PA-
TUG Member
Phil - needs a username and password for access.
Here's a link to a Wyndham lawsuit that works. http://www.marlerclark.com/news/wyndham1.htm
Maybe that's the one Philip is referencing. From 2002 over an outbreak of samonella in one of their hotels.
That's a different one. The one PA's referring to is in regards to Wyndham's new TravelShare program. His link works, but it's in a section that requires (free, open) registration.
___________________
WorldMark Owners' Community -- www.wmowners.com
Anyone have the link to the actual complaint? Suing over Travelshare seems to be the wrong approach. Travelshare appears to be within the boards rights to create.
Maybe Wyndham launched this class action against itself since they were sure they would win it. Then, the next class action firm would be less likely to take up the case.
It will be “fun” to see how the WM owners pay for all of this.
Just like corporations pay NO taxes so do they NOT pay for things like lawsuits – they just pass the costs on to their customers; in this case that would be the 250k WM owners. This is just more legal monkey business designed to make all the lawyers involved rich.
But, how will we WM owners pay for this? I’m guessing a $50 per year MF increase * 250,000 owners = $12.5 M per year for this lawsuit and more to come from the same firm and others who see deep pockets. You certainly don't expect that $50 to ever go away do you?
And just what will WM owners get out of this (besides the $50 per year charge) maybe a free movie rental, at the front desk, at best.
None of these lawsuits help WM owners in their fight to regain control of the WM BOD – it’s just a distraction and one that could be tacitly endorsed by WN. Relying on the government’s definition of consumer protection as the sole remedy is folly.
Let’s not forget the TW/WN pulled a fast one with TOT (Transient Occupancy Tax) in California and get a sweetheart deal with the government to make millions from the WM owners checking in each day. Any company smart and savvy enough to do this could use the courts to help in their efforts to thwart the owners from gaining control of their BOD/HOA.
So if your smiling at this lawsuit – you might be playing right into the hands of WN.
Worldmark won't be paying for the legal defense of this suit, or for any judgement. The suit is against Wyndham.
<snip>
There are several issues in TravelShare that can be shown to be illegal. But here's an angle I hadn't considered.
Trendwest has fiduciary obligations to the owners of Worldmark for two reasons. First, because they control the WorldMark board of directors. And secondly, because the contractual nature of the relationship between Wyndham and Worldmark prevents Worldmark from doing business with other developers.
In a normal, arm's length contract, I would agree that Wyndham isn't obligated to look out for owner's best interests. But when the contract requires Worldmark to use Wyndham into perpetuity, a different standard is required.
If it can be shown that the intent and result of TravelShare is to reduce competition from the resale market, that hurts owners when they sell their credits. Does anyone doubt that one of Trendwest's objectives was to increase their sales at the expense of resales? As evidence, it will be shown that Wyndham sales people use TravelShare as a tool to convince people to buy direct, rather than from existing owners.
While the resale market hasn't yet fallen, TravelShare is young. I believe that TravelShare, as it is enhanced, will affect resale values. And even if it doesn't, just having the intent to do so would be enough, I would think.
I just read the lawsuit and I don’t think WN has anything to worry about – but I’m not a lawyer.
The lawyers who cooked up this lawsuit got many things right and many things wrong. The stuff they got wrong is what the lawsuit is all about.
Para 32 gets the definition of Fun Time mixed up with Bonus Time and is just wrong.
Para 33 ignores the fact that TravelShare (TS) sits “on top of” WM and is a service/product available to WM owners who pay for this extra service – the lawyers got it backwards. The lawyers never considered that the WM credits discussed belong to WN in the first place and they, just like normal WM owners, have great latitude in the usage of their own credits.
Para 34 is completely wrong in all regards.
Para 35 is fundamentally flawed and leads to false conclusions.
Para 36 is absolutely correct and it is just a definition of TS.
Para 37 is the same – absolutely correct and just a definition of TS.
Para 38 deals with the resale market and is just wild guessing by the lawyers – no way to prove their allegations.
All in all a worthless lawsuit and a waste of time. However, the lawyers will make out like bandits – both the plaintiffs and defendants.
This is almost embarrassing its so weak.
But I don't claim to be an expert on TS and maybe all the holes I see are, instead, bullet proof glass. If I do have TS wrong, please correct me - I don't have a 100% feeling that everything I understand about TS is correct. I welcome corrections.
...
The lawyers never considered that the WM credits discussed belong to WN in the first place and they, just like normal WM owners, have great latitude in the usage of their own credits.....
PA,
Let’s talk English, only a few here understand legalese (I sure don’t)
It’s my contention that WN owns millions of WM credits that it can do with as it wants (Within the rules of the club) – hence TravelShare (TS). As I understand what they are doing they are taking their credits and funding TS with them. If they didn’t own the credits they could not implement TS.
Is that correct? ....
No, that is not correct. The declarations I quoted restrict Wyndham's right to reserve units. Read em, they aren't that hard to understand.
As for the board enforcing the declarations? Yes, Wyndham's violations have been pointed out to the board countless times by owners. They choose to justify the actions, rather than prosecute them.
So there is documented evidence that the above questions have been submitted to the WM BOD and we have documented evidence that they have decided to ignore these questions?
P.S.
By documented I mean a lawyer typed up the questions, sent them registered mail, and the WM BOD have ignored the questions?