Marriott Aruba Ocean Club Owners Being Ripped Off By Marriott - READ IF AN OWNER

[ecwinch]

I was quite articulate with the plan. Once the meeting was called the owners would vote on weather or not they wanted to recall any of the board members. The remaining members would then appoint others to fulfill the remaining term times of those removed. With the new board we could pass by-laws that made actions more transparent. Not sure what part of that you did not understand. I have said that all along. If the owners voted to keep all the board members then that would have been the decision.

As for the owners not knowing about the meeting. I had over 500 weeks of emails supporting the effort in calling for a special meeting, and I have copies of them. The folks in Aruba gathering signatures let people know what was the plan and the intent of calling a meeting. A couple may not have been completely clear so prior to sending the letter to Marriott calling the special meeting an opt out email was sent to everyone on the list. If they were not interested in having their name used then it was removed from the list. SO most whose names were submitted knew about the meeting.

So now that you are willing to discuss the strategy, help me with the following:

Assuming that you had enough signatures to call the special meeting to recall the directors, how were you going to meet quorum requirements? You were not soliciting proxies were you?

I am assuming, based on having read other HOA By-Laws, that any vacancies are filled by a vote of the remaining BOD members. If that recall was successful, that would have left Allan and the MVCI mgt BOD member. Did you have a plan for breaking that tie? (typically developer rep BOD members cannot be recalled).

You mention changing the by-laws for more transparency. Would not a by-law change have to be voted on by the entire membership? The notice for the special meeting was only for the recall of the BOD members.

And help me understand why, if you just want transparency, you cannot just reload and try this again? Seems like that might be easier than a lawsuit.

 

[qlaval]

I have fortunately never had to have a recall special election/meeting called for one of my resorts but if there was it only makes sense to me that all the 1000 signatures - if you had the actual signatures in the format required to submit and get the meeting called - would only serve to force the meeting. Notice would then have to go out to ALL owners along with an agenda. Then if there was to be a vote - such as a vote to remove one or more Directors - ALL owners that wished could attend or submit a legal proxy for yeah or nay to that. The 1000 names doesn't count as a vote - only as the method to get the meeting & then a proper vote called. There is ZERO guarantee that the resulting vote would have in fact removed any Board members. In fact it appears Marriott holds enough votes - that's what you say about the last election - to out vote the independent owners. So the result would have likely been a special meeting/ Association vote with no changes made to the makeup of the Board.
....

Yes you're probably right, but this time ALL the OC owners would be aware that something is going on... which for the moment isn't the case, as many are totally unaware of the situation.
A majority of owners are not even aware of Marriott participation in the last BOD election...

 

[timeos2]

Start over - do it right

Yes you're probably right, but this time ALL the OC owners would be aware that something is going on... which for the moment isn't the case, as many are totally unaware of the situation.
A majority of owners are not even aware of Marriott participation in the last BOD election...

So as ewinch says why not go ahead with the proper notice of 1000+ properly documented owner requests for a special meeting to recall Board members. Then that will generate the proper general notice to all owners as well as the agenda. Then a legally binding meeting and vote can be held. The results will determine if a new Board is put in place or the voting majority truly support the existing members.

If there is a problem they need to address nothing has changed except the process used to attempt to call a special meeting didn't follow the prescribed rules. If needed it can still be done but the process must fulfill the requirements. And simply complaining that "we tried" may make for great BBS postings but does nothing to force the Association to call the meeting the dissidents desire to have. They either start over on the effort and do it correctly or they live with the current Board and try to make them respond to their concerns. Failed attempts are just that - failed attempts. You can bemoan them all you want but that won't give them new life.

 

[marksue]

The prescribed rules were followed based on the by-laws. A formal question was asked to the BOD and Corey on what is required to call a special meeting. The answer was i don't know, why do you want to do call a special meeting. Corey said he would get back to me as he would check with Marriott, yet Corey never gets back to me with an answer. Then we send in the call for a meeting, with the list of supporters, and then we hear what is required. Sounds to me like they never thought we would get the numbers needed so they didn’t bother figuring it out. When they got the notice, they called a lawyer to figure out how to stop it. So I did what was necessary asking what was required. So those that keep saying the rules wern't followed are off base. Marriott changed or made up the rules mid-stream.

 

[marksue]

letter from an owner to the board .. w/ permission

Officers of the Board
Aruba Ocean Club

Gentlemen:

I have recently read your letter to owners dated May 2009 and I am compelled to respond to several misstatements and efforts to mischaracterize well meaning actions of individual owner’s who are seeking nothing more than to have each of you and Marriott Vacation Club International do the honorable thing to cure misrepresentations, misstatements and an absolutely abysmal record of irresponsible governance.

As individual officers you have ignored the many complaints and letters from owners such as myself, pointing out the facts, not as you and your Marriott colleagues so often misstate them. So let me review them for you one more time:

FACT-Marriott sold owners a defective building with an aged structure and defective roof, windows and probably other structural issues which would
later account for the significant damage caused by last year’s hurricane. I first hand witnessed during year one of occupancy severe leaking of the roof into numerous rooms causing the front desk staff to move a number of owners into the hotel or dry quarters if they could find any at the Aruba Ocean Club. Having occurred in year one, the defective roof could not possibly have resulted from “ordinary wear and tear” of Aruba weather as you and your Marriott colleagues once contended.

Over the years this condition has gotten progressively worse with water pouring in from windows, buckets being placed throughout the lobby area to catch cascading water from the ceiling and Marriott sales people using waste baskets to catch the water leaking from the ceiling in the sales area. Portions of the ceiling in the sales area and in hallways have also collapsed. Notwithstanding many complaints to Marriott representatives and sales personnel, no action was taken to cure the roof, window, etc. defects until this Board under the leadership of Allan Cohen pressured Marriott and retained counsel and threatened to sue.

All Marriott did until then was to continue to knowingly sell units at the Ocean Club to unsuspecting purchasers without disclosing the roof and other defects.

FACT, the reward to Allan Cohen for standing up for owner interests was that you as officers working with your Marriott colleagues would revoke a previously passed motion to change the bylaws provision on term limits which would then give the owners the right to decide whether he (Alan Cohen) could run for another term. Taking that action, you could then get him off the Board. And who becomes President as a result of this abrupt change in position-why it’s Frank Knox!

FACT, you and your colleagues on this Board have continued to ignore complaints from owners about this situation and made a deal with Marriott to incur substantial expenses in renovations and charge owners special assessments before it was clear if the structure was sound and free of mold and whether these renovations were needed. Clearly, these renovations at the Ocean Club, characterized as bringing the Ocean Club up to Marriot standards ( Do Marriott standards include defective buildings?) could be a
financial windfall for Marriott if it were part of a Marriott plan to then role it out at other properties where Marriott can possibly reap financial gain from special assessments, higher maintenance fees or other benefits they might gain from suppliers of goods and services. You may not be aware, or may not even care, that Marriott had reportedly been sued several years ago by franchisees concerning failure to share payments from suppliers. Actually, as an owner of weeks at another Marriott property, I have first hand begun to see the Marriott “renovation” plan unfold at other properties.

FACT-working in concert with Marriott, you have done everything you could to deny owners the opportunity to exercise their rights to vote and or call special meetings to dismiss individual officers and Board members. Owners contacted you and Marriott and inquired several times about any requirements for calling a special meeting as defined in the owner documents. You ignored all these communications, never responding until you received a formal call for such a special meeting agreed to by over one thousand owner weeks and then you and Marriott allegedly discovered
some Aruba requirement concerning validation of owner consent and denied such request on that basis. Further insulting to owners is that you and Marriott have the owner list and information which you could have used to confirm the names on the list supporting the call for a special meeting but you refused. Just as you refused to respond to the requests about any requirements other than in the owner documents concerning a special meeting and just as you denied access to the names and addresses of owners to owners seeking to call a special meeting. Apparently, terms like fair dealing and good governance have little place in either your lexicon or that of Marriott’s.

In summary, do not make statements characterizing other persons conduct and actions as misrepresentations or misstatements when you and your Marriott colleagues are the ones who should be looking in the mirror. Owners overwhelmingly rejected the Knox administration in their votes and it was only Marriott casting votes for the first time for A (owner) members which they have never done before that kept you in office.


The facts speak for themselves-under your administration, owners have no role in any decisions and their right to vote guaranteed in the ownership documents is illusory as Marriott can and will overrule it at will to satisfy their own business goals. Every Marriott time share owner and any potential purchaser should be outraged at Marriott’s actions in nullifying owners
right to vote.

As a former corporate attorney and executive, and as one who has served on several Boards, I have never ever seen such outrageous conduct by individual Board members and a major corporation. Any “fear mongering and threats” lie with you and your colleagues at Marriott Vacation Club International. Nice job in jointly sullying the name of a once proud and well respected corporation and Resort. Your actions and that of Marriott are deserving of public scrutiny and any resulting recriminations.

Sincerely,

 

[Dave M]

A long time ago, you posted the section of the bylaws that specifies what is required to call a special meeting. However, there are legal requirements associated with complying with that bylaw provision that would almost certainly require a competent attorney's guidance. It's not Marriott's or the BOD's responsibility to provide that guidance to you. As I have said several times, it appears as though you aren't getting competent legal advice and you keep running into roadblocks as a result.

As has been repeatedly posted here by others, your group needs to make a commitment to spend some money - quite a bit of money - if you have any hope of success. And that commitment still carries a huge risk of failure. Unfortunately, most people who support any cause have a relatively short window of support, particularly where there have been numerous missteps. Thus, if you hope to win (whatever that now means), I am guessing that time is running out to get that needed financial support from your group.

Incidentally, not just any old attorney can provide the proper assistance. You need someone who specializes in homeowner association law. Your state bar association can make a referral for you. Finding the right attorney is like finding the right surgeon. You wouldn't want a foot doctor to operate on your heart. The same principle applies to your issues.

 

[Dean]

The prescribed rules were followed based on the by-laws. A formal question was asked to the BOD and Corey on what is required to call a special meeting. The answer was i don't know, why do you want to do call a special meeting. Corey said he would get back to me as he would check with Marriott, yet Corey never gets back to me with an answer. Then we send in the call for a meeting, with the list of supporters, and then we hear what is required. Sounds to me like they never thought we would get the numbers needed so they didn’t bother figuring it out. When they got the notice, they called a lawyer to figure out how to stop it. So I did what was necessary asking what was required. So those that keep saying the rules wern't followed are off base. Marriott changed or made up the rules mid-stream.

That's one of the reasons some of us were hoping to get the By-Laws and other data, to evaluate this issue more objectively. You cannot rely on verbal representations for such issues. As I posted previously, I think the resort and BOD were reasonable in refusing your list because you could not legally show that you represented them and that those you had listed were actually asking for what you were reporting.

 

[ecwinch]

The prescribed rules were followed based on the by-laws. A formal question was asked to the BOD and Corey on what is required to call a special meeting. The answer was i don't know, why do you want to do call a special meeting. Corey said he would get back to me as he would check with Marriott, yet Corey never gets back to me with an answer. Then we send in the call for a meeting, with the list of supporters, and then we hear what is required. Sounds to me like they never thought we would get the numbers needed so they didn’t bother figuring it out. When they got the notice, they called a lawyer to figure out how to stop it. So I did what was necessary asking what was required. So those that keep saying the rules wern't followed are off base. Marriott changed or made up the rules mid-stream.

Piling on to DaveM's point - are you saying it is not in the by-laws? And I what do you mean by "based" on the by-laws.

And the information you provide are mitigating factors, nothing else. A demand letter to Corey would have solved that problem if the by-laws do not have a procedure.

And just a point of order. When I start reading the letter you posted, and I hit the word "FACT", and then the item behind is speculation - it just makes me want to stop reading. I am sure the BOD probably feels the same way.

It is the concept of the bozo bit. Once you flip the bit, then everything else you say, I hear as if Bozo the Clown was saying it. I know you are not the author of this letter, I am just recounting how I process information.

EDIT: Got about half-way through the letter and I had to stop. I felt I was losing IQ points if I continued. At least he got one thing right, it's back to the Allan Cohen issue. I think you might want to think about what continuing to raise that issue does for the potential for Allan to be sued. Leaking e-mail addresses, leaking documents, subverting the actions of the BOD. What does he think fiduciary responsibility means?

 

[Luckybee]

And just a point of order. When I start reading the letter you posted, and I hit the word "FACT", and then the item behind is speculation - it just makes me want to stop reading. I am sure the BOD probably feels the same way.

In case i was confused, I double checked the merriam webster online dictionary for the definition of fact and speculation. Given that fact is defined as "something that has actual exsistence " also : "an actual occurence", I guess im not the one who is confused. The letter writer has outlined exactly what has happened. It isnt speculation ! We too were at the property in the first few years and got to witness first hand the repeated water damage, and floods, and leaks, and even the emergency exits leaking with drywall falling off to the point that one had to be closed.
I wont go on and on as some might here but AS AN OWNER from inception we got to witness many FACTS first hand, and this letter only skims the surface !
Unfortunately some wont accept the facts because it doesnt fit in with their skewed version of reality in which MVC can do no wrong .

 

[Eric]

#1. Just at a glance, the first is certainly speculation until proven other wise. We know Mark has super duper hidden information but until that's confirmed than this is still speculation

#2. Again speculation. In most cases, there are multiple reasons for replacing someone. After reading Allan's email, maybe he was way over the top on many issues. Maybe not funding the reserve correctly was blamed on him. When things go wrong the blame the top dog and that was him. Again, maybe you are right but there is certain doubt.


FACT-Marriott sold owners a defective building with an aged structure and defective roof, windows and probably other structural issues which would
later account for the significant damage caused by last year’s hurricane.


FACT, the reward to Allan Cohen for standing up for owner interests was that you as officers working with your Marriott colleagues would revoke a previously passed motion to change the bylaws provision on term limits which would then give the owners the right to decide whether he (Alan Cohen) could run for another term. Taking that action, you could then get him off the Board. And who becomes President as a result of this abrupt change in position-why it’s Frank Knox!

In case i was confused, I double checked the merriam webster online dictionary for the definition of fact and speculation. Given that fact is defined as "something that has actual exsistence " also : "an actual occurence", I guess im not the one who is confused. The letter writer has outlined exactly what has happened. .

 

[ecwinch]

In case i was confused, I double checked the merriam webster online dictionary for the definition of fact and speculation. Given that fact is defined as "something that has actual exsistence " also : "an actual occurence", I guess im not the one who is confused. The letter writer has outlined exactly what has happened. It isnt speculation ! We too were at the property in the first few years and got to witness first hand the repeated water damage, and floods, and leaks, and even the emergency exits leaking with drywall falling off to the point that one had to be closed.
I wont go on and on as some might here but AS AN OWNER from inception we got to witness many FACTS first hand, and this letter only skims the surface !
Unfortunately some wont accept the facts because it doesnt fit in with their skewed version of reality in which MVC can do no wrong .

FACT-Marriott sold owners a defective building.

I kept reading, but this is were the bozo bit fell. As a corporate attorney, the writer should have understood how this claim is not a FACT. At best this is an opinion. Unless the writer has the report that says "The OC building is defective..."

 

[JimC]

...Incidentally, not just any old attorney can provide the proper assistance. You need someone who specializes in homeowner association law. Your state bar association can make a referral for you. Finding the right attorney is like finding the right surgeon. You wouldn't want a foot doctor to operate on your heart. The same principle applies to your issues.

And likely one who is licensed to practice in Aruba.

 

[lovearuba]

previous post

And likely one who is licensed to practice in Aruba.

This has already been done, see the previous post.

Susan,

In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.

 

[SueDonJ]

This has already been done, see the previous post.

Susan,

In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.

lovearuba, I followed that up with a post here to Marksue asking him to clarify the "contingency arrangement" with the attorney(s), as well as how the new arrangement with an Aruban attorney differed from the ongoing arrangement with a US attorney, and have yet to receive a response. I still think that your legal representation (whatever arrangement has been in place since the inception of this thread, anyway) is lacking, as has been said many times over by Dave, me, and others. I still believe, as I have from the beginning, that if you had actually hired qualified attorneys to research the issues and prepare all of the paperwork (especially as related to that failed so-called petition submission,) you Ocean Club owners would have had a better understanding of the legal processes as well as a better chance at whatever success is possible.

 

[Eric]

I hope things are being handled better than they look. At this point it kind of looks like you guys are going into a war with water pistols while they have cannons. While I applaud your effort, me thinks Marriott is laughing at your results so far. The whole email about "FACTS" were about as stupid and childish as it gets.

This has already been done, see the previous post.

Susan,

In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.

 

[Luckybee]

I hope things are being handled better than they look. At this point it kind of looks like you guys are going into a war with water pistols while they have cannons. While I applaud your effort, me thinks Marriott is laughing at your results so far.

Somehow I dont quite think that's the case, but I'll leave it to Mark and others to deal with

 

[Luckybee]

lovearuba, I followed that up with a post here to Marksue asking him to clarify the "contingency arrangement" with the attorney(s), as well as how the new arrangement with an Aruban attorney differed from the ongoing arrangement with a US attorney, and have yet to receive a response. I still think that your legal representation (whatever arrangement has been in place since the inception of this thread, anyway) is lacking, as has been said many times over by Dave, me, and others. I still believe, as I have from the beginning, that if you had actually hired qualified attorneys to research the issues and prepare all of the paperwork (especially as related to that failed so-called petition submission,) you Ocean Club owners would have had a better understanding of the legal processes as well as a better chance at whatever success is possible.

Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.

 

[SueDonJ]

Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.

Well, that's your thought. I simply don't share your view, and I'll continue to read and/or post here whenever the mood strikes me. As far as I know, the moderators of this site do not have a problem with non-owners participating in this thread about the issues at Aruba Ocean Club. I'm sure that if they did, we would have heard about it a long time ago.

You, on the other hand, take every opportunity to post about why you think non-owners shouldn't be here. You'll forgive me, I hope, for not recognizing you as The Board Police.

And you don't have to speak for Marksue, or explain in any way why you think he may or may not contribute here. He's proven his communication skills over and over again.

 

[london]

For Owners Only

Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.

Luckybee,

Your point is well taken. This thread is truly for owners at this resort.

Unfortunately, many non owners, including myself, have posted on this thread.

Hopefully, some positive resolution will take place in the future for the owners.

 

[SueDonJ]

Luckybee,

Your point is well taken. This thread is truly for owners at this resort.

Unfortunately, many non owners, including myself, have posted on this thread.

Hopefully, some positive resolution will take place in the future for the owners.

I disagree. I don't think it's "unfortunate" at all that non-owners have posted here. In fact, I think that if Marksue had taken some of the advice he was given at the beginning of the thread (particularly, but not limited to, that from DaveM), he and the other disgruntled Aruba Ocean Club owners would have had a better chance at success with their efforts. Instead, they were as contentious with the non-owners here as they were with Marriott, MVCI and their BOD, which didn't help their causes one iota. So far they've failed in their legal shenanigans with Marriott et al, and they've failed as well with trying to garner the sympathy vote from non-owners.

We all would like to see a positive resolution, maybe for different reasons, but can any of us seriously think that one is on the horizon? I don't see it, especially if Marksue and the other 1000+ owners don't get their legal ducks in a row.

 

[m61376]

Could it be that Mark just doesnt feel the need to clarify. I continue to find it interesting that the majority of people who are on this thread seemingly against the owner action are non owners. If this was happening at any of the other properties other than one I own at, I wouldnt even be reading it , let alone commenting.

I think one of the reasons it has garnered so much interest is that it has repercussions for other Marriott owners elsewhere. I also think it is regrettable that OC owners look at it as something only OC owners are worthy to comment on, because many times an outsider can objectively assess a situation for everyone's benefit.

It appears to me that OC owners are perhaps too angered to look at things objectively and the reason why the naysayers are primarily non-owners is not that they want to stir the pot, so to speak, but because they are not directly affected cooler heads can prevail.

Taking a threatening posture is rarely a way to foster cooperation and, unfortunately, Marriott has reacted to not so subtle threats. I think it will be a real uphill battle going forwards.

 

[Luckybee]

Well, that's your thought. I simply don't share your view, and I'll continue to read and/or post here whenever the mood strikes me. As far as I know, the moderators of this site do not have a problem with non-owners participating in this thread about the issues at Aruba Ocean Club. I'm sure that if they did, we would have heard about it a long time ago.

You, on the other hand, take every opportunity to post about why you think non-owners shouldn't be here. You'll forgive me, I hope, for not recognizing you as The Board Police.

And you don't have to speak for Marksue, or explain in any way why you think he may or may not contribute here. He's proven his communication skills over and over again.

See this is the problem. Im not the board police but I just like other posters get quite tired of someone telling them how they should think. I am entitled to my opinion which happens to be as I previously indicated. You can post as you like but still isnt going to change my opinion. Furthermore I wouldnt begin to speak for Mark who I happen to think has done a great job(with a few mssteps perhaps but has those under control now . But when you say things like, "lovearuba, I followed that up with a post here to Marksue asking him to clarify the "contingency arrangement" with the attorney(s), as well as how the new arrangement with an Aruban attorney differed from the ongoing arrangement with a US attorney, and have yet to receive a response" as though it is Mark's obligation to tell you what the owners are doing/have done/or are planning on doing I for one find it a tad offensive. Perhaps I read it wrong but it came across to me as a sense of entitlement. Nothing was posted here in the beginning for entertainment value. It was posted here to allow owners who had no knowledge of the efforts being made on their behalf to become aware. Any owner who wishes info is getting/can get that info very easily. In a general way the info will continue to be posted here by Mark and others Im sure . Personally as an owner, I think the specifics are better left to be dealt with in the manner that Mark and the many others who are organizing this are doing so at present.

 

[ecwinch]

LuckyBee,

Have you ever stopped and wondered, why non-owners take the time and energy to post to this thread, or even read this thread?

And I do not think anyone has told you "what" to think. My posts are generally of two types:

To provide some balance to the inherent bias and help separate the verifiable facts from the rhetoric

To point out on flaws in the logic and approach.

And I cannot speak for everyone that has done so, but I have legitimately done it in an effort to help the "crusade" refine the argument and to suggest strategy. If you think it is to tell what to think, I am sorry you read that into my posts.

 

[lovearuba]

Agree with this

I think one of the reasons it has garnered so much interest is that it has repercussions for other Marriott owners elsewhere. I also think it is regrettable that OC owners look at it as something only OC owners are worthy to comment on, because many times an outsider can objectively assess a situation for everyone's benefit.

It appears to me that OC owners are perhaps too angered to look at things objectively and the reason why the naysayers are primarily non-owners is not that they want to stir the pot, so to speak, but because they are not directly affected cooler heads can prevail.

Taking a threatening posture is rarely a way to foster cooperation and, unfortunately, Marriott has reacted to not so subtle threats. I think it will be a real uphill battle going forwards.

One of the last communications I received from Marriott indicated the reason surf club maintenance fees were less than they are was because the developing is staying paying into them. Surf club owners are likely to be posting their own thread in the future, they should be interested in how this turns out.

 

[Dean]

This has already been done, see the previous post.

Susan,

In the beginning we tried to do this without legal representation in an effort resolve this issue in a professional manner. With Marriott's lack of response and underhanded actions, as occurred at the board meeting, we have now retained legal representation both in Aruba and the US. The attorneys are doing the work on a contingency basis as there are multiple actions under way. There are multiple tracks taking place now and as I am permitted to share what is occurring I will post it. As papers are served and I am given the ok I will share what we are doing. But since Marriott does monitor this board I will not share what is planned until it is executed.

As I posted previously in this thread, there are ways to have a closed forum on Yahoo and otherwise if you only want to communicate and discuss with owners.