KBV: Ballots on their way

[CO skier]

Wyndham possibly has a clear conflict of interest. How can an employee of Wyndham act for the benefit of the IOA which is the owners and not consider the benefit to their employer, Wyndham? If not a conflict, clearly an appearance of conflict.

Considering how many intervals Wyndham owns at this resort, how can Wyndham's interests be different from any other interval owner?

The lawsuit by the wholly-owned AOAO owners clearly jammed a monkey wrench into the whole process, drawn it out, and practically put a gag order on progress.

That is why there are no answers to your questions.

 

[schreff]

Considering how many intervals Wyndham owns at this resort, how can Wyndham's interests be different from any other interval owner?

The lawsuit by the wholly-owned AOAO owners clearly jammed a monkey wrench into the whole process, drawn it out, and practically put a gag order on progress.

That is why there are no answers to your questions.

I doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that Wyndham has a huge employee/employer relationship potential conflict in acting what is in the best interest of all the owners. Are decisions made as employees of Wyndham or as owners or in combination, and what percentage of decisions are in Wyndham's interest or the owners interest in general? You can't ignore the multiplicity role of Wyndham owners, Wyndham employees and Wyndham as a management company. There is no way that Wyndham can be China walled; thus the appearance of conflict is 100% and an actual conflict of interest should be legally questioned if needed. Being kept in the dark only makes these suspicions more salient.
It is oxymoronic to say that owners who are part of the legal action can legally be kept in the dark about what happens during the legal process. The employer of the attorneys is the owners with the BOD supposedly acting in fiduciary function representing the owners.
Hope this clarifies your misunderstanding of the fiduciary responsibility and this is clearly the answer to the questions posed.

 

[CO skier]

It is oxymoronic to say that owners who are part of the legal action can legally be kept in the dark about what happens during the legal process.

You must have never been party to a lawsuit. Here is something to bring you up to speed.

Why You Shouldn’t Talk About Your Pending Litigation | Jurewitz Law Group Injury & Accident Lawyers

While it can be extremely tempting to talk about your ongoing legal case, there are good reasons why you shouldn’t. Even talking to your friends and family can have adverse repercussions. That’s why we at Jurewitz Law Group Injury & Accident Lawyers recommend all of our clients remain silent...

www.jurewitz.com

 

[schreff]

Since your not an KBV owner and perhaps not even a timeshare owner you certainly don't understand KBV let alone the fiduciary rights of owners. Thus you should perhaps not post (talk about) the issues which affect we, the owners. Perhaps you should explain why you are consistently siding with Wyndham which I and others have noticed. Silence is the best policy for non owners and others who have nothing positive to add.

What you are ridiculously saying is that the BOD should not talk to the owners about pending or ongoing legal actions. No one is saying that they should talk to you or TUG about details of the KBV legal actions but that the BOD has a fiduciary responsibly to keep owners who elected them informed. Again, a ridiculous post by CO skier ,and a waste of time.