Wyndham is closing a handful of legacy resorts - dedicated chart/tracker located in the first post for this unfolding set of events

[bnoble]

Also, kind of unrelated, are the same firms being used for KBV as well?

K&L Gates is mentioned as one of the firms to be retained, yes. From the appendix in the ballot:

Retention of Professionals
Authorizing and empowering each of the Authorized Persons to employ on behalf of the
Association:
(i) a law firm selected by the Authorized Persons as general bankruptcy counsel under Section
327(a) of the Bankruptcy Code; (i1) the law firm of K&L Gates LLP as special bankruptcy
counsel under Section 327(e) of the Bankruptcy Code; and iii) any other legal counsel,
accountants, real estate brokers, financial advisors, restructuring advisors, noticing agents or
other professionals the Authorized Persons deem necessary, appropriate or advisable
(including "conflicts counsel" if required);

But the KBV ballot does not specifically include the December 27th date, so I don't think it is exactly the same template.

 

[paxsarah]

But the KBV ballot does not specifically include the December 27th date, so I don't think it is exactly the same template.

I noticed that for instance Orlando International also didn't include the closure date in its first mailing/vote, only in a subsequent mailing/vote, but other resorts seemed to have combined the actions into a single meeting. (And OIRC's closure date was 12/31 while others have been 12/27.) It certainly makes sense given the complexity of the situation at KBV to do this a single step at a time.

 

[CO skier]

Also, kind of unrelated, are the same firms being used for KBV as well? Even though its saga has been ongoing for much longer, it sure seems like they've used this opportunity to use bankruptcy to get things moving there.

K&L Gates is mentioned as one of the firms to be retained, yes. From the appendix in the ballot:

... and we come full circle from posts on July 20th

So why not just have the same vote to close the resort? What does the bankruptcy provide except an added expense?

Wyndham may have learned something from the Kauai Beach Villas fiasco. A vote was scheduled to close the resort, a group of whole owners sued, and tied up the process for years, and it still goes on. Maybe a bankruptcy filing can protect the majority of owners from the lawsuits by a few.

 

[bnoble]

It’s also worth noting that HitchHiker confirmed that KBV was not part of the overall process the other resorts were undergoing. So, for example, we may not be offered CWA swaps.

 

[CO skier]

It’s also worth noting that HitchHiker confirmed that KBV was not part of the overall process the other resorts were undergoing. So, for example, we may not be offered CWA swaps.

Salvage proceeds may be harder to come by at Kauai Beach Villas. Wyndham is definitely no longer taking any deeds back there.

 

[HitchHiker71]

I noticed that for instance Orlando International also didn't include the closure date in its first mailing/vote, only in a subsequent mailing/vote, but other resorts seemed to have combined the actions into a single meeting. (And OIRC's closure date was 12/31 while others have been 12/27.) It certainly makes sense given the complexity of the situation at KBV to do this a single step at a time.

OIRC was the first instance of this approach - it was formative - hence the templating based upon what transpired at OIRC - the process gets better as it plays out and lessons learned are captured and improvements implemented - hence the templated approach now being used for all other subsequent impacted resorts. KBV is definitely not included in these actions - however I'd bet certain aspects of how these actions play out may impact whatever transpires at KBV over time, and as @CO skier pointed out - lessons learned from KBV seem to have played into the current approach initially tested at OIRC that is now being used for other impacted resorts in scope.

 

[paxsarah]

OIRC was the first instance of this approach - it was formative - hence the templating based upon what transpired at OIRC - the process gets better as it plays out and lessons learned are captured and improvements implemented - hence the templated approach now being used for all other subsequent impacted resorts. KBV is definitely not included in these actions - however I'd bet certain aspects of how these actions play out may impact whatever transpires at KBV over time, and as @CO skier pointed out - lessons learned from KBV seem to have played into the current approach initially tested at OIRC that is now being used for other impacted resorts in scope.

Yes, the timing with KBV seems mostly coincidental, but it certainly helps to have the correct firms already involved in the process and use their expertise. As Brian stated, I wouldn't have expected a CWA swap to be offered to KBV owners - but I will point out that there is absolutely nothing in Wyndham's one public statement about the broader closures that would seem to exclude it (except, I guess, for the terms "certain locations" and "these transitioned resorts" doing a lot of heavy lifting). Once again, if one hadn't been following this closely, there would be no reason to know that one of these is not like the others.

 

[bnoble]

Yeah, the KBV thing has been brewing for years now. If I'm reading between the lines of everything I know so far, here is my guess of the timeline of how things have happened.

1. The lower-lying KBV buildings are flooded in spring of 2020.
2. As part of the repairs from that, the first floors of those buidings are gutted to the studs, which reveals some of the construction defects (I am guessing this is when the beams-not-square-with-foundation problem was noticed).
3. It took a good couple of years to figure out what the extent of the construction defects were, and what it would cost to repair, probably due in part to pandemic shut-down effects. But, that number is stupidly large--between $400K and a half million per unit just for structural repair---probably close to what the non-oceanfront units are worth.
4. Some combination of the KBV Board and Wyndham's people realize that this is a tear-down, and starts looking for a way out.
5. In parallel, some of the whole owners realize the extent of the trouble, and in the spring of 2022 file a spaghetti-against-the-wall suit to try to salvage something from what are now worthless condos that they can never sell for more than a very small fraction of what was market price.
6. The Board/Wyndham come up with the first attempt at dissolving the condominium plan; the non-remediation vote in spring of 2023. This vote requires a 3/4 majority to pass, and the whole owners have approximately 1/3 of the units, so it will require at least some of them to vote in favor. On the birght side, if the vote passes, no one has to chase down all of the individual interval owners and get them to sign deeds; they can be wiped out by the relevant Hawaii statute governing partition. This is particular to Hawaii, though there may be simiilar statutes in other states.
7. Either the Board is worried about getting enough whole owners to throw in the towel, or realize that this is not a good look for the whole owners lawsuit (which is still pending), so they table the non-remediation vote. Twice.
8. At some point between then and now, Wyndham starts looking at shedding some under-performing properties. Someone in (or retianed by) Wyndham has the bright idea of using HOA Bankruptcy as another way to avoid having to chase down all the owners to get them to sign off individually, and get the whole process over with (relatively) quickly. More importantly, Bankruptcy is a Federal action, not a State one, so they don't have to figure out how to make this work in every State's timeshare/condo laws. They only have to invent one mechanism to cover everything.
9. It occurs to someone at Wyndham that this could also be a solution to the KBV problem. The ballot to KBV owners goes out in mid-August, for a special election later this month.

The KBV ballot does not mention what threshold is required for the vote to pass. I suspect this may be just a "regular" special meeting election so it is possible that it only requires a bare majority. I have not read the KBV documents carefully enough to figure that out. Quorum will not be hard to attain, because of the unusual governance structure of KBV, namely: if the majority of the interval owners in a unit vote in a particular way, that's the vote for that unit. If no majority-of-owners is obtained, the IOA votes on behalf of the Interval Owners as a whole. That pretty much guarantees that at least 2/3ds of the condos will have a vote---and that is almost certainly going to be the vote that Wyndham desires.

KBV has two additional wrinkles. One: it would automatically stay the whole owner lawsuit (or, at least, that is the opinion of counsel). Two: if the vote passes in its entirety, the Board can take possession of ether Weeks or whole Units prior to declaring Bankruptcy. This may be a way to pick off the whole owners one by one, by negotiating a settlement with them to get them to go away.

 

[comicbookman]

This is the thing I've been wondering about. If I'm looking to book a trip, and am booking flights and other hard to change or refund things and you knowingly offer me a accommodations that you never intend to fulfill - isn't that some sort of fraud? I don't mean owners here, I mean presumably they're also renting these still on the open market in Extra Vacations or the like. If you then rug pull me on my lodging I'm suffering actual monetary damages on either more last minute bookings, lost airline tickets or change fees on those tickets, etc. Would trip insurance even cover a booking that went "poof", not for some natural disaster, but because a hotel, TS, AirB&B, whatever didn't actually exist when you showed up?

Now, I have no idea about if there are special "TS or Wyndham is specially immune to these rules" but I'm pretty sure... I asked AI "Would it count as fraud or be illegal somehow if you offer a lodging service to someone say 6 months in the future, they pay, and you don't provide it and never intended to provide it?" and got the following:

Now, what I'm betting is that the Wyndham lawyers are thinking no one will sue, or they can claim indirect damages aren't their issue. Who knows how courts would rule, or if there's going to be enough people annoyed enough to themselves make a case of it. Which is IMO one issue in our legal system - it's so hard to deal with it that you have to be screwed out of a LOT of money to make it worthwhile. So companies in general are always breaking the law but just up to the threshold where a customer or otherwise affected person would find it worthwhile to sue.

The problem is you mis framed the question. You should have asked if they had reason to believe they might not be able to fulfil the reservation and then cancelled and refunded when it became certain that they could not fulfill it.

 

[comicbookman]

It may not be outright fraud, but it's definitely not acting in good faith, for which there could definitely be legal recourse to remedy.

Again with the definitive legal analysis that is not even close to correct. If they are in fact seeking and following legal advice on how to proceed, then they are not acting in bad faith unless they know the legal advice is wrong. Again your legal education comes up short.

 

[paxsarah]

On Facebook just now, the president of the HOA at Branson at the Falls:
"Letter to owners will be mailed with on a week or so . Lawyers hired and real estate hired . Owners meeting to vote will be Oct 17. Proxy included . More info available after that meeting ."

 

[Floridaman76]

Again with the definitive legal analysis that is not even close to correct. If they are in fact seeking and following legal advice on how to proceed, then they are not acting in bad faith unless they know the legal advice is wrong. Again your legal education comes up short.

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

Not a legal analysis. But a pretty feasible take on my behalf, since you interjected.

Do you think Wyndham continuing to accept reservations for dates they know they have no intention of honoring is acting in good faith?

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

 

[comicbookman]

You say that like you know what you are talking about, which you clearly don't. Misleading people by confidently making incorrect statements is as bad or worse than what you claim Wyndham is doing. Your lack of legal knowledge is extreme. Try cracking a few law books before you comment on things you clearly don't understand, althoug i suppose it a step up from your made up sales story from earlier in this thread.

Not a legal analysis. But a pretty feasible take. but are 100% wrong. You mislead people by saying things with confidence when you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe crack a law book before you make legal interpretations. As of know you would are averaging a d- at grade at best.

 

[Floridaman76]

but are 100% wrong. You mislead people by saying things with confidence when you apparently have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe crack a law book before you make legal interpretations. As of know you would are averaging a d- at grade at best.

I'm not giving legal advice.

But there's probably some truth to my rants... and the group at large gets it for free. Are you tallying billable hours to turn in for your tomfoolery?

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

 

[michely1969]

This is discouraging. I just filed and paid the transfer fees of 800 bucks to take over 2 deeded timeshare for one of the properties listed. At this time Wyndham is processing the transfer. If this property closes I guess I am out the money? Frustrating that if Wyndham new 4-5 months ago (when the process started) that this property was possibly going to close, in my opinion they should have spoken up and said something, instead they just keep taking the money.

 

[Rolltydr]

And again with you sticking your nose into another conversation because you have to get the last word in

Just in case you don't understand the purpose of this website and its' associated forums, this is a public forum in which every member is free to post and respond to any thread. If you only want to see the posts of people who agree with your opinions, you can use the ignore feature so you don't see anything that might upset you.

 

[comicbookman]

so let me get this straight you give legal opinions that aren't

I'm not giving legal advice.

But there's probably some truth to my rants... and the group at large gets it for free. Are you tallying billable hours to turn in for your tomfoolery?

I withdraw your permission to reply to me since you miserably failed. That won't stop you from trying to get the last word in, because you can't help yourself.

and when called on it resort not to explanations, but insults. then play the school yard game of if you reply to me you just want the last word. It is pretty pathetic that instead of trying to defend your position your only action is to insult and play stupid games. You even try to deny me permission to reply, because you are being shown to be spouting nonsense. I know you will claim "victory" for getting me to reply, but school yard taunts do not make you right. they just show you you have no answer to to reality.

 

[Rolltydr]

But there's probably some truth to my rant

Wow! This is definitely the most truthful thing you've said in this entire thread, with the word probably doing the heavy lifting here.

 

[Floridaman76]

Just in case you don't understand the purpose of this website and its' associated forums, this is a public forum in which every member is free to post and respond to any thread. If you only want to see the posts of people who agree with your opinions, you can use the ignore feature so you don't see anything that might upset you.

[MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

You really haven't been paying attention if you think this is about me being upset if one of my statements turns out to be wrong. Honestly I could care less. I'm stating an opinion and furthering a conversation.

The truth here is none of us know, this is all conjecture, and the optics of how Wyndham has been playing this out is attocious.

 

[Rolltydr]

if one of my statements turns out to be wrong. Honestly I could care less.

This is quite apparent. I will give you credit, you have stated a few times, paraphrasing, that you don't know what you're talking about and you are just spreading conjecture, rumors, half-truths, half-baked opinions, and you just don't care. Of course, you state all of them with absolute conviction and as if they are factual statements. Then, when someone calls you out, you admit you don't know what you're talking about, you're just furthering the conversation. You're not. [MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

 

[Rolltydr]

Because some people can't help themselves and have to have the last word.

If we're the ones who must have the last word, why are you still talking? [MODERATOR HAS REMOVED INAPPROPRIATE CONTENT]

 

[comicbookman]

If we're the ones who must have the last word, why are you still talking? But, yes, as long as you're spreading bullsh*t, I will continue to call you out for it.

Me too.

 

[Floridaman76]

Me too.

OBJECTION!!!!

 

[Arimaas]

The problem is you mis framed the question. You should have asked if they had reason to believe they might not be able to fulfil the reservation and then cancelled and refunded when it became certain that they could not fulfill it.

The legal question, to me (who does have a legal education and is licensed in two states before I get jumped on again, although this should not be considered legal advice) is, what duty does Wyndham owe the person making the reservation? If I was the attorney seraching for the theory of the case it would not rest on fraud or good faith. My guess is that by accepting a reservation, Wyndham enters into some sort of contractual duty to provide accommodations. We would have to look at the language of the T&Cs and any inn keeper laws in the states, but I'm sure there is some contractual obligation that is created, baring any force majeure of course. Bankruptcy however, may void those duties, which may be why they are going that route (something I just thought of typing this out).

I do think that Wyndahm already knows this, however, and is prepared for any civil suits that may come its way, including, what should be obvious as a class action.

 

[Arimaas]

This is discouraging. I just filed and paid the transfer fees of 800 bucks to take over 2 deeded timeshare for one of the properties listed. At this time Wyndham is processing the transfer. If this property closes I guess I am out the money? Frustrating that if Wyndham new 4-5 months ago (when the process started) that this property was possibly going to close, in my opinion they should have spoken up and said something, instead they just keep taking the money.

You should get a payout when the property sells which should be equal to at least the transfer fee? Or you can swap those points for CWA points.