# RCI Settlement - Newest Development



## Timeshare Von (Jan 30, 2009)

When I went to their web site to "join" the action, the form didn't allow those of us who are current RCI members to make the choice from the three choices (extention of membership, $20 towards a future RCI exchange, etc.)  As it turns out, if your membership expires within the two year window, your only "choice" is to take a two month extension of your membership.

For those who have their RCI membership paid annually through our MF's (and therefore fall within the two year window by definition) really have NO benefit coming as the two month extension is the only option which is useless since Wyndham will pay that year-to-year.

Here is the full content of the e-mail message I received today from the agency handling the settlement:


_*RCI WEEKS EXCHANGE PROGRAM SETTLEMENT  We have received the online claim form you submitted for the above named class action settlement.  However, there were some technical difficulties within the online filing process and your claim form is incomplete.

  You indicated that you are a Current Member.  You also indicated that you would like the Membership Renewal Credit.  Under that option, you need to indicate which benefit you would like 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 2-month extension on 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):

  (i)                 a two-month extension of my RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership

OR (ii)               a $20 credit toward a RCI Weeks Exchange Program membership renewal, which  will be added to my current subscription term

OR      (iii)       a $20 credit toward my next Exchange

 Please reply to this email and let us know if you are in group (a) or group (b) above.  If you fall under group (b), you then need to let us know which of the three benefits you would like to receive, (i), (ii), or (iii). You must reply by April 6, 2009 for your claim form to be considered.  If you do not respond to this email your claim form will not be accepted.  You will not receive any of the special benefits available to current members.  Special Benefits are obtained only by submitting a claim form.  As a current member, however, you will be able to benefit from the programmatic changes and from the disclosures RCI is making as a result of the settlement.*_


----------



## Ann-Marie (Jan 30, 2009)

Just wondering how long of an application process it is?  Is it worth my time?


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jan 30, 2009)

Less than five minutes - it is very easy and quick.


----------



## Steve NH (Jan 31, 2009)

How does this apply to us who are both weeks and points. Our membership is actually a points membership now.


----------



## wackymother (Jan 31, 2009)

Do you have a link to the settlement form? It's not coming up on my RCI home page. Thanks!


----------



## theo (Jan 31, 2009)

Where is the *outrage* here, I just have to wonder?

This settlement is a worthless farce -- essentially constituting a choice among assorted laughable trinkets ranging in value between absolutely nothing and certainly less than $50. The lawyers involved in this fiasco are looking for nearly four *million* dollars for their alleged "services". Yet, the messages above seem to be "where do I sign up for my trinket"? 

Hello?? Is anybody really home ??........


----------



## matbec (Jan 31, 2009)

wackymother said:


> Do you have a link to the settlement form? It's not coming up on my RCI home page. Thanks!



It appears on the bottom right hand side of the login page: http://www.weeksprogramsettlement.com/


----------



## Judy (Jan 31, 2009)

OK theo, I'm outraged   What am I supposed to do about it?  Class action lawsuits are notorious for benefiting no one but the lawyers.  For that reason, I never opt-in anymore.  But it appears that I didn't opt-out of this one, so I guess I'm a member of the class that has allowed these lawyers to make a lot of money.  If RCI changes its behavior in any meaningful way, that would be good enough for me.  If not, shall I give up my trinket in protest?  Who would that benefit?

By the way, I never received any notice from RCI or from the attorneys.  Did anyone else?

The link is on the RCI homepage way down at the bottom in fine print.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jan 31, 2009)

Not to mention, even if it is a token trinket, it is better than nothing . . . or a stick in the eye.

Judy's right, it's not our fault the class action suit process sucks and that only the lawyers really make out on it.  There is nothing we can do about that.

As for the RCI weeks vs. points accounts, I do not believe the action included points members in RCI.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Jan 31, 2009)

Judy said:


> By the way, I never received any notice from RCI or from the attorneys.  Did anyone else?



Nope - first I knew of it was from the posting here on TUG.


----------



## beejaybeeohio (Jan 31, 2009)

*Free nite's rental option*

Not sure how this would work...

Is there a specific RCI rental site?  Would this be prorated off of a week's Extra Vacation?  Money-wise this seems like it's worth the most of the other options offered for those whose membership goes beyond two years, but, given RCI's history, I'm not sure it would be easily claimed.


----------



## PeterS (Jan 31, 2009)

Timeshare Von said:


> When I went to their web site to "join" the action, the form didn't allow those of us who are current RCI members to make the choice from the three choices (extention of membership, $20 towards a future RCI exchange, etc.)  As it turns out, if your membership expires within the two year window, your only "choice" is to take a two month extension of your membership.
> 
> For those who have their RCI membership paid annually through our MF's (and therefore fall within the two year window by definition) really have NO benefit coming as the two month extension is the only option which is useless since Wyndham will pay that year-to-year.



Just to turn this back to the original post....

If you are a Wyndham owner or any other group that pays your membership fees annually... as quick and easy as it may seem... you get nothing! Don't waste your time...

Looks like the lawyers missed out on the largest timeshare owners group... I guess they still get an extra cut if you register, even if you get nothing... 

It isn't better than nothing because it is nothing!

Thanks Yvonne for clearing the verbage right to the point.

Pete


----------



## theo (Jan 31, 2009)

*File a legitimate objection, or pick out ONE worthless little trinket...*



PeterS said:


> It isn't better than nothing because it is nothing!



Precisely correct --- this proposed settlement constitutes *nothing* meaningful in terms of substantively changing RCI's practices. 

Even the tiny concessions made by RCI in regard to their "skimming deposits for rental instead" practices are temporary (for only 2 years, to be specific) and, even then, *only* apply to those deposits made longer than "12 months out" and apply *only* for 30 days after the inital deposit. 
Seriously now, what good is that??? 

Everyone has the right to act as they see fit; I acknowledge that. However, I remind all here that objections to this settlelement *can* be submitted in writing until April, 2009 (mine aren't yet finished; currently just over 4 typed pages of individually itemized objections thus far).

To those who cop out with "what else can we do?", I respectfully submit that what you *can* still do is file intelligent, well articulated, written objections to the ludicrous terms of this laughable proposed settelement and instead encourage the court to summarily reject the ridiculous proposed settlement terms and unilaterally impose upon RCI legitimate and substantive reform of its current practices. Now *that* would be real, legitimate "injunctive relief" --- not "c'mon, pick out one worthless trinket".

Or, you can just take the easy route and select one worthless little trinket from the grab bag of little baubles offered.  It's an individual choice, but "...what else can we do?" or "...it's better than nothing" are just cop outs. That's just *exactly* what RCI attorneys *want* you to do.


----------



## Carolinian (Jan 31, 2009)

theo said:


> Where is the *outrage* here, I just have to wonder?
> 
> This settlement is a worthless farce -- essentially constituting a choice among assorted laughable trinkets ranging in value between absolutely nothing and certainly less than $50. The lawyers involved in this fiasco are looking for nearly four *million* dollars for their alleged "services". Yet, the messages above seem to be "where do I sign up for my trinket"?
> 
> Hello?? Is anybody really home ??........



You have hit the nail on the head.

There is another place to OBJECT to this scam called a settlement, and to the excessive fee to the sell-out Benedict Arnold law firm that was supposed to represent the class.  It appears that they only represented themselves.

Just say NO to these meaningless trinkets.  Object to the whole scam, especially the attorney fees.


----------



## "Roger" (Jan 31, 2009)

You know, months ago when some people (not myself) were suggesting that this lawsuit was going to amount to nothing, there were postings about what heavy hitters the legal firms involved were.  That was being offered as strong evidence that the suit had considerable merit.  Now all the posting suggest that these same legal firms are nothing but a bunch of crooks.  Puzzling...


----------



## JEFF H (Jan 31, 2009)

Well They can keep their meaningless trinkets. I want no part of it.
Is their a objection letter I can add my name to?


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 1, 2009)

What is really puzzling is that one of the lead plaintiffs is a Tugger who posted often about RCI's rental scams and seemed to really have his heart in this.  I think he owes an explanation to the rest of the class as to why he wimped out and let these lawyers make off with a lot of loot and leave RCI members high and dry with nothing but stupid trinkets.

As I have long said, a state AG consumer protection action was the best approach to this problem rather than a class action suit by private attorneys.  If they pay these sell-out lawyers at all, they should be paid in the same trinkets they want to class to accept, just more of them.

I hope that everyone writing a letter objecting to the settlement/sellout strongly objects to these lawyers being paid anything.


----------



## theo (Feb 1, 2009)

"Roger" said:


> You know, months ago when some people (not myself) were suggesting that this lawsuit was going to amount to nothing, there were postings about what heavy hitters the legal firms involved were.  That was being offered as strong evidence that the suit had considerable merit.  Now all the posting suggest that these same legal firms are nothing but a bunch of crooks.  Puzzling...



With due respect, I don't believe that is *at all* an accurate recounting; it seems to me very much a "revised history" version of statements made. That the case had (and still has) merit is certainly indisputable --- regardless of the former or current "horsepower" of the plaintiff attorneys.

Having folllowed this matter closely since the initial filing of the suit back in March / April of 2006, I never saw a single reference (on TUG or elsewhere) portraying plaintiff attorneys as "heavy hitters". More accurately recounted, it *was* reported (...not by me; I don't claim to know plaintiff or plaintiff counsel from Adam's cat...) that plaintiffs were personally committed to achieving legitimate reform of RCI practices in this lawsuit. 

The outrage now seems to have completely dissipated. We now see an absurd, absolutely worthless proposed settlement being received by snoozing RCI members asking only "...where do I sign up for my trinket?" 

Quite frankly, I have to conclude at this point that RCI and its sheep-like membership / following might well *deserve* each other if RCI members are so complacent as to somehow be content with a (one-time only) worthless little trinket offered as an insulting and totally unacceptable substitute for actual reform concerning "skimmed-off and rented out" deposits by RCI.


----------



## AcesFull (Feb 1, 2009)

*More of the same...*

I decided well over a year ago that when my membership expires next year, I'm done with RCI. I'll rent myself, do direct exchanges, and try out some of the other (smaller) exchange companies. I'm just tired of being lied too over and over and having them practically laugh in our face as they keep increasing their fees. So, unfortunately, my prime summer beach week will never be seen in RCI again (not that anyone at RCI cares!!!).


----------



## california-bighorn (Feb 1, 2009)

*Ditto with Acesfull*

I also will stop using RCI after this year.  When I add the costs of membership and exchanges it doesn't make any fiscal sense.  We usually go to our own resorts and can fill any "gaps" with sites like TUG, Redweek and the like.  The internet has changed the timeshare game for the good and we no longer need to be dependent on a couple of companies.


----------



## california-bighorn (Feb 1, 2009)

Carolinian said:


> What is really puzzling is that one of the lead plaintiffs is a Tugger who posted often about RCI's rental scams and seemed to really have his heart in this.  I think he owes an explanation to the rest of the class as to why he wimped out and let these lawyers make off with a lot of loot and leave RCI members high and dry with nothing but stupid trinkets.
> 
> As I have long said, a state AG consumer protection action was the best approach to this problem rather than a class action suit by private attorneys.  If they pay these sell-out lawyers at all, they should be paid in the same trinkets they want to class to accept, just more of them.
> 
> I hope that everyone writing a letter objecting to the settlement/sellout strongly objects to these lawyers being paid anything.



It would be appropriate for them to paid in free RCI exchanges.


----------



## Judy (Feb 2, 2009)

theo said:


> Everyone has the right to act as they see fit; I acknowledge that. However, I remind all here that objections to this settlelement *can* be submitted in writing until April, 2009 (mine aren't yet finished; currently just over 4 typed pages of individually itemized objections thus far).


Do such objections have any legal power?


----------



## theo (Feb 2, 2009)

Judy said:


> Do such objections have any legal power?



Any and all objections filed in writing by April '09, under the signature of a class member *must* be reviewed and considered by the court before the court can even consider approving the proposed "settlement". 
Any RCI member (whether or not an active party in the initial suit) is by default a "class member" with the legal standing to formally object to the proposed farce of a "settlement" which is currently on the table. 

It is my belief that any clear thinking RCI member with any conscience at all should, without hesitation, just summarily reject the "pick one worthless little trinket" proposal and instead stand up for the underlying principles of the case by objecting in writing to this farce of a settlement and demand real injunctive relief instead. I don't want a worthless little trinket --- I want court ordered reform of the RCI "skim off and rent out prime deposits" practices. However, I (again) acknowledge that this is my own personal belief and opinion. For some, a worthless little trinket from the "pick one" grab bag may somehow be enough for them, but certainly *not* for me.
Worthless is *worthless*, plain and simple.


----------



## Captron (Feb 3, 2009)

*Objections - from the settlement page*

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. 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 April 6, 2009 to: 

Clerk of Court
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
50 Walnut Street 
Newark, New Jersey 07101


David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
71 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, NJ 07963-0111

David S. Sager, Esq
DAY PITNEY LLP 
P.O. Box 1945
Morristown, NJ 07962-1945


----------



## AcesFull (Feb 6, 2009)

*Futility...*

Even though I expect it will do NO good. I've crafted an objection letter and will send it out next week.

I don't plan on doing business with RCI any longer, but that doesn't mean I should turn my back on what they've done to Weeks Owners.

CCM


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 10, 2009)

Today I received e-mail from the administrator indicating that they would apply the $20 credit towards a future RCI exchange, even though technically I am in group A which has no option - only the 2 month extension on my membership when it "expires" later this year (and when Wyndham is due to pay my next year's fees).


----------



## Carolinian (Feb 11, 2009)

Timeshare Von said:


> Today I received e-mail from the administrator indicating that they would apply the $20 credit towards a future RCI exchange, even though technically I am in group A which has no option - only the 2 month extension on my membership when it "expires" later this year (and when Wyndham is due to pay my next year's fees).



And you are caving in for that absurd trinket rather than objecting to the sellout/settlement?


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 11, 2009)

The settlement is going to be approved, so folks may as well get whatever trinket they are qualified for and can get out of them.  I had already completed the class document the day the info was posted and I don't think it can be rescinded.

Besides, if the class is not approved, I believe those who had initially agreed to the trinket will be eligible for whatever "new trinket" is negotiated and approved.

The cave-in was really by those who initiated the suit in the first place.  The rest of the peanut gallery with no real skin in the game are just along for the ride!


----------



## theo (Feb 11, 2009)

*Not necessarily true or accurate...*



Timeshare Von said:


> The settlement is going to be approved, so folks may as well get whatever trinket they are qualified for and can get out of them.  I had already completed the class document the day the info was posted and I don't think it can be rescinded.
> 
> Besides, if the class is not approved, I believe those who had initially agreed to the trinket will be eligible for whatever "new trinket" is negotiated and approved.
> 
> The cave-in was really by those who initiated the suit in the first place.  The rest of the peanut gallery with no real skin in the game are just along for the ride!



With all due respect, the above is an extremely weak and entirely unconvincing rationalization for choosing to sell out for a $20 trinket. 

In point of fact, the proposed "settlement" *cannot* and *will not* even be considered for approval until any and all objections are filed and reviewed; that can't (and won't) happen until April, 2009. People signing up now for a $20 trinket will only help to statistically bolster a RCI claim to the court that RCI members may actually be sufficiently placated by the (nearly worthless) trinkets offered in place of legitimate reform of RCI practices.    

It is your right, choice and prerogative to decline to make the effort to *object* to this farce of a settlement and instead just sign up for your $20 trinket; I acknowledge and respect that fact. Nonetheless, I find your stated reasoning to be just as absurd as the proposed farce "settlement".


----------



## Judy (Feb 11, 2009)

It will require a lot of time and effort on the part of RCI members, especially those who don't understand legal language, to read the proposed settlement and compose a letter of objection.  It might help if some of you who are more knowledgeable would post instructions and sample letters to encourage other members to file objections.


----------



## theo (Feb 11, 2009)

*A suggestion then...*



Judy said:


> It will require a lot of time and effort on the part of RCI members, especially those who don't understand legal language, to read the proposed settlement and compose a letter of objection.  It might help if some of you who are more knowledgeable would post instructions and sample letters to encourage other members to file objections.



Frankly, I don't think "legal language" is really an obstacle in this matter. What RCI is currently doing regarding the direct rental of prime deposits (and what RCI proposes as a "non-remedy" regarding those practices) is pretty well and widely known by all interested parties at this juncture.

That said, although I will admit that I generally find the "forums" on RedWeek to be pretty lame and grossly uninformed, in the "General Discussion" forums on RedWeek one can easily find  two separate "RCI Lawsuit" threads in which details of the suit and the "proposed settlement" (enumerating all of its' its glaring flaws) are identified and expressed in detail in straightforward, plain English. The primary contributor appears to be an attorney who very clearly understands the complete absence of *any* substantive "injunctive relief" in this matter so far. If you wanted to check that material out in those RedWeek "General Discussion" forums, all of the framework for a letter of objection is already posted right there for the reading (or copying) --- and the specific addresses at which to file written objections have long since been posted right here on TUG.

....Or you can just sign up for a (one-time only) $20 trinket instead, accepting by doing so that there will be *no* meaningful, long term correction of current (and ongoing) RCI practices. It's an individual decision. I for one am not the least bit interested in a $20 trinket....


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 11, 2009)

theo said:


> ....Or you can just sign up for a (one-time only) $20 trinket instead, accepting by doing so that there will be *no* meaningful, long term correction of current (and ongoing) RCI practices. It's an individual decision. I for one am not the least bit interested in a $20 trinket....



And that is your choice too.

All you have to do is look to the attempts to change how Wyndham does business and all of the efforts attempted and facilitated by this and other internet based forums.  Face it, those of us "here" are in an extreme minority and are in a position to really make any significant difference.

And if you are successful in pushing RCI off their settlement offer, those who did sign up for the trinket are no worse off than had they done nothing.  Conversely, if the settlement is approved (which I believe will happen) and we don't sign up for the trinket, we get nothing.

Folks can stand on principle and reject the trinket offer or not . . . that is everyone's individual choice.  Don't berate me for my decision!!!


----------



## theo (Feb 12, 2009)

*One final point of clarification...*



Timeshare Von said:


> And if you are successful in pushing RCI off their settlement offer, those who did sign up for the trinket are no worse off than had they done nothing.



I don't want to belabor this issue further, but the simple fact is that signing up for a $20 trinket is actually worse than doing nothing, since "signing up" gives RCI supporting statistics with which to claim a "satisfied, placated, accepting RCI membership". Nonetheless, as acknowledged, it is your prerogative to sign up for a little one-time $20 trinket instead of making any effort whatsoever to actually achieve legitimate and lasting reform. However, an opportunity to achieve any such reform is not likely to ever come along again. Your $20 savings will be long forgotten in a year but the lasting and negative consequences of a weak and worthless "settlement" will endure for decades. Personally, I'd like to see court-imposed RCI reform a whole lot more than I care about a paltry, one-time $20 savings. 

The only closing point of clarification I want to make is that filing objections is *not* at all a matter of "pushing RCI off their settlement offer". On the contrary, I view the filing of clearly stated and well articulated objections as a singular opportunity to point out to the presiding *judge* that the proposed settlement offer is fatally flawed and entirely without any real substance or merit whatsoever and, for that reason, should be summarily rejected. "Pushing" RCI is not the intent or the objective; the higher goal is instead to better educate the judge on the inherently weak and terminally meaningless nature of this ridiculous proposed settlement / sellout.

In the end, we can agree to disagree --- strongly and irreconcilably.


----------



## Jimster (Feb 12, 2009)

*$20*

If the agreement is accepted, I believe we will see a new $20 fee from RCI and knowing them it will be an annual fee so they actually make more money.  I would urge Bernie Madoff or Rod Blagoevich to seek employment with RCI.


----------



## Timeshare Von (Feb 12, 2009)

theo said:


> In the end, we can agree to disagree --- strongly and irreconcilably.




Good thing we're not married or we'd be getting a divorce, I suppose.


----------



## cmburke7 (Feb 14, 2009)

theo said:


> Quite frankly, I have to conclude at this point that RCI and its sheep-like membership / following might well *deserve* each other if RCI members are so complacent as to somehow be content with a (one-time only) worthless little trinket offered as an insulting and totally unacceptable substitute for actual reform concerning "skimmed-off and rented out" deposits by RCI.



Yea, well, these are for the most part the same people who were conned by snake oil salesmen to pay retail for a piece of property that dropped 80% in value when they walked out the door.  I think it's the rest of us resale buyers that have the most outrage at the hucksters at Cendant that nickle and dime us like a group of mindless lemmings.


----------



## JudyS (Feb 14, 2009)

JEFF H said:


> Well They can keep their meaningless trinkets. I want no part of it.
> Is their a objection letter I can add my name to?


That's my feeling, too.

I simply don't have the time to write up a long, well-thought out letter, as you suggest, Theo.   But I would be willing to sign my name to an objection letter than others write (assuming I basically agree with it, which I likely would.)


----------

