RCI Class Action

[timeos2]

Valuation is a key

Well, it's a good thing that none of those issues of relative valuations of weeks is pertinent to the lawsuit then, isn't it? The goal is to stop RCI from looting weeks out of the spacebank, not to address how they valuate trade power.

It ought to be clear as pie to anyone with half a brain that looting weeks from the Spacebank is going to adversely affect trade power.

Aldo - It is the issue. Even an uniformed judge or juror can understand that a 1 bedroom week in Branson in January isn't the same as a 3 bedroom week in Miami. So when RCI says they have to make EQUAL trades, a term that appeals to almost anyone and that they understand, and if they aren't EQUAL the time can be "surplus". Try telling those jurists that there are compensating factors like demand, location, red vs blue, quality, etc and theres those glassy eyes again. It is key to the case that rentals aren't seen as a necessary part of the equation and that an unreasonable process of valuation was used to declare them as surplus for rental. If RCI has done nothing else they will have the documentation to show the units rented weren't equal to those requesting a trade into them. This case is not likely to be won even though on the simple face of it renting the space seems wrong. If it is won by some fluke the results won't be what the weeks advocates think they will be. The old days will not suddenly be back. Not going to happen.

 

[AwayWeGo]

They're Not Coming Back Gradually, Either.

The old days will not suddenly be back.

Not only that, whatever the outcome, it's always easier for things to get worse than for things to get better -- regardless of whether you're talking about timeshares or women's swimsuits.

So it goes.

-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA.​

 

[Carolinian]

Its the market that determines what is an equal trade. You know, good old supply and demand. If there is not the demand in the exchange system for the availible supply of a week that someone thought was a ''good week'', the market has spoken and said it is not as good as they thought, and revalues it accordingly. The system adjusts, and an equal trade is made. This is the way the Christel deHaan model of timeshare exchanging, which was long used by RCI, worked and it is an honest and fair system.

Arbitrarily blocking the operation of the market so that some weeks are declared ''surplus'' is part of what RCI is apparently doing to create its rental empire. When they have their hand in the till, it is not surprising that they also put their thumb on the scales. They can arbitrarily adjust values to make anything they want surplus. Take out the conflicts of interest like RCI arbitrarily setting values of weeks instead of market forces and RCI benefiting from doing so by doing rentals to non-members, and then you will restore the integrity of the exchange system. That is what the lawsuit is all about.

Who is afraid of market forces setting real values instead of arbitary values set by an exchange company? Logic tells you it is those who know deep down that their week is not really worth what it is cracked up to be. Overbuilt areas are an example. They would rather have arbitrary values that they hope will overvalue their weeks and allow them to trade up.

If you want to determine what is a fair exchange system, look at what incentives are created for the exchange company to cook the books or rig the system or developers to politick the system. An exchange system with those components is going to be corrupted. Rentals create that incentive in RCI Weeks.

The dishonesty of a rigged and arbitrary valuation system is shown by the old Soviet rouble. Its fixed value was US$1.11, but the market rate at the Swiss banks was usually about US$0.19.

Aldo - It is the issue. Even an uniformed judge or juror can understand that a 1 bedroom week in Branson in January isn't the same as a 3 bedroom week in Miami. So when RCI says they have to make EQUAL trades, a term that appeals to almost anyone and that they understand, and if they aren't EQUAL the time can be "surplus". Try telling those jurists that there are compensating factors like demand, location, red vs blue, quality, etc and theres those glassy eyes again. It is key to the case that rentals aren't seen as a necessary part of the equation and that an unreasonable process of valuation was used to declare them as surplus for rental. If RCI has done nothing else they will have the documentation to show the units rented weren't equal to those requesting a trade into them. This case is not likely to be won even though on the simple face of it renting the space seems wrong. If it is won by some fluke the results won't be what the weeks advocates think they will be. The old days will not suddenly be back. Not going to happen.

 

[Carolinian]

''synergy'' is one of those words that means consumers need to hold onto their wallets. . . sort of like the word ''enhancements'' when it comes to frequent flyer programs. When airlines start talking about ''enhancements'' to their ff programs, the members know they are about to be hosed.

I'm afraid where you see conflict of interest, investors will see synergy.

(For others)... Given the scenario outlined, would RCI's substituting banked weeks to replace developer weeks that they have given out as exchanges be actionable? On what grounds?

Its a complex world out there.

 

[JLB]

Now we're getting to the cruxt of the problem, all these uninformed people serving as judges and jurors.
- - - - - -
For some reason, my mind's eye is picturing those Geico Caveman commercials. You know, so simple a caveman can do it?

So, have you been to Branson in January, or are you just making an assumption based on insinuation, speculation, etc.?

Actually, not based on assumption, I have been to Miami a few times, and would prefer Branson in January.

Really. I would never consider using one our weeks to vacation in Miami. Just would never, ever do it.

I am fairly certain that it is probably likely that there are many/some/one-or-two Redneck Bumpkins (no offense to anyone in my gene pool) who would rather spend a week in January at BCWC than ever having to set foot in a place like Miami.

And, matter of fact, compliments of a TUGger, we did get a January week at BCWC. Nice and peaceful, very relaxing and vacation-like.

What may be true for one, some or most, may not be true for all.

But, of course, I get your point, even if it is not based on universal truth, but, rather, personal preference.

Even an uniformed judge or juror can understand that a 1 bedroom week in Branson in January isn't the same as a 3 bedroom week in Miami.

 

[CMF]

Binding Arbitration May be an Option

The judge may direct this case the way of a special master to sort out the details, or her/his honor may persuade the parties into binding arbitration. These options could remedy the uninformed juror/judge problem. But, it may not be such a problem after all. Juries and judges are asked to tackle far more complicated matters all the time.


Charles

 

[JLB]

I heard he's considering Carolinian.

The judge may direct this case the way of a special master to sort out the details

 

[BocaBum99]

Longtime TUG poster Bootleg, an RCI employee who had access to RCI's computers, followed some of these prime week rentals back to the source and found that they were member exchange deposits that had nothing to do with cruises, points for deposit, etc., just straight out exchange deposits.

Once they get to seriously turning over rocks in discovery, IMHO RCI is going to cry uncle!

Looting exchange deposits for rental to the general public cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called ''legitimate business practices''. It more resembles the business practices of Al Capone.

It could very well be true that Bootleg's reporting here was accurate and RCI was looting the Spacebank. If it was so obvious to Bootleg, then it should be trivial to prove through discovery that RCI is guilty and the plaintiffs will win big time in the Class Action.

However, I seriously doubt that this is the case. There are still explanations for why Bootleg could have seen what he saw and it still be legitimate business activity.

Just for the record, I would note that you believe that crossover trades from RCI Points to RCI weeks are "looting" as well. I don't agree with that assertion. In fact, I seriously doubt that any judge or jury would either. It's a completely legitimate business practice to allow a point system to have one way access to a weeks system.

Your passion for using the legal system to correct what you perceive to be an injustice is admirable. I just don't believe the outcome you hope for will come to fruition. RCI will never be the way it once was no matter what the outcome of this Class action is. Markets evolve over time. So is timesharing. Perhaps it's just time to move on.

Rentals are here to stay. That will be true whether or not RCI remains in business or spins if off and merges it with a company like DAE.

 

[BocaBum99]

The judge may direct this case the way of a special master to sort out the details, or her/his honor may persuade the parties into binding arbitration. These options could remedy the uninformed juror/judge problem. But, it may not be such a problem after all. Juries and judges are asked to tackle far more complicated matters all the time.


Charles

Yeah, right. RCI will risk the outcome of binding arbitration? You have a higher probability of winning the next $100M powerball lottery.

If there is no smoking gun in this case such as Carolinian asserts with his references to Bootleg, then RCI will simply throw so much confusion into the case that nobody will ever be able to determine what an equal trade is. One person's trash is another person's treasure.

 

[Carolinian]

This is not a matter of a market ''evolving''; it is a matter of RCI trying to hijack the market. Years ago, I posted in its entirety a letter from RCI's CEO to affiliated resorts in which he said that RCI was going to be using its power as a ''market leader'' to ''bring timesharing to the mass market''. We have since seen what he meant - using RCI's quasi-monopoly position to try to force the market into points and rentals. That is hardly a market ''evolving'' from natural forces.

Crossover trades would NOT be looting if they were availible to go both directions to members of both and valuation was fair. However none of those things are true. The generic grids are downright fraudulent, grossly undervaluing prime weeks in the Weeks system, and of course Weeks members are not allowed to do crossovers into Points.

While I would agree with you that rentals, in general, are here to stay, the scam of exchange companies renting exchange deposits hopefully will have a stake deservedly driven through its heart in the class action.

RCI's defenders trying to explain away what Bootleg and others saw reminds me a lot of the attempt of one of RCI's defenders (who has been involved in this thread BTW) to defend the SkyAuction rentals.

It could very well be true that Bootleg's reporting here was accurate and RCI was looting the Spacebank. If it was so obvious to Bootleg, then it should be trivial to prove through discovery that RCI is guilty and the plaintiffs will win big time in the Class Action.

However, I seriously doubt that this is the case. There are still explanations for why Bootleg could have seen what he saw and it still be legitimate business activity.

Just for the record, I would note that you believe that crossover trades from RCI Points to RCI weeks are "looting" as well. I don't agree with that assertion. In fact, I seriously doubt that any judge or jury would either. It's a completely legitimate business practice to allow a point system to have one way access to a weeks system.

Your passion for using the legal system to correct what you perceive to be an injustice is admirable. I just don't believe the outcome you hope for will come to fruition. RCI will never be the way it once was no matter what the outcome of this Class action is. Markets evolve over time. So is timesharing. Perhaps it's just time to move on.

Rentals are here to stay. That will be true whether or not RCI remains in business or spins if off and merges it with a company like DAE.

 

[BocaBum99]

Carolinian,

I believe that the crossover trade issue that you are so passionate about was not included in this Class Action suit because they are different things. One is about renting units that should be available for exchange. The other is about rules for how exchangers can exchange and whether or not such rules could be legally offered by exchange companies.

When a points owner has access to a weeks system, that is no different than an individual owner who has a request first ongoing search with that exchange company. In the individual's case, the exchange company does NOT have the two way option of taking the week that the individual exchanger is using to request first. So, in essence, if you require all interfaces to an exchange company to be "2-way", then you eliminate request first options. That will never be acceptable to the timesharing community.

If you believe that all interfaces should be bi-directional into an exchange company, then you should also be lobbying DAE to eliminate it's request first option. Have you done that yet?

 

[BocaBum99]

Lots of companies use their position with their customers to migrate them to their next product offerings. That is an inherent and quantifiable asset to a company. It manifests itself in the "goodwill" of the company. The Goodwill of a company is a company's market value minus its book value.

This means that the market expects companies to leverage their market position to derive future profits.

This type of planning and activity is an essential requirement of a good CEO.

When performing due diligence for a merger and acquisition candidate, a significant element of that study is to determine the value of the customer base to sell future products.

There are certain types of restraint that are required of monopolies. That is probably why you labelled RCI as a quasi-monopoly. Then all RCI must do is prove that it isn't a monopoly, just a market leader. However, the activities of RCI must be proven to be detrimental to their competitors. But, they aren't. RCI's actions are actually conducive to additional competition in the market. I doubt anti-trust will play a role in this case.

So, the RCI CEO was just making a speech that any market leader would have made to its key stakeholders. I find nothing wrong with it.

 

[PerryM]

Go to Starbucks, they have the answer...

Ok, I admit it I can’t turn my head from a car crash or a good RCI bashing – it’s cheap entertainment. And, I really don't want to clean out the basement - this is much more important.

I once explained how what RCI is doing is completely explainable and legal. I’ll say it once again:

I believe that internally, inside all the secret computer programs there lies an RCI CREDIT system that is similar to the external RCI Point one – but this one is for real. So as not to confuse the issue I’m going to call this system RCI Credits.

ALL reservations space banked with RCI are converted into RCI Credits - same with RCI Points - and are dumped into one central account – it has its own currency to handle transactions with RCI Weeks, RCI Points, RCI Travel Agency, RCI Rental Division. Once this happens the individual reservations have no meaning – everything inside the computer systems is conducted with RCI Credits. This is how an efficient company conducts business - it just creates an interchangeable currency to make life easier.

So when the RCI Travel Agency exchanges your RCI Points for airline tickets and they actually sending a transaction to the RCI Credit account.

The RCI Rental Division gets notice that xxx,xxx number of RCI Credits are available and must be converted into US dollars. The folks at RCI Rental simply go shopping for juicy reservations and can use ANY of them – they pay for them in RCI Credits. This is perfectly legal – its their currency and systems.

Now the phone representatives never see RCI Credits but randomly picked reservations that represent so many RCI Credits that match up to available space banked reservations.

Ok, I can already hear the statement “But BigFoot saw a secret screen that had reservations and has never seen RCI Credits”. That’s exactly correct.

You don’t see the Gold, or Silver, or “Full Faith and Credit of the US Government” on that credit card you just swiped thru the card reader to buy your morning bagel and coffee at Starbucks but its there none the less.

There, I feel much better, I’ve explained, once again, how all of this could be legal and follow RCI’s own rules. I wonder if the basement has self cleaned itself?

 

[timeos2]

Facts ruin great tales

Perry & Boca - I just hate it when facts get in the way of such great theories of corruption, contracts with adhesive tape and screen saver shots of private information. RCI is a company in business to make money offering a voluntary service. All these other side issues, so important to this little world, will mean very little when the overall business model and procedures are disclosed. Perry is most likely very close to the inner mechanisms and it will likely be just that easy to put an end to this farce when the time comes. Meanwhile being so clear just messes up all the arguments so please stay away from facts so the threads can live on! And on. And on until the inevitable dismissal of the shysters and their hopes of glory. Long live conjecture, the rocket fuel of BBS threads.

 

[Carolinian]

Request First has absolutely nothing to do with a two way street between Weeks and Points. Fairness dictates that if Points members have access to all of the Weeks inventory, then Weeks members should have access to all of the Points inventory, and on a fair and equitable basis. If that is not done, as it is NOT in the RCI Points/Weeks interface, then the system is not fair, and that triggers the consumer protection laws.

Although I have not read both original complaints, a lawyer who has told me that the crossover trades issue was in one of the original complaints in one of the class actions. Someone else who had read a draft of the new consolidated conplaint told me that at least at the draft stage it was no longer in that complaint. Although these are somewhat different issues, they are closely enough related that it would have been better to have kept the issue in the consolidated complaint. Maybe someone is just saving this potent issue for another class action later.

Carolinian,

I believe that the crossover trade issue that you are so passionate about was not included in this Class Action suit because they are different things. One is about renting units that should be available for exchange. The other is about rules for how exchangers can exchange and whether or not such rules could be legally offered by exchange companies.

When a points owner has access to a weeks system, that is no different than an individual owner who has a request first ongoing search with that exchange company. In the individual's case, the exchange company does NOT have the two way option of taking the week that the individual exchanger is using to request first. So, in essence, if you require all interfaces to an exchange company to be "2-way", then you eliminate request first options. That will never be acceptable to the timesharing community.

If you believe that all interfaces should be bi-directional into an exchange company, then you should also be lobbying DAE to eliminate it's request first option. Have you done that yet?

 

[Carolinian]

Looting one system for the benefit of members of another is hardly a ''fair'' business practice, and that lack of fairness triggers consumer protection law.
When one company or entity runs both systems and does this it is called ''conflcit of interest'', which these days seems to be what the ''C'' stands for in RCI - Resort Conflict of interest International.

Singing the virtues of New Coke is a whole lot different from looting assets of one system to promote another, especially when those assets were not created by the company itself but entrusted to it for certain purposes by third-party members, and that trust is then betrayed by the diversion of those assets.

Timeshare owners at resorts that are not dual affiliated and do not inform members of their option to use independent exchange companies, effectively are prisoners of RCI if they want to make an exchange. Doesn't that smell like a monopoly to you?? As to those owners, isn't it in fact a monopoly?

Lots of companies use their position with their customers to migrate them to their next product offerings. That is an inherent and quantifiable asset to a company. It manifests itself in the "goodwill" of the company. The Goodwill of a company is a company's market value minus its book value.

This means that the market expects companies to leverage their market position to derive future profits.

This type of planning and activity is an essential requirement of a good CEO.

When performing due diligence for a merger and acquisition candidate, a significant element of that study is to determine the value of the customer base to sell future products.

There are certain types of restraint that are required of monopolies. That is probably why you labelled RCI as a quasi-monopoly. Then all RCI must do is prove that it isn't a monopoly, just a market leader. However, the activities of RCI must be proven to be detrimental to their competitors. But, they aren't. RCI's actions are actually conducive to additional competition in the market. I doubt anti-trust will play a role in this case.

So, the RCI CEO was just making a speech that any market leader would have made to its key stakeholders. I find nothing wrong with it.

 

[Carolinian]

Actually, those who want to cover up for RCI seem to be hardest at work on this thread and the ones with the most creative theories. This one is made up out of whole cloth, and there is NOTHING anywhere that even suggests that the arrangement fantacised here exists. It reminds me of the theory put forward by an RCI apologist on the old boards that all of the SkyAuction timeshare rentals came from one guy with A LOT of timeshares! And it is no more likely to be true than that theory was.

And I repeat yet again, whether or not RCI ''follows its own rules'' is completely irrelevent to the class action consumer protection lawsuit. The key is whether RCI practices, INCLUDING RCI's own rules, violate the ''unfair'' or ''deceptive'' standards of consumer protection law. It the government's rules that matter in this game, not RCI's.

Ok, I admit it I can’t turn my head from a car crash or a good RCI bashing – it’s cheap entertainment. And, I really don't want to clean out the basement - this is much more important.

I once explained how what RCI is doing is completely explainable and legal. I’ll say it once again:

I believe that internally, inside all the secret computer programs there lies an RCI CREDIT system that is similar to the external RCI Point one – but this one is for real. So as not to confuse the issue I’m going to call this system RCI Credits.

ALL reservations space banked with RCI are converted into RCI Credits - same with RCI Points - and are dumped into one central account – it has its own currency to handle transactions with RCI Weeks, RCI Points, RCI Travel Agency, RCI Rental Division. Once this happens the individual reservations have no meaning – everything inside the computer systems is conducted with RCI Credits. This is how an efficient company conducts business - it just creates an interchangeable currency to make life easier.

So when the RCI Travel Agency exchanges your RCI Points for airline tickets and they actually sending a transaction to the RCI Credit account.

The RCI Rental Division gets notice that xxx,xxx number of RCI Credits are available and must be converted into US dollars. The folks at RCI Rental simply go shopping for juicy reservations and can use ANY of them – they pay for them in RCI Credits. This is perfectly legal – its their currency and systems.

Now the phone representatives never see RCI Credits but randomly picked reservations that represent so many RCI Credits that match up to available space banked reservations.

Ok, I can already hear the statement “But BigFoot saw a secret screen that had reservations and has never seen RCI Credits”. That’s exactly correct.

You don’t see the Gold, or Silver, or “Full Faith and Credit of the US Government” on that credit card you just swiped thru the card reader to buy your morning bagel and coffee at Starbucks but its there none the less.

There, I feel much better, I’ve explained, once again, how all of this could be legal and follow RCI’s own rules. I wonder if the basement has self cleaned itself?

 

[Carolinian]

Why am I not surprised that you approve so highly of Perry and Boca's very creative conjecture?????????

Perry & Boca - I just hate it when facts get in the way of such great theories of corruption, contracts with adhesive tape and screen saver shots of private information. RCI is a company in business to make money offering a voluntary service. All these other side issues, so important to this little world, will mean very little when the overall business model and procedures are disclosed. Perry is most likely very close to the inner mechanisms and it will likely be just that easy to put an end to this farce when the time comes. Meanwhile being so clear just messes up all the arguments so please stay away from facts so the threads can live on! And on. And on until the inevitable dismissal of the shysters and their hopes of glory. Long live conjecture, the rocket fuel of BBS threads.

 

[BocaBum99]

Request First has absolutely nothing to do with a two way street between Weeks and Points. Fairness dictates that if Points members have access to all of the Weeks inventory, then Weeks members should have access to all of the Points inventory, and on a fair and equitable basis. If that is not done, as it is NOT in the RCI Points/Weeks interface, then the system is not fair, and that triggers the consumer protection laws.

Although I have not read both original complaints, a lawyer who has told me that the crossover trades issue was in one of the original complaints in one of the class actions. Someone else who had read a draft of the new consolidated conplaint told me that at least at the draft stage it was no longer in that complaint. Although these are somewhat different issues, they are closely enough related that it would have been better to have kept the issue in the consolidated complaint. Maybe someone is just saving this potent issue for another class action later.

Request first is identical to a points interface to a weeks system. That is how it manifests itself.

Take a look at the II website. The WorldMark or Sunterra interface is EXACTLY set up like a weeks based request first feature for a floating week at any resort.

If you are against crossover trades between points and weeks, then you must be against request first.

 

[Carolinian]

The Worldmark or Sunterra inferface is hardly the same thing as Request First.
I would agree that those inferfaces are not fair to other II members from what I read about them on these boards.

The only thing that Request First means is that you don't have to make your deposit or pay your exchange fee until they can confirm the exchange. The time you make your deposit and pay your fee has absolutely nothing to do with what range of inventory you have access to.

You are in an apples vs. oranges mode on this one.

Request first is identical to a points interface to a weeks system. That is how it manifests itself.

Take a look at the II website. The WorldMark or Sunterra interface is EXACTLY set up like a weeks based request first feature for a floating week at any resort.

If you are against crossover trades between points and weeks, then you must be against request first.

 

[Dean]

I think people forget that RCI weeks and RCI points are in effect two different exchange companies. RCI points is really little different than any other mini system that belongs to RCI such as FF or BG, etc. Think of it like Infinity and Nissan. Just like any of the other "mini" systems, RCI weeks doesn't get anything from RCI points unless they give a week in return. RCI weeks then uses the points gathered in this manner to reserve time to put into weeks. One can agree or disagree with the agreements made between an exchange company and it's affiliated mini systems but the truth is that in general, RCI weeks likely needs RCI points more than the reverse at this point. One could just as easily have a similar discussion about II and it's various mini systems. For example, DVC members can do request first for 2 years out and only pay a $75 exchange fee. There are other negatives to their system but these are pretty powerful concessions on II's part to get DVC to participate.

 

[BocaBum99]

Looting one system for the benefit of members of another is hardly a ''fair'' business practice, and that lack of fairness triggers consumer protection law.

Well, we shall see soon enough if your characterizations are right or not. I am willing to place a bet that my conjectures are more likely to occur than yours are. Care for a gentleman's bet? If I win, you buy an RCI Points package and you use it. If you win, name your stakes.

 

[BocaBum99]

The Worldmark or Sunterra inferface is hardly the same thing as Request First.
I would agree that those inferfaces are not fair to other II members from what I read about them on these boards.

The only thing that Request First means is that you don't have to make your deposit or pay your exchange fee until they can confirm the exchange. The time you make your deposit and pay your fee has absolutely nothing to do with what range of inventory you have access to.

You are in an apples vs. oranges mode on this one.

It's identical. I can grab anything available in II before I deposit. And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in II can get what I have to offer.

This is identically equal to what happens in the RCI Points interface to RCI weeks. I can grab anything in RCI weeks before I deposit. And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in RCI weeks can get what I have to offer; namely my RCI Points inventory.

It is identical. And, you fail to acknowledge it because it doesn't support your argument.

If you are against crossover grids from RCI Points to RCI weeks, then you must be against request first features.

 

[Carolinian]

Number one, RCI Weeks members are not going to be able to get that Points week you deposit anyway.

In a normal request first system, all members have access to all of the inventory. In the Weeks/Points interface, Points members have access to all of the Weeks inventory, but Weeks members have access only to whatever RCI might or might not decide to give back to Weeks, which may be nothing at all if one RCI employee posting at TimeshareTalk is correct. Under no ones information do Weeks members have reciprocal access to all inventory at Points, which is the test of whether it is a two way street or not.

Your fail to acknowledge this because it does not support your argument.

BTW, did you think that if you don't deposit, then you can't grab ANYTHING at all?

It's identical. I can grab anything available in II before I deposit. And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in II can get what I have to offer.

This is identically equal to what happens in the RCI Points interface to RCI weeks. I can grab anything in RCI weeks before I deposit. And, if I choose not to deposit, then nobody else in RCI weeks can get what I have to offer; namely my RCI Points inventory.

It is identical. And, you fail to acknowledge it because it doesn't support your argument.

If you are against crossover grids from RCI Points to RCI weeks, then you must be against request first features.

 

[Carolinian]

I do, indeed, wish that we would see soon enough the court's ruling on that issue, but all of the information I have says that this issue seems not to have gone forward in the consolidated class action complaint. Let me know if you have information that indicates it has.

Well, we shall see soon enough if your characterizations are right or not. I am willing to place a bet that my conjectures are more likely to occur than yours are. Care for a gentleman's bet? If I win, you buy an RCI Points package and you use it. If you win, name your stakes.