Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[texanlawyer]

I'm speaking with higher ups (legal and compliance) on this 3/1. I spoke with Quality Assurance leaders and they said 100% without a doubt Disney intends to enforce that contracts to be grand fathered in would have had to been submitted for ROFR before 1/19/2019. I'm mainly speaking with someone about the sentence structure on how it is up to interpretation to gauge their answer. But after the 1st I'm assuming that is the final line. I didn't really need the call since I was told their interpretation but they suggested I express my concern on the language.

That's interesting. I think that the reading that people in this thread and in the lawsuit thread is correct, but I'm curious about the response from legal and compliance. If Disney is set on enforcing their reading, then our interpretation doesn't matter unless someone wants to fight them on it, which doesn't seem worth the effort. I got a contract through ROFR right before the deadline, so I'm not really affected unless I decide to get another little add-on contract through resale. Honestly, if I was in their position, I would probably just change the language now to remove any ambiguity, even if that meant that everyone who bought before the language change was grandfathered in. That would avoid the risk of having a fight later over the language that results in even more people being able to use resale points at Riviera.

 

[crvetter]

That's interesting. I think that the reading that people in this thread and in the lawsuit thread is correct, but I'm curious about the response from legal and compliance. If Disney is set on enforcing their reading, then our interpretation doesn't matter unless someone wants to fight them on it, which doesn't seem worth the effort. I got a contract through ROFR right before the deadline, so I'm not really affected unless I decide to get another little add-on contract through resale. Honestly, if I was in their position, I would probably just change the language now to remove any ambiguity, even if that meant that everyone who bought before the language change was grandfathered in. That would avoid the risk of having a fight later over the language that results in even more people being able to use resale points at Riviera.

I think if they change the language soon they would be okay because they released their interpretation of the language clear off the bat. I personally agree with everyone's reading on the boards which is why I contacted them. I also realized that a single comma in the sentence would change the meaning significantly.

So I expect them to do nothing (since they already said their interpretation) or fix the grammar and push it through. I don't think we will see any additional timeline for grand fathering points because of this. Their message has always been consistent on this issue (too new to have been muddied up through the years).

 

[freediverdude]

Yea I don't see DVC saying that they will let a grandfathered contract be sold once and keep the benefit but then lose it on the second resale, it would get too confusing, and that's not how previous resale benefits worked with grandfathering like the 2011 one. So I think they will just say "this is how we interpret it" and stick with it, and/or quietly put the comma in there when issuing new ones.

 

[texanlawyer]

I have no problem with them quietly inserting the comma. My free advice to Disney is that I would just do it sooner rather than later if I was in their position. The comma completely changes the reading of the section and it's more consistent with the messaging they gave back in January regarding the new resale restrictions.

I'm glad that I added on when I did, but the new resale restrictions and the attempted change to the 2020 point charts does make some of the pixie dust fall off...

 

[ziravan]

That's interesting. I think that the reading that people in this thread and in the lawsuit thread is correct, but I'm curious about the response from legal and compliance. If Disney is set on enforcing their reading, then our interpretation doesn't matter unless someone wants to fight them on it, which doesn't seem worth the effort. I got a contract through ROFR right before the deadline, so I'm not really affected unless I decide to get another little add-on contract through resale. Honestly, if I was in their position, I would probably just change the language now to remove any ambiguity, even if that meant that everyone who bought before the language change was grandfathered in. That would avoid the risk of having a fight later over the language that results in even more people being able to use resale points at Riviera.

It’ll be worth the effort as a class action and resellers have just the incentive - and clientele - to make that happen.

If they don’t change it, they almost certainly will be defending it before the bar.

Add the comma, change the effective date by a month and a half...

Or fight it for two years and be forced to grandfather everybody over the next two years after they lose.

 

[LAX]

It’ll be worth the effort as a class action and resellers have just the incentive - and clientele - to make that happen.

If they don’t change it, they almost certainly will be defending it before the bar.

Add the comma, change the effective date by a month and a half...

Or fight it for two years and be forced to grandfather everybody over the next two years after they lose.

If it's just a matter of a "missing" comma, can't DVD just claim "typographic error" and fix it without changing any effective date?

LAX

 

[ziravan]

If it's just a matter of a "missing" comma, can't DVD just claim "typographic error" and fix it without changing any effective date?

LAX

No.

The POS has to be approved by a regulatory agency and it’s not just a comma, it’s the meaning of the sentence.

They can’t substantively change the meaning of the document without getting it reapproved.

And even if they did change it NOW, if I bought a contract and sent it to ROFR on Jan 20, it’d be darned worth a letter on somebody’s nice legal letterhead explaining how the better part of valor and saving all of us tens of thousands in legal fees would be to go ahead and make one of them exceptions that the new POS allows.

 

[TexasChick123]

What a bunch of headaches they’ve created for themselves. First with the point reallocation and now this. It just goes to show that we shouldn’t just sit idly by and let them do whatever they want. I’ve reached out to them as have others about this. I cannot imagine why they wouldn’t fix the sentence and state a new effective date. That just seems hard-headed and pompous on their part to refuse to change it. “If” the language in the POS will get challenged isn’t the question. “By how many” and “when” is the question.

 

[Madame]

What a bunch of headaches they’ve created for themselves. First with the point reallocation and now this. It just goes to show that we shouldn’t just sit idly by and let them do whatever they want. I’ve reached out to them as have others about this. I cannot imagine why they wouldn’t fix the sentence and state a new effective date. That just seems hard-headed and pompous on their part to refuse to change it. “If” the language in the POS will get challenged isn’t the question. “By how many” and “when” is the question.

They’re rarely challenged & have become incredibly blasé and arrogant.

 

[TexasChick123]

They’re rarely challenged & have become incredibly blasé and arrogant.

Thank you for using the word “arrogant”. I’m dealing with a sick kid this morning and haven’t finished my coffee, so I am not firing on all cylinders. I couldn’t think of that word to save my life. “Pompous” was the closest I got. Haha.

 

[ziravan]

I don’t even think they need to formally change the date. Leave it 1/19/19.

But they DO need to grant every contract between 1/19/19 and when they fix it a waiver.

The new POS allows them to make exceptions so the IT on it must be being made with the fact in mind that SOME post 1/19/19 contracts will be excepted/waived. The mechanism already exists to fix it without publicly admitting defeat.

Sure, there’ll be internet chatter about being granted an exception, but that’s not the same as creating confusion with a formal new date.

 

[crvetter]

I don’t even think they need to formally change the date. Leave it 1/19/19.

But they DO need to grant every contract between 1/19/19 and when they fix it a waiver.

The new POS allows them to make exceptions so the IT on it must be being made with the fact in mind that SOME post 1/19/19 contracts will be excepted/waived. The mechanism already exists to fix it without publicly admitting defeat.

Sure, there’ll be internet chatter about being granted an exception, but that’s not the same as creating confusion with a formal new date.

I wonder what Yvonne will tell me about this in a week. I’ve already got a call scheduled on it with her.

 

[ziravan]

My guess is that they’ll do something hybrid, they’ll make the change and create a policy of exempting anybody who makes a fuss about it.

If you just accept the restrictions, we win. If you speak up, we’ll grandfather you and we still win because we won’t have to litigate the issue.

The real issue then is keeping up with what date the POS goes back to regulatory agency for reapproval or what date the comma gets added. Because under this scenario, that won’t be made public.

 

[ziravan]

The last approval date for the multi-site POS was 12/18/18.

That’s from myfloridalicense.com

Florida Dept of Business and Professional Regulation.

 

[ziravan]

Until they officially update the multi-site POS with Florida DBPR, it says what it says now.

 

[ziravan]

If I bought between 1/19/19 and today, I'd shoot off a letter that went something like this:

Disney Vacation Club
Attn: Legal
1390 Celebration Blvd
Celebration, FL 34747

Minnie Doe
123 Main St
Anytown, US 12345

Feb 22, 2019

Re: Multi-site POS dated 1/19/19

Dear DVC,

I purchased a resale contract that went to right of first refusal (ROFR) on January 25, 2019 and cleared ROFR on Feb 2, 2019 (cite contract number here).

I am aware that DVC has implemented new restrictions effective 1/19/19 and that new purchasers who bought and sent a resale contract to ROFR by 1/19/19 are grandfathered per DVC public statements made on the DVC website.

On page 2 of the Multisite Public Offering Statement (MS POS) dated 1/19/19, under Exhibit 6, Paragraph 2, it says, “Effective January 19, 2019, Club Members at all other DVC Resorts, including any future DVC Resorts, who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort other than Riviera Resort, including at any future DVC Resort, from a third party other than directly from DVD, or other seller approved by DVD, may not convert the Vacation Points related to the Ownership Interest from the other DVC Resort to DVC Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes at Riviera Resort through the DVC Reservation component. Purchasers who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort, other than Riviera Resort, from a Club Member who owned the Ownership Interest prior to January 19, 2019, are excluded from the prohibition set forth in paragraph 2.”

Accordingly, I purchased my contract “from a Club Member who owned the Ownership Interest prior to January 19, 2019”. That being the case, I am excluded, under the terms of the MS POS, from the prohibitions set forth above.

It is my understanding that you likely intended to restrict all resale members who purchased and sent their contracts to ROFR after 1/19/19. But, that is not how it is stated in the MS POS.

The MS POS unambiguously states that since I purchased my Ownership Interest from a Club Member who owned it prior to January 19, 2019, that the exclusion to the prohibition extends to me. Regardless your intent, the wording of the MS POS is unequivocal.

At this point, I am asking for a clear statement from you regarding my rights under Exhibit 6, Paragraph 2 of the 1/19/19 MS POS. I am specifically requesting that you acknowledge my right to exclusion from the prohibitions set out in Exhibit 6, Paragraph 2 of the MS POS as it was written at the time of my purchase; I am specifically requesting a formal acknowledgement that I am "grandfathered”.

Thank you for your time,



Minnie Doe

 

[Katie L]

I purchased a resale contract that went to right of first refusal (ROFR) on January 25, 2019 and cleared ROFR on Feb 2, 2019 (cite contract number here).

Thank you for your time,



Minnie Doe

I love this - but you oughta look at the ROFR's these days. People are still waiting from January 14. They haven't even begun getting to those submitted after the date.

 

[adais]

I love this - but you oughta look at the ROFR's these days. People are still waiting from January 14. They haven't even begun getting to those submitted after the date.

someone got their pass today they submitted jan24

 

[Katie L]

someone got their pass today they submitted jan24

Yep, I saw that one! And they passed. Disney seems like they’re taking all the ones from the mass hysteria. So that guy/gal should take the advice on the letter. I love it!

 

[Wakey]

If I bought between 1/19/19 and today, I'd shoot off a letter that went something like this:

Disney Vacation Club
Attn: Legal
1390 Celebration Blvd
Celebration, FL 34747

Minnie Doe
123 Main St
Anytown, US 12345

Feb 22, 2019

Re: Multi-site POS dated 1/19/19

Dear DVC,

I purchased a resale contract that went to right of first refusal (ROFR) on January 25, 2019 and cleared ROFR on Feb 2, 2019 (cite contract number here).

I am aware that DVC has implemented new restrictions effective 1/19/19 and that new purchasers who bought and sent a resale contract to ROFR by 1/19/19 are grandfathered per DVC public statements made on the DVC website.

On page 2 of the Multisite Public Offering Statement (MS POS) dated 1/19/19, under Exhibit 6, Paragraph 2, it says, “Effective January 19, 2019, Club Members at all other DVC Resorts, including any future DVC Resorts, who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort other than Riviera Resort, including at any future DVC Resort, from a third party other than directly from DVD, or other seller approved by DVD, may not convert the Vacation Points related to the Ownership Interest from the other DVC Resort to DVC Vacation Points to reserve Vacation Homes at Riviera Resort through the DVC Reservation component. Purchasers who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort, other than Riviera Resort, from a Club Member who owned the Ownership Interest prior to January 19, 2019, are excluded from the prohibition set forth in paragraph 2.”

Accordingly, I purchased my contract “from a Club Member who owned the Ownership Interest prior to January 19, 2019”. That being the case, I am excluded, under the terms of the MS POS, from the prohibitions set forth above.

It is my understanding that you likely intended to restrict all resale members who purchased and sent their contracts to ROFR after 1/19/19. But, that is not how it is stated in the MS POS.

The MS POS unambiguously states that since I purchased my Ownership Interest from a Club Member who owned it prior to January 19, 2019, that the exclusion to the prohibition extends to me. Regardless your intent, the wording of the MS POS is unequivocal.

At this point, I am asking for a clear statement from you regarding my rights under Exhibit 6, Paragraph 2 of the 1/19/19 MS POS. I am specifically requesting that you acknowledge my right to exclusion from the prohibitions set out in Exhibit 6, Paragraph 2 of the MS POS as it was written at the time of my purchase; I am specifically requesting a formal acknowledgement that I am "grandfathered”.

Thank you for your time,



Minnie Doe

Good idea, but legally I’d leave out anything suggesting ‘it is my understanding’ - that is the ammunition they need to say you understood what the wording was meant to say.