Multi-Site POS Revision Dated 01/19/19

[crvetter]

I think it should just say this: “Purchasers who purchase an Ownership Interest at any DVC Resort, prior to January 19, 2019, are excluded from the prohibition set forth in this Paragraph 2.” I’m agreeing with @crvetter on this one. I agree with both of you that they’re trying so hard to make it about Riviera, but with that being the main focus, the meaning was lost. The wording, as it currently stands, is downright wrong. They can deny this until they are blue in the face, but it’s wrong. What it says is that if you buy from any owner who purchased prior to 1/19, then the restrictions don’t apply to you. They need to change it, put a new effective date, and move on if that’s not their intent. As I keep saying, to refuse to change the wording is just shortsighted and opening them up to legal action in the future.

I followed up by e-mail to my calls today to show them explicitly how a single missing comma has led to a significant change in the interpretation of their sentence. I also offered them the suggestion that they reduce the sentence to be clearer. Also asked for it to go directly to "Club Management, Regulatory Affairs and Technology Planning and Integration" since they would likely be the appropriate people to look at this issue.

 

[crvetter]

I am kind of way beyond the point where I concluded the clause means what it says it means. I am at the stage now wondering whether Holland & Knight, DVD's long time timeshare counsel, still has a job.

All over what might be a comma, such a shame. lol

 

[crvetter]

Also credit is due where it is due @ScubaCat. I see exactly what they are saying know and they called it right, IMO. But I think DVC really needs to amend this.

https://www.disboards.com/threads/w...20-reallocation.3726101/page-82#post-60262001

 

[TexasChick123]

I am kind of way beyond the point where I concluded the clause means what it says it means. I am at the stage now wondering whether Holland & Knight, DVD's long time timeshare counsel, still has a job.

My sneaking suspicion is that they, like everyone else right now, are trying to cut costs to increase profits and (at best) simply had their in-house counsel review what they, DVD, drafted. I sincerely doubt some high ranking attorney/partner at a large firm with other partners and an entire staff of junior attorneys at his disposal to review such provisions just missed it. I have worked at a large national firm before, and when I tell you we scrutinized over every little word, I mean it. That's not to say that attorneys don't make mistakes, we do. However, this should've been flagged by the first review of the provisions let alone all the subsequent reviews things like this undergo. DVD would be a big client, and large law firms would make sure that everything was good to go and have at least one partner assigned to the client. Another problem is that a lot of companies put out language like this, and then, after publishing it, they have their attorneys review it and tell them to defend it. Don't be so quick to blame the lawyers on this one. I'm honestly not just saying that because I am one. Look at the point reallocation debacle...

 

[mustinjourney]

My sneaking suspicion is that they, like everyone else right now, are trying to cut costs to increase profits and (at best) simply had their in-house counsel review what they, DVD, drafted. I sincerely doubt some high ranking attorney/partner at a large firm with other partners and an entire staff of junior attorneys at his disposal to review such provisions just missed it. I have worked at a large national firm before, and when I tell you we scrutinized over every little word, I mean it. That's not to say that attorneys don't make mistakes, we do. However, this should've been flagged by the first review of the provisions let alone all the subsequent reviews things like this undergo. DVD would be a big client, and large law firms would make sure that everything was good to go and have at least one partner assigned to the client. Another problem is that a lot of companies put out language like this, and then, after publishing it, they have their attorneys review it and tell them to defend it. Don't be so quick to blame the lawyers on this one. I'm honestly not just saying that because I am one. Look at the point reallocation debacle...

I was also guessing this might have been handled by in-house attorneys.

 

[CarolMN]

I am kind of way beyond the point where I concluded the clause means what it says it means. I am at the stage now wondering whether Holland & Knight, DVD's long time timeshare counsel, still has a job.

.

 

[Mumof4mice]

My sneaking suspicion is that they, like everyone else right now, are trying to cut costs to increase profits and (at best) simply had their in-house counsel review what they, DVD, drafted. I sincerely doubt some high ranking attorney/partner at a large firm with other partners and an entire staff of junior attorneys at his disposal to review such provisions just missed it. I have worked at a large national firm before, and when I tell you we scrutinized over every little word, I mean it. That's not to say that attorneys don't make mistakes, we do. However, this should've been flagged by the first review of the provisions let alone all the subsequent reviews things like this undergo. DVD would be a big client, and large law firms would make sure that everything was good to go and have at least one partner assigned to the client. Another problem is that a lot of companies put out language like this, and then, after publishing it, they have their attorneys review it and tell them to defend it. Don't be so quick to blame the lawyers on this one. I'm honestly not just saying that because I am one. Look at the point reallocation debacle...

In-house counsel is a different breed altogether.

Just look at:
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/12/11/apple-iphone-sales-banned-china-patent-dispute-qualcomm-says/

How the **** did Apple's in-house team miss that??

 

[DaveNan]

All over what might be a comma, such a shame. lol

Commas save lives...
Let's eat Grandma
Let's eat, Grandma

 

[mustinjourney]

In-house counsel is a different breed altogether.

Just look at:
https://www.hongkongfp.com/2018/12/11/apple-iphone-sales-banned-china-patent-dispute-qualcomm-says/

How the **** did Apple's in-house team miss that??

If you think apple relies on in-house counsel for legal advice regarding patent infringement, I’m not sure what to tell you. They have several big law firms handling their stuff.

 

[Mumof4mice]

If you think apple relies on in-house counsel for legal advice regarding patent infringement, I’m not sure what to tell you. They have several big law firms handling their stuff.

Was told by a friend in patent law they have both. Large legal firms familiar with local jurisdiction are engaged to work in concert with the in-house team. In theory it should have circumvented the costly debacle.

ETA:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/apple-has-army-of-over-500-lawyers-2016-3

The buck stops with the people on staff. Not external consultants hired to help them do their job.

 

[mustinjourney]

Was told by a friend in patent law they have both. Large legal firms familiar with local jurisdiction are engaged to work in concert with the in-house team. In theory it should have circumvented the costly debacle.

ETA:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.businessinsider.com/apple-has-army-of-over-500-lawyers-2016-3

Almost every company has both.

And speaking from personal experience, I’ve been both outside and in-house. Big money risks get outsourced.

And I do patent law, so this is my wheelhouse.

Not sure what you though apples attorneys could mitigate here, bc apple gets sued practically every single day. The number of patents covering cell phones is ridiculous. It’s more or less impossible to operate in that space without infringing something.

 

[Mumof4mice]

And speaking from personal experience, I’ve been both outside and in-house. Big money risks get outsourced.

And I do patent law, so this is my wheelhouse.

Ah, I see why you took offence.

I did quote the wrong link - copied the first link that Google brought up. Agree that one wasn't particularly shameful.

I was thinking of the iPhone trademark issues Apple had in China back in 2016. They should have bought out the small company that held the iPhone trademark. However they muddy the water or pass the blame, that was embarrassing for Apple's legal department.

Big money risks routinely get outsourced across multiple fields so 25 year old analysts can perform risk assessments signed off by higher-ups, and produce recommendations covered by their practice insurance.

 

[BWV Dreamin]

Just adding one additional point from the documents filed on the Riviera POS. They say the annual dues for operations and reserves at Riviera for 2019 will be $6.5478 per point and that does not include property taxes. That number indicates that once you add property taxes, the dues are likely to be higher than any other WDW resort. No one will actually pay that amount in 2019 because it will be pro-rated from time of sale or time Riviera can first be occupied by a member, whichever is later, but that portends very high dues for 2020.

Wow, just wow. We are so lucky to have several lawyers here on the DIS to provide such clarification.

 

[CarolMN]

Just adding one additional point from the documents filed on the Riviera POS. They say the annual dues for operations and reserves at Riviera for 2019 will be $6.5478 per point and that does not include property taxes. That number indicates that once you add property taxes, the dues are likely to be higher than any other WDW resort. No one will actually pay that amount in 2019 because it will be pro-rated from time of sale or time Riviera can first be occupied by a member, whichever is later, but that portends very high dues for 2020.

Here are the Dues (less property taxes to get it similar as above):

HHI: $8.1786
Aulani: $7.2461
Vero: $6.816
OKW: $5.9323
AKV: $5.8914
BRV: $5.8628
BWV: $5.6008
CCV: $5.5717
BCV: $5.4945
VGC: $5.2253
SSR: $5.089
PVB: $5.0353
VGF: $4.7131
BLT: $4.6966

So yeah it makes it the most expensive onsite (WDW) DVC hotel. Interesting to see what is really contributing to it's budget. Did they build in the fact already that CMs being hired here will immediately be getting a raise at the end of this year to $13 an hour at minimum. In 2 years it will be interesting where it actually sits considering that the adjustments because of the pay raises aren't done being added yet. I could see them setting this a bit more conservative to avoid Aulani or the accusations (never proven) of BLT. I'm guessing part of the cost might be the Skyliner and the required capital that will be needed to keep it maintained. This isn't like the monorail hotels that the DVC is only about 1/3 or less of the total resort rooms there. More rooms to spread the cost over.

Wow, just wow. We are so lucky to have several lawyers here on the DIS to provide such clarification.

WOW, indeed! Until this tidbit came up, I was still considering a purchase (pending point charts). Now, the chances of that are virtually zero. Makes BWV more and more of a bargain, in spite of the 2042 expiration.

 

[mustinjourney]

Wow, just wow. We are so lucky to have several lawyers here...

I don’t think that phrase has ever been uttered in the history of the world.

 

[Katie L]

Not going to quote -but do you all think the call-out of Riviera - especially when it wasn't relevant to Jan 19, 2019 - is because they plan for Riviera + Riviera resales to be able to use the first 14 + Riviera? In other words, in fact trying to BOOST resale prices of Rivera as compared to other options - making resale closer to direct and hopefully pushing more folks to direct. Or am I speculating too much?

 

[crvetter]

Not going to quote -but do you all think the call-out of Riviera - especially when it wasn't relevant to Jan 19, 2019 - is because they plan for Riviera + Riviera resales to be able to use the first 14 + Riviera? In other words, in fact trying to BOOST resale prices of Rivera as compared to other options - making resale closer to direct and hopefully pushing more folks to direct. Or am I speculating too much?

Resale buyers of Riviera will be restricted to using Riviera only. This is well addressed in the document. However, the document does day they can offer additional direct add-ons or a fee to remove those restrictions. Though the latter part (making points used everywhere) is currently not in their plan and my guess wouldn't be until the resort is sold out.

 

[Katie L]

Resale buyers of Riviera will be restricted to using Riviera only. This is well addressed in the document. However, the document does day they can offer additional direct add-ons or a fee to remove those restrictions. Though the latter part (making points used everywhere) is currently not in their plan and my guess wouldn't be until the resort is sold out.

That is nutso to me. The huge advantage to DVC (and most timeshares, truly) is the easy ability to trade out.... I would not ever consider Riviera either direct or resale based on that. And the idea that DVC doesn't realize this is nuts - are they really just counting on the folks with pixie dust obscuring their vision that spend $30k without blinking? Who are these people? lol

 

[CraigInPA]

That is nutso to me. The huge advantage to DVC (and most timeshares, truly) is the easy ability to trade out.... I would not ever consider Riviera either direct or resale based on that. And the idea that DVC doesn't realize this is nuts - are they really just counting on the folks with pixie dust obscuring their vision that spend $30k without blinking? Who are these people? lol

Yes, they sell most contracts when the pixie dust is flying.

My wife and I wouldn't even take the DVC tour, knowing that we'd be too emotionally invested to say no. Instead, rented some points, tried out various resorts, and then bought resale.

 

[DVC92]

Almost every company has both.

And speaking from personal experience, I’ve been both outside and in-house. Big money risks get outsourced.

And I do patent law, so this is my wheelhouse.

Not sure what you though apples attorneys could mitigate here, bc apple gets sued practically every single day. The number of patents covering cell phones is ridiculous. It’s more or less impossible to operate in that space without infringing something.

As another attorney working in intellectual property, I agree large companies use both in-house and outside people. I further agree, not only with cell phones, but in many other areas today, there are so many patents, pending applications and other prior art that it is extremely difficult to obtain a patent while still covering all your bases.