UPDATE: RCI CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT - must read for all RCI members

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Originally Posted by ecwinch

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

Is there a link to the letter?

[london]

I went on line, and opted to accept a $20.00 credit on a future exchange.

I did this a few months ago.

Do you think this will change?

[ecwinch]

Originally Posted by T_R_Oglodyte

Is there a link to the letter?

Not a public link. I got it off the PACER court system. It basically just says that all the objector's have hidden agenda's and they do not realize how difficult it was to negotiate the settlement that was obtained.

And that the settlement only need to be fair, and that they feel the one presented is fair.

PM me and I will send you a copy.

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Originally Posted by ecwinch

Not a public link. I got it off the PACER court system. It basically just says that all the objector's have hidden agenda's and they do not realize how difficult it was to negotiate the settlement that was obtained.

And that the settlement only need to be fair, and that they feel the one presented is fair.

PM me and I will send you a copy.

If you've got a copy why don't you just post it in the thread? It's a public document so there isn't any reason why it can't be posted publicly. Further, the PACER policies don't prohibit distributing or reposting information.

[ecwinch]

Originally Posted by T_R_Oglodyte

If you've got a copy why don't you just post it in the thread? It's a public document so there isn't any reason why it can't be posted publicly. Further, the PACER policies don't prohibit distributing or reposting information.

It is a four page document, and I am not aware of any way to post it publicly like a file attachment as TUG limits attachments to 100kb, and the document is 221kb.

You would like me to cut and paste it into multiple posts?

[T_R_Oglodyte]

Originally Posted by ecwinch

It is a four page document, and I am not aware of any way to post it publicly like a file attachment as TUG limits attachments to 100kb, and the document is 221kb.

You would like me to cut and paste it into multiple posts?

If the file format allows you to copy-and-paste text that's what I would do.

[TUGBrian]

email me the letter and ill host it for you for public download

tugadmin@tug2.net

[ecwinch]

Originally Posted by TUGBrian

email me the letter and ill host it for you for public download

tugadmin@tug2.net

Copy sent by e-mail.

[ecwinch]

This is the Plaintiffs Attorney's letter filed on PACER regarding the objector's scheduled to appear at the fairness hearing held on June 16, 2009.

http://tug2.net/RCI/RCILetter.pdf

TUG has been kind enough to host this PDF file.

[T_R_Oglodyte]

It's an interesting argument. In essence, his argument is that notice was clearly adequate because had those people not received adequate notice they wouldn't have registered objections.

Under that logic there can't be any such thing as inadequate notice. Case A: no objections received. Ipso facto, notice was adequate because no one objected to the notice provided. Case B: objections received. The objectors wouldn't have objected if they hadn't received notice. Ergo notice was clearly adequate.

[TUGBrian]

posted at the request of susan collins:

Hon. Peter G. Sheridan, U. S. D. J.
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
Clarkson Fisher Court House
402 East State Street
Trenton, NJ 08608

RE: In re Resort Condominiums International. LLC
Civil Action No. 06-cv-1222 (PGS)


Dear Judge Sheridan:

In your recent ruling requiring the parties to confer and submit a more conspicuous and prominent Notice, no mention was made requiring the parties to confer with the Objectors. However, as you are aware, the Objectors have grave concerns regarding the adequacy and clarity of the prior Notice and ask the Court’s indulgence in allowing us to speak to this issue. For judicial convenience, the Objectors who were present at the Fairness Hearing have agreed that I will speak on behalf of myself, the other Objectors, and the members of the organizations they represent.

FORM OF NOTICE

The Notice should contain a summary, such as the one attached, which was prepared by Ray Jacobs, the editor of TimeSharing Today. advising members of the terms of the proposed settlement. Inclusion of a summary of the proposed settlement terms is absolutely essential to enable the RCI membership to make an informed decision.

The new Notice should also clearly provide an opportunity for members to choose to either object or to opt out of the proposed settlement, with specific instructions on how to do so contained within the pages of the Notice, rather than requiring members to make a telephone call or visit a website to learn how to do so.

The new Notice should also provide a form allowing members to request the various settlement benefits, rather than requiring them to visit a website or to make a telephone call to request such a form. Inclusion of forms to request benefits is typical of first-class Notice mailings, and should not be excluded just because the Notice might be published within a magazine. Certainly the printing and mailing costs would be manageable.

The new Notice should be in the type size and font in which RCI’s magazine articles are typically printed, rather than in the fine print used in the Terms and Conditions.

METHOD OF NOTICE:

The Court did not ask for proposals on the method of new Notice to be sent to RCI Members, but obviously the issue will need to be addressed. The Objectors therefore propose that Notice be sent via each of the multi-media methods that RCI uses to advertise its services, to wit:
1. Via recorded telephone message to be included with the menu of telephone options one selects from when one calls RCI’s main telephone number to speak to a representative, make a reservation, make a deposit, rent a car, renew membership, book a cruise, make travel plans, etc. One listens first to standard messages that include what I would consider RCI’s advertisements of itself, and to a menu of options. The last item on the menu is to press “0" to speak to an RCI representative. I am asking the Court to require RCI to include an option to allow members to obtain information on the RCI Weeks Class Action Settlement, which option should be given before the option to speak to a representative, and to include an initial request to “please listen carefully before making your selection, as our menu of options has changed.”

2. Via prominent placement on the RCI website homepage, with the link to be visible without scrolling up or down on the initial screen. Also, since most members ignore the homepage except to log in, the link should also be available after members log in. Currently, the link is only available on the homepage, but is not visible within the automatic screen without scrolling down. Once a member logs in, the link is no longer available. RCI has many advertisements on the homepage and other pages available after a member logs in, many of which flash (that is, change color and content) to gain the user’s attention. The Notice of the settlement should be equally prominent.

Once a member links to the RCI Settlement Notice and documents, there should be separate links to various parts of the settlement, so that a member can print out the actual 38-page proposed settlement without having to print 281 pages, which is currently the case. There should be consistency regarding the procedures for objecting or opting out, also downloadable on a separate, prominent link.

3. Via direct mail. If RCI did not feel that direct mail was an important method of getting the members’ attention, it would not send the high number of direct mailings to members that it does. These direct mail solicitations include encouragements to deposit time, make vacations, use rental inventory, and most recently a rather curious mailing with a detachable “coupon” to obtain a guest certificate. This “coupon” was purportedly redeemable for a guest certificate, but the member was nevertheless required to pay the usual full price to obtain the certificate. When asked about this curious mailing, RCI Vacation Guides explained it as a “way to inform members who may not be aware of the availability of guest certificates, that there is such an option.” Since guest certificates have been available for many years, and the option to purchase one is prominently available upon the booking of any exchange or rental vacation on the RCI website, and since their existence and use is promoted on recorded messages when on hold waiting to speak to an RCI representative, and since mail and email messages are sent to members advise or remind members of their availability, it appears that RCI does not actually consider these methods sufficient to advise its members of the existence of these “guest certificates” absent a direct mailing. Therefore, I propose that RCI has in effect conceded that a direct mailing is necessary to keep members informed, and that therefore a direct mailing of the Weeks class action settlement should be required.

4. Via email. Defendant’s lead attorney stated to the Court that RCI has only 500,000 email addresses for its members, but RCI nevertheless uses this method as a frequent tool to communicate various messages to members. This is an inexpensive form of communication, and should be used to supplement any and every other form of Notice used, as it is of nominal cost and is very effective for a certain group of RCI members. Since, by definition, RCI members are travelers, this allows members who are away from home to access information in a timely manner.

5. Via Endless Vacations magazine. From the papers submitted by Defendant’s attorney, publishing a notice in Endless Vacation magazine appears to be RCI’s choice. However, the previous Notice published therein was difficult to find, even for those who were aware that it was published in the magazine. Interestingly, Mr. Sager included a letter defending the use of Endless Vacation magazine from the CEO of RCI, saying that members rated the magazine as “5 or higher” on a scale of 1 - to 10. However, on a scale consisting of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, a “5" is in the lower half of the ratings.

That being said, since it is likely that RCI will push for the notice to be published in the magazine in lieu of direct mailing, the following restrictions should be imposed so as not to allow the notice to be once again buried:

A. The words “RCI Class Action Settlement” should be emblazoned on the cover of Endless Vacation Magazine, in a size similar to the lettering and contrast coloring use to announce the lead articles in the May/June and the July/August issues of Endless Vacation magazine.

B. In the table of contents of the March/April issue, the notice of the settlement was not prominent, displayed instead in a box at the bottom of the left-hand column. The new Notice should be listed at the top of the column in type size not smaller than the typical size of the word “departments.”

C. The article itself should no smaller, and in the same type style as the typical articles are published.

D. There should be a separately-printed form within the magazine for people to remove and fill out to select and obtain the settlement benefits, instead of requiring members to call another number, or search the website.

E. There should be a detachable postcard inserted on the same page as the settlement notice, allowing members to check boxes to obtain additional documents, such as the full text of the RCI settlement, instead of requiring them to call a telephone number. (The typical issue of Endless Vacations has at least one, and usually more, such postcards.)

F. There should be separate, printed instructions on how to opt out of the settlement or how to object to the settlement (preferably with a form printed for each).

Lastly, I would like to bring to the Court’s attention the fact that, despite the Court’s instructions, I never received a copy of Mr. Sager’s letter to the Court regarding the adequacy of notice from Mr. Sager. I did eventually get a copy from Mr. Altshuler, as a copy had been sent to him via overnight delivery. My name was included under “courtesy copies” with the information that a copy was being sent to me via overnight delivery, but although I got a copy of Mr. Berman’s letter via that method, I did not receive a copy of Mr. Sager’s letter. I am sure this was an oversight, but nevertheless I am requesting that another method of viewing documents be made available to me.

I understand that the Court has an electronic case filing system to which I do not have access, and I am requesting access to that system, and to be notified of upcoming court appearances, including settlement conferences. If this would require my being admitted to this Court for this case, I will submit the necessary paperwork. I have been in communication with the other Objectors who spoke in Court, and we have agreed that, if the Court grants my request, I would be the one to make communications with the Court and to keep them informed of developments, submissions, and court dates.

I understand that is an unusual request, but I believe these are unusual circumstances.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to the Court’s response.

Respectfully. Susan B. Collins

[TUGBrian]

also posted at the request of susan collins

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED RCI SETTLEMENT TERMS

Priority for exchanges
For a period of two years commencing no later than August 31, 2010, all weeks deposited will be used to satisfy active exchange requests pending at the time of deposit, subject to Trading Power criteria.
During the two year period, each week deposited more than one year in advance of the starting date of the week shall, for a period of 31 days from date of deposit, be available exclusively for exchange and not for any other purpose including rental. After this 31-day period, and at any time for weeks deposited within one year of the starting date of the week, deposited weeks can be used for other purposes, including rental.


Trading Power
Prior to a Member’s actual deposit of a week, RCI will disclose the Trading Power for that week, so long as the request for disclosure is made more than 14 days and less than two years prior to the starting date of the week.
Provided a Member submits to RCI the information that would be required for a deposit, RCI will disclose all currently available inventory for which the Member’s week has sufficient Trading Power.
These disclosures will be made for a period of two years beginning no later than August 31, 2010. RCI is not required to disclose its methodology for calculating Trading Power.

Balancing deposits and rentals
On a calendar year basis, the aggregate quantity of Member-deposited weeks which are rented by RCI must be less that the aggregate quantity of weeks deposited by RCI or others.

Disclosure of activity
For the calendar year 2008 and at least two years thereafter, RCI will make available to Members statistical information regarding activity in the Weeks Exchange Programs.

Other benefits
Certain other benefits of the settlement are available only to qualified Members upon submission of a claim form, Claim forms must be filed prior to April 6, 2009. (A claim form is available at www.tstoday.com/claimform.pdf)
Members who had deposited weeks with starting dates between January 1, 2000 and August 31, 2008, who paid to extend the exchange period for at least six months and never got an exchange despite having an active exchange request pending, will receive a $30 credit towards the Member’s next exchange.
In addition, Members may choose one benefit from among the following:
• For a period of two years after the settlement is approved by the court, a Member can search available inventory before making a deposit for exchange.
• Two months extension of membership.
• For Members whose membership expires more than two years after the settlement is approved, a $20 credit towards membership renewal or an exchange.
• Prorated refund of membership fee is a Member elects to terminate membership and a full refund of fees paid for pending exchange requests.
• One free night’s stay at any RCI rental added to a rental of at least one night, to be reserved within one year.
• A $100 credit towards the purchase of each cabin (up to four) on a cruise offered by RCI, to be booked within one year.

[Emily]

Maybe it is the way I see the RCI settlement but it seems to me more like a marketing scheme to enhance business rather than some type of settlement.

Most of the settlement items generate extra monies for RCI with a few exceptions.

I'm missing the settlement?

[apopo]

Thank you for your work and for letting us know about this. We often do not even read the magazine when it comes unless we see something on the cover that catches our eye. We haven't been very happy with RCI for a long time.

[Carolinian]

I believe that the ''plaintiffs attorneys'' have a huge conflict of interest and perhaps an ethics complaint against them may be in order. Maybe we need the address of the State Bar to address such an ethics complaint to. They are totally selling out the interest of their clients.

Also what about the lead plaintiffs? One of them, Aldo, used to post here and on other timeshare boards and is clearly personally committed to reform. I wonder if he could be gotten to denounce the sellout by these attorneys?

I appreciate all you are doing. Please also post this info at www.timeshareforums.com and www.timesharetalk.co.uk to reach others who may not read it here.

If wonder if any resort HOA's would have the guts to take a stand.

Originally Posted by Susan2

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jennie]

Originally Posted by Carolinian

I wonder if any resort HOA's would have the guts to take a stand.

I have already spoken with officials at two of the smaller resorts where we own timeshare weeks. Each enthusiastically expressed willingness to support whatever efforts are devised to inform owners of the issues, and the actions they can take to try to bring about a better resolution of the problems.

They seem to have their owners best interests at heart and want to see them have better results when they choose to deposit a week and/or seek a comparable exchange.

For purely selfish reasons, the resorts would rather have timeshare owners occupy the units because they tend to be mature, responsible people who understand and respect the rules, and leave the unit in better condition than a group of "unknown quantities" renters sent in by RCI (e.g unruly "party-hearty teens or college students without proper adult supervison, family groups that exceed the maximum number of occupants permitted, people who do not wash the dishes or take out the trash, steal towels. etc...). The latter group requires more security staff, more time spent billing guests for damages and then fighting credit card disputes, and sometimes fear of malicious retaliation.

TUGgers could print out information about the RCI class action lawsuit and distribute it to other owners when they are staying at a resort. Hopefully they may be allowed to leave copies at the Front Desk.

Once the Court rules on the method(s) of providing better notification to RCI members of the proposed terms of the settlement, and once the next court date is set, we can work together on many fronts to "get the word out" and encourage members to express their views to the Judge.

We plan to develop optional "fill in the blanks" forms for people who might not otherwise take the time or effort to compose personal messages, while encouraging folks to write personal messages if at all possible (because these are almost always read and considered).

We will determine the best way or ways to convey the messages to the Court e.g. through Timesharing Today Magazine staff, Susan Collins, TUG, and/or directly from each owner via regular mail or Email.

We have been complaining for years about the brazen way in which RCI "steals" space-banked weeks to sell to the general non-timeshare owner public, thus making these weeks unavailable to RCI members to receive as exchanges. We finally have a way to protest this accelerating activity and seek legal intervention to prevent or lessen it. We did not buy our weeks and pay all the maintenance fees, real estate taxes, Special Assessments, and RCI member fees to enrich RCI's bottom line.

If RCI cannot make a decent profit on the fees paid by almost 3,000,000 members, incluing RCI Points members, (many of whom own multiple weeks) without renting weeks to the general public, then they should sell the business to a company that can do so.

We may be able to get media coverage in some major newspapers. I have some contacts in the field who may be interested in assisting in this endeavor.

[Tia]

Originally Posted by Jennie

...If RCI cannot make a decent profit on the fees paid by almost 3,000,000 members, incluing RCI Points members, (many of whom own multiple weeks) without renting weeks to the general public, then they should sell the business to a company that can do so. ...

Trouble is businesses want to not just make a profit but an obscene one, bigger is better, and anyway they can do it seems to be the order of the day.

[Carolinian]

We need to get this word out as far as possible. I have posted links to this thread on Timeshare Forums and Timeshare Talk (UK site). RCI members need to be educated to opt out of the lawsuit rather than accepting their stupid and insulting trinkets. Even better, file your own objections next time around and demand meaningful injunctive relief, and NO PAY to these lawyers unless they achieve meaningful injunctive relief.

[BMWguynw]

Reading this fascinating thread makes me wonder whether Wyndham owning RCI is a factor in all this? If they own or manage the timeshares, and they own the company that exchanges and rents timeshares, and they make even more money directly renting timeshares, where does their conflict of interest end?

I'm starting to feel like a sheep.

Dave

[timeos2]

Originally Posted by Carolinian

I believe that the ''plaintiffs attorneys'' have a huge conflict of interest and perhaps an ethics complaint against them may be in order. Maybe we need the address of the State Bar to address such an ethics complaint to. They are totally selling out the interest of their clients.
.

Huh? Since this bogus suit was filed & some of us kept saying it was a lawyers play only unlikely to give any benefit to owners you and a few others kept saying "This group isn't the usual shysters - they are in it for the common owner".

So what happened - did that group suddenly sell out to a bunch of shysters or did your opinion change when, as predicted, they showed exactly why they took the case. Millions of $ and nothing else. Exactly as predicted from the first breathless post touting the great fall of evil RCI's procedures. Not what you wanted so now its the lawyers fault? Give us a break. That's all anyone could ever expect. Read the reply to the protests. They meet the bare minimum to the letter of the law & everything else is ignored.

That's how the law works. Short, sweet and unlikely to entertain " they are doing bad" type anecdotal complaints when all the complainant has to do is stop giving them the product. Problem solved. That's what courts like. Short simple self protection.

[Carolinian]

The issues are not bogus, but the lawyers involved turned out to be, in spite of one Tugger's info who knew one of the lawyer and said he was the real deal, a timesharer himself who was committed to reform of RCI's malpractices.
TUGS own Aldo was one of the lead plaintiffs, and he is certainly no RCI ringer.

Of course, I have always taken the position that a consumer protection lawsuit by a state Attorney General was the best bet, but had kept my fingers crossed that the info on some of those involved in the class action was real.

I wish Aldo would come on and try to explain the sellout.

Originally Posted by timeos2

Huh? Since this bogus suit was filed & some of us kept saying it was a lawyers play only unlikely to give any benefit to owners you and a few others kept saying "This group isn't the usual shysters - they are in it for the common owner".

So what happened - did that group suddenly sell out to a bunch of shysters or did your opinion change when, as predicted, they showed exactly why they took the case. Millions of $ and nothing else. Exactly as predicted from the first breathless post touting the great fall of evil RCI's procedures. Not what you wanted so now its the lawyers fault? Give us a break. That's all anyone could ever expect. Read the reply to the protests. They meet the bare minimum to the letter of the law & everything else is ignored.

That's how the law works. Short, sweet and unlikely to entertain " they are doing bad" type anecdotal complaints when all the complainant has to do is stop giving them the product. Problem solved. That's what courts like. Short simple self protection.

[Susan2]

Attorney Disclaimer Ordered by the United States District Court:

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

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

I'm reading the posts on this thread, and I am very pleased that so many people care. Justice is almost never done when those who are treated unjustly don't demand it.

Unfortunately, I can't say that justice is always done (or even done most of the time) when those who are treated unjustly DO demand it. But it's a better shot.

Earlier today, I talked to the Judge's law clerk to find out whether the judge had reviewed and considered my letter (with the attachment summarizing the terms of the proposed settlement). Both were posted for me by Brian.

After speaking with the law clerk, I decided to request appointment as "lead counsel for the objectors." This is apparently done sometimes in class actions suits. I am an attorney (admitted in New York and Hawaii), but I don't do class action suits. (Or at least I haven't so far!) But I do know timeshares, and I do know RCI, and I can recognize when RCI is spinning tales. I was told by one fellow objector that he was told by a person who shall remain nameless that "RCI has to rent out deposited weeks to cover their expenses of paying maintenance fees for which RCI is liable when a member deposits a week but doesn't pay the maintenance fees." (Or words to that effect.) What a scream! Like RCI would do that!! What a wonderful benefit fo the resorts: No more delinquent accounts. Just deposit the weeks and RCI will pay the maintenance fees! (As if!)

Anyhow, I hope the judge lets another voice in to the discussions. I'll keep my fingers crossed!

[rickandcindy23]

Hey, I didn't know RCI would pay my maintenance fees. That is hilarious, absolutely a lie.

[Carolinian]

Thank you, Susan! You are a true timeshare hero!

One question. I saw a discovery schedule some time ago. Is it correct that no discovery on the merits of the case had even been started at the time this ''settlement'' was agreed to, and that only discovery on the issue of class certification had been done? It is absolutely incredible if that is so that any attorney would agree to a settlement without doing that discovery.

Originally Posted by Susan2

I'm reading the posts on this thread, and I am very pleased that so many people care. Justice is almost never done when those who are treated unjustly don't demand it.

Unfortunately, I can't say that justice is always done (or even done most of the time) when those who are treated unjustly DO demand it. But it's a better shot.

Earlier today, I talked to the Judge's law clerk to find out whether the judge had reviewed and considered my letter (with the attachment summarizing the terms of the proposed settlement). Both were posted for me by Brian.

After speaking with the law clerk, I decided to request appointment as "lead counsel for the objectors." This is apparently done sometimes in class actions suits. I am an attorney (admitted in New York and Hawaii), but I don't do class action suits. (Or at least I haven't so far!) But I do know timeshares, and I do know RCI, and I can recognize when RCI is spinning tales. I was told by one fellow objector that he was told by a person who shall remain nameless that "RCI has to rent out deposited weeks to cover their expenses of paying maintenance fees for which RCI is liable when a member deposits a week but doesn't pay the maintenance fees." (Or words to that effect.) What a scream! Like RCI would do that!! What a wonderful benefit fo the resorts: No more delinquent accounts. Just deposit the weeks and RCI will pay the maintenance fees! (As if!)

Anyhow, I hope the judge lets another voice in to the discussions. I'll keep my fingers crossed!

[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.

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

That's great, Jennie! Better luck than I've had. At one resort, I talked to the manager, who told me that RCI certainly should have the right to rent deposits. (Such a shame. It's a small resort, and I don't think she really understands. I'll try the board members instead, eventually.) At another resort, I did not get a definite answer to my request that they include an article about the settlement in the next newsletter.

Maybe if everyone who regularly reads this thread asks their owners' associations to help disseminate information, we can really get something going!

Susan