UPDATE: RCI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - must read for all RCI members [Includes Results]

[Bigbird130]

RCI

As many others have said
Thank you for all your hard work and taking the time to be there and posting what is going on

 

[Jennie]

The Judge should render a decision this week. The main issue now is whether RCI members received sufficient notice of the proposed settlememt. If the Judge decides that they did not, then he will probably order that a first class letter be sent to all RCI weeks members (not RCI Points members). There will be some deadline set for recipients to respond.

If that happens, a group of us are planning to spread the word about how to send comments to the court.

Timesharing Today Magazine has been very involved in the case. They will be sending an Email to its registered Email subscribers and I will post it here in the TUG Lounge when it arrives.

Thanks everyone for your kind comments. I have been passionate for years about the increasing trend of RCI to place greed above their members' best interests.

 

[Jimster]

thanks and...

I appreciate your efforts. As an attorney myself, I can just visualize the court room and what went on. I hope someone took the time to explain how greedy RCI really is:

1. You pay a hefty price to join RCI.
2. You keep paying each year
3. You deposit your week with them for free
4. They skim off many good weeks and sell the weeks they got for free. How in the world can that be reasonable? If I lent you my car I would never expect that sometimes you would sell it to make money and only sometimes return it to me.
5. If you find a reasonable exchange you pay more money
6 If you want a friend to use YOUR week- you pay money
7. If you don't use all your points in one year- you pay money and risk losing your asset
8. If you talk to a vacation guide to book it- you pay money.
9. If the resort decides they havent skimmed enough off the owners, they charge you utiliity fees, etc. So you pay more money.
10. If you decide to change your reservation- You pay money or lose money and/or the week or points involved in some cases.

Viewed this way. It is obvious that their own purpose is to greedily deprive the owner of as much as possible. No where have they justified any of these fees and frankly they are not justifiable. Recent fee increases are totally without merit. I am particularly upset when they call to ask me to deposit a prime week. I know that week is not going to another RCI member but is used as fodder to make more money in rentals. I know they point to the number of resorts overall available to trade into. Like I want to stay at Swamp City River Basin and Resort in the middle of LA 100 miles from civilization and during the winter- oh but the guide says its available!! These don't count! What about staying at Residences of the Crane or a Hilton Grand Vacation Club or another prime resort- you don't see those often for exchange- -- but they are for rent!! If you get tired of attacking just that aspect of the program, take a look at RCI partners now. Their recent changes have gutted that program entirely. As far as cruises are concerned, if the cost of the cruise is $3,000 and RCI charges $5,000 but gives you a $1,000 discount or consideration for your unit, then ... The only difference between RCI and Bernie Madoff is . . . oh I can't think of what it is.

 

[Jimster]

submit

And your status is..... You have to have standing to deal with the court. About the best that can be asked for is if the judge will take judicial notice of whatever is made available.

 

[kohokid]

Hi Jennie-I just heard about the Class Action suit last week and it said I could file the forms by clicking a link on the original website. Needless to say, I couldn't find it. I was NEVER informed of any Class Action suit.

Hi as an owner since 1977 I remember when RCI was a little house on the plains!!!
I had my week back if no one took it 3 weeks before my week started!!!
then RCi strated rented these weeks!!!
The service stinks now, they rent the extra less then my low 414 maintenance fee!!!
Kohokid
BR
BC NEVER HEARD OF A LAWSUIT OU MONKEY SUIT
the articel is good thanks

 

[dgdbloe]

Thank you for attending,speaking and informing.
I also knew nothing of the class action suit.

 

[Jennie]

And your status is..... You have to have standing to deal with the court. About the best that can be asked for is if the judge will take judicial notice of whatever is made available.

This was apparently a "fairness" hearing. I think the Judge was to decide if the settlement worked out between the attorneys who brought the class action lawsuit and RCI's attorneys was "fair." Shep and Ray (editor/owner) of Timesharing Today Magazine wrote a a scathing article in their magazine about the inadequacy of the terms being proposed, and they were very critical about the lack of notification to RCI members. Many readers sent letters to the magazine complaining about RCI's practises. Shep and Ray forwarded the letters to the court and the Judge was asked to consider whether adequate notification was given to RCI members.

Shep Altshuler, and an attoeney/timeshare owner from West Senaca, NY, and myself were able to appear and testify as "objectors."

 

[theo]

Thanks!

A hearing was held on June 16th at the Federal Courthouse in Newark, New Jersey.

Sincere thanks --- both for your actual participation in the fairness hearing and for taking the time to provide a first hand account of the proceedings.

As expected, RCI used the meager number of "trinket collectors" as a feeble form of statistical support of both adequate notice and actual acceptance by RCI members. Hopefully the judge will see that number as (in my opinion, anyhow) nothing more than a list of 15,000 short sighted individuals eager to claim their near-worthless "freebie".

It is hard to imagine that a judge with smarts and / or objectivity could accept this complete farce of a proposed settlement as anything even remotely resembling "fair". I guess we shall see....

 

[447185]

My most sincere thanks to Jennie. I am a 65 year old male who peruses the EV magazine. I did not see any info on a class action lawsuit. This is the first I have heard of a lawsuit. I have been a silent critic of RCI for some time due to the problems enumerated in earlier comments. I hope some changes are made that cause the scale to tip a little closer to being level for the timeshare owners.

 

[wandering gnome]

RCI class action benefits

Has any one used there benefits? I would like to book a free nightly stay. How do I go about doing this?

 

[TUGBrian]

back to the top!

 

[Carolinian]

Has any one used there benefits? I would like to book a free nightly stay. How do I go about doing this?

The ridiculous trinkets that the shyster class action attorneys negotiated for their ''clients'' while lining up a $4 million fee for themselves is nothing but an insult to the class members, most particularly because their is no effective continuing injunctive relief. I opted out of the class rather than accept the insult. I am also planning to file an ethics complaint against the sellout lawyers.

 

[KarenLK]

Thanks, Jennie, for all your information.

The lawyer lives in my area...West Seneca is another suburb of Buffalo. I wonder how she got involved with all of this.

 

[Jennie]

Thanks, Jennie, for all your information.

The lawyer lives in my area...West Seneca is another suburb of Buffalo. I wonder how she got involved with all of this.

Ms. Susan Collins is a long-term timeshare owner who read the articles in Timesharing Today Magazine. TST subsequently sent an Email message to subscribers notifying them of a change in the location where the hearing would be held (Newark instead of Trenton) and encouraging RCI members to attend if possible. They suggested that anyone planning to attend should contact Shep (the editor).

When Ms Collins spoke with Shep and learned that he had received very few responses from people planning to come to the hearing, she decided to make the long trip to be there. I'm so glad she did, She spoke very knowledgably about the general issues and, being an attorney, was able to challenge many of the esoteric legal points being made by the attorneys of record. I'm really glad she was there. The Judge was very attentive and asked her several questions, which she answered clearly and convincingly.

Stay tuned for more information re: this battle between Samson and Goliath!

 

[Jennie]

Good News!

TimeSharing Today Magazine has learned that the Judge in the RCI Class Action suit has ordered the attorneys for the Plaintiffs and for the Defendants to submit a revised plan for notifying the members of the class about the proposed settlement agreement.

The Judge determined that the notices used were inadequate.

The revised plan is to be sent to the court by July 7th.

Once the details of the revised notification plan become available, I'll post information here. Hopefully a huge number of RCI members can be rallied to espress their opinion to the Court re: the fairness of the proposed settlement.

 

[geekette]

Very good news, indeed! Thank you for the update!

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello, I am going to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I am Susan Collins, the attorney from West Seneca (actually, Bufffalo -- it's a continguous suburb), who attended the RCI Class Action Fairness Hearing in Newark last month. I've been busy -- REALLY BUSY -- trying to work on this lawsuit, and plan the next steps, but I have a moment, and want to respond here to this thread.

Yes, the objectors won. To quote Judge Sheridan's Order, "The objectors arguments are correct. The Notice was not prominent and conspicuous. As a result, the Court directs the parties to confer and submit to the Court a more conspicuous and prominent Notice which will be forwarded to RCI members (within Endless Summer [sic] or otherwise)."

IMO, this is a big win. This should give RCI members a new opportunity to opt out or object, so that everyone who missed the first notice will have a second chance.

The proposed new Notice must be sumbitted for approval to the Court by July 7, but I am taking no chances on "our" attorneys doing a sufficient job. I am not at all confident that the attorneys for the Plaintiff class are zealously representing our (RCI members') interests. Therefore, I am taking the incentive of writing to the Court on behalf of the objectors and RCI members, and asking that the new Notice actually summarize what the settlement offers. (The prior notice said RCI was instituting "certain programmatic changes," but didn't say what those changes actually are, and are not. TSToday had a good summary in the March/April issue.)

I am also asking that the new Notice quote in bold letters the wording in the "terms and conditions" that RCI relies on as a "contract term" which allows it to rent, sell, use, or otherwise dispose of weeks deposited for exchange. I think this is essential because the RCI guides continue to deny that RCI rents deposited weeks. (I think the RCI Guides just aren't told the truth.) At the Hearing RCI defended the practice of renting out deposited weeks as a basic part of their business strategy. And I don't even know whether anyone even really brought up the issue that RCI transfers some weeks to different exchange systems.

I am also requesting that the Judge order RCI to send notice via all the methods that RCI regularly uses to promote itself and its services: Telephone menu option when people call in to talk to RCI, a link PROMINENTLY PLACED on the RCI Website that doesn't disappear after the member logs in, direct mail with forms and instructions to opt out or object, email, and -- since RCI will likely insist -- publication in Endless Vacation magazine with a prominent announcement on the cover of the magazine that the settlement notice is inside. (And by the way, I am also asking that the forms be printed in the magazine, rather than requiring members to make a telephone call to get the forms, and that a detachable postcard be inserted so that members can request the full text of the proposed settlement.)

It would be highly unusual for the judge to even consider a proposal made in a letter such as mine, but then it's extremely unusual for a judge to side with the Objectors against the attorneys for both Plaintiffs and Defendfants. (Both submitted arguments that the prior Notice was perfectly adequate.) So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

BTW, when I went to Court I had with me 100 emails from subscribers to TSToday who asked me to speak on their behalf as well as on my own, in response to Letter to the Editor. I had sent copies of the first 90 to the court and to the attorneys involved. I think that had a great deal on influence on the judge, even though they were not tehcnically timely-filed objections. I would therefore welcome comments from TUG members, as this might help down the road. I have also asked the court to allow me access to the electronic filing system, and to be involved in the negotiations. Like I said, that would be very unusual, but this is an unusual situation.

One question I have: To object to the settlment, it was necessary to identify oneself by name and with the RCI membership number, names of resorts owned, etc. I received emails from people who were concerned about identifying information being sumitted to RCI, fearing retaliation. Of course, the more people who object or opt out, the harder it would be for RCI to retaliate. ("Unity gives strength, after all.) But I would like to ask: "Are members concerned about objections or opt-outs leading to retaliation?

 

[TUGBrian]

thank you so much for the update on the update! ill put a reminder in mondays newsletter as well!

 

[Vodo]

I was clueless about the class action suit and the claims process until AFTER the filing deadline had passed. When I inquired, I received the response below. There is no good excuse for RCI to NOT have individually contacted all of its members. Its efforts were clearly the minimum it thought it could get by with. Hopefully, it's been busted for it now.

Text of claim inquiry response:

Thank you for your email. We will add your name and contact information to our database.

Pursuant to the Order entered on December 17, 2008 by the Honorable Peter G. Sheridan of the United States District Court, notice was published in USA Today, notice was published in Endless Vacation, and notice was posted on the RCI website home page. In addition, although not required by the Order, notice was also posted on our web site and the web site of lead counsel Green Welling LLP.

The deadline for filing a claim was April 6, 2009. As local counsel, we do not have the authority to modify the Order that was entered by the Court regarding this deadline.

On the other hand, we wanted as many claimants as possible to receive the benefits that are offered by the Settlement. Therefore, while we do not have the authority by ourselves to extend the deadline, you may mail a claim form to Rust Consulting, Inc., and ask RCI consider your request to accept a late claim. If you decide to make this request, you should mail your written request to Rust Consulting, Inc., P.O. Box 1966, Faribault, MN 55021-6162, USA. If you have not already printed the claim form, a copy can be printed by visiting www.njlawyer.com and clicking on the link on the left side of the screen entitled “RCI Settlement”, under the paragraph entitled “When can I submit a claim form?” you may access the claim form.

In order for us to monitor the acceptance or rejection of your late claim, you should also mail us and RCI's attorney a copy of your request and claim form. Copies should be mailed to:

DAVID C. BERMAN David Sager, Esq.
A Professional Corporation Day Pitney, LLP
P.O. Box 111 P.O. Box 1945
Morristown, NJ 07963-0111 Morristown, NJ 07962

You may not receive an immediate answer to your request as this may take some months to sort out. As stated at the above, there is no grace period or automatic right to file a late claim. Nonetheless, please be assured that we will consider the request and urge RCI to take all reasonable steps to accept late claims.

Finally, please note that the claim form and the deadline for the claim form relate only to a member choosing from one of the so-called “Special Benefits.” The Special Benefits include: making an exchange request prior to depositing; a 2 month extension of their membership; a $20 credit towards a membership renewal or exchange; a prorated refund of membership fees if the member elects to terminate their membership; or, one free night at any RCI rental in conjunction with at least one paid night, or a $100 credit towards the purchase of a cabin on a cruise offered by RCI. Regardless of whether your claim for a Special Benefit is accepted late, unless you have opted out you are automatically deemed a member of the class and automatically entitled to the programmatic benefits that are described in Section II of the Settlement Agreement. Those programmatic changes are a significant component of the Settlement and include disclosing trading power prior to depositing, balancing deposits and rentals whereby the quantity of member deposits rented by RCI must be less than the quantity of weeks deposited by RCI, the disclosure of statistical information regarding historical and average trading power based on the region, and exclusivity of member exchanges based on the date of deposit and the starting date of the week.

Thank you.

Plaintiffs' Local and Liaison Counsel
DAVID C. BERMAN
A Professional Corporation
71 Maple Avenue
P.O. Box 111
Morristown, N.J. 07963-0111

Email: RCISettlement@NJLawyer.com
www.NJLawyer.com

 

[ecwinch]

Hello, I am going to take this opportunity to introduce myself. I am Susan Collins, the attorney from West Seneca (actually, Bufffalo -- it's a continguous suburb), who attended the RCI Class Action Fairness Hearing in Newark last month. I've been busy -- REALLY BUSY -- trying to work on this lawsuit, and plan the next steps, but I have a moment, and want to respond here to this thread.

Yes, the objectors won. To quote Judge Sheridan's Order, "The objectors arguments are correct. The Notice was not prominent and conspicuous. As a result, the Court directs the parties to confer and submit to the Court a more conspicuous and prominent Notice which will be forwarded to RCI members (within Endless Summer [sic] or otherwise)."

IMO, this is a big win. This should give RCI members a new opportunity to opt out or object, so that everyone who missed the first notice will have a second chance.

The proposed new Notice must be sumbitted for approval to the Court by July 7, but I am taking no chances on "our" attorneys doing a sufficient job. I am not at all confident that the attorneys for the Plaintiff class are zealously representing our (RCI members') interests. Therefore, I am taking the incentive of writing to the Court on behalf of the objectors and RCI members, and asking that the new Notice actually summarize what the settlement offers. (The prior notice said RCI was instituting "certain programmatic changes," but didn't say what those changes actually are, and are not. TSToday had a good summary in the March/April issue.)

I am also asking that the new Notice quote in bold letters the wording in the "terms and conditions" that RCI relies on as a "contract term" which allows it to rent, sell, use, or otherwise dispose of weeks deposited for exchange. I think this is essential because the RCI guides continue to deny that RCI rents deposited weeks. (I think the RCI Guides just aren't told the truth.) At the Hearing RCI defended the practice of renting out deposited weeks as a basic part of their business strategy. And I don't even know whether anyone even really brought up the issue that RCI transfers some weeks to different exchange systems.

I am also requesting that the Judge order RCI to send notice via all the methods that RCI regularly uses to promote itself and its services: Telephone menu option when people call in to talk to RCI, a link PROMINENTLY PLACED on the RCI Website that doesn't disappear after the member logs in, direct mail with forms and instructions to opt out or object, email, and -- since RCI will likely insist -- publication in Endless Vacation magazine with a prominent announcement on the cover of the magazine that the settlement notice is inside. (And by the way, I am also asking that the forms be printed in the magazine, rather than requiring members to make a telephone call to get the forms, and that a detachable postcard be inserted so that members can request the full text of the proposed settlement.)

It would be highly unusual for the judge to even consider a proposal made in a letter such as mine, but then it's extremely unusual for a judge to side with the Objectors against the attorneys for both Plaintiffs and Defendfants. (Both submitted arguments that the prior Notice was perfectly adequate.) So, I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

BTW, when I went to Court I had with me 100 emails from subscribers to TSToday who asked me to speak on their behalf as well as on my own, in response to Letter to the Editor. I had sent copies of the first 90 to the court and to the attorneys involved. I think that had a great deal on influence on the judge, even though they were not tehcnically timely-filed objections. I would therefore welcome comments from TUG members, as this might help down the road. I have also asked the court to allow me access to the electronic filing system, and to be involved in the negotiations. Like I said, that would be very unusual, but this is an unusual situation.

One question I have: To object to the settlment, it was necessary to identify oneself by name and with the RCI membership number, names of resorts owned, etc. I received emails from people who were concerned about identifying information being sumitted to RCI, fearing retaliation. Of course, the more people who object or opt out, the harder it would be for RCI to retaliate. ("Unity gives strength, after all.) But I would like to ask: "Are members concerned about objections or opt-outs leading to retaliation?

Susan,

Thanks for taking the time to address this issue. What would be the best strategy for like-minded RCI members to add their support to your petition with the recommendations outlined above?

Should we separately send a letter to the court, or would it be equally effective to provide you with a letter indicating our support.

Thanks

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you for responding. Once a new settlement notice is approved, I think that the best stratgey would be to publicize the information to other members, perhaps including through the owners' associations. The more response we get, the better, especially if we want to fight the lawsuit.

The judge was very impressed with the number of objections he received. He said it is normal to receive two or three objections to a class action settlement against a nationwide retailer, rather than hundreds, as he received in this case. I believe that he was including the 100 emails I got from subscribers to TSToday.

Now that there will be new notice, I'd like to see an even greater reponse. My goal would be to get over 1,000 objections or opt-outs. The requirements for filing objections under the prior notice seemed rather onerous to me. I have discussed with both TUG and TSToday the idea of publishing a form (which would be downloadable and also available to complete online) which would simplify the process of objecting or opting out of the settlement. I think the easier we make it, the more people will respond.

I believe that over 1,000 objections would likely influence the judge not to approve the proposed settlement, despite the agreement between RCI's attorneys and the class-action attorneys.

Contrarily (or in conjunction with this) a substantial number of opt-outs might cause the class to be "decertified" as a class, thus derailing the entire lawsuit. That might give RCI members an opportunity to bring a new lawsuit entirely. Don't ask me which would be better. I don't know at this point. Please forgive my ignorance. I am not a class-action attorney, and I do not ANY experience in this class-action suits except for this case. (It's sort of a "baptism by fire.") On the other hand, I know enough about timeshares and exchanges to impress the judge, and he told the Plaintiffs' attorneys that I "did most of [their] work for [them]." Together with Shep and "Jennie," and the other members who objected in writing, we have achieved an impressive victory for people who are unfamiliar with the process. However, if anyone out there is more experienced, or knows someone who is, I would really appreciate any advice and/or help they can give me.

In either case, I am also toying with the idea of bringing a lawsuit (which would hopefully be accepted as a class-action suit) to "reform the contract" with RCI. That is, most members, including me, feel that RCI should not be allowed to rent out weeks deposited for exchange -- or to dispose of them in any other manner -- without agreement by the members, or at least without very good reason to know that the members will not be adversly affected.

Contracts are supposed to be negotiated agreements, but we members not only didn't get to negotiate, OUR OWN ATTORNEYS (or the attorneys who are supposed to be representing us) told the court that RCI "needs" to be able to rent out weeks that remain unused 90 days before the start date because otherwise the weeks will "spoil" -- that is, go unused. I told the judge that timeshare owners would not suffer if the weeks went unused -- in fact, we'd benefit from a slight decrease in maintenance fees, because of less cleaning and laundry, and less wear and tear on the furnishings. I also told him that we LIKE having lots of weeks available at the last minute, and that there are important exchange reasons why we would want them, such as the rule that all trading power requirements are dropped within 45 days.

From my research, it seems that there is no reason why an action to reform a contract would not be certifiable as a class-action suit. However, I simply do not know enough about the process to do this on my own. Anyone who does TALK TO ME!

As for the current suit, I most want to be involved in the negotiations because I strongly feel that we need someone to represent the members' interestsm and IMO we don't have that. This would be a very unusual step, and I don't see how that could be done unless the Plaintiffs' attorneys would hire me to work with them, which is not something I consider likely. (The phrase "snowball in hell" comes to mind.)

If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

Susan

 

[ecwinch]

As for the current suit, I most want to be involved in the negotiations because I strongly feel that we need someone to represent the members' interestsm and IMO we don't have that. This would be a very unusual step, and I don't see how that could be done unless the Plaintiffs' attorneys would hire me to work with them, which is not something I consider likely. (The phrase "snowball in hell" comes to mind.)

If anyone has any suggestions, I'd love to hear them.

Susan

Just brainstorming the possibilities, it would appear that the current Plaintiff's attorneys made a business decision to take the first settlement offered, and cash out. Ideally they (or one of the plantiff's) would have tried to drive a harder bargain.

So the strategy is either to try work within the context to the current class action, or attempt to kill it. If enough opposition was raised to current settlement, you would hope that the current Plaintiff's attorneys would see the handwriting on the wall, and attempt to obtain a better settlement. If they were faced with losing the entire action and getting nothing, you would hope that they would see the benefit of being more diligent in their representation of the class.

I do agree that we need another voice in the process. Would not providing you with a letter of support, be more effective than opting out of the settlement and attempting to file another lawsuit.

My concern with latter strategy is that RCI might be more inclined to aggressively defend their rights. See the Wixon v. Wyndham Resort Development in the US District Court - Northern District of California ( Case# C07-2361) for how willing the parent corp is to litigate class action suits that might impede their business model.

 

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

I am an attorney who was admitted to represent some of the objectors in a class action pending in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. Any statements by an attorney, including myself, should be considered to be the personal opinion of the attorney and are not approved by the Court. As such, my statements contained herein are not approved by the Court. More information is available at www.weeksprogramsettlement.com, the Court-approved website.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with you, Eric, that the current Plaintiffs' attorneys made a business decision. They naturally want to protect their $4 million fee request.

I had hoped that they would show a change of heart when the judge made it clear that this wouldn't be a cakewalk. No dice, however.

So the choices may be to accept what we all know is a really bad settlement, or fight the settlement.

The real question is which way would be the most effective to fight the settlement. Obviously, if we could convince our attorneys that they need to fight for us -- hard -- or risk losing their fees, that might be the most effective. The question is whether we can convince them of that.

I wish I were more confident that we could do that.

In the meantime, I don't see that what they settled for in any way is worth fees of $4 million!

 

[ecwinch]

I agree with you, Eric, that the current Plaintiffs' attorneys made a business decision. They naturally want to protect their $4 million fee request.

I had hoped that they would show a change of heart when the judge made it clear that this wouldn't be a cakewalk. No dice, however.

So the choices may be to accept what we all know is a really bad settlement, or fight the settlement.

The real question is which way would be the most effective to fight the settlement. Obviously, if we could convince our attorneys that they need to fight for us -- hard -- or risk losing their fees, that might be the most effective. The question is whether we can convince them of that.

I wish I were more confident that we could do that.

In the meantime, I don't see that what they settled for in any way is worth fees of $4 million!

No, it clearly is a settlement designed to make this go away.

So if there is no strategy that allows a third party to suggest an alternate settlement, then perhaps the next best option is a letter campaign to the plaintiffs attorney's outlining why the settlement is unacceptable - ie. that it allows RCI to resume their illegal practices after three years. Then if they remain unresponsive, a similar letter can be provided to the court.

 

[ecwinch]

Just read Lead Counsel's (David Berman) letter attacking the four objector's motives for appearing at the fairness hearing. Classic....