It seems to me that this is quite the end run around normal property law and the CC&Rs or declarations or whatever contracts there were that everyone else was operating under. I'm not a lawyer either so this is my opinion only. The HOA, not in financial distress, is declaring Chapter 11 to effectively force like a partition action without doing that actually in court, such that they can force a group of property owners to sell. This makes me glad that I continue to avoid ever ever ever living in an HOA. To a layperson, the HOA is kinda like a private town or something - yet I would be astonished if a town going bankrupt could force all people living in that town to sell their properties to make up for that. But this is even less like that in that the HOAs aren't insolvent, and at least one says they're financially strong.
I'm sure one reason each one will be somewhat unique is that I feel like at least some jurisdictions and judges will look at this and flatly say - the HOA isn't insolvent and this is just trying to avoid the rules that are in the documents.
AI at least thinks that Timeshare HOAs in the US are basically the same as any other HOA, just over a different sort of property ownership. Maybe this is wrong, but like
@dioxide45 says, I can't find any indication of that, and any differences seem like they have to be contractual. Looking at generic HOA bankruptcy, it is possible, but in no place have I found any claim that the HOA can directly force a sale of any property that it just manages, only properties that it owns. What they could do is levy special assessments to become solvent again. However, it seems like most of the letters we've seen so far don't mention immediate financial distress, just that there would be assessments for capital improvements.
Now, it's all well and good to say "well, we know if we levy the special assessment 'everyone will default' and then we will be insolvent" but it still seems to me like that would have to actually happen, not just a future prediction. On the other hand, if Wyndham owns enough of the property to pass the votes to sell, then I'm still at why not just do that.
I guess I just keep coming back to - why would a court want to intervene here when there's existing systems in place to deal with these eventualities - that it seems like Wyndham is mostly following anyway. I suppose according to this:
It's split, so the locations of the HOAs will make a huge difference - if anyone bothers to challenge them. And this brings me to what I think is happening - Wyndham is actually betting that no one will care enough to challenge this so whether it's legal or not doesn't make that much difference. But I would keep it in mind that maybe the CC&Rs or declarations might be a lot less binding than we thought, at least if you get enough pull on the HOA.