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

[Goofyhobbie]

Kimberlyann posted: I am unsure if I am a member of the class... I received the e-mail from RCI and was an RCI member before August 31st. But I had not deposited a week or tried to exchange before that date. Your help is appreciated. I thank all of you that are working so hard for all RCI members!

By becoming a dues paying RCI Member after January 1, 2000 and before August 31, 2009 you may be considered a member of the "class." This is true even though you have not as yet made a deposit or an exchange.

The fact that RCI has your E-Mail address and has evidently informed the administrator of your status gives credence to my statement above.

Stay tuned more information is about to be provided here on TUG and elsewhere.

My Twitter Account is goofyhobbie. Recommend, if you use twitter, that you plug-in.

The following is from the RCI website.People who were members of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009 may be eligible for special settlement benefits. If you are or were a member of the RCI Points Exchange Program, but you were not also a member of the RCI Weeks Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009, you are not a member of the Settlement Class.

 

[Susan2]

What Has Been Happening In The Case

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.

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

Sorry it has taken me so long to get this out, but there has been MUCH happening lately. This is the first of several, broken down to make it easier to follow.

Since the original Fairness Hearing, I have been admitted to the District Court of New Jersey "pro hac vice," that is, only on the RCI Weeks litigation, to formally represent other Objectors who have specifically requested that I represent them as their attorney. (I shall refer to my client objectors as "the Objectors" -- with a capital "O" -- in my discussion below, but there are other objectors whom I do not represent and who are not included among the Objectors.) Local New Jersey counsel is assisting me. Both I and another attorney (Stephan Willett) who were admitted to the Court for purposes of this case filed motions requesting the Court’s recognition as "lead counsel" for all objectors, but the Court ruled that it is "improbable" that conflicts of interest among the objectors would not arise, and that therefore appointment of lead counsel would not be appropriate.

Some members of the core group of Objectors and I have been trying to negotiate with RCI to improve the settlement terms. At this point, negotiations for improved terms have not been successful. Despite substantial effort, RCI has not changed any part of the proposed settlement terms except to extend the class cut-off date from November 20, 2008 (the date on which the original settlement proposal was signed) to August 31, 2009 and to agree to some date changes for deadlines. During the course of negotiations, RCI did offer a few additional concessions to the Objectors. The majority of the Objectors deemed these concessions minor and not worth withdrawing the noted objections or agreeing to represent the settlement proposal as fair and reasonable. On behalf of the Objectors and based on discussions with the Objectors, I submitted a counterproposal to RCI that addressed what we believed to be the Objectors’ most vital concerns. The counterproposal was submitted in the spirit of compromise; it was not an effort to demand everything that the Objectors would like to see included in an agreement intended to restrain the RCI practices to which we all object. RCI rejected the proposal without any discussion or true consideration.

The attorneys for the Plaintiffs have frequently expressed their opinion that they negotiated as good a settlement as was possible, but it is clear that they are not personally familiar with the timesharing exchange system and with RCI. They were unable to conduct discovery, due to an interim order signed by the prior judge (who has since retired).

 

[Susan2]

Where To Get Information

If you would like to read the 38-page proposed settlement agreement, you may download the proposed agreement from the website referenced on the Notice. You also can retrieve it from a link on the RCI website home page. You need not be a current RCI member to access the homepage at www/rci.com. Once you login, the link disappears. You should note, though, that while the proposed settlement agreement itself is 38 pages long, with all the attachments the entire file consists of 291 pages. You might want to be careful to print only the pages that you want to read.

 

[Susan2]

Where Do We Go From Here?

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.

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

Many issues remain unresolved as the Fairness Hearing approaches and as decisions need to be made concerning how to proceed. Some Objectors believe that the plaintiffs’ attorneys who brought the RCI Weeks litigation were not fully aware of, or did not fully consider when negotiating the proposed settlement agreement, the other entities and outlets used by RCI (or its parent and sister entities) to dispose of and rent weeks. These “other exchange programs” are briefly mentioned but not listed in the proposed settlement agreement. These organizations appear to include Endless Vacation Rentals, Sky Auction, Dream Vacations International and other organizations. The Objectors with whom I have consulted do not feel that the provisions regarding rentals by RCI effectively cover these other outlets. In addition, many Objectors with whom I have consulted are concerned that the restrictions placed on RCI’s ability to rent weeks deposited for exchange apply for a two-year period only. Even Judge Sheridan has expressed concern about this relatively short period of applicability, fearing that the two-year limit will lead to future litigation over the same issues. The Plaintiffs' attorneys are adamant that the two-year restrictions on RCI will not in any way inhibit future actions against RCI for renting deposited inventory, nor convey upon RCI the freedom to rent deposits in the future without fear of lawsuits. Whether or not this is true, it doesn't make sense, in my opinion, to settle a case with the intention of trying the same issues all over again in the near future. Since this case was initially filed early in 2006, a two-year term for changes doesn't make a lot of sense.

Some Objectors are also seriously concerned about the prices at which RCI rents weeks, and want to include in any acceptable settlement agreement a provision that, except under certain limited circumstances, would prohibit RCI from renting weeks it takes from the spacebank for amounts that are less than the annual maintenance fees at the resorts in question. There is a strong feeling that RCI’s current practice of renting deposited weeks at discount rental rents seriously undermines sales and resales of timeshare weeks and even continued ownership of the timeshare weeks. These Objectors believe that few potential timeshare buyers would purchase or own timeshare intervals that they can rent for less than they would have to pay in annual maintenance fees.

Virtually all the objectors that I represent want to ensure that all weeks offered for rent, or deposited with other outlets will remain simultaneously available for exchange through the RCI spacebank. It appears to some of us that the current settlement agreement proposal does not require RCI to make any such weeks simultaneously available for exchange if they are “swapped out” to another exchange system, or taken by RCI within 90 days of the start date. Rather, Section II. C of the proposed settlement appears to allow RCI to transfer weeks to “other exchange programs” if they are exchanged with other weeks or within 90 days of the start date without replacement or compensation to RCI members. The Plaintiffs' attorneys feel that the wording of Section IX. B (part of the Representations and Warranties) counters the wording of Section II. C, so that RCI indeed does have to replace this inventory. (Personally, I don't read it that way at all, but if that is what RCI means, then I want to see a clarification so that there can be no question that this is what is meant.)

 

[Susan2]

What Alternatives Are Available?

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.

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

Many Objectors have asked me what they should do with respect to the Notice, the upcoming Fairness Hearing and the proposed settlement itself. As I see it, the alternatives are to continue to object to proposed settlement (which allows the Objector to accept one of the benefits offered), to accept the benefit and the proposed settlement without objecting, or to “opt out” of the class (which would preserve an individual’s right to bring a separate lawsuit against RCI). The proposed settlement agreement provides that if 5% of the class “opts out” of the class (about 80,000 members), then RCI has the option to withdraw from the proposed settlement. RCI is not required to do so, however.

Judge Sheridan also could reject the proposed settlement at the November 30 Fairness Hearing scheduled for November 30 if a substantial number of class members continue to object to the terms of the proposed settlement. At the aborted fairness hearing on June 16, Judge Sheridan stated that he was very much influenced by the “hundreds” of objections he had received and remarked that in a typical class action suit, he might receive “two or three” objections.

Some RCI members have asked me about “opting out.” Every member should make an individual choice, but I personally do not intend to “opt out,” as I do not believe that any meaningful changes to RCI’s current policies will be made unless a class action suit is successfully brought. Furthermore, I do not believe that any “losses” I have suffered due to RCI’s objectionable policies are sufficient to warrant the expenditure of time, energy and attorney fees that any lawsuit I personally brought against RCI would require. I do not believe that it would be feasible to attempt to certify a class (that is, get any new litigation that I might commence declared to be a class action suit) if the pool of possible plaintiffs represents less than 5% of the RCI membership.

I believe that, if the goal is rejection of the proposed settlement agreement, it would be more effective for the Objectors and any other class members who wish to join the Objectors to submit objections to the judge. I believe that a much smaller number of objections than 80,000 would be sufficient to convince the judge to reject the agreement or to postpone a decision on the fairness of the settlement while encouraging RCI to engage in more constructive settlement negotiations. One of the Objectors has prepared a form for other objectors to complete, rather than writing a letter. This will hopefully make it more convenient for those who wish to object to do so, and will ensure that the required information is contained in the objection.

I intend to continue my objection to the current proposed settlement. Because I already formally objected, I do not need to file another objection. If you previously filed objections with the court, or sent an email to me before the original fairness hearing on June 16, your objections were noted by the Court as well. However, if you only sent an email to me, I would encourage you to file a formal objection, which should be sent to the Court, with copies to the plaintiffs' attorneys, the defendant's attorneys, and to me, if you have retained me as your attorney.

Each potential class member should accept, object to, or opt out of the settlement as he or she sees fit. By taking no action, a class member automatically becomes part of the class. All class members, including those who object, but not those who opt out, are entitled to receive a benefit of their choice, but they must complete and submit a claim form by the due date in order to receive the benefit. (Forms are available via the link on the RCI website, or by following instructions on the Notice.) I have requested the only benefit that I personally deem worthwhile for myself – a one-time opportunity to search for an exchange before releasing my week for deposit. For some members, there are additional benefits, such as benefits for those who paid to extend their deposits and were still not able to obtain satisfactory exchanges. (There are lists of those members in one of the attachments to the proposed settlement.) Full details concerning the offered benefits are available via links at the bottom of the RCI website homepage and can be accessed by telephone or website as noted on the postcard Notice.

 

[Susan2]

What Are The Objectors I Represent Planning To Do?

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.

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

RCI’s refusal to make substantial changes to the proposed settlement agreement has caused the positions of some Objectors to harden and others to question whether it is worthwhile to continue to fight. After much discussion, local New Jersey counsel and I have decided to continue objecting for those Objectors who wish to keep trying.

RCI has stated very clearly that they will reject any settlement proposal that completely prohibits it from renting out weeks deposited for exchange and has admitted that its rental program is an important source of revenue. Many Objectors and potential class members want to see this practice completely prohibited. Other Objectors and potential class members are willing to allow RCI to rent deposited weeks under certain conditions that are designed to protect exchangers’ rights and benefits.

After lengthy discussion and evaluation of alternatives, local New Jersey counsel and I have decided to submit a new settlement proposal to RCI’s counsel. As was the case with the original settlement counterproposal, we will not demand everything we want, but rather what we believe we can justify to the Court and for which we feel it is worthwhile to fight.

I will post information regarding further actions when it is appropriate.

 

[jamstew]

One of the Objectors has prepared a form for other objectors to complete, rather than writing a letter. This will hopefully make it more convenient for those who wish to object to do so, and will ensure that the required information is contained in the objection.

From whom do I get a copy of this?

 

[tschwa2]

questions about letters of objection

Susan,

Do you think in our personal letter to the court (copied to the appropriate individuals), we should be equally restrained with the spirit of compromise or should we object to every major point that we personally disagree with the settlement as we understand it? Does any version a proposed settlement contain clauses to protect objectors from repercussions from RCI on personal accounts? I am not particularly worried about that but I have some coworkers and relatives who are casual RCI users who asked.

Thank you again for the many, many hours you have put in to help timeshare users.

Tracey

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Thanks For Your Patience

In several separate posts, I will provide basic instructions that TUGGERS can easily follow should they choose to object to the proposed RCI "class"
action law suit settlement.

The instructions will follow immediately.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Informational Instruction # 1

WHAT ARE MY OPTIONS REGARDING THE PROPOSED RCI WEEKS “CLASS” ACTION LAW SUIT?

By now, many of you will have received the e-mailed or postcard “Notice from the Administrator” regarding your rights in the RCI Weeks litigation. If you believe you are a member of the “class” and have not received a personal notice there is notice available at RCI.com. [To access the link to that notice do not log-in to the site. Logging in (as of the date of this instruction) will prevent you from seeing the link. The link is at the bottom right hand side of the site and is easily missed unless you scroll down.]
What are your alternatives?

• You can do nothing. If you do not submit a claim form, you will not be entitled to one of the individual benefits the current settlement offers to “class” members. However, you will automatically be a member of the "class," and you will receive the general benefits under the proposed agreement if the agreement is accepted by the judge.

• You can accept one of the “benefits” offered by RCI in the proposed settlement without objecting.

• You can “opt out” of the “class” (which would preserve your individual right to bring a separate lawsuit against RCI.)

• You can object to the proposed settlement (This option allows you as an Objector to accept one of the benefits offered while also objecting.)

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Informational Instruction # 2

WHAT DO I DO IF I WANT TO OBJECT TO THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT?​

The Court will consider the proposed settlement agreement at a Fairness Hearing to be held on November 30, 2009 before the presiding judge, the Honorable Peter J. Sheridan. The Notice you should have recently received from the “class” administrator is the result of the initial objections to the prior notice by some of the objectors who appeared at the initial Fairness Hearing on June 16, and who successfully argued that the Notice which appeared on page 94 of the March/April edition of Endless Vacation magazine (which many RCI members did not see) was inadequate notice of the lawsuit settlement.

If you are a “class” member, you can object to the settlement if you don’t like any part of it. You can give reasons why you think the Court should not approve it. However, reasons for your objection are not required. If you choose to give reasons the Court will consider your views.

• You can represent yourself, or you can elect to be represented before the court by an attorney.

• [You do not have to be represented by Counsel to file an objection. But, if you choose to seek representation by an attorney, that attorney must have standing with the Court.]

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Informational Instruction # 3

What is the downside if I object to the proposed RCI “class” action settlement?

Last week I contacted my attorney, Susan B. Collins and put the following question to her:

What are the risks of objecting to the RCI proposed “class” action settlement?

Her written response is as follows:

Dave, as I see it, the risks of objecting are these:

1) Many members fear that RCI will retaliate against Objectors. On September 9, at the negotiations, RCI executives assured us that no retaliatory measures would be taken against objectors, and that they recognize that doing so would not be acceptable business practice. I specifically brought to their attention the fact that several years ago, I apparently "complained too hard" about a change in RCI's policies regarding bonus weeks issued for highly desirable deposits (including writing a letter to the CEO), and that RCI did retaliate against me, in that I received a call from woman who claimed that an exchange I had made with a bonus week was improper, and she canceled the confirmed exchange. I specifically told the executives that RCI members were concerned that RCI could lower the value of their existing deposits. They responded that there simply is no way to lower the value of an existing deposit. We then pointed out that the value of many deposits were lowered in the "recent unpleasantness" at the end of May, but an RCI VP assured us that that was a software glitch and was being corrected, and that trade power had been restored for most people, and that the restoration would be completed for everyone soon. (This "glitch" should have been corrected by now.) Despite these assurances, some skeptical RCI members may also find comfort in the fact that there is "safety in numbers," and that the more people who object, the harder retaliation would [theoretically] be.

2) If enough people object, the proposed settlement could be rejected by the judge. The Plaintiffs' attorneys tell us that they believe that this would be very much against the interests of RCI members. On the other hand, they really believe that the settlement answers most members' concerns, which is a position with which many members disagree, some vehemently. Some objectors have expressed grave concerns that no discovery was conducted, and question how effectively the attorneys could have negotiated without knowing the full extent of RCI's practices. (Plaintiffs’ attorneys claim that an order issued by the prior judge -- who has since retired -- prohibited them from conducting discovery.) Plaintiffs' attorneys have also expressed reluctance to try to the case, and have implied that they could find an alternative, such as settling on behalf of the named Plaintiffs individually. In that event, there might be no class action suit and no current or future restrictions placed on RCI, unless another action is brought. However, it is also possible that the judge would frown on such a tactic or that if RCI members were able to find another attorney or firm to represent the class, the action might be continued, or a new action might be brought. It is a risk, however, that each member should consider when deciding whether or not to object. In other words, is the proposed settlement of sufficient value that risking it’s not being implemented is a serious concern? (It is also interesting to note that apparently the Plaintiffs' attorneys, at least, seem to consider it possible that the objectors will succeed in having the proposed settlement rejected by the judge.)

Signed: Susan B. Collins

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Informational Instruction # 4

You Have Decided To Object What’s Next?​

To object you must send a letter saying that that you object to the settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-222 (PGS).


Be sure to include the class member’s name, address, telephone number, RCI Weeks Exchange Program Identification Number, Resort Identification Number, Resort Name and the signature of the "class member" or authorized representative if the "class member" is a trust, corporation, or other entity.


You can provide specific objections and the basis supporting your position; but providing specific objections or the reasons for your objections is not a requirement it is optional. If you provide specific objections and the reasons for them the Court will consider your statement.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Informational Instruction # 5

Frequently Asked Questions:​

Is there a simple form that I can send in to object?

Sending your objection to the Clerk of Court is exceptionally easy. A generic form letter has been provided within Informational Instruction # 6.

[I apologize in advance regarding the alignment of the text of the form. It was created in MS Word 2007 and for some reason certain things such as the placement of the Date did not line up when transferred to this site.]

Yep, it really is that easy just fill in the blanks and mail it with copies to the two individuals shown at the bottom of the form. One of the recipients of a copy will be the Co-Lead Class Counsel and the other gentleman is Defense Counsel.

What is the difference between objecting and excluding?

Objecting is telling the Court that you don’t like something about the settlement. You can object only if you stay in the “class.” Excluding yourself is telling the Court that you don’t want to be part of the “class.” If you exclude yourself, you have no basis to object because the case no longer affects you.

Does a Member of the “class” who chooses to object to the settlement require an attorney to represent the “class Member?”

No! Absolutely not, you can simply object by sending your objection in writing. There is no requirement that you be represented by an attorney.

What are the deadlines?

• If you wish to object to the Settlement, you must send your objection to the Clerk of the Court, Co-Lead Class Counsel and Defense Counsel postmarked no later than November 20, 2009.

• According to the Administrator's post card "The Court will determine whether to approve the Settlement at a Fairness Hearing on November 30, 2009 at 2:30 p.m. at the United States District Court, 402 East State Street, Trenton, New Jersey 08608."

• If you wish to submit a claim you can submit the claim electronically or mail your claim. The following shortcut will take you directly to the site where the Claim Form is available: http://tinyurl.com/RCI-Claim-Options All claim forms must be submitted electronically or postmarked by November 20, 2009.

I own more than one RCI affiliated resort, do I have to list all the resorts that I own which are affiliated with RCI.

No, only one Resort Name and Resort Number is to be listed even if you own more than one.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Informational Instruction # 6

Date: ____________

Clerk of Court
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N. J. 08608

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC

I object to the settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC, Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)

REASONS FOR OBJECTION (OPTIONAL):

































Signed: ______________________ _________________________



Name(s): _____________________ _________________________
Address: _________________________________________
City: ___________________ State _____ Zip Code ____________
Telephone: _________________ RCI Weeks Account #:____________

Resort ID #:_______ Resort Name__________________



Cc: David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
P. O. Box 111
Morristown, N. J. 07963 -0111

Cc: David S. Sager, Esq.
DAY PITNEY LLP
P. O. Box 1945
Morristown, N. J. 07962-1945

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Some Previous Posts Worth Noting!

If you have not already noticed each post in this thread has a Number.

The # can be found at the top right hand side of each post.

Example this post is # 498.

I recommend that you review the following specific posts within this thread at your convenience.

The following specific threads were posted by Susan2:

# 42 Dated July 4, 2009

# 45 Dated July 4, 2009

# 46 Dated July 4, 2009

# 88 Dated July 9, 2009

Also the following are noteworthy posts:

On trading power Post # 102

On the Judge taking objections seriously Post # 155

On RCI Terms and Conditions Post # 172

On the question should RCI forgo profits? Post # 182

On should you just walk a way from RCI? Post # 187

On the subject of "RCI RENTS WEEKS" Post # 218

On the assertion that many RCI Members do not know their weeks are being rented. Post # 252

For an excellent report on the results of the August 18th hearing. Post # 286

For comments by another TUG member about Susan Collins Post # 39 and Post # 294

For "Why We deposit and what We expected from RCI Post # 328

 

[Carolinian]

Settling a complex case like this without conducting any discovery is malpractice. The next complaint ought to be the ethics complaints against these sellout attorneys who are only looking for the $4million in their own stinking pockets. Indeed, as part of the objections to this judge, we ought to object to their being paid anything at all (well, okay, maybe a few of RCI's worthless trinkets that they want us to be happy with) for their ''work'' (and I use that term loosely) on this case.

 

[Jennie]

Date: ____________

Clerk of Court
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
402 East State Street
Trenton, N. J. 08608

RE: In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC

I object to settlement in In re: Resort Condominiums International, LLC,
Civil Action No. 06-1222 (PGS)

REASONS FOR OBJECTION (OPTIONAL):

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

• Although I object to the proposed settlement I have decided to not retain legal counsel to formerly present those objections and negotiate for
improved settlement terms.

• I will be represented in connection with this objection by_______________________________________________.


Signed: ______________________ _________________________

Name(s): _____________________ _________________________
Address: _________________________________________
City: ___________________ State _____ Zip Code ____________
Telephone: _________________ RCI Weeks Account #:____________

Resort ID #:_______ Resort Name:_________________________
Resort ID #:_______ Resort Name:_________________________
Resort ID #:_______ Resort Name:_________________________
Resort ID #:_______ Resort Name:_________________________
Resort ID #:_______ Resort Name:_________________________
Resort ID #:_______ Resort Name:_________________________

Cc: David C. Berman
A Professional Corporation
71 Maple Ave.
P. O. Box 111
Morristown, N. J. 07963 -0111

Cc: David S. Sager, Esq.
DAY PITNEY LLP
P. O. Box 1945
Morristown, N. J. 07962-1945

An independant company, approved by the Court, has impartial information about the RCI proposed settlement at: www.weeksprogramsettlement.com

There it is stated under instructions for filing a claim: " Resort Name: is the name of the resort where your timeshare is located... Please be advised that if you own or owned more than one timeshare, you may have multiple Resort Names, but you are required to submit the name of only one resort that is linked to your Weeks Exchange Program membership.

 

[Stricky]

Just double checking: If we use Susan to represent us do we also need to send an objection letter to the court?

 

[RustyS]

How about a *temporary* moratorium on rentals?

...

RCI has stated very clearly that they will reject any settlement proposal that completely prohibits it from renting out weeks deposited for exchange and has admitted that its rental program is an important source of revenue. Many Objectors and potential class members want to see this practice completely prohibited. Other Objectors and potential class members are willing to allow RCI to rent deposited weeks under certain conditions that are designed to protect exchangers’ rights and benefits.

After lengthy discussion and evaluation of alternatives, local New Jersey counsel and I have decided to submit a new settlement proposal to RCI’s counsel. As was the case with the original settlement counterproposal, we will not demand everything we want, but rather what we believe we can justify to the Court and for which we feel it is worthwhile to fight.

...

RCI has the right, like any red-blooded American company, to devise a service offering and sell it to the public, so long as it is legal and they do not operate with deception. If it's not particularly appealing it won't sell, as the market handles that sort of thing.

I don't think we can demand RCI not rent weeks that are deposited. But I do feel we can, and should, ask that they be prevented from it for a period of time that somehow relates to the existing memberships purchased and deposits made under the original concepts of the program, those that most of us agree were acceptable and that we wish were still offered.

My beef is they changed the program without being forthcoming about it. They kept pushing us to renew for longer periods of time ("Renew now before the rates go up!") without saying the plan was changing. They told us to deposit our weeks with them and they'd have a good one for us to pick in return, but they started syphoning the better weeks out to the various Points and Rental programs, all in the interest of increased revenue. If they want to devise a program like this, the one they obviously are trying to operate, they can do so but I won't be a member, and sure as heck won't give them my beach side week because they will not return me anything of value for it, especially when you consider my costs for such activity: my membership fee, my exchange fee, and my vacation time.

I think we should be asking that they operate the program under the old concepts until most of the current deposits have been exchanged, and the memberships played out. From that point forward they can do what they want but it will be without me, and it sounds like most of the people on this board, maybe the bulk of the 80,000 members Susan refers to. This would mean no, and I mean NO removal of deposited weeks to any other venue or market for approximately two years, and potentially the restoration of inventory previously removed causing the existing inventory to be lacking any decent properties to withdraw. They could make that restoration by making Points and other programs' time available to the Weeks membership.

Let us get the value they originally promised us, and for which they coerced us into paying membership and exchange fees, then set them free to create whatever business model they want so long as they are up front about the how the service operates, and therefore the value of the service.

That is the basis of my complaint. Not that I want them to continue to provide the old program forever (I sill long the simplicity of my Windows 95 machine but MS ain't doing that either), but that I want them to give me the value they promised in exchange for what I already gave them. I have a membership good through 2012 but I can get some of that prorated back to me once I use up my exchanges. My biggest beef is my deposited 2008 and 2009 weeks, for which I'm still looking for a decent exchange, aren't getting matched up with anything resembling a LIKE vacation experience. I've already pulled my 2010 week and as soon as I can get use up my remaining deposits I'm gone from their rolls. But I think they should be made to give me something of value for those deposits. If they temporarly restore the program I can get what I need and split. I'll bet this hold true for many of you as well.

Considering the bait and switch they performed, any aspect of this they perceive as punitive would be warranted. After all, under this proposal in two years they can rent to their hearts delight, and anyone still a member at that time will know up front what they are getting into. But they lied to us and stole our vacations. I just want them back and then be shed of them.

And they can keep their trinkets.

 

[Carolinian]

To get an idea of just how bad the rental problem really is, a fellow moderator on the European based TimeshareTalk forum reported on his recent attendance at the 2-day ''Timeshare Stripped Bare'' seminar in the UK, and said that one European timeshare developer in attendance reported that 80% of the weeks deposited for exchange by his members were getting diverted to the RCI rental program, and it was seriously undermining the value of timesharing for his owners, and was causing problems for retention of members.

 

[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.

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

Settling a complex case like this without conducting any discovery is malpractice. The next complaint ought to be the ethics complaints against these sellout attorneys who are only looking for the $4million in their own stinking pockets. Indeed, as part of the objections to this judge, we ought to object to their being paid anything at all (well, okay, maybe a few of RCI's worthless trinkets that they want us to be happy with) for their ''work'' (and I use that term loosely) on this case.

Carolinian, your posting is incorrect on several points. First, obeying an order by a judge cannot be malpractice. PERIOD. If a judge prohibits discovery, even temporarily, then discovery cannot be conducted, at least until the order changes, and I have seen very few judges ever reverse themselves. I cannot make any comment on any appeal that might or might not have been possible to file, because I do not do appellate work. However, I do know that appealing ANY order is an expensive, lengthy, and difficult process that ought not be attempted unless there is a very good chance of success. Furthermore, appealing an order is not something that would generally promote the negotiation process.

Second, although the original notice (in Endless Vacation magazine) stated that the Plaintiffs' attorneys were requesting as part of the settlement fees "up to $4 million," I understand that they're getting less than half that amount. That figure must be approved by the Court, and the judge recently ruled that the Plaintiffs could amend their fee request to include time spent after May 1 (which ruling appeared to be -- and I believe was -- unsolicited by the Plaintiffs' attorneys). To me, that indicates that the Judge probably does not consider the prior fee request to be excessive or unreasonable, and that he may even believe that the attorneys should be further compensated.

Third, I agree that there is very little value in most of the individual benefits being offered. However, the main point of the settlement is not the individual benefits, it is the requirement that RCI change its practices. It is true that these required changes are not as broad or sweeping as many members would like to see. That is not to say that they have no value, or even a value that can be compared to what you describe as "trinkets" available to individual members.

If you have read the proposed settlement, then I would like very much to discuss your opinions with you.

 

[Carolinian]

First, as to discovery, there is a right under the Rules of Civil Procedure to conduct discovery. If the court order you refer to purported to prohibit discovery at all at any period of the case, then it would be in conflict with the Rules and subject to being overturned. A motion to accomplish that could be made in the trial court. More likely the order limited discovery during some time period or did something similar. In that situation, it would IMHO be malpractice to settle a case before the time when discovery could be conducted arrived and discovery was done. They should have waited and done discovery BEFORE sitting down to settle the case. Discovery is critical to negotiation, as it tells you how strong a case you have. In this case, RCI attorneys knew what evidence was out there but plaintiffs attorneys did not so they were flying blind.

My recollection of what I read some time ago about the case, was that there was a scheduling order that divided discovery, and in the initial period discovery was limited to issues dealing with certifying the class. Discovery on the merits was not prohibited, just assigned a later time. Plaintiffs attorneys did not wait for that time to arrive, and proceeded to sell out their clients interests in a ''setttlement'' without waiting for discovery on the merits. That is what I believe is unethical and what I have a huge problem with.

It is good to know that these sellout shysters of plaintiffs attorneys are not going to get $4million, but then $2million is way too much. Two cents would probably be too much IMHO.

My remarks about value were indeed directed as the stupid trinkets, but the injunctive relief is very, very weak, and also of relatively little value. Injunctive relief is what matters in these cases, not trinkets.

Carolinian, your posting is incorrect on several points. First, obeying an order by a judge cannot be malpractice. PERIOD. If a judge prohibits discovery, even temporarily, then discovery cannot be conducted, at least until the order changes, and I have seen very few judges ever reverse themselves. I cannot make any comment on any appeal that might or might not have been possible to file, because I do not do appellate work. However, I do know that appealing ANY order is an expensive, lengthy, and difficult process that ought not be attempted unless there is a very good chance of success. Furthermore, appealing an order is not something that would generally promote the negotiation process.

Second, although the original notice (in Endless Vacation magazine) stated that the Plaintiffs' attorneys were requesting as part of the settlement fees "up to $4 million," I understand that they're getting less than half that amount. That figure must be approved by the Court, and the judge recently ruled that the Plaintiffs could amend their fee request to include time spent after May 1 (which ruling appeared to be -- and I believe was -- unsolicited by the Plaintiffs' attorneys). To me, that indicates that the Judge probably does not consider the prior fee request to be excessive or unreasonable, and that he may even believe that the attorneys should be further compensated.

Third, I agree that there is very little value in most of the individual benefits being offered. However, the main point of the settlement is not the individual benefits, it is the requirement that RCI change its practices. It is true that these required changes are not as broad or sweeping as many members would like to see. That is not to say that they have no value, or even a value that can be compared to what you describe as "trinkets" available to individual members.

If you have read the proposed settlement, then I would like very much to discuss your opinions with you.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Posted by Stricky: Just double checking: If we use Susan to represent us do we also need to send an objection letter to the court?
__________________
http://www.smuggsbbs.com

Yes!

You can ask Susan or any attorney that you choose to represent you before the Court to provide you with a form letter for your objection that meets the requirements of the Court.

If you choose to object to the proposed settlement you as a member of the "class" must be "filed" with the Clerk of the Court by November 20, 2009 and mailed to Class Counsel and counsel for Defendant.

 

[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.

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

Susan,

Do you think in our personal letter to the court (copied to the appropriate individuals), we should be equally restrained with the spirit of compromise or should we object to every major point that we personally disagree with the settlement as we understand it? Does any version a proposed settlement contain clauses to protect objectors from repercussions from RCI on personal accounts? I am not particularly worried about that but I have some coworkers and relatives who are casual RCI users who asked.

Thank you again for the many, many hours you have put in to help timeshare users.

Tracey

You're welcome. You have two questions here. Regarding "repercussions" which I read as meaning "retaliation" by RCI against objecting members is something I answered previously, I believe. Basically, RCI execs say that they would absolutely not do that even if they could, and they seemed insulted by the suggestion that they might consider retaliation. However, if enough members are concerned, perhaps RCI would be willing to put something specific in writing.

As for your other question, I wish I had a sensible answer for you. I think basically what you are asking is, "which method would be more effective?" Is that right?

Well, I have a crystal ball in my office. (I really do! It's held up by three "blind justices.") I have never gotten any answers from it, but when I am asked a question I simply can't answer, I invite my clients (or others) to attempt to scry for themselves. It gets a laugh and redirects the conversation.

My feeling is that RCI is unlikely to change until and unless they feel that changing is in their best interests. (Just like the rest of the world.) The real question is how to convince them that changing their practices really is in their best interests. It appears that RCI, enjoying what amounts to a near monopoly in some respects, especially with certain resorts, has the feeling that their business is not in danger from those of us who object to some of their business practices. Perhaps they are right, but perhaps the repercussions of their actions will only be felt over time. That would be a "crystal ball" question for me. Ten years from now, might business people point to RCI's current actions and mark this as the point in time at which RCI "went wrong"? It's possible.

The real object, in my opinion, would be to let RCI know that it is not a small number of people who are objecting to the proposed settlement. IMO letting RCI know that certain opinions are very widely held would be more effective than any particular individual's persuasiveness in an individual objection would be. (BTW, there are at least some of RCI's people who read this thread -- and perhaps others -- on TUG.) There are many members who read, but do not comment on this thread, leaving everyone to speculate about their true opinions. Perhaps a poll of TUG members' opinions would be a useful device to demonstrate to RCI that certain opinions are widely held. (Or conversely, would show the objectors that, contrary to our beliefs, we are actually a small percentage!)

If anyone is interested in preparing a poll, I'd be happy to work with you. May I suggest a very simple poll to start off? (I think I've seen a link on how to do this, but I'm not terribly "computer savvy," and I don't remember.) How about:

Question: Would you like to see a specific statement from RCI that it will not retaliate against any member individually, or as a part of a group, for voicing objections to the proposed settlement, or for making statements against RCI's business practices, including citing a member's own personal experience?

__ Yes, I would be more comfortable seeing such a statement if I felt I could trust that it was true

__ No, I do not feel such a statement is necessary

I would invite anyone who knows how to post the question as a poll.

Susan