So for those who took Option #1 and [want] to separate from the settlement on the basis of MG's misrepresentations - they need to be looking for different legal representation?
Because it seems like Docken was never intending to represent them, and it is easy for people to get confused when they hear the words "Class Action". Automatically assuming they will be included in this class.
I think for option 1 people, it is settled. We no longer have a case against NM, we can only go after MG for mis-representing us, correct? We can only go after NM if criminal charges are filed or fraud has been proven, which will likely be after Feb 15th at this point. The more I think about how this ended, the more I think there is more going on here. Are option 1 people looking for another lawyer for this purpose, or just waiting for MG to get reviewed by BC Law Society at this point?
I assume ecwinch is just pointing out where we no longer have legal standing, not specifically if he agrees with the decision. I hope he does continue to post as it helps me understand this mess from the courts point of view and might make clear where there is still valid legal standing.
As stated in previous posts, the settlement is based on our bill which includes:
1. The renovation fee, which is not being done on our units since we are leaving.
2. Maintenance fees, for services we were denied.
3. Interest at 27% on these amounts, when they did not spend the money.
4. Plus an added amount, presumably an exit fee for our lease agreement.
They are double dipping or worse, and there is no way the damages could be this much. Also, I think the court did rule that they were responsible for their share of the Maintenance fees, which is likely what was being referred to. If their share of maintenance fees had been paid, the bill would have been less (half) for that portion.
It has been said that we are not actually paying for the above items, it is just an amount. My question still remains, does anyone know where this money is legally suppose to go? Does it need to be spent on the resort? From a previous post, it looks like it will not be going to the REIT investors. Shouldn't it show as income on the books and then have to be shown as an expense when the money is spent? Someone please help me understand this from the legal perspective. If the money is spent on the resort, it is in great shape. If not, things are not going to be looking good for the resort going forward or those still involved.
After many sleepless nights, I may have finally answered some of my own questions. I know this is complicated, and for some, I think the answers to these questions are obvious and I must seem stupid. However, until recently, I did not even know what a REIT was. Let me see if I understand this now and maybe provide clarity this for others like me. Please correct me on those points I am wrong.
1. NM (the real owner) is a separate entity from the resort management.
2. Those that paid the renovation fee back in 2013, that money goes toward the resort management and any renovations.
3. For all that settled, or paid to leave, that money goes to NM, free and clear. All the money that is about to be paid in this last "excellent settlement", will go to NM free and clear with no obligations. The settlement is based on "resort management costs", but is nothing more than a "number" to be paid to NM.
4. The financial statements we see are only for the resort management, and have nothing to do with NM. We have no access to NM financial statements.
5. From previous posts, it sound like an audit of NM was done back in about 2012, but non of us know what the result was and there have been no audits of NM since?
6. KW owns NM (and everthing else to do with the resort) and therefore will have all of this money free and clear. He is free to sell the buildings once everyone has paid to leave.
If the above is correct, this is just so, so wrong. We all know this is not what we agreed to purchase and was represented to us. Everything has been turned upside down when it was somehow determined by the courts that the leases were the "owners".
