So the pccs use dummy corporations, to provide a legitimate service (albeit overpriced) to their customers.and thats wrong... but Wyndham is a legitimate corporation selling their customers an overpriced product, and thats ok
in the first case im asked to believe my timeshare is worth less than zero...and thats a lie
and in the second im Im asked to pay more than 5 times its value to buy it...another lie.
pccs and the developers are two sides of the same coin and that coin is counterfeit
I dont see how Wyndham can make a case that they (Wyndham ) have been defrauded by any PCC , much less how that can show any damages. I think that they are just a little jealous that the pccs have developed a sales staff as "good" as their own, and a little up set that the pccs have exposed their lies.
I think the key issue is whether, in fact, the subject individuals (I hesitate to refer to them as corporations as they create new LLCs like bunnies reproduce) are providing a legitimate service, not whether it is over-priced. In the case of taking on a "negative value" timeshare where the intent is simply to transfer it to a bogus entity that will be declared bankrupt, leaving the remaining owners responsible for additional costs, is this really a legitimate service...
I suspect that a strategy soon to be implemented by Wyndham (and already adopted by some other TS companies) is not allowing transfers to LLCs. Presumably those already in LLCs will be "grandfathered in" but restricting ownership in this manner is a logical step that may limit all owners' flexibility in the future, impacting for example the ability to create and resell (via ownership rights in the LLC) platinum accounts.
Of course the other side of the coin is... if all other avenues are exhausted for the owner of a negative value timeshare, and they no longer have the means to continue paying and default on the maintenance fees, the rest of the owners are no better off than if they had paid a PCC/Viking ship to set it adrift.
I would definitely draw a distinction between those companies that are paid upfront and work legitimately to sell the timeshare (Sumday, Sean Singletary, Fried, CJ/Discount Timeshares, Jeff Fudge, etc.) and the ones mentioned in the lawsuit. I've seen some of these offer pre-paid MF's, free closing and an Amex gift card of up to $400... obviously they could set them adrift without incurring these fees, so their model is definitely legitimate, even though they collect the fees up front (as they have to, since it's a negative-value "asset" they're selling).
In summary - collecting fees up front - legitimate. Collecting fees in excess of what is required because the owner doesn't know what they have is of value - legitimate but less ethical. Collecting fees and not making an effort to provide the service specified (i.e., not attempting to market and transfer legitimately to a new owner) - illegitimate.
