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

[ecwinch]

What do you care?

What she gets paid is just less for the other lawyers who don't have are best interests at heart. If she is able to salvage this settlement for us and alter RCI's practices I hope she gets a $1M.

If that happens, I would absolutely agree with you.

And since I am often misunderstood, let me be very clear that I am not making any allegation of any sort. I am gathering information. From everything I have seen here on TUG, Susan is a dedicated and passionate timeshare owner has taken up this cause for all the reasons she has mentioned on this board.

But I am just a little troubled by the switch from fighting this case on principle. I also do not understand the disclosure that local counsel is involved. As I said, I do not dispute that Susan should be compensated to some extent, so I am just trying to learn more and to see if this is a big deal or not. I am not saying she has gone over to the Dark side.

Also I have not seen anything that indicates that the settlement is going to be materially better. In fact I thought one of the objectives was to derail the settlement and force the case to trial. So that we could have discovery to strengthen the case and obtain a more favorable outcome. If you go back in the thread, you will see posts to the affect. So her disclosure leaves me concerned that this is only going to end in a settlement before full discovery.

I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.

So this recent development just heightens my concern. I hope they are baseless, but I like to reach my own conclusions. So I am only asking in order to gather information to allay my concerns. Maybe I am the only one that is just a little concerned by this.

If Susan obtains significant changes in the settlement, then a mil is fine. I would just like to know what she is asking for. Her request will become part of the court record, so it is not like she would be disclosing confidential information.

 

[DeniseM]

Eric - I am not Susan, but my understanding is that because Susan doesn't practice law in New Jersey, she was required to affiliate with a local attorney.

As far as why she is now asking for reimbursement, she explained that in her post above. When she first got involved, it was because as a timeshare owner, she was outraged by the ridiculous proposed settlement. However, over time, she found herself putting in many more hours on the case than she realized it would take, and in fact lost time and clients in her regular law practice, to work on the RCI case. Her work on the RCI case has caused a loss of income from her regular law practice.

Also, my understanding is that the judge will decide if any of the attorneys will receive a fee, and how much it will be.

If you click on Susan's name, and then select the link to her posts and read them, you will find all the details about what changes to the settlement she is asking for in this case.

I am not going into Chicken Little mode, but I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.

Ms. Welling called a Tugger and left a message - Jennie was reasurring the poster, that it would be OK to call Ms. Welling back.

 

[ecwinch]

Eric - I am not Susan, but my understanding is that because Susan doesn't practice law in New Jersey, she was required to affiliate with a local attorney.

As far as why she is now asking for reimbursement, she explained that in her post above. When she first got involved, it was because as a timeshare owner, she was outraged by the ridiculous proposed settlement. However, over time, she found herself putting in many more hours on the case than she realized it would take, and in fact lost time and clients in her regular law practice, to work on the RCI case. Her work on the RCI case has caused a loss of income from her regular law practice.

Also, my understanding is that the judge will decide if any of the attorneys will receive a fee, and how much it will be.

If you click on Susan's name, and then select the link to her posts and read them, you will find all the details about what changes to the settlement she is asking for in this case.



Ms. Welling called a Tugger and left a message - Jennie was reasurring the poster, that it would be OK to call Ms. Welling back.

Denise – thanks for pointing that out. But I thought this was a case in US District Court, not New Jersey State court.

And I understand the basis under which she is seeking compensation, and as I indicated I am fine with that. That was not my question. She clearly is going to have to submit a request to the court.

It just seems that the focus is strictly on settlement now. To the extent that Susan is contemplating compensation. Clearly without a settlement that would not occur.

I had thought we wanted it to go to trial or to have the case derailed and refiled. In this thread, Susan comments on that specific outcome. So while early in the thread that seemed to be the focus, I am unclear on why that seems to have fallen off the table. So I am interested in why the shift in the desired outcome.

Also - could you point me to a post where the proposed modifications to the settlement are outlined. I am picking up bits and pieces here and there from the posts, but I do not see a summary. If you can point me to one - that would be most appreciated. EDIT: Never mind, located one here.. I also see where she disclosed her intention to seek compensation at that time.

Thanks

 

[motomem]

*quote deleted

And don't forget that Europeans use the term "Holiday" in place of "Vacation".

 

[Susan2]

Amount of fees?

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 do not dispute that you should be compensated, but in the interest of full disclosure - what might you think would be the upper range of what you will be requesting?

I'm not ignoring you, Eric. It's a valid question. I've been thinking about how to answer you.

The short answer is that I have no idea. I could elaborate considerably on that answer, because it IS a valid question, but it would just be a discussion of all the reasons why I don't have any idea.

Frankly, at this point, the amount of my fees comes under the category of "counting my chickens before they've hatched," and I have not devoted a great deal of thought to it. My local counsel and I have touched lightly on the topic, but mostly only to decide that we'll discuss it at a later date, since they are not class-action attorneys, either. (Serious and knowledgeable suggestions are welcome!)

I may get nothing at all. I may make out like a bandit. At this point, with the help of all the objectors, I am attempting to convince the judge to reject the settlement. What happens if we succeed is an unknown. Developing strategies to deal with the resulting potential turns of event are taking much more of my time than thinking about fees, which may never materialize, and which are not "real" to me at this point.

I'm really sorry if that seems disingenuous, but it's true.

I can tell you that I spoke to a class-action attorney who tried to convince me to be "sensible" and "realistic" and to encourage me to think of this case in terms of fees. His thought was that the new "concessions" offered by RCI back at the end of September (which I deemed pathetic, but which terms we involved objectors are not allowed to disclose because RCI's attorneys deemed it "confidential") could be negotiated into a substantial fee by claiming that I had been instrumental in obtaining a better settlement for the class. I, however, do not believe that the changes would have been meaningful to the class. In the end, this other attorney concluded that we could not work together because we have differing objectives -- his being very frankly to get paid. I appreciated his honesty, which cleared up some mysteries for me resulting from dealing with other attorneys on this subject.

It has also been suggested that, since I have many clients, that I invite the majority of them to "opt-out" rather than to continue their objections, so that I could bring individual actions against RCI and receive compensation by getting 40% of whatever settlement they receive. (Apparently, this is deemed a valid and appropriate legal tactic in some circles.)

I'm honestly not at all interested in doing either one of those. I don't want to make myself out to be "holier than thou," or to have exceptionally high ethical standards, because I'm not and I don't. But I live a modest lifestyle, my house is paid for, I don't need a fancy car, and I have a comfortable life. Theoretical riches would not compensate for not liking who I saw in the mirror.

Those of you who may be skeptical are completely within your rights. But I think most readers of these posts would make the very same choice!

 

[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.

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

And since I am often misunderstood, let me be very clear that I am not making any allegation of any sort.

No offense taken.

I also do not understand the disclosure that local counsel is involved.

DeniseM is absolutely correct. Even though this case is in US District Court, the attorneys are subject to the laws and ethical rules of the State of New Jersey where the court is located, and local counsel are responsible for the ethical behavior of the attorneys they sponsor. That's just the way it is. Judge Sheridan made it crystal clear that he would not even consider an application to be admitted to the court for this case (which we call "pro hac vice" meaning literally, "for this turn") from anyone who did not already have local counsel.

Also I have not seen anything that indicates that the settlement is going to be materially better.

Precisely why we want the judge to reject it. The sole change from what was originally presented is that the class includes everyone who was an RCI Weeks member until August 31, 2009, instead of November 20, 2008. (And yes, I suppose I am responsible for that change, so let me uncork my champagne now -- NOT!)

In fact I thought one of the objectives was to derail the settlement and force the case to trial. So that we could have discovery to strengthen the case and obtain a more favorable outcome. If you go back in the thread, you will see posts to the affect. So her disclosure leaves me concerned that this is only going to end in a settlement before full discovery.

Okay, "forcing the case to trial" is one possible outcome. Continued settlement discussion could be another. I intend to argue that settlement discussions cannot be reasonably held without discovery, and that this is a major flaw underlying the current proposed settlement agreement. I simply cannot give you the likelihood of this or other possible outcomes. (This is one of those areas where my ignorance shows.) But it is not a given that the case will go to trial, or that the Plaintiffs' attorneys would have to try it, if it did. Since the class has only been provisionally certified, the Plaintiffs' attorneys could settle on behalf of their individual clients. However, we don't know whether those named Plaintiffs would all agree, even if their attorneys tried to do that. (The husband of one of them actually filed an objection to the proposed settlement, and says that his wife never liked the settlement, but was outvoted, so maybe they wouldn't all agree.)

And if the Plaintiffs' attorneys wanted to walk out, would the judge allow it? Would he allow a substitution of other named Plaintiffs and new counsel? Could he allow that? Even if that happened, who would continue the case? (That's one of the areas I'm exploring, just in case. It might never be necessary, but it's good to be prepared. That way, you don't get caught with your pants down, and you can't be threatened as easily.)

I actually started to get a little confused a couple of days ago when I saw Jeannie describing the Plaintiff's counsel in favorable terms. I thought one of the issues was that they were only in this for the money and were settling out to the detriment of class members. But now one of their lead attorney's is a "Ms. Welling is an ethical professional (and very nice person)". That seems like a disconnect to me.

I'm afraid that I do not share Jennie's confidence that the reason Ms. Welling might be contacting you is that she wants to ensure that your objection to the settlement she helped negotiate is valid, or something similar. I made the definite decision to go to the fairness hearing in Newark after receiving a call from one of the other Plaintiffs' attorneys. I had been waffling up to that point, but I felt that the purpose of the call was to dissuade me from continuing to object, and to convince me it would be a waste of my time to appear. (Said counsel has absolutely denied that such was ever his intent, or that the purpose of the call was anything other than a courtesy.)

If Susan obtains significant changes in the settlement, then a mil is fine.

As the saying goes: "From your lips to God's ear!"

I would just like to know what she is asking for. Her request will become part of the court record, so it is not like she would be disclosing confidential information.

Only if and when I actually make a request. There are at least two ways that I would get paid: 1) RCI would agree to pay me (Don't hold your breath!), or 2) the judge would order RCI to pay me. I suppose other possibilities exist, such as my getting paid from a part of the fees awarded the Plaintiffs' attorneys. Again, I just don't know.

These possibilities could occur after a trial as well as after a settlement. Or as part of a settlement. As I said before, it's not real to me at this point, and I have no firm idea. I am not focused on that right now.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Post Card notice was NOT given to RCI Members outside of the U. S.

First I want to thank Jennie for providing her personal observation in Court about the following:

On August 12, 2009 Judge Sheridan ordered that E-Mail and Post Card Notice be sent to members of the class in the RCI “Weeks” class action Lawsuit.

You would think that the Judge’s order would have provided a “Second Notice” to all 3 Million current RCI account members and to all former RCI account members since January 1, 2000. Well forget about it! It did not go down that way!

The “Second Notice” was NOT sent to all 3 Million current and former RCI Account addresses. Yes, the intent may have been to give better notice to all recipients; but all recipients did NOT include anyone outside of the good ole’ U. S of A.

Had all received the “Second Notice” by post card we would have had a chance to get more objections to the proposed settlement. The Post Card you may have received said:

“The Settlement affects anyone who was a member of the RCI Weeks ® Exchange Program at any time from January 1, 2000 through August 31, 2009."

But, a lot of those folks received NO NOTICE!

There are currently some 500,000 RCI Accounts or families that reside in countries other than the United States. Add to that number the Former RCI Members living outside the United States. None of those RCI Accounts received the “Second Notice.”

The Post Card Notice and apparently the E-Mail Notice was NOT sent to Members and former Members of RCI that reside outside of the United States. While this comes as no surprise to most of us it is disconcerting to know that up to a third of the class have no clue that they are members of the class and can file objections to the proposed settlement. They are in the dark; but will have to live with the settlement when and if it is approved by the Court.

As stated earlier, I first learned of this fiasco a few days ago from Jennie who was at the hearing. Jennie, like other TUG Members originally thought that folks outside of North America were not part of the class or if any were included the inclusion was limited to Canada and a few other countries covered by RCI North America.

As it turns out that assumption was incorrect. The class has since day one included all Members of RCI regardless of what country they call home.

I sent an E-Mail yesterday to an attorney for the Plaintiffs and what I was concerned about has been confirmed. Here are the questions that I put to Ms. Welling last night and in red you can see her answers:

What I want to know now is exactly what did the Judge order on or about August 12th regarding NOTICE to Class Members? He ordered that a postcard be sent to those persons to whom Endless Vacation was mailed, which contained the original summary notice. At the request of Ms. Collins, he further ordered that an email notice to those persons also be sent.

Did the Judge specifically order that a Post Card Notice be sent to the primary address of each RCI Account Holder? No.

Did the Judge order that a Post Card Notice be sent to Account Holders outside of the United States? No.

Based on what I have been able to determine, it appears that the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting Inc., Fairbault, MN sent Post Cards to only United States Account addresses. This is correct.

There you have it! If any TUGGER knows a way to get this information out to RCI Members around the World please do so. We still have until Novmeber 20th to get Objections Post Marked.

 

[jerseygirl]

I was a member for a very short time (one quick trade) several years ago. I did my one trade, then never renewed my membership or deposited any further weeks. As such, I was no longer a recipient of the Endless Vacations magazine, and therefore did not receive the original notification of the proposed settlement. In fact, it stands to reason that NO FORMER members received the first notice.

However, I did receive the October postcard, and quickly filed an objection.

Just thought you might want to know that my experience does not correspond with the below statements, especially the first one. Also, I live in the US and have had at least 5 different addresses since I did that one trade, so someone went to some effort to locate me for the second notification.

What I want to know now is exactly what did the Judge order on or about August 12th regarding NOTICE to Class Members? He ordered that a postcard be sent to those persons to whom Endless Vacation was mailed, which contained the original summary notice. At the request of Ms. Collins, he further ordered that an email notice to those persons also be sent.

Did the Judge specifically order that a Post Card Notice be sent to the primary address of each RCI Account Holder? No.

Did the Judge order that a Post Card Notice be sent to Account Holders outside of the United States? No.

Based on what I have been able to determine, it appears that the Settlement Administrator, Rust Consulting Inc., Fairbault, MN sent Post Cards to only United States Account addresses. This is correct.

 

[Goofyhobbie]

Jerseygirl, I want to thank you for two reasons.

One, because you stepped up to the plate and sent in your objection.

Second, because you have revealed something that is often overlooked about the NOTICE issue.

You are living proof that RCI has the Account Numbers and the addresses of most, if not all of its former members and/or RCI can easily get those addresses from the corresponding RESORT HOA which no doubt keeps up with your where abouts so they can send you the annual maintenance fee.

Think about it! RCI has a tremendous marketing data base. No wonder we get so many calls from people wanting us to sell our timeshare and from people wanting to sell us another time share. :hysterical:

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil of Procedure came into play when the Court decided that personal notification was necessary. It is just a shame that those same rules did not cause every class member to get the same Notice that you received.

 

[ecwinch]

No offense taken.

Susan,

Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed answer to my concerns. I completely understand your responses in the context of the overall proceedings. I also appreciate you not taking exception to the fact that I asked the questions, as sometimes can be the case. Based on your responses, I can see that those concerns are minor at this point.

While I can see the value of the discovery process, I can also see the benefit if we can obtain a settlement that is similar to the one you have proposed.

Thanks for your response, and again - thanks for pursuing this matter. You are a credit to your profession.

 

[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,

Thank you for taking the time to provide a detailed answer to my concerns. I completely understand your responses in the context of the overall proceedings. I also appreciate you not taking exception to the fact that I asked the questions, as sometimes can be the case. Based on your responses, I can see that those concerns are minor at this point.

While I can see the value of the discovery process, I can also see the benefit if we can obtain a settlement that is similar to the one you have proposed.

Thanks for your response, and again - thanks for pursuing this matter. You are a credit to your profession.

You are welcome, Eric, and I am flattered by your response.

However, I want to clear something up: The settlement proposal I made to RCI was just that -- a proposal. It is NOT the position I will be advocating in court.

When negotiating, there is a give-and-take that reflects the spirit of compromise. I made an offer to RCI that was geared around RCI's stated position that they would never agree to any proposal that prohibited them from renting deposited weeks. So, with the assistance of fellow objectors, I formulated a proposal that I felt gave RCI a reasonable opportunity to make profits, and yet gave reasonable protections to members. RCI never responded in any way to that proposal. I therefore consider them to have rejected it.

Now, however, we are in front of a judge. There is no more need to consider RCI's stated position. RCI's own attorneys will promote its position as best they are able. The judge's job will be to consider the arguments of each side and to make a determination. Either side could lose completely. (That's why trial is such a risk, and why most suits settle.)

I intend to argue to the judge that RCI should be completely prohibited from renting out weeks deposited by members for exchange, EVEN IF THEY REPLACE THE INVENTORY with something they deem to be equivalent. I intend, for example, to bring up the fact that RCI has long prohibited members from using exchange confirmations "for any commercial purpose, including rental or sale of the time period/unit. . ." (Taken from Paragraph 8A under the "Guests" heading of the 1999 Terms and Conditions of RCI Memberships, which is the version I happen to have to hand.) Even a recent posting (under another heading on this site) stating that at least some RCI Guides are now saying that it's okay to rent the exchanged week, specify that this "permission" is CONTINGENT ON THE MEMBER NOT MAKING A PROFIT. (I recently emailed RCI to request clarification, but so far RCI has ignored the query, except to acknowledge that they received it.)

I believe that Judge Sheridan will be intrigued by the fact that the very thing that is prohibited to members is demanded by RCI as a sort of "natural right" -- that is, swapping out weeks and renting the exchanges to make a profit. And this from weeks that the MEMBERS own! (Kind of reminds one of the "divine right of kings," doesn't it?)

At any rate, my personal feeling is that RCI was foolish to ignore my proposal, which I feel was a very fair compromise. But I often feel that way when I make what I believe is an eminently reasonable proposal which is rejected by my opponent.

My negotiation philosophy is not universally shared. In fact, many attorneys start out with an outrageous proposal, and then (as time goes on and negotiations continue) become more reasonable. I do not believe that such a tactic is a good one, as it is (to me) an inefficient use of attorney time and client money. But that's just me.

Attorneys who don't know me sometimes find themselves at a loss to understand how continued negotiations leave them with a lesser result than they could have obtained initially.

Let us hope that that is the end result in this case!

 

[urple2]

I believe that Judge Sheridan will be intrigued by the fact that the very thing that is prohibited to members is demanded by RCI as a sort of "natural right" -- that is, swapping out weeks and renting the exchanges to make a profit. And this from weeks that the MEMBERS own! (Kind of reminds one of the "divine right of kings," doesn't it?)

I like and agree with your negotiating philosophy and thanks for sharing your thoughts with us.

Your statement above is dead on. How can it be ok to rent our weeks but we can't rent our weeks we swap with them.

Thanks again Susan.

 

[regatta333]

I made an offer to RCI that was geared around RCI's stated position that they would never agree to any proposal that prohibited them from renting deposited weeks.

So they finally had to admit they were renting deposited weeks after lying to members for years about it.

 

[djyamyam]

Disclosing strategy in public?

Susan,

I appreciate all that you are trying to do for us as members. I also understand the need to answer questions that have been posed to you from members of this forum. However, my concern is that you've discussed some of the legal strategies you intend to pursue. As this is a public forum and I suspect members of opposing counsel are likely to be monitoring this thread, aren't you providing them an advance warning of your strategy and giving them the opportunity to preprare accordingly?

 

[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,

I appreciate all that you are trying to do for us as members. I also understand the need to answer questions that have been posed to you from members of this forum. However, my concern is that you've discussed some of the legal strategies you intend to pursue. As this is a public forum and I suspect members of opposing counsel are likely to be monitoring this thread, aren't you providing them an advance warning of your strategy and giving them the opportunity to preprare accordingly?

Perhaps you are right, but in my experience, "surprise strategies" are more the stuff of television legal drama than actual practical courtroom tactics, and are not admired by most judges.

Normally, motion papers must be submitted in advance, with sufficient opportunity for responding papers to be filed and served on opponents. This gives both (all?) sides an opportunity to marshal their arguments, and gives the judges the best opportunity to make a fair decision.

Written objections need to be filed by next Friday (November 20), so that gives advance notice by itself. But maybe I am giving RCI and its attorneys an extra week to come up with a convincing argument as to why RCI should be allowed to make profits in a way that they deny their members.

I would be really surprised if the fact that this practice constitutes a classic double standard had never occurred to them before, but if so, don't you think it's only fair to let them have an opportunity to learn of it earlier? -- If they bother to read these postings, that is. Such efforts should yield them SOME rewards! But I really can't imagine that they haven't figured this out already. There are a great many objectors who have submitted objections to the court asking the judge to prohibit RCI from renting deposited weeks.

So this isn't really anything new to the attorneys involved in the case. Just possibly to the timesharing owning public.

I appreciate your concern, and the fact that you took the time to post your thoughts.

Susan

 

[Carolinian]

If the hearing goes against us, we need a massive campaign to get the word out on RCI's rotten rental scam. One way to do that is through Timesharing Today. They have had a program to promote their magazine by giving resorts enough sample copies of back issues to put out in their units. A front page article on this subject ought to be in a sample issue used for that purpose and a massive press run done. Some of us should contribute to the costs. And then a big effort should be made to get that sample copy out more widely in our resorts. RCI's anti-timeshare rental fraud needs to be fully exposed to timeshare owners. As to alternatives, most major indendepent exchange companies advertise in TST, as now does II as well.

 

[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.

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

As to alternatives, most major indendepent exchange companies advertise in TST, as now does II as well.

"Aye, there's the rub!" Isn't it?

The whole problem is that the independent exchange companies don't have the massive inventory that RCI has, do they? So members just don't have the wide variety of choices. (Or at least the promise of the wide variety of choices. Or the variety of choices for the first few people in line.)

While at the meeting with the RCI executives, I told one of them that we objectors were not out to destroy RCI, and that frankly if RCI did go away, timeshare owners would have to reinvent it. He responded with, "That will never happen." Personally, I thought he was a bit smug about it. And I am not at all sure that his confidence is justified. It might take years, but if RCI continues to be unresponsive to member concerns, it could happen.

Meanwhile, RCI is the acknowledged "industry leader." And where the industry leader goes, so follow the . . . "industry followers"? The other members of the industry, in any event.

If there were a massive defection, say to Interval International (who would likely be best able to handle an enormous influx of deposits), how would timeshare owners be certain that Interval would not also start renting out weeks deposited for exchange? They seem to be doing it right now, but -- perhaps because they are relatively small compared to RCI -- they don't seem to be getting the flak for it, do they?

Any exchange company would have to be really large in order to offer members the wide opportunities for exchange that RCI is able to offer. And then we're back to the problem of a large corporation doing as it chooses to make higher profits. When RCI was privately owned, it offered members good services at reasonable prices. But then it got bought out.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a sort of timeshare-owners co-op? A BIG one.

Anyone out there have any good ideas on that?

Failing that, I would like to see a negotiated contract with the exchange companies. Maybe a sort of "members union" to negotiate on behalf of the members. But what is the incentive to force RCI (or any other large corporation) to the bargaining table? And if it isn't a large corporation, then there isn't the variety of inventory. . . and 'round and 'round we go again . . .

The thing that makes the David and Goliath story so special is that it so rarely works out that the little guy wins.

All I can come up with is that "here is where we make our stand." This is the best opportunity I can see to fight for our rights.

I'd love to hear some alternate suggestions that people think would work.

 

[jerseygirl]

... snip ...If there were a massive defection, say to Interval International (who would likely be best able to handle an enormous influx of deposits), how would timeshare owners be certain that Interval would not also start renting out weeks deposited for exchange? They seem to be doing it right now, but -- perhaps because they are relatively small compared to RCI -- they don't seem to be getting the flak for it, do they?

Susan -- I've been watching II rentals VERY closely for years. First of all, I'm very mad at them right now for reasons unrelated to rentals (long story -- has to do with them going along with Starwood on something that I think infringes upon owner rights). But, I compare their rentals to available exchanges all the time and it does appear that, for the most part, they continue to offer last minute inventory as BOTH exchanges and rentals. This gives value to owners of weak traders/off-season weeks, like RCI used to do in the 45-day window. One can pay the exchange fee ... or rent. But, at RCI ... they seem to remove the ability to exchange when they move something to the rental pool. BIG DIFFERENCE!

I can't really comment on whether or not some of the more expensive, further-out II rentals could be coming from exchange weeks -- but you often see getaways at resorts not even in the exchange program, so there is some indication that they're buying or brokering inventory. I can't be 100% certain, but my gut tells me that II's rental program is on the up-and-up for the most part. Of course, that doesn't mean it won't change drastically if RCI gets what it wants out of this lawsuit.

Not fact ... just one frequent observer's opinion .....

 

[Carolinian]

I don't know of any independent exchange company that rents member exchange deposits to the general public, or would be likely to.

In the case of DAE they put their money where their mouth is on this one. Their former Swiss office, a franchise, was caught renting member exchange deposits to non-members and had their franchise taken away for that transgression. DAE lost some of the inroads the Swiss office had made into German speaking countries as a result, but they maintained their integrity.

 

["Roger"]

See post #716 in this thread. (By the by, several years ago, on Timeshare Forums, you asked several of the Independents whether they rented units to non-members. At least one of them responsed that they won't tell you what they do with their inventory. You might look back and see which one that was.)

Secondly, my understanding is that exchange companies also trade inventory with each other. Thus, just because a company does not directly rent to non-members does not mean that their inventory might not end up in a rental pool. A good way to get rid of inventory that is not moving would be to exchange it into a company that does rent.

Finally, while one independent appears to rent only to its own members (they rent under the guise of bonus weeks - also, I believe that they regularly exchange with other companies), they avoid wholesale rentals by only accepting select inventory. I don't think most timesharers would consider that a good outcome of this whole process.

 

[Carolinian]

The select weeks model of SFX is not the business model of most independent exchange companies.

TPI in post 716 is marketing II inventory, not their own.

Trading inventory with each other among independents is a GOOD thing. That is how I got trades to the French Riviera in summer, Morritts Tortuga Club for my neices honeymoon, Knocktopher Abbey in Ireland next spring, and a summer Canaltime canal boat in the UK, all through DAE trading partners. When independents work together, it expands members access to inventory. Also, I might note that the oldest and best timeshare mini-system in Europe, Hapimag, does trading partner swaps through DAE and DRI, but does NOT use either RCI or II for exchange, except that they do let RCI rent weeks at one of their Florida properties.

See post #716 in this thread. (By the by, several years ago, on Timeshare Forums, you asked several of the Independents whether they rented units to non-members. At least one of them responsed that they won't tell you what they do with their inventory. You might look back and see which one that was.)

Secondly, my understanding is that exchange companies also trade inventory with each other. Thus, just because a company does not directly rent to non-members does not mean that their inventory might not end up in a rental pool. A good way to get rid of inventory that is not moving would be to exchange it into a company that does rent.

Finally, while one independent appears to rent only to its own members (they rent under the guise of bonus weeks - also, I believe that they regularly exchange with other companies), they avoid wholesale rentals by only accepting select inventory. I don't think most timesharers would consider that a good outcome of this whole process.

 

[ecwinch]

The select weeks model of SFX is not the business model of most independent exchange companies.

TPI in post 716 is marketing II inventory, not their own.

Trading inventory with each other among independents is a GOOD thing. That is how I got trades to the French Riviera in summer, Morritts Tortuga Club for my neices honeymoon, Knocktopher Abbey in Ireland next spring, and a summer Canaltime canal boat in the UK, all through DAE trading partners. When independents work together, it expands members access to inventory. Also, I might note that the oldest and best timeshare mini-system in Europe, Hapimag, does trading partner swaps through DAE and DRI, but does NOT use either RCI or II for exchange, except that they do let RCI rent weeks at one of their Florida properties.

I think Roger's point was that if they swap with other exchanges, then how can you know that they do not use that as a back-door for rentals - potentially doing so for the express purpose of maintaining their "non-rental" policy.

Roger Roger?

 

["Roger"]

Right, Eric. I wasn't suggesting that exchange companies exchanging among themselves was a bad thing - just that who knows, when the dust clears, what might end up in a rental pool. The whole exchange business is much more complex than what initially meets the eye.

 

[BethTripGirl]

RCI class action suit news to me

My husband and I own 6 weeks' of time share, 4 of them in Cabo san Lucas. We had NO idea there was a class action suit, much less any settlement offered. We got a postcard in late October with a November 20 deadline to file our form to join in the suit. The card came from the settlement administrator. If RCI had a decent case, it seems to me they should have made it loudly and clearly to the members. They certainly have no trouble sending us emails to sell us things or charging ridiculous fees ($59 now for a "guest certificate" when we allow a married daughter to use one of our units whose name doesn't match ours). Geez. Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?

 

[DeniseM]

Geez. Why should RCI or the location care WHO checks into a unit for which WE PAID the maintenance and exchange fee?

Because THEY can rent your deposit, but they don't want YOU to rent an exchange - pretty much what this whole lawsuit is about!

For more info., see the link to a summary and forms in post #1.

Oh, and welcome to TUG! Glad you found us!