# Equivest bankruptcy at Bluebeard's Castle



## Jennie (Jul 11, 2007)

I just received the following message by Email. Since I do not own at the Castle, I am not a member of the Yahoo group where the details are apparently posted. Can anyone provide more information. 

As read on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bluebeards/

Here's the message:
-"Equivest St. Thomas, Inc. filed for bankruptcy a week ago Monday.

This is the way FF, now Wydham, has chosen to avoid financial responsibility in their fight with the HOA's at Bluebeards Castle. Oh the tangled web of business anymore.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 11, 2007)

*No surprise. The owners needed to give some too*



Jennie said:


> I just received the following message by Email. Since I do not own at the Castle, I am not a member of the Yahoo group where the details are apparently posted. Can anyone provide more information.
> 
> As read on http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bluebeards/
> 
> ...



I know it was hard for the Board/Association at Blue Beards Castle to accept but they had the best offer they were going to get when over $12 million was on the table from Fairfield. Unfortunately they didn't want to compromise and take maybe 50-75% of what they felt was owed and fought instead. Now they may end up with nothing or at least far less than the the $12 million and still face the needs to renovate and improve the resort. Sometimes you just have to swallow hard and take whats there rather than go for everything possible. 

I also see a similar disaster shaping up at Summer Bay, LV where the Board has done a great job, perhaps not perfect, that is now threatened to be nixed by the owners. I hope they realize that the option may be much worse than the potentially flawed agreement they are seemingly heading toward turning down. Compromise and sharing the wealth are necessary if agreements are going to work. Your stance may be 100% correct but the cahnces of enforcing it very low in the courts and with a well financed foe.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jul 11, 2007)

Here is a little more info from street talk



			
				street talk blog said:
			
		

> ST. THOMAS: In the ongoing saga of the Bluebeard Castle HOAs vs Equivest/Fairfield Resorts (now Wyndham VO), which has been dragging along for several years now, it looks like Wyndham has followed through on its latest threat to bring things to a close.
> 
> Equivest St. Thomas, Inc., filed in the VI Bankruptcy court July 3, 2007. Case No. 07-30011. Guess who is their biggest creditor? Wyndham at $12.5M. All others? Under $50,000 each at most.
> 
> ...



So Equivest is bankrupt because they owe 12 million dollars to Wyndham ( the owner of equivest)


----------



## ausman (Jul 11, 2007)

As an interestered observer these past few years I must be missing something. 

Didn't Fairfield assume the Equivest debt and obligations.

Can someone explain why a shell of a corporation filing bankruptcy would matter in the slightest.

It may look good in the press but legally I don't see it matters.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 11, 2007)

*What you see is not what you get*

Like so many things corporate who knows what they have combined, split off, maintained as a wholly owned subsidiary - it can be any type of mumbo jumbo that can cover their rear ends. 

In any case they have maintained a company called Equivest - here is the website

It may be a game but it's a costly one to the owners and guess who has the deep pockets to wait them out? That original offer now sounds better and better as time goes by but it may not even be available anymore. Why would FF pay 12 million now when they may be able to pay little or nothing. There are a litany of bad decisions all around this resort and it isn't getting better.


----------



## JudyS (Jul 11, 2007)

basham said:


> ...Can someone explain why a shell of a corporation filing bankruptcy would matter in the slightest.
> 
> It may look good in the press but legally I don't see it matters.


I really don't understand the situation.  But, off the top of my head, my guess is that Wyndham forced Bluebeard's Castle into bankruptcy because doing so would either reduce Wyndham's obligations to the owners there, or would allow Wyndham to seize some of the assets that would otherwise belong to the owners (which I suppose is more-or-less the same thing.) 

John, can you fill us in here as to what the owner/Wyndham dispute was over?


----------



## ausman (Jul 11, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Like so many things corporate who knows what they have combined, split off, maintained as a wholly owned subsidiary - it can be any type of mumbo jumbo that can cover their rear ends.
> 
> I



Agreed, 

However from what we seem to know Fairfield  aka Wyndham ( having purchased the name essencially) assumed the debt and obligations of the Equivest entities, what ever they were.

I wonder what the Bluebeard's Castle legal response will be. If not outright derision, as they must have weighted the offers and ultimatum, I could imagine phrases from Corp Law I, such as lifting the corporate veil.

As I said, an interestered observer only but it does strike me as a little strange.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 11, 2007)

*A readers digest version*



JudyS said:


> John, can you fill us in here as to what the owner/Wyndham dispute was over?



As a real short summary the original developer of Bluebeards Castle used the owners maintenance funds to build other resorts, run his hotels, took insurance money that rightfully belonged to the Bluebeards resort and the resort fell into disrepair. None of this was under FF or Equivest watch. The owners had a long battle to have the developer removed as management, and won a sizable award of misappropriated fees that was supposed to be resolved but the developer sold out and Equivest stepped in as the new management. But the money never got paid - I don't know if the award was challenged or what happened. Then Fairfield bought out the Equivest system, some say taking on the debts  - including the money due to Bluebeards.  (As I say this is a rough summary and not meant to represent all the hardships and battles the owners at BB went through. 99% were the fault of a crooked developer who then passed the issue on to those who came after). 

After FF came on the scene they offered a major influx of funds - somewhere between 12 and 15 million dollars - to upgrade the resort and to become the marketer on site. They were also to be the management company. There was some hanky panky with the votes for the Board of Directors (I'm saying it lightly but it was a very serious matter and was not handled well at all by FF) and in the end rather than having a majority of pro FF Board members they ended up in the minority. They ended up saying that the offer of 12-15 million was it - they weren't going to pay anymore. The Board felt the number should be something more like 20-25 million and held out. (Again there were other factors such as management control and how the money could be spent - but  the bottom line was the two sides couldn't agree on a number) Then FF started to play hardball. They only paid for the units they controlled (sort of like Wastegate at Bluetree in Orlando) and managed those themselves. The remainder of the resort is basically broke, certainly can't afford the desperately needed repairs and upgrades and is suing FF for the 20+ million they feel is owed.   The bankruptcy is an attempt by FF/Equivest to wipe out the debt no matter what the number is.  And the war continues as the resort suffers. 5 years and counting. 

What a mess.


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 12, 2007)

A slight correction, no award of damages was ever won by the owners. They rejected a settlement offer (Timesharing Today indicated a couple of years back in a cover story that it was 17 Million).

That case is on the calendar in the Virgin islands courts and is coming up soon for initial discovery, etc. Expect appeals if lost by Wyndham/FF. A collectable award could be years away.

Sad all around....


----------



## kdrew (Jul 13, 2007)

*Wrong again John...........*



timeos2 said:


> I know it was hard for the Board/Association at Blue Beards Castle to accept but they had the best offer they were going to get when over $12 million was on the table from Fairfield. Unfortunately they didn't want to compromise and take maybe 50-75% of what they felt was owed and fought instead. Now they may end up with nothing or at least far less than the the $12 million and still face the needs to renovate and improve the resort. Sometimes you just have to swallow hard and take whats there rather than go for everything possible.



:whoopie: 
Time to correct a few people here.  There was never $12M on the table from Fairfield. But let us just say there was an offer of $12M. That would not be even close to what is needed to fix the resort. f course owners like John would like to just settle for pennies on the dollar and then send out a special assessment to owners to pay for all the repairs that need to be done so then Fairfield/Equivest/Cendant/Wyndham/who freakin' knows or cares can then go and sell the "Fixed up" resort and pocket a tremendous profit.

BTW- if you were owed $100, would you take $1? If so, can you loan me $100?!?!?!?!

I will further correct people below so read on!!!

Ken
owner since 1991 and Board member since 2002


----------



## kdrew (Jul 13, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> As a real short summary the original developer of Bluebeards Castle used the owners maintenance funds to build other resorts, run his hotels, took insurance money that rightfully belonged to the Bluebeards resort and the resort fell into disrepair. None of this was under FF or Equivest watch. The owners had a long battle to have the developer removed as management, and won a sizable award of misappropriated fees that was supposed to be resolved but the developer sold out and Equivest stepped in as the new management. But the money never got paid - I don't know if the award was challenged or what happened. Then Fairfield bought out the Equivest system, some say taking on the debts  - including the money due to Bluebeards.  (As I say this is a rough summary and not meant to represent all the hardships and battles the owners at BB went through. 99% were the fault of a crooked developer who then passed the issue on to those who came after).



*Another correction here- the original developer is at fault for many things like poor mamangement of the resort, under insured, using insurance money to buy another resort, spending money at these resorts, etc.

Keeep in mind that Equivest and Fairfield also got caught with their "hands in the cookie jar" as well. They also continued to do a variety of questionable, dare I say "illegal", things.

NO AWARD WAS EVER GIVEN TO OWNERS...EVER!!!!!!*




timeos2 said:


> After FF came on the scene they offered a major influx of funds - somewhere between 12 and 15 million dollars - to upgrade the resort and to become the marketer on site. They were also to be the


*WRONG AGAIN HERE JOHN- FF offered owners $4.25M plus a 10 year management contract with their fee based on the size of the budget (i.e. higher budget & fees meant a higher fee to them to run the resort!). There is one small issue neglected here............FF had reports detailing, at that time, that the resort needed at least $10M of repairs. Nice offer, huh? 

The only upgrades done were to their own property NOT owners units and they were mainly safety related and things that had to be done. Trust me, FF does not fix things unless they have to! Wake up people in timeshare land. The developer is out to make money and does not give a s#@t about "Joe Timeshare owner. Read on for more corrections........."*





timeos2 said:


> management company. There was some hanky panky with the votes for the Board of Directors (I'm saying it lightly but it was a very serious matter and was not handled well at all by FF) and in the end rather than having a majority of pro FF Board members they ended up in the minority. They ended up saying that the offer of 12-15 million was it


*There was no hanky panky with votes! Owners backed an owner slate and we elected a totally owner controlled Board. We then were able to start looking into our finanaces and, to date, FF/Wyndham/Equivest has still never turned over all the financial records.....hummmm...wonder why??? FF did offer $10M and that was turned down since that would not cover the costs of the resort repairs and we pressed on to get engineering reports and fiscal reports to determine what we are owed. This included multi-millions of developer maintenance fees that had never been paid.......*




timeos2 said:


> - they weren't going to pay anymore. The Board felt the number should be something more like 20-25 million and held out. (Again there were other factors such as management control and how the money could be spent - but  the bottom line was the two sides couldn't agree on a number) Then FF started to play hardball. They only paid for the units they controlled (sort of like Wastegate at Bluetree in Orlando) and managed those themselves. The remainder of the resort is basically broke, certainly can't afford the desperately needed repairs and upgrades and is suing FF for the 20+ million they feel is owed.   The bankruptcy is an attempt by FF/Equivest to wipe out the debt no matter what the number is.  And the war continues as the resort suffers. 5 years and counting.
> 
> What a mess.



*John- do you work for FF or just kiss the ground they walk on? First off, there has only been one mediation that was close to settlement but lawyers from both sides and the mediator dropped the ball and onwards we went. The supposed amount was $16-$18M depending on whom you talk to. That fell through. Since that time, we have asked to meet with FF/Wyndham/Equivest/WTF and they have refused to meet. They refused binding arbitration from the start............ask yourself "why?". We all know why- they want to punish Castle owners and they are trying everything they can try to smoke us out. This includes financially supporting a small group of FF sympathetic owners and actually sending out campaign literature using FF's postal meter. They have placed FF execs on two of the 4 Boards but the USVI judicial system has told them that they cannot decide or be involved with litigation issues. this includes the small number of owners they actually appointed to the Boards!

So now what? Bankruptcy? Nice try. They claim that they are in debt. Great. I can't wait to force them from Chapter 11 to Chapter 7 and then we liquidate their other resorts on island (the Beach Club and Elysian) to pay for our repairs. We can make a VERY strong argument for a Trustee which means they no longer run their own show. Timeshare history, my friends! 

The fight is long from over and owners will win and prove to all the FF/Wyndham lovers that your beloved timeshare developer is not a good as you think they are. Get on your own Boards and see how they spend your money on their sister companies and pad their profits. Get an independant management company and wathc your fees go down.........


Ken
*


----------



## kdrew (Jul 13, 2007)

*so what would you do?!?!?!*



timeos2 said:


> FF/Equivest to wipe out the debt no matter what the number is.  And the war continues as the resort suffers. 5 years and counting.
> 
> What a mess.



*So what to do? Take pennies and assess owners? Stand up and fight for what is right? The overwhelming support from owners is to fight for what is FAIR. Not the max amount but what it will cost to fix the resort.

FF/Wyndham is letting their own buidlings on the resort go into disrepair and have not a care in the world if owners are effected. Their attitude is "we do not care about timeshare owners so tough luck. We are a big corporation and we will do what we want"

Sometimes people actually stand up to the bully and work towards what is right. Corporate America is a machine but the machine can be turned off if enough people care to stand up for what is right and fair. Fair is binding arbitration in October of 2003. Fair is not punishing owners for their mistake. Fair is not offering $4.25M and knowing that it would cost at least $10M to fix the resort thus the owners would have had to pick up the slack.

Time for bed...........  

Ken
*


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 14, 2007)

kdrew said:


> *So what to do? Take pennies and assess owners? Stand up and fight for what is right? The overwhelming support from owners is to fight for what is FAIR. Not the max amount but what it will cost to fix the resort.
> 
> FF/Wyndham is letting their own buidlings on the resort go into disrepair and have not a care in the world if owners are effected. Their attitude is "we do not care about timeshare owners so tough luck. We are a big corporation and we will do what we want"
> 
> ...



Ken - Sadly it most likely will be the owners who end up saddled with the costs. I've been on the side that was right & the "winner" yet ended up with those pennies on the dollars you mentioned. For various reasons - bankruptcy, legal technicalities, judges whim, whatever - the big guy gets the breaks. While it's never pleasant sometimes you come out ahead taking what you can get sooner & moving on rather than fighting a costly battle only to end up with another penny more.  As I've said my sympathy lies with the owners but reality says this isn't turning out as they hope it will. I applaud your stand for whats right in any case while wondering if it's just a bit too rigid to see other options.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 14, 2007)

*Sometimes, you have to make a stand........*



timeos2 said:


> Ken - Sadly it most likely will be the owners who end up saddled with the costs. I've been on the side that was right & the "winner" yet ended up with those pennies on the dollars you mentioned. For various reasons - bankruptcy, legal technicalities, judges whim, whatever - the big guy gets the breaks. While it's never pleasant sometimes you come out ahead taking what you can get sooner & moving on rather than fighting a costly battle only to end up with another penny more.  As I've said my sympathy lies with the owners but reality says this isn't turning out as they hope it will. I applaud your stand for whats right in any case while wondering if it's just a bit too rigid to see other options.



*Several options still exists but let us face it- if America never stood up and made a stand, we may all be speaking with different accents today. Bottom line, some people lead, some follow. Some take a stand and do what is right, some don't. You never know what will happen if you do not try. Castle owners are wiling to try unlike most timeshare owners who seem to allow the developer to do whatever they wish. 

Agree to disagree is OK by me. I respect your view. I just do not agree with it. Time will tell....... Have a great weekend!


Ken
 *


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 14, 2007)

Hi Ken,

First, good luck to all Castle owners in the fight for Equivest compensation.

As per Timesharing Today's article of a year or two back, the settlement discussions of 16-18 MM also included several current board members stepping down and new elections occurring as FF considered them impossible to work with going forward.

Was this correct? Why is that not discussed in your posts?

Sounds like that may be a breach of duty to the other owners if a few board members put their own desires to remain in power ahead of the financial nterests of the owners they represent.

Please comment. This is not an attack, just a desire to learn your perspective on what is rarely discussed.

PS. If a settlement and special assessment would stem the flood of delinquencies long term and permit necessary repairs, may not be so bad. It's like the guy who gets killed by a cement truck putting "but I had the right of way" on his tombstone.

PPS. Currently, no resort in the entire caribbean has the number of units available for $1 resale as the Castle.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 14, 2007)

kdrew said:


> *The fight is long from over and owners will win and prove to all the FF/Wyndham lovers that your beloved timeshare developer is not a good as you think they are. Get on your own Boards and see how they spend your money on their sister companies and pad their profits. Get an independant management company and wathc your fees go down.........
> *



GOOD LUCK!!

GEORGE


----------



## JudyS (Jul 14, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> As a real short summary the original developer of Bluebeards Castle used the owners maintenance funds to build other resorts, run his hotels, took insurance money that rightfully belonged to the Bluebeards resort and the resort fell into disrepair....


[I snipped the description of legal battles, Equivest & Fairfield role, etc.]  Thanks for the explanation.  Wow, it does sound like a mess! 





kdrew said:


> :whoopie:
> Time to correct a few people here.  There was never $12M on the table from Fairfield. But let us just say there was an offer of $12M....
> Another correction here- the original developer is at fault for many things like poor mamangement of the resort, under insured, using insurance money to buy another resort, spending money at these resorts, etc....
> WRONG AGAIN HERE JOHN- FF offered owners $4.25M plus a 10 year management contract with their fee based on the size of the budget (i.e. higher budget & fees meant a higher fee to them to run the resort!). There is one small issue neglected here............FF had reports detailing, at that time, that the resort needed at least $10M of repairs........


John mentioned the problems with the original developer in his post.  I didn't see him as siding with FF, just as trying to answer my question about the nature of the dispute.  Explaining the dispute required describing what FF's position was as well as the owners' position. 

I am getting confused -- if there was an offer of $12 million but not from Fairfield, then where did the $12 million offer come from? And, did FF offer $4.25M or $10M?  Did the resort need $10M of repairs, or more than $10M of repairs? 

It sounds like the original developer was an outright criminal.  Since this resort is in the US Virgin Islands, wasn’t it under US jurisdiction?  I’m surprised that the original developer could get away with so much fraud for so long.  I’ve heard of that happening at other resorts, but usually not in the US.

I can’t tell how much Equivest/FF/Wyndham is at fault, and how much the fault is the original developer’s, but certainly the owners are getting a raw deal.  Can they just hand the whole thing over to Wyndham and walk away?  Or, is Wyndham trying to stick them with the repair bill?


----------



## Tia (Jul 14, 2007)

JudyS said:


> [I snipped the description of legal battles, Equivest & Fairfield role, etc.]  ................ Can they just hand the whole thing over to Wyndham and walk away?  Or, is Wyndham trying to stick them with the repair bill?



We own at the resort in question ,20 years, as well as Bluebeards Beach Club. For your question Judy about handing the whole thing over to Wyndham, this is not an option that I know of . IMO Wydham  has been passively pushing to leave owners with the whole  bill .  Wydham and past developers all counted profits gotten using unethical, sometimes illegal, and  choke hold tactics. 

It is my thought that even if Wydham was to take back all the deeded ts  it would still be an unjust end for  the little ts owners.  l also wonder if the property due to location  has much more $ value, in future development possibilities etc. than anyone admits.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 14, 2007)

kdrew said:


> *Several options still exists but let us face it- if America never stood up and made a stand, we may all be speaking with different accents  *



Ken - Also realize the British and others had to admit they lost and become allies or we'd still be fighting. Compromise sometimes is required. We can agree to have two views & as always I hope for the best possible outcome for the owners.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 14, 2007)

johnmfaeth said:


> Hi Ken,
> 
> First, good luck to all Castle owners in the fight for Equivest compensation.
> 
> ...



*I mentioned this before. We did have a presumed agreement at that figure but both sides dropped the ball and it fell through. As for Board members stepping down, that has not happened although FF would have liked to get people like myself off the Board and place owners who are sympathetic to their company (like the current FF appointed president of the Beach Club whom Ff has given campaign money to to run against the current boards). FF considers anybody who does not share their views as a problem and thus would like them removed thus they continue to fight to appoint people even thought the bylaws do not allow it after 90% of the units have been sold.

Simply put- it takes two to tango and FF would rather sit than dance..... 
*




johnmfaeth said:


> Sounds like that may be a breach of duty to the other owners if a few board members put their own desires to remain in power ahead of the financial nterests of the owners they represent.
> 
> Please comment. This is not an attack, just a desire to learn your perspective on what is rarely discussed.
> 
> ...



*I ask you this- let's say you found a report that you had prepared told you that you needed $XXX to fix the resort and then you were offered $YYY and the diference between XXX and YYY was huge. Would you settle for that deal? Would you settle for that deal and send owners a bill for more work to be done and their already inflated fees? 

A special assesment would drive the delinquency rates out of sight and basically kill the resort. Owners are not willing to pay to fix problems that the developer caused. The developers who own the liability......... 

Timeshare history in the making. With no help from ARDA or major networks or publications, owners will make history and Wyndham should be very afraid because this will be a blueprint as to what it takes to beat the 900 lg. gorilla.:whoopie: 

Hope this answers your questions. Thanks!

Ken*


----------



## kdrew (Jul 14, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> Ken - Also realize the British and others had to admit they lost and become allies or we'd still be fighting. Compromise sometimes is required. We can agree to have two views & as always I hope for the best possible outcome for the owners.



*It takes two to compromise and FF/Equivest/Wyndham do not want to play. We have no other options but to push forward. We played the game and lost a year back when we first started this excercise with FF. They made promises and then never followed through.

In time, perhaps they will see that working together is better but I have seen the underbelly of the timeshare world   and it is not pretty......
 

Ken
*


----------



## kdrew (Jul 14, 2007)

JudyS said:


> [I snipped the description of legal battles, Equivest & Fairfield role, etc.]  Thanks for the explanation.  Wow, it does sound like a mess!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



*There was never a $12M offer. FF did offer $4.25M and then several months later offered $10M. The resort needed more than $10M in repairs. Yes, the original developer was criminal but also there are indications that FF was not far behind. Let me just say that there are many options being considered by owners pending what FF/Wyndham does here. Do not be surprised when you hear about them.

And, YES, Wyndham is sticking it to owners. they will NOT even fix the property THEY OWN on the resort!! They have left the resort and refuse to fix anything! If a building collapses, they do not care. We have been told that point blank in not so many words!!  

Ken

*


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 14, 2007)

Hi Ken,

Good luck to all the Castle Owners in the fight...even 900 LB Gorilla's can trip and fall....   

John


----------



## JudyS (Jul 14, 2007)

kdrew said:


> *There was never a $12M offer. FF did offer $4.25M and then several months later offered $10M. The resort needed more than $10M in repairs. Yes, the original developer was criminal but also there are indications that FF was not far behind. Let me just say that there are many options being considered by owners pending what FF/Wyndham does here. Do not be surprised when you hear about them.
> 
> And, YES, Wyndham is sticking it to owners. they will NOT even fix the property THEY OWN on the resort!! They have left the resort and refuse to fix anything! If a building collapses, they do not care. We have been told that point blank in not so many words!!
> 
> ...


Thanks for the information.  Do you have an estimate of how much it would cost to make the repairs?  How many owners are there?

I second John M's wish of good luck.

There is no question that Fairfield/Wyndham is extremely unfriendly to owners.  I made the proposal a week or so ago that the many timeshare owners who were being shafted by Wyndham should band together and buy stock to influence the company.  Heck, if they didn't suceed, at least some of their money that Wyndham was ripping off would come back to them in the form of dividends!  You can see the thread here.


----------



## Jya-Ning (Jul 15, 2007)

JudyS said:


> Heck, if they didn't suceed, at least some of their money that Wyndham was ripping off would come back to them in the form of dividends!



Judy, I don't believe they pay divident.

Ken:

I wish you success.  If not because all these class actions in the earlier year, we may still has no rescind period in TS.

This bankrupcy sounds like Eron.  Where Wyndham is the parent company and own a lot of debt of the child company while child company may own the unsold units.  So after bankrupcy, the parent company take over all the unsold inventories if it desired.  They probably can do that for FF if they are so desired so they can create a new President Wynfham Club.  On the other hand, if a judge believes it is just another eron, they basically throw whole Wyndham in.

Good Luck for you and for me.

Jya-Ning


----------



## JudyS (Jul 15, 2007)

On the topic of buying Wyndham stock:


Jya-Ning said:


> Judy, I don't believe they pay divident.


Wyndham hasn't paid a dividend yet because the company is brand-new, formed from the breakup of Cendant last year.  Wyndham has announced an intention to pay dividends starting in the 3rd quarter of 2007.  (If Wyndham had announced an intention to _never_ pay dividends, why would anyone buy their stock?)


----------



## kdrew (Jul 15, 2007)

*Would love to tell you but..........*



JudyS said:


> Thanks for the information.  Do you have an estimate of how much it would cost to make the repairs?  How many owners are there?
> 
> I second John M's wish of good luck.
> 
> There is no question that Fairfield/Wyndham is extremely unfriendly to owners.  I made the proposal a week or so ago that the many timeshare owners who were being shafted by Wyndham should band together and buy stock to influence the company.  Heck, if they didn't suceed, at least some of their money that Wyndham was ripping off would come back to them in the form of dividends!  You can see the thread here.



*I would love to tell you how much we need to repair the resort as I am privy to that information but based on conversations with our legal counsel, it is best that we keep this to ourselves for now. Obviosly FF/Wyndham people watch these groups (if they do not, they are making a huge mistake) thus I cannot tip out hand as to what it will take for them to settle this.

The buying stock idea is a good one. We have many owners who plan on attending the upcoming shareholders meeting and speaking to the Board of Wyndham and ask them certain questions that I am sure that newspapaers and Wall Street analysts will be very curious to hear and may have an effect on the stock price of Wyndham. 

Thanks for your support   and I will report back when we win!

 
Ken
*


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 15, 2007)

*Lets look at the case*



basham said:


> As an interestered observer these past few years I must be missing something.
> 
> Didn't Fairfield assume the Equivest debt and obligations.



As you read the previous posts you'll discover that the amount "due" is one of the major questions.  The majority of the money unquestionably was mis-appropriated by the original developer. That now dates back over a decade. Then there are the acquisitions/sale to Equivest and then Equivest to Fairfield. So the exact trail and what was sold - usually only the rights to unsold property - not the resort itself, as that is often owned in common by all weeks owners and of course they own the individual time they bought.  So there was a responsibility for the original developer to collect and properly use the fees to operate and maintain the resort which it seems he did not - thats the majority of the money due.  Now it seems there was never any actual court finding to return that money. 

Then that original developer sold whatever he controlled (which again most likely are the development/sales rights but could include the common areas IF the documents left those in developer hands even after the individual weeks are sold) and the owners say the money due back is also in that sale. It's not completely clear how this all breaks down as its doubtful the owners have seen the sales documents to Equivest or Fairfield. Again on the surface the owners would seem to have a great argument that the original developer is liable for the misused funds but it may be a stretch to prove that by selling his rights that liability is automatically transferred to the new buyer. A court may have a hard time reaching that view unless it was spelled out in the sales agreement (doubtful). Then there is the fact that Fairfield bought the buyer of the rights - another place all sorts of disclaimers and corporate ownerships may muddy the water.  Add in all the time that has passed.  Courts usually cut off damages or awards at the time of the alleged action - they seldom allow things to continue to add to the due bill.   The plaintiffs have to show they took actions to stem the losses (such as raising the money and getting the repairs done) rather than simply watching things get worse and adding to the bill due. Mitigation is required and doesn't seem to have occurred here. 
Often times interest is not allowed on awards.  So after you reduce the possible recovery to what was originally misappropriated and then decide who owes it (tech developer  that actually may have taken it, the buyer of his rights, the buyer of that buyer/) the potential winnings may look much more like the the Fairfield offer than the amount the owners feel they are due. It is highly unlikely, but not impossible, that any court will find 100% in favor of the owners view and award 100% of what they seek.  In fact it may be tough for them to get even close to the number they seek based on all the twists, turns and time since the problems started.  

It is easy to get in the mindset that your view is the only correct one and then build a case that looks great and impossible to lose to your side but quickly falls apart when looked at closely.  That could be the owners case - it certainly could be Fairfield's case - most likely it is some of each and each will only get some of what they seek.  Sounds very much like the offer that was out there - a compromise to move the resort forward.  If I had to bet it is an answer like that that the court, should it reach a decision, will hand down.  And it won't be soon which is really sad for everyone involved.


----------



## Tia (Jul 15, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> ..........Then there are the acquisitions/sale to Equivest and then Equivest to Fairfield. ...........




I am trying to follow your points, not easy not being business minded. It is tangled, imho done on purpose.  I do believe  that Equivest was never 'sold ' _anything_, ie. property/rights. Equivest was originally the finance company that took the properties when Kosmos, second developer arrangement lasting less than one year,   over extended themselves back in '98.


----------



## Bill4728 (Jul 16, 2007)

I still do not understand how Wyndham can be owned $1.5 million dollars by Equivest if they are equivest.  How do they owe themselves money?


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 16, 2007)

*Buyouts are strange beasts*



Bill4728 said:


> I still do not understand how Wyndham can be owned $1.5 million dollars by Equivest if they are equivest.  How do they owe themselves money?



When a company gets purchased by another what exactly they buy and how it answers to the new owners isn't set by any rules. Some get absorbed and others remain independent but with a new shareholder.  If it was left independent enough - and the Equivest website seems to suggest it was - then the owner might be due money from it's own subsidiary.   When we had a battle with Sunterra years ago they had a myriad of inter-related companies. They had gone bankrupt at the top level and some of the subsidiaries had but others hadn't.   As it turns out they might have won their case with us had they all gone bankrupt but since the division we had to deal with hadn't they ended up having to settle or face a court decision they weren't going to like.  We didn't like the costs of continued court action so, on the judges advice, both sides compromised and settled the case. Until the papers were signed and recorded it could have fell apart as both sides weren't pleased. The resort was able to move ahead and recover and today we have a good working relationship with a developer we had been at total war with.  Neither side was completely happy and we still have our moments and subjects of disagreement but all either side has to do is think back to that impasse and costs of that nasty legal battle to know threatening court fights is not the answer. 

The history that led up to that battle seems to parallel what I'm reading about Bluebeards.  Maybe not quite as blatant but all the hot buttons are in there - questions about funds, poor management, voting issues, strong arm tactics, a resort deteriorating  - this isn't a unique case by any means.  The owners are right to stand up to management while always being open to a reasonable solution.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 16, 2007)

timeos2 said:


> The history that led up to that battle seems to parallel what I'm reading about Bluebeards.  Maybe not quite as blatant but all the hot buttons are in there - questions about funds, poor management, voting issues, strong arm tactics, a resort deteriorating  - this isn't a unique case by any means.  The owners are right to stand up to management while always being open to a reasonable solution.



*That is why I see binding arbitration as a fair, quick, simple way to acheive a settlement. Guess what? Fairfield/Equivest/Wyndham do not like to play fair (nor arbitrate)...........and owners suffer............and every owner tells their friends to NEVER  PURCHASE a timeshare from Wyndham/Fairfield ..........and ultimately, Wyndham will lose potential customers instead of doing what is right and look for a fair settlement .*


----------



## ausman (Jul 16, 2007)

Ken,

I participated early on in this thread and said that I believed FF/WYN assumed the debt and obligations of Equivest.

Would you mind explaining how the parties are linked and obligations passed or were assumed . 

Briefly, just to get us to the current situation.

 I believe I may have read it in other discussions but unfortunately do not recall and did not save, so apologise for requesting.


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 16, 2007)

kdrew said:


> *That is why I see binding arbitration as a fair, quick, simple way to acheive a settlement. Guess what? Fairfield/Equivest/Wyndham do not like to play fair (nor arbitrate)...........and owners suffer............and every owner tells their friends to NEVER  PURCHASE a timeshare from Wyndham/Fairfield ..........and ultimately, Wyndham will lose potential customers instead of doing what is right and look for a fair settlement .*



In our case the developer wanted to arbitrate and we didn't. So it was a positive, in our opinion, that neither side could demand arbitration unilaterally. Seems you are in the same spot. If it can't be forced or mutually agreed to then it isn't an option.  Keep the pressure on so your adversary either decides your ideas have merit and they need to talk or arbitrate or until you decide that maybe your side can give some and get the talks open again.  Hoping for something the other side isn't willing to give in on isn't going to move things along.  Work within the boundaries you have. Right now that appears to be to continue to fight in the courts or agree to open new negotiations.  Anything else isn't on the table anymore.   

There is some value to a public airing of the grievances you have as no company wants their name dragged through bad press or grapevine and Internet negativity.  We gained leverage from that type of approach in our fight I'm sure. Heck this thread has brought out supporters for your side and certainly hasn't improved anyones opinions of Fairfield.  So you may be accomplishing something that can help bring them back to the table.  You never know what will tip the scales to either side and create a resolution.  Keep trying and keep the pressure on.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 17, 2007)

*Answers to your questions*



basham said:


> Ken,
> 
> I participated early on in this thread and said that I believed FF/WYN assumed the debt and obligations of Equivest.
> 
> ...



The history is relatively simple- the original developer (John Cavanaugh) started the resort back in the early 80's. He eventually discovered that timeshares were the way to go and thus began that venture. Below is a history file generated by owners at the Yahoo Castle group.

In breif, it goes like this (first developer to present): Cavanaugh, Kosmos, Equivest, Fairfield/Cendant, Wyndham

Below is more detail.

************

September 1995: Hurricane Marilyn hits. After Marilyn, the Tower over the
Restaurant was built.

Spring 1996: Hurricane repairs done (taking ~7 months). The repair of the 2
Castle tower rooms was proposed (never done).
Fall 1996: Construction of 2 Pirates Pension buildings .
Winter 1996: Pirates Pension was offered

September 1997: After gathering assessments from owners for on site utilities (water/electric) Castle abandoned the operation to install the utilities.
Winter 1997: Purchased the Limetree Resort (later changed to the name
Bluebeard's Beach Club) and Elysian announced.

1998: Construction started on two more Pirates Pension buildings.

The recovery from Hurricane Marilyn depleted the Associations cash reserves.
The reserves together with ~$400,000 from the Castle and the insurance
proceeds (NOTE: We need to see what Lloyds of London paid out for the damage caused by Hurricane Marilyn) restored most of the Castle. At this time, the associations are awaiting ~$250,000 for 1997 maintenance fees and $135,000 in past years fees. Soon a $10 per month late fee was instituted on past due accounts. The BOD considered a motion to place liens on units/owners with past due maintenance fees at the October 1998 meeting. The BOD also added $7 per unit due to utility, labor and other fees.

RUMOR: it has been rumored that Cavanaugh put much of the insurance  money in his pocket instead of the Castle. 

***All the above occurred under John Cavanaugh (the original developer)***

1998: The Castle (plus the Beach Club and Elysian) sold to Kosmos.

1999: A $100 assessment charged to Hilltop 1 and 2 to refurbish the 2
buildings. Cavanaugh is named CEO of Caribbean Resorts, Kosmos.

March 1999: Equivest Finance purchased all Bluebeard's Island property (the
Castle, Beach Club, and Elysian) from Kosmos (who was in bankruptcy). The
developer said they will pay an operating assessment for each of the unsold
intervals just as the owners. However, they have not paid.

January 2002: Cendant/Fairfield acquired Equivest and all its holding including the three resorts on St. Thomas (the Castle, Beach Club, and Elysian). 

Sometime in early 2002, the developer controlled board for Pirates Pension
put into place a 5 year management contract for Pirates Pension. All three
other associations had no formal contract with the management company
RCI-RM.

October 2002: Owners finally control all the boards. Up to this date, the
boards were controlled by the developer and/or management company.

2006: Wyndham folds Fairfield into themselves as the Cendant breakup is completed.

The following is from Larry Gratten who was on the board for Hilltop 3 and
is a long time owner:

"In 1995, my first year on the BOD, we were prevented from having a meeting
at BBC due to the hurricane about a week before the scheduled meeting. A
proxy vote was taken by mail on all regular BOD matters. The Castle had some
severe damage, the worst being the loss of the former Terrace Restaurant. At
the time of the hurricane, Liz (owner of the Banana Tree Grill) was
operating the restaurant as the Guava Grill. I was later informed by Mr.
Cavanaugh that Liz had insufficient insurance and walked away from it. Mr.
Cavanaugh informed me that it could not be left in its destroyed condition
and had to be rebuilt. I was led to believe that a portion of the insurance
money went for this purpose.

There was, as I remember, also some significant damage to the east outside
walls on the south end of Hilltop Two and roof damage to the southwest
corner of Hilltop One. Water damaged some units when glass was broken. There was extensive damage to trees and shrubbery on the property. I'm sure that other damage occurred that I am not aware of. What I saw and was informed of was during my vacation period in March of 1996. Mr. Cavanaugh informed me that the insurance payment was not enough to cover all repairs due to a deductible and the fact that Lloyds of London depreciated all of the claims and did not pay replacement value. He stated it was necessary to use the reserve funds of the Associations to make up the shortfall.

Remember, at this time, all of the Boards were majority controlled by the
developer and this type of action could be approved by the majority without
consulting the owner members at all. I hope this info is helpful in some
way. If you have any specific questions, fire away. Maybe you will jog my
memory."


----------



## Kona Lovers (Jul 22, 2007)

As of 07/22,  there are 9 ebay auctions for BBC, most starting at $1.00, and one for $99.  There was only one bid on at the time.  Hope the person knows what's up.

Marty


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 22, 2007)

Hi All,

Be careful using the initials BBC which is the II abbreviation for The Wyndham Bluebeard's Beach Club. Both the Elysian and Beach Club are now Wyndham Resorts. The Castle interests are still under the Fairfield name and shell company. FF has pulled all it's folks out of that operation.

Again, my thoughts and hopes are with the Castle owners. However, all should realize that the Beach Club and Elysian are in great shape and getting better every year. Thus the 3-4 star ratings and good reviews they command on the various internet sites.  

John

PS. Ken Drew will respond that the two Wyndham's in question will be owned by the Castle. Using that logic, all 17 or so former Equivest Resorts will be controlled by him and his fellow board members, maybe all 140 in the Wyndham system by that logic. He apparently prefers fear-based arguments to harass others as opposed to getting their support through sympathy (which is well deserved).

I do think it was a big mistake that the Castle Boards declined settlement offers a couple of years back (as per Timesharing Today). Those offers required Ken and others to step down in favor of a newly elected owner's board. They were alledgedly perceived by Fairfield as impossible to work with going forward.

And the little guy loses yet again...


----------



## Gerie (Jul 22, 2007)

kdrew said:


> Winter 1997: Purchased the Limetree Resort (later changed to the name
> Bluebeard's Beach Club) and Elysian announced.
> 
> 
> 1998: The Castle (plus the Beach Club and Elysian) sold to Kosmos.




Not to be too picky, but the Limetree and Elysian purchase by Cavanaugh was completed at least prior to August, 1997. At that time the Limetree was already named Bluebeard's Beach Club and they began selling timeshare there.  

The name of the company is/was Kosmas, not Kosmos.


----------



## Tia (Jul 23, 2007)

johnmfaeth said:


> Hi All,
> 
> 
> ..............I do think it was a big mistake that the Castle Boards declined settlement offers a couple of years back (as per Timesharing Today). Those offers required Ken and others to step down in favor of a newly elected owner's board. They were alledgedly perceived by Fairfield as impossible to work with going forward.
> ...






IF it is correct that FF's settlement wanted our currently fairly re-elected  board, x3 years now,   to step down then we little guys would most likely have another developer controlled  board  today. We would be paying *huge* special assessments to a FF/Wyndham mangement company to pay for FF/Wyndham  controlled rebuilding plans with no real owner input, minus some low ball settlement  of a couple million developer dollars, that would no doubt just give the FF management company a % higher based on budget. I don't see that as a lessor of two evils solution myself. 

I have continued to read positive trip reports from those recently at the Castle.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 23, 2007)

*ATTENTION- we have a mind reader on the list and his name is John F......WTF?!?!?!*



johnmfaeth said:


> Hi All,
> 
> Be careful using the initials BBC which is the II abbreviation for The Wyndham Bluebeard's Beach Club. Both the Elysian and Beach Club are now Wyndham Resorts. The Castle interests are still under the Fairfield name and shell company. FF has pulled all it's folks out of that operation.
> 
> ...



*WOW!!!:annoyed: I am glad that John can read minds. Now let's get to the facts since John apparently wants to misrepresent them to all in this forum.

FACT #1- Equivest St. Thomas (EST) was purchased by Fairfield and thus a part of Cendant (now part of Wyndham as you should all know by now)

FACT #2- EST has filed bankruptcy in St. Thomas within the last month as a threat to blackmail owners to accept an offer that, again, would not fix the resort.

FACT #3- EST (i.e Fairfield/Wyndham) has left the Castle property and refuses to maintain their buildings at the resort thus allowing water to come into buildings THEY own yet do not care to maintain.

FACT #4- EST consists of Bluebeard's Beach Club, the Elysian, and Bluebeard's Castle.

FACT #5- I do not use fear based arguments. I use facts to back up my discussions.

FACT #6- There was NEVER a settlement offer that required me or any other Board member to step down in order to facilatate a settlement. That said, I would gladly step aside today if EST/Fairfield/Wyndham were willing to give owners a fair deal and fix the resort (can you spell "arbitration"?...oh yeah, they don't arbitrate.......).

Now onto some questions  for "mind reader" John-

John- 
QUESTION #1- Can you tell me what the offer was we should have settled for and why (i.e the dollar amounts and particulars)?

QUESTION #2- Who have I personally harassed? BTW, I am not looking for sympathy. If anything, I'd like all owners to know the underbelly of timesharing and what a developer can do if you dare raise your collective voices to them.

QUESTION #3- You state "Those offers required Ken and others to step down in favor of a newly elected owner's board. They were alledgedly perceived by Fairfield as impossible to work with going forward.". Please tell me your sources for this comment? Could this be John Enrietto, president of the Beach Club, elected and appointed to the Boards at the Beach Club and the Castle by Fairfield votes, supported by Fairfield campaign money, and the list of other FF involvement goes on?

Has it ever dawned on you (or others for that matter) that the current Board may not be the problem? Could it possibly be the leadership at EST/FF/Wyndham? Obviously you have followed all the legal moves that EST/FF/Wyndham have made in the courts- this includes delaying depositions, not handing over finacial data as required, etc. I could see where you would think this Board is "impossible to work with" since we actually want finacial data to verify the fiscal implications that took place at the resort.......are you serious, John?

I guess "being impossible to work with" is what you are called when you actually take time to see what it will cost to fix the resort instead of settling for the $4.25M offered back in Oct. 2002 which then escalated to $10M and then to ~$16-18M (but fell though as detailed previously). If that is the case then I am guilty of being a person who is actually working for FREE for fellow owners as a Board member.

I look forward to your answers............I really do!!!! 

Always a pleasure-


Ken



*


----------



## kdrew (Jul 23, 2007)

*Thanks!*



Gerie said:


> Not to be too picky, but the Limetree and Elysian purchase by Cavanaugh was completed at least prior to August, 1997. At that time the Limetree was already named Bluebeard's Beach Club and they began selling timeshare there.
> 
> The name of the company is/was Kosmas, not Kosmos.



Thanks- The relationship with Kosmas was in place prior to their purchase of the resorts. I guess calling them Kosmos is incorrect. Apologies.


----------



## randyz (Jul 24, 2007)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> There is some value to a public airing of the grievances you have as no company wants their name dragged through bad press or grapevine and Internet negativity.  We gained leverage from that type of approach in our fight I'm sure. Heck this thread has brought out supporters for your side and certainly hasn't improved anyones opinions of Fairfield.  So you may be accomplishing something that can help bring them back to the table.  You never know what will tip the scales to either side and create a resolution.  Keep trying and keep the pressure on.


Agreed Chase. Fairfield/Wyndham is not benefiting from the bad publicity and detracts from the things they did correct. I was also a Kosmas/Equivest owner in New Orleans and had a very different experience with the Fairfield (now Wyn) takeover. The takeover was seemless to me, and at some point I was offered a conversion to Fairfield points. This was the best TS move I ever made. When the New Orleans property was hit hard by Katrina, and the resort closed for about 2 years. It had no effect on my points, Fairfield still honored them. The resort has now reopened (albeit still no word of a SA vs. how much insurance covered). This is a very different story than the Bluebeard hurricane under previous owners etc.. 

Another chapter to the story I have not seen mentioned in this thread is the possibility that Fairfield was potentially a victim of Kosmas/Equivest in that financial irregularities at Bluebeard were not revealed to them. IF this scenario were true Fairfield becomes the victim of and "Enron" not the creator. Though how much sympathy they deserve for not doing due diligence adequately is arguable. Nevertheless other Kosmas/Equivest properties like mine that did not suffer those "irregularities" seem to have gone well. I have never received surprise MF increases or SA since the Fairfield acquistion.

Randy


----------



## somerville (Jul 24, 2007)

randyz said:
			
		

> Though how much sympathy they deserve for not doing due diligence adequately is arguable. Nevertheless other Kosmas/Equivest properties like mine that did not suffer those "irregularities" seem to have gone well. I have never received surprise MF increases or SA since the Fairfield acquistion.
> 
> Randy



You may be one of the exceptions.  I own at Equivest Vacation and Travel Club.  Under Fairfield/Wyndham management, the club fees doubled and the club became $2.9 Million in the red.  Membership declined by 25%, and as of the end of 2006, the deficit was still over $1 Million.  Club members have no right to elect the officers and directors of the club, and Fairfield awarded itself a management contract that can go on for 20 -25 years.

Outer Banks Beach Club had to sue Fairfield to collect past due fees and settle title to property.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 24, 2007)

*I agree somewhat*



randyz said:


> Another chapter to the story I have not seen mentioned in this thread is the possibility that Fairfield was potentially a victim of Kosmas/Equivest in that financial irregularities at Bluebeard were not revealed to them. IF this scenario were true Fairfield becomes the victim of and "Enron" not the creator. Though how much sympathy they deserve for not doing due diligence adequately is arguable. Nevertheless other Kosmas/Equivest properties like mine that did not suffer those "irregularities" seem to have gone well. I have never received surprise MF increases or SA since the Fairfield acquistion.
> 
> Randy




I must also agree that FF is not to blame for all the issues. I have always stated that they should be faulted for not doing their due dilligence in the purchase of Equivest properties. That said, the question remains *why doesn't FF turn over all the finacials they have to owners in our case at the Castle? and why did FF offer owners a 10 year management contract and less than half of what it would cost to fix the resort when they had reports in hand that showed that they were knowingly taking advantage of owners?*

That is were the real problem is. FF did also do things to add to the situation at Bluebeard's and basically got caught. Now they use their money to stall out owners and punish those who ever dare question the mighty FF.

BTW- is your resort sold out and is there owner control of the Boards? If not, be careful..............


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 24, 2007)

Gee Ken, I based my comments on what was reported by Timesharing Today. That was 17 MM and board re-election. I read the article when published and that is my recollection of it's contents.

If getting info from a publication is mind reading, you should see me after reading the Sunday NY Times.

I just went to Equivest.com and their were 18 Equivest resorts on the mainland US which are still listed. So why do you always direct your "we'll own the Beach Club and the Elysian" comments only towards the other USVI holdings? When challenged you say, "well anything is possible".

I don't know your motivation, I'm not a mind reader. But making intimidating statements towards owners of other Equivest resorts is not a good way to build a fan club.

And that is my only problem. Personally I think the Castle owners were completely hosed by Equivest. (and I have a much better term in mind). I would be delighted to read of a big financial win for them.

As to the freely elected board, why wouldn't the next one also be freely elected and consist of owners, just different ones who carry the same beliefs? It is not hard to imagine that almost all owners must share these beliefs.

But my bottom line is a single problem...rather than winning Beach Club and Elysian owners to your side with the facts, you have a history of stating that you will own their resorts...that ticks me off.

John Faeth

PS. As the largest private owner of units at the Beach Club and the Elysian, I have a lot of concern that the little guy win. I only buy resale...Wyndham has no love of resale for sure...I am the biggest of the little guys...

PPS. I have never had a conversation with John E. about the Castle case. In fact, the owner's only Beach Club Yahoo Group rules forbid discussion of other resorts matters, that policy I endorse.

PPPS. You also started a Beach Club Yahoo Group (even if tiny) and you are not an owner there. What was your motivation? Come clean Ken....


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 24, 2007)

I fully agree that every timeshare owner should look at their timeshare's documents which are recorded in the public record at the office of the Recorder of Deeds at the county where the timeshare is based.

For the Beach Club, the units sold % is currently around 75%. When it hits 90%, the owners will have their third and controlling seat. That event will occur in the next couple of years is my guess.

Every owner should also be aware that they can change their management company. Whether at the Castle, where SPM Resorts now manages sections, or the Marriott Streamside in Vail where VRI was hired by two of the HOA's. You DO have a choice once owner's run the HOA Board.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 24, 2007)

*more responses*



johnmfaeth said:


> Gee Ken, I based my comments on what was reported by Timesharing Today. That was 17 MM and board re-election. I read the article when published and that is my recollection of it's contents.



*Well then the article is wrong. I direct you to
click here for the letter that details the last offer to FF. There was never a reason to leave the Board as a condition of settlement.
*



johnmfaeth said:


> I just went to Equivest.com and their were 18 Equivest resorts on the mainland US which are still listed. So why do you always direct your "we'll own the Beach Club and the Elysian" comments only towards the other USVI holdings? When challenged you say, "well anything is possible".



*Read the facts- Equivest ST. THOMAS consists of  the three island resorts. IT is EQUIVEST ST. THOMAS that is at risk here. Thus you may well be used as a pawn in the game where your resort is given to the Castle to pay Equivest/FF/Wyndham's debts.

This is no joke. This is serious and as an owner at those resorts, I would be equally upset but direct your anger towards the correct people. Equivest ST. THOMAS (not Equivest proper) put your resort in bankruptcy as well as the Castle. Our legal team states that those are the pieces in play.

As for the other Equivest resorts, I guess they are safe pending legal twists and turns.
*



johnmfaeth said:


> I don't know your motivation, I'm not a mind reader. But making intimidating statements towards owners of other Equivest resorts is not a good way to build a fan club.



*Let us not let facts get in the way here.  That is what has been stated- facts. No intimidation needed. If other owners are mad at the Castle for suing FF then so be it. Your resort could be the next in line to sue them as well.*



johnmfaeth said:


> And that is my only problem. Personally I think the Castle owners were completely hosed by Equivest. (and I have a much better term in mind). I would be delighted to read of a big financial win for them.



*The financial win may include your properties. That is a possibility. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news but don't shoot the messenger.*




johnmfaeth said:


> As to the freely elected board, why wouldn't the next one also be freely elected and consist of owners, just different ones who carry the same beliefs? It is not hard to imagine that almost all owners must share these beliefs.



*Anyone can run for the Board and that is called democracy. I am not a life-time appointed Board member and would welcome any owner to run for the Board. The pay is not good (ZERO) and the time involved is long. Sadly, only a small minority of owners ever get involved with running their resort. Even more sad, there are some FF sympathetic owners who take their campaign money and very badly want to controll the Boards at all costs to owners.*



johnmfaeth said:


> But my bottom line is a single problem...rather than winning Beach Club and Elysian owners to your side with the facts, you have a history of stating that you will own their resorts...that ticks me off.
> 
> John Faeth
> 
> ...



*Again, do not shoot the messenger. We may own the resorts. I hope not because it will be sad to liquidate them to raise capital to fix the Castle.

As for Yahoo groups, I started them to involve free speech and sharing of ideas. Apparently there are some group moderators like the Beach Club's moderated list that want to control all info and limit any negative remarks. Personally, I see that as wrong thus the groups I have are unmoderated. I am clean (shower every day!)

John- good luck and I would be very afraid of what may happen to your units and resort. You can thank Equivest ST. THOMAS  for that as well as FF and Wyndham.


Ken

 
*


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 24, 2007)

Hi Ken,

Thank you for sharing that letter, not owning at the Castle, it was the first time I saw it.

As to the Beach Club and the Elysian....

At the Beach Club, Wyndham and it's complex subs own the public areas. The owners own their unit weeks. Nothing will take away their unit week ownership. If a different developer takes over the public spaces, the upside is more than the downside IMHO. I believe this as it would be self serving for any developer to continue increasing the quality of the place as ample space exists for additional development.

At the Elysian, Wyndham owns and manages their 67 units of 160 total that form the Cowpet Bay Association which manages the grounds. Roughly 1/3 of those condo's have been sold as timeshares, the rest are for hotel rentals and points usage. So again, the owner of a Wyndham timeshare unit their has little risk with a management company change.

So the worst case is the management company goes to receivorship and the court appointed receivor takes bids and another company with the best offer takes over management. Both properties are in pretty good shape, most chains would love them. 

In the best case, the Castle wins 100% of what it deserves, and Wyndham writes a check.

But statements like "We will own your resort" are factually incorrect in legal terms and are a scare tactic which you have pursued in the past. That is my only problem.

John Faeth

PS. Anyone who knows me from my many stays at these two resorts also knows my position on this industry. It is disgusting (on a good day) in the way the average Joe is taken by the Developers. And owners need to speak up with one voice when they want charge. The owners of the Castle should have the full support of all timeshare owners.

PPS. And by again stating "what will happen to your units", your attempt at fear-inducing lies continues...


----------



## TUGBrian (Jul 24, 2007)

please refrain from insults/name calling etc...

This thread is excellent...however I am sure we can continue to debate without insulting one another.


----------



## kdrew (Jul 24, 2007)

*Always fun..........*



johnmfaeth said:


> Hi Ken,
> 
> Thank you for sharing that letter, not owning at the Castle, it was the first time I saw it.
> 
> ...



*I cannot argue that a new developer may actually be a good thing. The issue remains that the resort COULD ultimately be sold. This COULD effect the values of the units negatively or positively. One just does not know. 

A developer could pull an "Equivest" and raise fees, lower services, and sell off the resort to a company that does not do its due dilligence and owners end up getting the royal shaft.
*



johnmfaeth said:


> At the Elysian, Wyndham owns and manages their 67 units of 160 total that form the Cowpet Bay Association which manages the grounds. Roughly 1/3 of those condo's have been sold as timeshares, the rest are for hotel rentals and points usage. So again, the owner of a Wyndham timeshare unit their has little risk with a management company change.
> 
> So the worst case is the management company goes to receivorship and the court appointed receivor takes bids and another company with the best offer takes over management. Both properties are in pretty good shape, most chains would love them.
> 
> In the best case, the Castle wins 100% of what it deserves, and Wyndham writes a check.



*Another possibility is that Wyndham must liquidate the units they own and thus the resort gets new owners- individual or corporate or both. The timeshare owner will not lose their unit but could see a decrease in value pending on how it plays out. They could see an increase if someone purchases the units and improves the property or see above for the "Equivest" example.......*




johnmfaeth said:


> But statements like "We will own your resort" are factually incorrect in legal terms and are a scare tactic which you have pursued in the past. That is my only problem.
> 
> John Faeth



*Well, we can agree to disagree. The Castle may ultimately own the resort but not the units you have. Regardless, the Castle does not want to be a timeshare owner long term and would look to sell the resort to an interested party and use the proceeds to fix the Castle.

The only thing timeshare owners own is their unit. Not the property or the pool or the check-in desk or the parking lot. You have access to these but pay fees to use them. Sadly, the timeshare sales monkees don't explain this to all and most feel like they own the entire resort. Not true in most cases.
*




johnmfaeth said:


> PS. Anyone who knows me from my many stays at these two resorts also knows my position on this industry. It is disgusting (on a good day) in the way the average Joe is taken by the Developers. And owners need to speak up with one voice when they want charge. The owners of the Castle should have the full support of all timeshare owners.
> 
> PPS. And by again stating "what will happen to your units", your attempt at fear-inducing lies continues...



*Not really.....we will see what happens. I hope for the best but I'd prepare for the worst.

Never a dull moment :zzz: ........

Ken

 
*


----------



## timeos2 (Jul 24, 2007)

*Not the way all resorts are set up*



kdrew said:


> *
> The Castle may ultimately own the resort but not the units you have. Regardless, the Castle does not want to be a timeshare owner long term and would look to sell the resort to an interested party and use the proceeds to fix the Castle.
> 
> The only thing timeshare owners own is their unit. Not the property or the pool or the check-in desk or the parking lot. You have access to these but pay fees to use them. Sadly, the timeshare sales monkees don't explain this to all and most feel like they own the entire resort. Not true in most cases.
> ...


*

That may be the case at your resort, it seems to be true at Summer Bay Las Vegas as well based on the information posted about the possible change there, but it is not automatically the case at every resort. In fact at most of the resorts I own at (6 so far) the common areas are owned by the unit owners NOT the Developer. It is a positive IMO that the resort be deeded that way.  So if a resort that is set up that way is "sold" the only thing a buyer is getting is the rights to sell on site based on any agreement that allows that and the unsold inventory that belonged to the previous owner/developer of those rights. The individual owners have control via the BOD (and of course the costs) of the common areas and can decide how to best maintain and improve them. 

If it is done as you describe where the developer holds on to the common areas such as the shared grounds, clubhouse, pools, etc. - it can be a nightmare for owners. They can lose access to those areas, have them changed or in poor condition with no say in the matter.  Bluebeards Castle may be an example while another would be the Wastegate unfriendly buyout of Blue Tree Resort which SPM also manages part of now while Wastegate controls the original Clubhouse, sales areas, and who knows what else.  Another mess similar to yours but on a much smaller scale. That type of resort ownership isn't good for the buyers of the weeks as the BB case shows all too well.*


----------



## johnmfaeth (Jul 24, 2007)

My optimism for my two resorts also lies in that they are the only two Wyndham-owned beachfront properties in the Caribbean. The resorts help sell themselves though their natural beauty.

Same way Bluegreen was desperate for something in the Caribbean and bought up the rest of La Cabana's units for it's points system.

John

PS. Ken, hope to run into you one day on STT and kill a couple of bushwacker's...


----------



## kdrew (Jul 24, 2007)

johnmfaeth said:


> My optimism for my two resorts also lies in that they are the only two Wyndham-owned beachfront properties in the Caribbean. The resorts help sell themselves though their natural beauty.
> 
> Same way Bluegreen was desperate for something in the Caribbean and bought up the rest of La Cabana's units for it's points system.
> 
> ...



Only two?!?!?!?! You are on! My treat.........seriously! 

Ken


----------



## randyz (Jul 25, 2007)

kdrew said:


> I must also agree that FF is not to blame for all the issues. I have always stated that they should be faulted for not doing their due dilligence in the purchase of Equivest properties. That said, the question remains *why doesn't FF turn over all the finacials they have to owners in our case at the Castle? and why did FF offer owners a 10 year management contract and less than half of what it would cost to fix the resort when they had reports in hand that showed that they were knowingly taking advantage of owners?*
> 
> That is were the real problem is. FF did also do things to add to the situation at Bluebeard's and basically got caught. Now they use their money to stall out owners and punish those who ever dare question the mighty FF.
> 
> BTW- is your resort sold out and is there owner control of the Boards? If not, be careful..............



I believe the resort was sold out years ago, last time before FF took over there was no sales activity that I noticed, eg no owners update etc.. I was never offered or joined the Equivest points club so was not affected by that, which appears to be a good thing judging by the previous post. Being a somewhat negligent owner, never received reports, and have never asked (actually do care, but too busy to do anything about it, that is changing now) so I can't say if the owners control the Board. I do that Avenue Plaza is now a mix of floating week and points owners. And all seems well and Katrina was dealt with appropriately. Have not heard of any SA yet .... I wonder if insurance and the fact MF was collected while closed will cover things.

(btw Recently I have noticed that Breeden was in the middle of the mess at Chicago Sun Times. I wonder if the Equivest debacle wasn't enough. )

As far as I am aware Avenue Plaza wasn't the only facility successfully integrated into the FF system. Riverside in Texas, some resorts in the North East have done so also. From reading here it seems the Bluebeards Castle and the points club people got screwed. I wonder what happened with points, were they offered a conversion?? Anyone know.

Randy


----------



## Tia (Jul 25, 2007)

randyz said:


> ..................
> (btw Recently I have noticed that Breeden was in the middle of the mess at Chicago Sun Times. I wonder if the Equivest debacle wasn't enough. )
> 
> .......... From reading here it seems the Bluebeards Castle and the points club people got screwed. I wonder what happened with points, were they offered a conversion?? Anyone know.
> ...



I'll have to google Equivests Richard Breeden and Chicago Sun Times, wouldn't be surprised if it was bad business. 

There is a Equivest yahoo group could be wrong but from reading there do not believe there was a conversion offered, just the $ squeeze as that system is neglected.


----------



## somerville (Jul 25, 2007)

randyz said:


> I wonder what happened with points, were they offered a conversion?? Anyone know.
> 
> Randy



No, Points owners have not been offered a conversion.  We remain a step-child.


----------



## Tia (Jul 30, 2007)

somerville said:


> No, Points owners have not been offered a conversion.  We remain a step-child.



Congrats, sounds like most Equivest owners now have a new chance from reading "Festiva Resorts acquires Equivest from Wyndham " . 

We will have to wait and see as we own at both Bluebeards in the USVI


----------

