I'm absolutely sure that this could very well positively impact some owners.
But the Club is a sum of it's parts. And the Club exists for the benefit of all owners. It's not Wyndham's job to appease a small minority of owners who "want to be done with their contracts". There's ways for these individuals to do that, without amputating a leg and an arm.
Wyndham continues to bring new resorts to market that are very good additions to the Club, including MOAB, Atlanta, the forthcoming Margaritaville Orlando, just to name a few, and there are others. Sure, we should examine all angles, but we should also give Wyndham props where it's appropriate. In general, they do a good job on resort operations while keeping MFs reasonable, especially when compared to most other timeshare companies. Many TUGGERs would agree with me on this point. Keep in mind I live in the Mid-atlantic area and my region along with the northeast region are more negatively impacted by these changes, so it's not like I'm all kinds of excited about these changes, I'm not, but I'm also not going to assume the worst right away. I'll at the very least give Wyndham the opportunity to show me that there are better options coming both in the relative near future and mid-long term for the owners. I'd encourage everyone to reserve judgment with this in mind and remember that many of these resorts are in point of fact very old, outdated, and for the most part not in popular high traffic tourist areas any longer. Granted, I tend to like places that are off the beaten path, but I also recognize that having these places in the portfolio may not be in the best interests of the shareholders or the Club owner's long term. Change is the only constant in this life, and we should not rationally expect every resort to remain in the system for all eternity, we should expect changes over time.
Honestly, it would be interesting how a class action suit brought from owners against a timeshare entity which is a publicly traded corporation would pan out in court. Not saying that is warranted here, but it would be interesting.
IE: fiduciary duty of a corporation (shareholders) and the interests which benefit shareholders vs owners.
IME class action lawsuits largely benefit one group - the lawyers. They rarely if ever benefit anyone else, especially the members of said class action lawsuit.
It's one thing if a company is insolvent, but it's pretty clear by reading the T&L balance sheet that's not the case, and if this is a scenario where they are chasing short term profits over the health of the club and the benefit of the owners who in fact own a large percentage of the assets managed by the club.
If T&L/Wyndham is able to demonstrate that offloading these assets is going to allow the company to invest in new assets that will deliver higher ROI and better asset appreciation especially over the mid-long term, it's a pretty easy sell to the investor echelon. As you said, Wyndham has a fiduciary responsibility under SEC guidelines to the shareholders. It has absolutely no fiduciary responsibility to the ownership base in comparison, at least in so far as SEC regs are concerned. How do I know this? Because a federal court ruling in 2022 addressed this issue directly in the case of the Fairshare Vacation Owners Association. The court found that Fairshare did not breach any fiduciary duty to its members, suggesting that no such duty was legally recognized in that context. This ruling implies that, absent specific trust or fiduciary language in the timeshare agreement, Wyndham’s relationship with timeshare owners is primarily contractual, not fiduciary. SEC regulations do not explicitly impose fiduciary duties on companies toward customers like timeshare owners, focusing instead on investor protections.
So, with the above in mind, basically Wyndham only has a contractual obligation to timeshare owners. This is very likely why Wyndham is adhering closely to the HOA bylaws, founding Club bylaws, and state/county/township/local laws. It's entirely contractual. If I were a betting man, I'd surmise the basis of what we are seeing play out, may have been hatched after the 2022 ruling. Pure speculation on my part to be clear, but rulings like this matter. So, unless someone can clearly demonstrate legal breach of contract, they don't really have a leg to stand on against Wyndham. One thing is entirely certain, Wyndham's lawyers have been all over this from a risk management standpoint from the very outset, and I'm sure they are following the letter of the law to ensure successful outcomes here.
Also, some of these sites closing are sales centers, want to bet they are still selling deeds for sites they know are going to be worthless soon? I don't know how many people who buy AT Fairfield Glade for example, are BUYING glade deeds vs Access vs deeded anywhere else, but still...
If they are selling these assets off to generate capital, why would they sell deeds and then lose out on the proceeds from holding the deeds that will be realized when the sale transacts? They may also not be quite at 51% majority at all of the impacted resorts, so taking back more inventory may serve to "get them across the finish line" so to speak. For the most part the UDI MFs on these properties are a good bit higher than CWA, so it's a really tough sell retail. I don't think I've ever been offered inventory from any of these resorts since becoming an owner in 2018 in all of the sales updates I've attend during that time. Plenty of offers on low MFs deeds and CWA in comparison. Overall, I'd think they would simply hold onto the deeds during the transactional period so as to minimize risks, I'm sure the lawyers are ensuring that they are following a process that will deliver the best outcome, and I'd imagine selling deeds to properties that they may be selling off could potentially cause legal complications, which I'm sure Wyndham will try to avoid.
skift.com
