# Point at Poipu Class Action Settled



## Poobah (Nov 19, 2012)

The COPP Class Action Suit against DRI over the situation at the Point at Poipu has been settled. :whoopie:The following announcement was made a couple of hours ago on the "Angry Owners at the Point of Poipu" Facebook page. 

IMHO, there are a lot of positives for the owners.

Cheers,

Paul

COPP members,
Our class action lawsuit has resulted in a settlement reached through mediation between the attorneys for the plaintiffs and the attorneys for DRI and the rest of the defendants.
There have been financial concessions. They are now willing to take the remaining two years of payments and make them into FOUR years of payments. This will reduce the amount due in each of the next two years. If the escalation/contingency is not needed (or is lower than originally anticipated) years 3 and 4 will see reduced amounts billed, conceivably with NO funds due at all, rather than collect the contingency fees up front. They are also going to assume the expense of the defaults ($4M) as they are also collecting the deeds on those intervals. Further, they have agreed to drop $1M of the $1.7M management fees.
There were also Governance issues addressed. For all future elections, FULL DISCLOSURE must be made of ANY affiliation with DR...I and all of its subsidiaries as well as familial connections. All non-DRI board members will be educated about "fiduciary responsibility" and "conflict of interest" so as to assure that all is above board. Additionally, the board members will have an "independent" attorney available for consultation with regard to board activities.
Although we will NOT be receiving the owner list, there is a new wrinkle which will address the issue. A "neutral third party" will be given the owner's contact info. The owners will be able to submit letters to be disseminated to the owners. The only editing permitted is to remove threats or obscenity. This "third party" will also oversee the statements submitted by board candidates, again with editing only for the removal of threat or obscenity.


----------



## artringwald (Nov 20, 2012)

Sounds like a reasonable settlement. I was afraid they'd get an injunction to delay or stop the needed repairs, and then I really would have been upset.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Nov 20, 2012)

artringwald said:


> Sounds like a reasonable settlement. I was afraid they'd get an injunction to delay or stop the needed repairs, and then I really would have been upset.


Yeah - I concur.  My other concern is that this would turn into a protracted and expensive piece of litigation, and the costs of which wound up being borne by the HOA.  

Interesting that as far as the project itself goes, the issues that many people seemed to be upset about didn't change.  The increased transparency on Board members is nice, but DRI's voting power is undiminished.  

The big, thing, I guess, is the stretch out in payments and DRI agreeing to take a significantly smaller management fee on the project.


----------



## Beefnot (Nov 20, 2012)

Sounds like the lawsuit bore fruit. Who pays the attorney fees?


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 20, 2012)

For all the allagations, it appears the only thing really gained is dragging out the payments, which will likely result in increased costs of the project that will be passed along in future years in the form of larger increases in MF's. Transparency isn't a problem for DRI as they have control of the largest block of proxies with the trust.

This looks like the scene from Pirates of the Caribbean when parlay is requested, but some details aren't specified leading to an outcome not exactly as planned.

Time will tell if my pesimistic view plays out. We'll see what happens to MF's for the next couple of years. If DRI hits the owners with larger increases in MF's to subsidize the cost of the extended payments the owners would have been better off paying for the repairs upfront. SA's go away quickly. I have yet to see MF's go down.


----------



## artringwald (Nov 20, 2012)

Poobah said:


> They are also going to assume the expense of the defaults ($4M) as they are also collecting the deeds on those intervals. Further, they have agreed to drop $1M of the $1.7M management fees.



That should help lower the MF.

We'll be in Poipu for the annual meeting next February. I don't want to miss that one!


----------



## cmh (Nov 20, 2012)

artringwald said:


> That should help lower the MF.
> 
> We'll be in Poipu for the annual meeting next February. I don't want to miss that one!



When is the meeting in Feb?  We'll be staying there 2/8 - 2/25.


----------



## bogey21 (Nov 20, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> ....... the owners would have been better off paying for the repairs upfront.........



This assumes everyone  had the money to pay it all up front.  Some didn't and most likely would have defaulted.  By spreading out the paymets there may be fewer defaults benefiting all.

George


----------



## artringwald (Nov 20, 2012)

cmh said:


> When is the meeting in Feb?  We'll be staying there 2/8 - 2/25.



Would you believe you missed it by that much. It's Feb. 26.


----------



## dougp26364 (Nov 20, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> This assumes everyone  had the money to pay it all up front.  Some didn't and most likely would have defaulted.  By spreading out the paymets there may be fewer defaults benefiting all.
> 
> George



Since MF increases tend to be permanent, taking out a short term loan would have been preferable. Those not capable of getting a short term loan under favorable circumstances are in danger of default no matter how long the payment plan is extended.

It appears that the total assessment is still the same, just lower payments over a longer period of time. I submit that defaults could be higher if owners see both the SA & MF's that increase to much each year. In the end it's still the owners paying the assessment assuming DRI increases MF's to offset any perceived concessions. I don't see any real gains for owners. Of course, this us assuming DRI will get its money by increasing MF's more than it would have under the original plan, which could be a false assumption.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Dec 9, 2012)

*Warning*

The letter to owners is NOT the settlement agreement.   Serious owners need to get and study the original legal court approved document where the devil will be in the details.   Of course the legal document may be clean of traps and answer some if not all the worry.   No matter what, don't rely on the letter.


----------

