# SVN - new arbitration provision



## whwaldo (Nov 11, 2015)

Received my 2016 maintenance fee statement, which references a new arbitration provision in the SVN network disclosure guide. The provision mandates arbitration of disputes, and also includes a class action waiver (if you arbitrate you can't join a class action lawsuit).  There is an opt-out provision (quoted below).

So - can anyone think of any reason that every existing SVN member/owner should not immediately opt out of this new provision?

-------------------------------------
Right to Reject Arbitration Provision: Owner may reject this Section by sending Network Operator a written notice which gives Owner’s name and Agreement number and states that Owner rejects the Arbitration Provision.
The rejection notice must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Vistana Vacation Network, Inc.,  
9002 San Marco Ct., Orlando, Florida 32819, Attn: Legal Department - Arbitration Rejection Notice. A rejection notice must be signed by Owner and received by Network Operator within thirty (30) days after becoming a
Network Member or 30 days after these Network Rules have been updated, whichever date is later. Rejection of arbitration will not affect any other term of this Agreement.


----------



## BLUE AYES (Nov 12, 2015)

"The provision mandates arbitration of disputes, and also includes a class action waiver (if you arbitrate you can't join a class action lawsuit). "

There has been much discussion in legal circles, including recent NY Times articles about how corporations are moving to demand arbitration and limit consumers, employees, etc. from joining class action law suits.

The Supreme Court has enforced the rights of corporations to have law suits dismissed and classes decertified if the consumer accepts arbitration and gives up the right to join a class action.

YOU SHOULD OPT OUT OF THIS REQUEST FOR ARBITRATION !!!!


----------



## ragdoll (Nov 12, 2015)

*WOW!*



whwaldo said:


> Received my 2016 maintenance fee statement, which references a new arbitration provision in the SVN network disclosure guide. The provision mandates arbitration of disputes, and also includes a class action waiver (if you arbitrate you can't join a class action lawsuit).  There is an opt-out provision (quoted below).
> 
> So - can anyone think of any reason that every existing SVN member/owner should not immediately opt out of this new provision?
> 
> ...



Thanks to you for spying this devious clause which was cleverly buried in a miscellaneous paragraph of nonsense! Everyone should read it.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 15, 2015)

Did owners at all resorts receive this? Didn't see it in my WKV MF statement.


----------



## vacationtime1 (Nov 15, 2015)

DanCali said:


> Did owners at all resorts receive this? Didn't see it in my WKV MF statement.



It's there -- and *very* well hidden.  Look on the back of the first page of your bill; there is a typewritten paragraph with a link to a website.  The arbitration provision is on the website.

I would never have read the paragraph (let alone looked on the website), if OP hadn't posted this.


----------



## cubigbird (Nov 15, 2015)

vacationtime1 said:


> It's there -- and *very* well hidden.  Look on the back of the first page of your bill; there is a typewritten paragraph with a link to a website.  The arbitration provision is on the website.
> 
> I would never have read the paragraph (let alone looked on the website), if OP hadn't posted this.



Why WOULDN'T you opt out?  If you do, does that impact your membership in SVN or impact resort ownership?


----------



## whwaldo (Nov 15, 2015)

vacationtime1 said:


> It's there -- and *very* well hidden.  Look on the back of the first page of your bill; there is a typewritten paragraph with a link to a website.  The arbitration provision is on the website.
> 
> I would never have read the paragraph (let alone looked on the website), if OP hadn't posted this.


<---- Lawyer.  I always read the fine print, and advise everyone to do the same.


----------



## whwaldo (Nov 15, 2015)

Credit where credit is due - TUGger YYJMSP found this weeks ago:
http://tugbbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=233399 

Need to read it in full - in the credit card arena, if you object to a change in the terms of service, you often need to stop using the card.  I'm not at all thrilled with an arbitration provision, but don't want to impact my SVN membership.  Will report back if I can determine anything.


----------



## Sugarcubesea (Nov 15, 2015)

So how do you opt out?


----------



## cubigbird (Nov 15, 2015)

whwaldo said:


> <---- Lawyer.  I always read the fine print, and advise everyone to do the same.



What happens if we object and opt out per the document?  How does that change our membership?


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 16, 2015)

Not to be a wet blanket, but if only a handful of people opt out, then opting out is essentially meaningless because the vast majority of potential plaintiffs are now theoretically restricted to arbitration.  IOW, no law firm is going to spend a bunch of time and money representing the dozen owners who actually read the fine print and opted out.      

However, if an issue actually does arise that is truly worthy of a class-action suit, I have no doubt that a class action lawsuit could still successfully be filed. Their first order of business would be proving that Starwood acted in bad faith with this rules change by burying this arbitration provision in fine print and making it an "Opt out" provision.

Just MHO.


----------



## BLUE AYES (Nov 16, 2015)

LisaRex,

Please be very careful about dispensing advice such as " I have no doubt that a class action lawsuit could still successfully be filed". As an attorney of over 20 years, I disagree with that statement. Most requests for arbitration are hidden in the fine print. Please everyone, do a Google search for the large investigative NYT article about this very issue. There have been HMOs and Doctors that couldn't be sued for horrific malpractice claims because of arbitration clauses, groups of employees that were discriminated against that could not get class certification because of an agreement to arbitrate.


----------



## BLUE AYES (Nov 16, 2015)

Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist too, but this request for arbitration coming on the heels of the SVO sale and the announced Starwood sale stinks. I'm sure long term some of our benefits or perceived values will dissipate. Perhaps SPG Platinum for Life or the ability to convert options to points will disappear.

Maybe then those of us with six figures invested in SVO will want to sue II or Marriott to restore our benefits.

From the SVO web site (about the II deal)

  "WILL CURRENT AND FUTURE STARWOOD VACATION NETWORK (SVN) MEMBERS STILL HAVE ACCESS TO STARWOOD HOTELS? WILL I STILL BE ABLE TO CONVERT MY STAROPTIONS TO STARPOINTS AND ACCESS STARWOOD HOTELS WORLDWIDE?

Yes, all current and future Owners will continue to enjoy Gold-level access to the Starwood Preferred Guest® program as they have in the past. The terms and conditions governing access to Starwood hotels through SVN and the SPG program are reviewed and updated from time to time.* Any changes that may take place in the ordinary course of business would not be attributable to the transaction*".


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 16, 2015)

BLUE AYES said:


> LisaRex,
> 
> Please be very careful about dispensing advice such as " I have no doubt that a class action lawsuit could still successfully be filed". As an attorney of over 20 years, I disagree with that statement.



Listen, I appreciate your concern.  However, I think it's clear to everyone that I wasn't "dispensing advice."  I was simply expressing my lay person's opinion on rather innocuous matter (IMO) on an informal, non-professional, message board. I even ended my argument with the words, "Just MHO."  So I actually WAS being careful. 



			
				BLUE AYES said:
			
		

> Most requests for arbitration are hidden in the fine print.





			
				BLUE AYES said:
			
		

> There have been HMOs and Doctors that couldn't be sued for horrific malpractice claims because of arbitration clauses, groups of employees that were discriminated against that could not get class certification because of an agreement to arbitrate.



You actually keep bolstering my position: If the courts actually do allow these sneaky rules changes to stick, then the class action is essentially dead anyway.  Because the vast majority of owners (pick 1 or more): 1) Don't really understand the rules change; 2) Don't really object to arbitration; 3) Don't even realize that Starwood is attempting to change the rules; 4) Won't be arsed to Opt Out anyway. 

Honestly, I can't even imagine a cause of action against a Vacation Ownership group that would cause me to bemoan the loss of my Class Action rights. However, if I had to dispense actual paid advice, I'd say to always err on the side of caution and Opt Out. For all the good it'll do you.  

Once again, IANAL (I am not a lawyer) so this is just MHO (my humble opinion).


----------



## Markus (Nov 16, 2015)

BLUE AYES said:


> Maybe I'm a conspiracy theorist too, but this request for arbitration coming on the heels of the SVO sale and the announced Starwood sale stinks. I'm sure long term some of our benefits or perceived values will dissipate. Perhaps SPG Platinum for Life or the ability to convert options to points will disappear.
> 
> Maybe then those of us with six figures invested in SVO will want to sue II or Marriott to restore our benefits.
> 
> ...



I am worried about this as well, and am suspicious about the timing. I enjoy my conversion and platinum benefits and would not like to see these changed.


----------



## DavidnRobin (Nov 16, 2015)

Markus said:


> I am worried about this as well, and am suspicious about the timing. I enjoy my conversion and platinum benefits and would not like to see these changed.



Don't worry... they stated it is a WIN-WIN for all, and will make SVO/SVN Great Again!
:hysterical:


----------



## DanCali (Nov 17, 2015)

vacationtime1 said:


> It's there -- and *very* well hidden.  Look on the back of the first page of your bill; there is a typewritten paragraph with a link to a website.  The arbitration provision is on the website.
> 
> I would never have read the paragraph (let alone looked on the website), if OP hadn't posted this.



Found it....

Thanks!


----------



## JudyS (Nov 18, 2015)

whwaldo said:


> ,,,,
> Right to Reject Arbitration Provision: Owner may reject this Section by sending Network Operator a written notice which gives Owner’s name and Agreement number and states that Owner rejects the Arbitration Provision.
> The rejection notice must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Vistana Vacation Network, Inc.,
> 9002 San Marco Ct., Orlando, Florida 32819, Attn: Legal Department - Arbitration Rejection Notice. A rejection notice must be signed by Owner and received by Network Operator within thirty (30) days after becoming a
> Network Member or 30 days after these Network Rules have been updated, whichever date is later. Rejection of arbitration will not affect any other term of this Agreement.


Whwaldo, thank you for posting this!

Certified mail only, huh?  It seems Starwood is trying to make this as difficult as legally possible.

I own Starwood, but only at non-mandatory resorts purchased resale. I have no StarOptions. So, does that mean I am not a member of SVN and this arbitration provision doesn't apply to me?  The Starwood website always refers to my reservations, MFs, and so forth as being part of SVN, even though technically they are not.

Also, since I do not own StarOptions, all of my ownership rights are pretty clearly started in the condo documents and deeds. Is that protection enough?


----------



## JudyS (Nov 18, 2015)

Perhaps I have already found the answer to my question. 

Tugger YYJMSP posted the text of the arbitration opt-out "notice":

We’re always looking for ways to enhance your Owner experience and expand the ways you plan vacations. As you know, earlier this year we began offering nightly stays reserved 8 months prior to your vacation dates. And, with updates to StarwoodVacationNetwork.com, making online villa reservations is now easier and more convenient than ever. In addition, we are pleased to provide the updated SVEC Guide and SVN Rules, starwoodvacationnetwork.com/2015-svn-rules-mandatory which contain a new arbitration provision. SVN Owners who are interested in opting out of the arbitration provision can do so within 30 days of receiving this notice. Please read the arbitration provision for more information on how to opt out.

Sounds like this applies only to people with StarOptions...


----------



## DanCali (Nov 18, 2015)

LisaRex said:


> Not to be a wet blanket, but if only a handful of people opt out, then opting out is essentially meaningless because the vast majority of potential plaintiffs are now theoretically restricted to arbitration.  IOW, no law firm is going to spend a bunch of time and money representing the dozen owners who actually read the fine print and opted out.
> 
> However, if an issue actually does arise that is truly worthy of a class-action suit, I have no doubt that a class action lawsuit could still successfully be filed. Their first order of business would be proving that Starwood acted in bad faith with this rules change by burying this arbitration provision in fine print and making it an "Opt out" provision.
> 
> Just MHO.



From what I know (and I am not a lawyer either) you need at least 40-50 people for a class action.

If you don't opt out of arbitration, you won't be able to be part of a class but I imagine that with this thread going on, at least a few dozen will opt out.

That said - arbitration may have advantages too. It's faster and it's cheaper (seems Starwood picks the tab on arbitration expenses over $250). 

But given how this was done, and how well hidden, I can't help thinking that's it's a bad idea to give up the right to a trial by jury or class action.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 18, 2015)

cubigbird said:


> What happens if we object and opt out per the document?  How does that change our membership?



The answer is pretty clear in the document itself:

"Right to Reject Arbitration Provision: Owner may reject this Section by sending SVN Operator a written notice which gives Owner’s name and Agreement number and states that Owner rejects the Arbitration Provision. The rejection notice must be sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to Starwood Vacation Exchange Company, 9002 San Marco Ct., Orlando, Florida 32819, Attn: Legal Department - Arbitration Rejection Notice. A rejection notice must be signed by Owner and received by SVN Operator within thirty (30) days after becoming a SVN Member or 30 days after these SVN Rules have been updated, whichever date is later. *Rejection of arbitration will not affect any other term of this Agreement.*"


----------



## LisaRex (Nov 18, 2015)

DanCali said:


> But given how this was done, and how well hidden, I can't help thinking that's it's a bad idea to give up the right to a trial by jury or class action.



I'm pretty sure my SVV docs already state that I've given up my right to a jury trial.  I'll look it up later.


----------



## JudyS (Nov 18, 2015)

DanCali said:


> ...
> 
> That said - arbitration may have advantages too. It's faster and it's cheaper (seems Starwood picks the tab on arbitration expenses over $250)....


The problem is, the organizations who do arbitration tend to strongly favor companies, not consumers. Many companies' arbitration rules actually give the company the right to choose the arbitrator. I don't know if that is true of Starwood's arbitration clause or not. 

Arbitration seems to work well in situations such as divorces, where both parties have relatively equal power. In cases where a small group of consumers is fighting a large company, the company almost always wins.


----------



## Helios (Nov 18, 2015)

How do you know when the 30 day clock starts if you own multiple weeks and get the mantinence fee notice at different times? I would like to send a single notice. Any thoughts? Or did I miss the boat already?


----------



## okwiater (Nov 18, 2015)

moto x said:


> How do you know when the 30 day clock starts if you own multiple weeks and get the mantinence fee notice at different times? I would like to send a single notice. Any thoughts? Or did I miss the boat already?



I was wondering the same thing, but the language ("Owner's name and agreement number") suggests that you have to reject arbitration for every one of your contracts separately.


----------



## Helios (Nov 18, 2015)

okwiater said:


> I was wondering the same thing, but the language ("Owner's name and agreement number") suggests that you have to reject arbitration for every one of your contracts separately.



I guess this will be a big effort for me.  How about the clock start?


----------



## Helios (Nov 18, 2015)

moto x said:


> I guess this will be a big effort for me.  How about the clock start?



How about multiple notices in one envelope?  Do you think that is acceptable?  Perhaps adding a cover letter that mentions all the notices that are enclosed.


----------



## suzannesimon (Nov 18, 2015)

Has anyone made any money on a class action lawsuit other than the attorneys?  A couple of times a year I get a settlement of between $3 - $6 for some lawsuit I knew nothing about.  However I did have a lawyer friend years ago that became a multi-millionaire when he won one.


----------



## alexadeparis (Nov 18, 2015)

suzannesimon said:


> Has anyone made any money on a class action lawsuit other than the attorneys?  A couple of times a year I get a settlement of between $3 - $6 for some lawsuit I knew nothing about.  However I did have a lawyer friend years ago that became a multi-millionaire when he won one.



The only people getting real money (besides the attorney) would be the named plaintiffs in the caption, like "Alexa De Paris v. Vistana" , the rest of the class gets the piddling settlement.


I sent in the rejection letter, and just put both my contract numbers on the same subject line.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 19, 2015)

okwiater said:


> I was wondering the same thing, but the language ("Owner's name and agreement number") suggests that you have to reject arbitration for every one of your contracts separately.



Just write a letter specifying everything you own and that you are rejecting the arbitration provision. I would think it's making your intent obvious that matters.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 19, 2015)

alexadeparis said:


> The only people getting real money (besides the attorney) would be the named plaintiffs in the caption, like "Alexa De Paris v. Vistana" , the rest of the class gets the piddling settlement.
> 
> 
> I sent in the rejection letter, and just put both my contract numbers on the same subject line.



I would like to think SVO is looking after owners but they are looking after shareholders. With the total lack of availability in Hawaii and Harborside, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that some shady stuff is happening with the SVN inventory. Do you think corporate behavior would be affected is there was a possibility of a class action at all?

If everyone was required to arbitrate, then they know most people wouldn't bother suing because the effort involved is too much (and the possibility of class action is zero). When there is the possibility of a class action, there are always law firms that will make the effort if there is a valid reason to do so.


----------



## suzannesimon (Nov 19, 2015)

I don't think there is anything shady going on at Harborside.  The maintenance fees are so high, the owners have to rent them if they aren't using them.  Check them out on Redweek .  It doesn't take long to figure out that exchanging your $3000+ maintenance fee for a $1500 unit is a losing proposition.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 19, 2015)

suzannesimon said:


> I don't think there is anything shady going on at Harborside.  The maintenance fees are so high, the owners have to rent them if they aren't using them.  Check them out on Redweek .  It doesn't take long to figure out that exchanging your $3000+ maintenance fee for a $1500 unit is a losing proposition.



But this is not new. It has been the case for years.

However, availability is MUCH different from past years. Last year for example, with online reservations, you could see availability starting at 8 months + 1 day. That doesn't mean you can successfully book it at 8 months out but there was stuff available. Now, there is not even a single night in any unit type till late August. In my opinion, that's not really possible. Most owners are not that sophisticated about renting out their weeks (at least from my conversations at the pools) - and if they can't use their weeks some will exchange to a different resort (or bank their points). Also in prior years, before online reservations, you could also book something at 8 months out - it may not have been a 2BR and it may not have been the week you wanted, but stuff was there.


----------



## suzannesimon (Nov 19, 2015)

I tried to reserve July 4 week for next  year at midnight July 4 this year.  My daughter was trying to do it at the same time.  I fumbled on the website since I had only done it once before.  She got hers, but I didn't get mine.  By 12:01 a.m., all the 3 bedrooms were gone.  However, the next day I logged on and tried to book it and it was there.

Wasn't there a change in what could be reserved with Star Options last year giving non-owners in a resort more options?  I can't remember since I've never used Optionsl.


----------



## DanCali (Nov 19, 2015)

suzannesimon said:


> I tried to reserve July 4 week for next  year at midnight July 4 this year.  My daughter was trying to do it at the same time.  I fumbled on the website since I had only done it once before.  She got hers, but I didn't get mine.  By 12:01 a.m., all the 3 bedrooms were gone.  However, the next day I logged on and tried to book it and it was there.
> 
> Wasn't there a change in what could be reserved with Star Options last year giving non-owners in a resort more options?  I can't remember since I've never used Optionsl.



I was referring to Staroptions reservations at 8 months out, not home resort reservations (although the fact that you can't book something at 360 days out is also somewhat of a concern, but understandable for a 4th of July week). Giving Orlando owners more options would make it more competitive to book at 8 months out. It doesn't explain why there isn't a single night in any room type at Harborside till late August though.


----------



## Scott & Laura (Dec 1, 2015)

*Opt Out Class action*

Hello

We have yet to receive our MF invoice
Question:  How does one opt out of automatic Class Action suit waiver?
It is a tool if needed and one which the rights should be retained to.

I personally a separate email notifying association members of this change rather than slipping in maintenance fees renewal ( as I understand happened) should have been performed. in the contract.


Scott


I assume all new property sales would include this


----------



## SueDonJ (Dec 1, 2015)

Scott & Laura said:


> Hello
> 
> We have yet to receive our MF invoice
> Question:  How does one opt out of automatic Class Action suit waiver?
> ...



I merged your post into the ongoing thread; see Post #1 for the quoted instructions.


----------



## Scott & Laura (Dec 1, 2015)

THANK YOU this is exactly what I needed.

30 days from receiving Notice to ACT

This opt applies only to access of SVN network and not our owned property which is governed by our elected board members. 

I noticed that Sheraton Flex and the New 3 phase of Maui 3 appear not to be deeded property but are selling access to property by a points system---Please correct if I err. They would seemingly fall under SVN as governing body of their property access


Scott


----------

