First, thanks ocjohn for working with me to try to understand what I believe is deliberately circuitous and obscure language in the Proposed Amendment document. ILG's lawyers certainly did NOT want to make it easy for HKB owners to understand what the heck they're supposed to voting on.
In any case, I believe your assertion that the right of ownership HKB owners currently have is restored in Section 3.2 is not correct. Here's my interpretation: the specific language states "[In the event the Resort Agreement is terminated] (my abbreviation of the actual language), the owner of each timeshare interest, other than a Floating timeshare interest, shall retain the exclusive right to reserve and use a Fixed week in a resort unit of the same resort unit type (my emphasis) in which the timeshare interest is owned."
This is different from a traditional Fixed Week ownership. At the two resorts I own in--Highlands Inn and Pinon Pointe--I not only own the Fixed week (which the above language provides for), but I also own the exact unit I purchased (which the above language does not provide for). If I were an owner at HKB, I would be pretty unhappy knowing that I will still get a higher floor 2BR unit (i.e. the same unit type), but not the specific unit I had bought with the specific view I had purchased.
Maybe HKB's ownership rights are different in the first place. Maybe a guaranteed unit is not part of the current Fixed Week ownership there, as it is at other Hyatt properties. If that's the case, then I stand corrected. But if HKB's Fixed Week ownership is the same as other properties, then Section 3.2 restores only the time of year and unit type, but not the specific actual unit.