or modified.
> *
> My guess is they'd have to get rid of funtime as a minimum.  I know you don't care much about that.  I believe they'll also, at a minimum, have to agree to go back to 48 weeks sold per condo (rather than the current 51), and make some concessions as to the number of credits generated per condo.  That is the absolute least I would expect WOrldmark to gain in a settlement.  Of course, if it goes to court, we could get a lot more or a little less.  A conservative estimate of damages (assuming allegations are proven to be correct in court) total around $500,000,000 at this time, and they grow every year.  So the potential is there for a much more meaningful settlement.
> *
> 4) What possible "new" programs can replace what WN had and how these new programs could be worse.
> 
> *I'm assuming a big part of ANY settlement or judgement will be a close look to verify that Wyndham doesn't merely steal money from us using some other source to make up for the losses.  I sincerely doubt that any judge (or the lawyers) will stand by and let Wyndham make us pay the costs of the settlement in any way.*
> 
> If we can't answer these questions just why would anyone be happy - I'm not, I know exactly what will probably be the outcome.  Higher MFs or "New" fees to pay for "New" worthless benefits.
> 
> *nobody has to be happy, just thought some owners might be interested.  *
> 
> Before any of us think we can outsmart a billion dollar company with a few lawyers-for-hire we should try to envision how WN will retaliate - because they will.
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly happy with sticking with the status quo and finding ways to exploit WN to my benefit.
> 
> *Great.  I'm sure everybody's glad that you're perfectly happy.  I don't believe that represents the majority view of owners.  Most of the owners I've talked to are MOST unhappy with TravelShare and with the increase in the number of credits it takes to stay in worldmark condos.  It's destroying our trade value; I expect you'll see big increases in the number of credits required to get a II or RCI exchange over the next year or two.  Once again, perhaps you don't care, but other owners do.  Remember, nobody here brought this suit; it was put forward by two couples who don't (as far as I know) subscribe to the forums.  I'm just reporting on it with publicly available info.  *
> 
> ....




I'm sorry that it had to come to a lawsuit.  It would have been far better if our Board would challenge some of the unlawful changes Wyndham has brought, rather than colluding with them on the changes.  

A couple of people mentioned at the owner's meeting that if it can be shown that the Board intentionally colluded with Wyndham, that could be a violation of anti-trust laws.  In that case, criminal charges could be brought, and any damages proven would be subject to triple payment from Wyndham to Worldmark.  I have no idea if any of that is true.  Does anybody have knowledge on this point?


----------



## PerryM

*Bowling Ball fees are my first guess....*



PA- said:


> I'm sorry that it had to come to a lawsuit.  It would have been far better if our Board would challenge some of the unlawful changes Wyndham has brought, rather than colluding with them on the changes.
> 
> A couple of people mentioned at the owner's meeting that if it can be shown that the Board intentionally colluded with Wyndham, that could be a violation of anti-trust laws.  In that case, criminal charges could be brought, and any damages proven would be subject to triple payment from Wyndham to Worldmark.  I have no idea if any of that is true.  Does anybody have knowledge on this point?



Ok, $500 M at the least.

Ok, that's $500,000,000/250,000 members or $2,000 per WM owner that will somehow be added to our bill in the future.  Increased MFs and new charges for management.

What do we get back?  Two free DVD rentals per owner?  Let's see - that comes out to $1,000 per DVD rental.  Is this what we are shooting for?  Have the lawyers even taken the time to present what's in it for the WM owners?

The lawyers are busy throwing everything at the wall - WN is keeping track of all their inflated legal bills and will ask the lawyers for it if they should win.

Does anyone think that WN is going to eat these charges?

And in the mean time how will WN start to accrue the legal fees - who wants to guess at the creative new fees that suddenly get approved by the WM BOD?  How about a new fee for keeping the parking lot free of bowling balls - that should cost $10k per year per resort.  Can you imagine how a bowling ball would ruin a WM owner's rental car?

It will be fun to see what new creative ways WN can come up with.


----------



## tombo

If they were only selling weeks it would be a moot point, they couldn't manipulate anything. Instead Wyndham is trying to make owners pay more for something they already own, and making what you sell less valuable than  the same thing sold by them. Many Tugger's didn't understand why I was so concerned that Wyndham bought Pahio resorts in Hawaii and began trying to convert it to points. I guess their current actions and the need for a lawsuit to stop them should give some legitmacy to my fears. 

Developers like Wyndham only exist for more profit, not for the owners.  I have no problem with them building new resorts and selling points at these new locations/ I do have problems with them buying resorts and fleecing the current owners by reducing the value of what you own unless you pay to "upgrade". I hope this suit costs Wyndham a lot of money and makes them think twice before they start cheating owners out of what they own in the future.


----------



## JudyS

PA- said:


> I haven't yet read all 23 pages, but I haven't come across any allegations of Samonella poisoning yet.


That'll be next year's lawsuit, over Wyndham's new policy of giving owners Salmonella poisoning if they try to actually use a desirable week themselves, rather than depositing it with RCI.  

I haven't read this thread carefully, but I don't doubt that Wyndham is doing something fishy.  (No salmonella pun intended.)  I hope the lawsuit works.


----------



## PA-

PA- said:


> The lawsuit has now been greatly expanded.
> 
> 1)  The suit now includes both our beloved developer (Wyndham), and the individual members of the Board of Directors.
> 
> 2)  The original suit alleged that Travelshare (and specifically FunTime) was a violation of the declaration and bylaws.  Now the complaint has been expanded to include these areas, which should be of GREAT interest to those of us that have alleged the exact same things for years:
> 
> - Violation of the "relative use value" clause in the declaration.  In other words, raising the credit values at the new resorts.  Several owners have been working on calculating damages based on this violation.  Current estimates are at about 1/2 $BILLION$.  If it can be shown that the board and Wyndham colluded on this (which should be self-evident), it may become an anti-trust issue, with treble damages.
> 
> - The expanded complaint alleges that the Wyndham dominated board violated their fudiciary responsibility to the owners, instead catering to the profit needs of Wyndham.  Go figure?  Who woulda guessed that?
> 
> There is much more.  The details can be found on the TRAVELSHARE DISCUSSIONS section of wmowners.com  Finally, after all this time, perhaps, just perhaps, justice may be served.




The request by the Plaintiff's to amend the lawsuit (as outlined in my quote above) was GRANTED by the judge.  So now the board is a defendent, and the complaints were expanded to include most, if not all, of the most aggregious abuses that Wyndham has been committing against the owners.

Bad news is that delays matters by a few weeks.


----------



## RichM

PA- said:


> The request by the Plaintiff's to amend the lawsuit (as outlined in my quote above) was GRANTED by the judge.  So now the board is a defendent, and the complaints were expanded to include most, if not all, of the most aggregious abuses that Wyndham has been committing against the owners.
> 
> Bad news is that delays matters by a few weeks.



To clarify - only certain current and former board members are now defendants: Gene Hensley, David Herrick, John Henley, Peggy Fry and John McConnell

EDIT: Technically they're not defendants, yet. The motion for leave to file the amended complaint was granted, but the amended complaint hasn't actually been filed yet.  The plaintiff's have until Friday to file the amended complaint but these are the 5 names mentioned that will likely be additional defendants per the proposed amended complaint filed on Sep 14.

___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -      
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




      - www.wmowners.com


----------



## larry_WM

cotraveller said:


> In this case, as in most legal actions, the lawyers are the only sure winners.




Totally agree.


----------



## larry_WM

PerryM said:


> Do you mean water boarding?  I think that's the only board they'd love to see you on



Hey! That's the best one.


----------



## BocaBum99

PerryM said:


> (This is not for anyone in particular - open to ALL WM owners)
> 
> And just how much money will make all this correct - and we know who will pay for this; we, the WM owners will pay for all this in one way or another.
> 
> Are there any guesses as to:
> 
> 1) How much will the law firm make?  A hard number, rounded to the nearest Million is ok.
> 
> 2) What will WM owners get in coupons or other forms of compensation.  A hard number, rounded to the nearest nickel is ok.
> 
> 3) What will WM/WN have to do to correct these allegations - programs cancelled or modified.
> 
> 4) What possible "new" programs can replace what WN had and how these new programs could be worse.
> 
> 
> If we can't answer these questions just why would anyone be happy - I'm not, I know exactly what will probably be the outcome.  Higher MFs or "New" fees to pay for "New" worthless benefits.
> 
> 
> Before any of us think we can outsmart a billion dollar company with a few lawyers-for-hire we should try to envision how WN will retaliate - because they will.
> 
> 
> I'm perfectly happy with sticking with the status quo and finding ways to exploit WN to my benefit.  I don't know how to react to forced unknowns that will, undoubtedly, benefit those slick lawyers on both sides of the fence.



In general, I believe class action law suits only serve to enrich the law firms.  I believe that to be the case with RCI.

In the WorldMark case, I believe the Plaintiffs have a good case.  I think they have a better than average chance to win.

If the Plaintiffs win, Wyndham's eggregious pillaging of WorldMark will be signficantly curtailed.  That is good for owners.  That will leave more for you to exploit.


----------



## larry_WM

BocaBum99 said:


> In general, I believe class action law suits only serve to enrich the law firms.  I believe that to be the case with RCI.
> 
> In the WorldMark case, I believe the Plaintiffs have a good case.  I think they have a better than average chance to win.
> 
> If the Plaintiffs win, Wyndham's eggregious pillaging of WorldMark will be signficantly curtailed.  That is good for owners.  That will leave more for you to exploit.



What do you and me get if the Plaintiffs win. A bigger bill for maintenace fee. Or even a special assessment. Get real.


----------



## BocaBum99

larry_WM said:


> What do you and me get if the Plaintiffs win. A bigger bill for maintenace fee. Or even a special assessment. Get real.



Hmm, here are just a few things we get:

1) We get 2 bedroom units bookable at 10000 credits and 1 bedroom units bookable at 8000 credits.  Instead of the 15000 credits and higher.

2) We eliminate TOT (transient occupancy taxes) when they aren't required like in Indio.

3) We preserve the underlying resale value of our credits.  They have tanked at least $.10/credit in the last year due primarily to Travelshare.

4) We get more influence in the choice of new locations.  Who cares about Galena and Oklahoma?

5) More oversight over the management company to ensure that they are acting in our best interest.

By the way.  Thank you for being devil's advocate.  The more you post, the more the real situation manifests itself for all to see.


----------



## larry_WM

BocaBum99 said:


> Hmm, here are just a few things we get:
> 
> 1) We get 2 bedroom units bookable at 10000 credits and 1 bedroom units bookable at 8000 credits.  Instead of the 15000 credits and higher.
> .


It's bookable but you can't book it because it's too cheap and people already book far in advance. I don't care to book in San Diego ig it's cheap. It's fully book for this credit level, why change? Don't you know what supply and demand law?


BocaBum99 said:


> 2) We eliminate TOT (transient occupancy taxes) when they aren't required like in Indio..


I don't think we can eliminate that. Wyndham doesn't pocket this. They have to turn in to the local government. Try to sell something and collect the sale tax and don't turn in to IRS. You will be in jail soon



BocaBum99 said:


> 3) We preserve the underlying resale value of our credits.  They have tanked at least $.10/credit in the last year due primarily to Travelshare..


Who care? Are you going to sell you ownership? Good! I wish it going lower so I can buy more


BocaBum99 said:


> 4) We get more influence in the choice of new locations.  Who cares about Galena and Oklahoma?.


Other care. It's your subjective opinion.



BocaBum99 said:


> 5) More oversight over the management company to ensure that they are acting in our best interest..


Not sure about that


BocaBum99 said:


> By the way.  Thank you for being devil's advocate.  The more you post, the more the real situation manifests itself for all to see.


I am experienced enough to be happy with the status quo. Ask your dad for advice about this.


----------



## BocaBum99

Larry,

Keep thinking whatever you want.  I'm not going to try to change your mind.  

Your whole thought process is exactly how the timeshare sharks make a living.  They count on apathetic owners to prey on.  

Good luck on your mission to maintain the status quo.

For the record, I am not a consumer activist.  Nor am I very active on the wmowners board.

I do appreciate and can understand the difference between wacko owners trying to destroy a reputable company and thoughtful owners trying to protect their property rights.

Since this group is trying to protect their property rights, my vote is with them.


----------



## larry_WM

BocaBum99 said:


> I do appreciate and can understand the difference between wacko owners trying to destroy a reputable company and thoughtful owners trying to protect their property rights.
> .




No, you don't.


----------



## BocaBum99

larry_WM said:


> No, you don't.



lol.  PT Barnum comes to mind.


----------



## melschey

larry_WM said:


> What do you and me get if the Plaintiffs win. A bigger bill for maintenace fee. Or even a special assessment. Get real.




A bigger MF. I think we can count on a 5% increase every year from now on out, not because it is needed, but because that is the naximum  allowed. 

Because Wnydhams management fee is the total club profits or 15% of the budgeted operating expenses whichever is the smaller, anything that increases the club profits goes to Wyndham. Increased MFS help increase club profits thus more money for Wyndham


----------



## melschey

larry_WM said:


> No, you don't.




Why are you so concerned with protecting with the interests of Wyndham and its shareholders and don't seem to care what is happening to the owners of WorldmarkTheClub? When I read your post I somehow remember hearing all of this from some TimeShare salesmen.  In fact I almost feel like I am attending a sales presentation.


----------



## larry_WM

melschey said:


> A bigger MF. I think we can count on a 5% increase every year from now on out, not because it is needed, but because that is the naximum  allowed.
> 
> Because Wnydhams management fee is the total club profits or 15% of the budgeted operating expenses whichever is the smaller, anything that increases the club profits goes to Wyndham. Increased MFS help increase club profits thus more money for Wyndham


 I own other TS in addition to WM, and their MFs increase more than 5% every year. I am worry about a big assessment because of the frivolous lawsuits.


----------



## larry_WM

melschey said:


> Why are you so concerned with protecting with the interests of Wyndham and its shareholders and don't seem to care what is happening to the owners of WorldmarkTheClub? When I read your post I somehow remember hearing all of this from some TimeShare salesmen.  In fact I almost feel like I am attending a sales presentation.



I don't protect the interests of Wyndham and its shareholders . I care about myself and my owners friend. I don't see I benefit anything from this lawsuit one way or the other way. Lawsuit only makes lawyers rich !


----------



## cruisin

melschey said:


> A bigger MF. I think we can count on a 5% increase every year from now on out, not because it is needed, but because that is the naximum  allowed.



Right on!! Our fees will go up the maximum 5% every year because Wyndham can raise them 5%, it has nothing to do with costs, only to do with lining their pockets. 

Just for the record, Dues have skyrocketed to the maximum since Wyndham took over, long before the illegal behavior of our BOD resulted in a lawsuit, and from what I understand,  the funny thing is,  started by someone not associated with wmowners.com at all.   :rofl:


----------



## cruisin

larry_WM said:


> I don't protect the interests of Wyndham and its shareholders . I care about myself and my owners friend. I don't see I benefit anything from this lawsuit one way or the other way. Lawsuit only makes lawyers rich !



Some people care about Worldmark the club....


----------



## SleepinIn

cruisin said:


> Some people care about Worldmark the club....


----------



## larry_WM

cruisin said:


> Right on!! Our fees will go up the maximum 5% every year because Wyndham can raise them 5%, it has nothing to do with costs, only to do with lining their pockets.
> 
> Just for the record, Dues have skyrocketed to the maximum since Wyndham took over, long before the illegal behavior of our BOD resulted in a lawsuit, and from what I understand,  the funny thing is,  started by someone not associated with wmowners.com at all.   :rofl:



You got to feel lucky because it lockd at 5%. I don't know if you ever own other timeshare, if not, ask your friend.


----------



## larry_WM

cruisin said:


> Some people care about Worldmark the club....




sometime the wrong care causes more damage than the no care


----------



## Tia

This sounds so like the same argument from a couple ts owners at my one timeshare, ts owners who have been appointed by our developer Wyndham . Guess time will tell at my resort if more damage comes from owners trying to maintain control.




larry_WM said:


> sometime the wrong care causes more damage than the no care


----------



## zuzupetals

Hi Perry,

I caught your remark about the Transient Occupancy Tax and that peaked my interest.  What exactly happened between our board, Wyndham and California?

I just booked at West Yellowstone and was also charged a tax.  We are property owners, not hotel guests.  We've already paid property taxes, etc.


----------



## zuzupetals

Does anyone have the WorldMark TravelShare lawfirm's website / phone number?  I called them earlier in the year and they thought they'd have info for owners by May.  I've misplaced their number and want to follow up.


----------



## mtribe

larry_WM said:


> I don't protect the interests of Wyndham and its shareholders . I care about myself and my owners friend. I don't see I benefit anything from this lawsuit one way or the other way. Lawsuit only makes lawyers rich !




I agree that lawsuits make the lawyers rich and would not have chosen the route of a lawsuit myself.  Infact I openly discouraged that idea when people mentioned lawsuits as an alternative in various timeshare forums like this.  However someone did chose the route of a lawsuit and once that route was taken all that can be hoped for is a quick and positive outcome.  

I do believe that there is a great deal of benefit that could come to individual owners as a result.  More open communication among a broader group of owners being first and foremost.  Perhaps more open communication from the BOD itself.  

Your access to resorts and your friends access to resorts are directly impacted by each new resort that comes in with higher credit values and low occupancy through credit use.  These are three key components of the lawsuit that will impact every owner.


----------

