I hope everyone is okay after receiving their recent update and wish you all the best while you digest it.
I myself have not brought myself to read the entire thing yet but I am understanding enough to know this is not what my directions were to Michael Geldert and wanted to share with you what I am going to do this morning.
If you decide to follow suit with what I am going to do in sharing my opinion I do not recommend you outright fire Michael, threaten, or try to ask him what his motives are if you want to share your own opinion.
You may even want to ask that he respond to you in writing if he feels the need to respond.
Be courteous, professional, and as indicated email him as directed – here is a few emails that might work to ensure he receives your concerns.
sunchaser@geldertlaw.com
patricia@geldertlaw.com
accounting@geldertlaw.com
info@geldertlaw.com
michael@geldertlaw.com
intrawest@geldertlaw.com
Mr. Geldert
I have started my reviewed of your most recent update sent January 11th but I am still working my way thru it.
Thank-you for finally providing the details of your negotiated settlement that was signed by yourself December 14th and now that I have finally received full details of the negotiated settlement there are particular areas of the settlement agreement I do not agree with. These related to the settlement you alone have had in your possession for almost a month and failed to share until now related directly to the settlement cost, the limited time to prepare to pay these costs, and some of the conditions stipulated. I had to rely on your past updates that only provided vague details and only after receiving this most recent update began to understand the full magnitude of your settlement negotiation.
The SIF form I submitted for November 10th was only provided based on the fact you were only directed to enter into discussions with Northmont reaffirmed by your comments below that implied you understood your direction to take on behalf in the November 6th update.
“Neither side of this dispute wants a repeat of the last settlement discussions that failed to resolve the dispute between you and Northmont. Northmont made it a precondition of our settlement discussions that we have the ability to sign a binding agreement for you. What we want to clarify is that having the ability to sign a prospective settlement agreement does not limit the exercise of our mandate to negotiate reasonable terms for you, or to confirm those terms before arriving at a final agreement. Should the settlement discussions develop into an agreement that we believe can be recommended to you, we will provide a copy to the group for final input prior to finalizing those terms.”
As we also had a personal phone call related to the modified SIF I found on Facebook that you refused to accept you clearly indicated the understanding of the limited scope of the directions you had from me and verbally reaffirmed acknowledged you would not finalize the negotiations without my approval. You also indicated you could be trusted not to use this SIF document as a PIN to my bank account and this was just part of the process to get Northmont to the table.
This negotiated settlement is very one sided to the sole benefit of Northmont and not what you were instructed to do on my behalf – your interpretation may differ but at the end of the day you are only offering an opinion that is paid for by the client who should ultimately decide the proper course of action.
As you are more than likely aware a great many members of the litigation group are not in agreement with your decision and the terms you have negotiated. As a result they are exercising their rites to ensure their interests are heard and will be fairly looked after.
Part of these exercises have been directed towards Judge Young who has replied to members of the litigation group there are judicial protocols she must follow. This included a comment to the effect counsel must initiate contact with her and all parties involved so all parties can be involved to ensure no one party can stand in front of her without the other allowing all sides to speak to the matter mutually at hand.
Now that we have heard from Judge Young as to what the process is to be heard, Michael you need to initiate contact with Judge Young as our existing council. This more than likely will cause you to check your ego at the door but you need to re-open the negotiations with Northmont to discuss options moving forward to serve the interests of everyone involved.
Michael you should have understood if you followed the direction of the court an arbitrator or a ruling from Judge Young would aid in the negations with Northmont as I believe Judge Young believed you were out of your league in entering negotiations with Northmont. She provided you the guidance to assist in reaching something closer to an amical negotiation on behalf of your clients in her decisions’ conclusions and now you must act on this guidance.
You have caused severe distress especially given the timing of the year, lack of transparency, and slow timing of information provided which forced most people to take some form of action to see your decision was not endorsed by the courts as it is not in our own personal best interest, best interests of other member of the litigation group, or the timeshare industry as a whole.
You had a lot of people relying on you who are still forced to rely on you that you have failed so there is limited time for you to right this wrong so seize the opportunity and fix your mistake.
Northmont will not be in favor of returning to the table as they already have the golden egg(s - actually you have done well in giving them pretty much all of them) so this will be very difficult for you to do but you created the current situation alone and it is up to you to initiate corrective action based on your clients instructions not your opinion.
Regards,
