So what you are saying is that by changing the Riviera agreement with BVTC they can in effect change our agreement with BVTC as L14 owners? I don't agree with that. I'm not sure how you can match that idea within the above requirements defining 1. who is a member 2. our right to reservation component 3. adding a new DVC resort. If that is the case what would prevent them from saying that because SS struggles to fill most often owners there can no longer exchange into other L14 resorts.
Now if they would say that Riviera is not part of DVC I get that but that is not how they are approaching it.
I'm not saying they changed our agreement in fact I've argued the opposite they BVTC may now in violation with our agreement with them (that new resort's resort agreements be substantially similar to ours, though this is a weak may, IMO). What I was arguing is that they didn't take any deeded rights away; however, BVTC might be in violation of our contracts only based on the requirement that new resorts be substantially similar to ours. Essentially I'm saying any suit would be against BVTC since they admitted (without approval of DVCMC as dictated by our Resort Agreements) into the Club a resort who wasn't substantially similar to ours. And the outcome of such a suit may lead to Riviera being removed or the other resorts being removed. Either of which BVTC has the right to do per our Resort Agreements. I would lean towards Disney closing to be a bit more hardline on this issue because they were laying the ground work for a while.
Working off the Multi-Site POS that I have from November 2017:
§III.1.b states "Membership in the Club is an appurtenance to each Ownership Interest in accordance with the terms of the applicable DVC Resort Documents and DVC Resort Agreements" - This doesn't define the access to the DVC Reservation Component only states that Club Membership, as defined in the Resort Documents and Resort Agreement, can't be removed from the Deed, which currently DVC has argued they aren't doing.
§III.2.b states "Club Member's rights to reserve Vacation Homes at DVC Resorts through the DVC Reservation Component are set forth in the DVC Resort Agreement for each DVC Resort and in the Disclosure Document" - This is the section that tells us how the DVC Reservation Component works and what our rights as club members are. Focusing First on the Disclosure Document
BVTC Disclosure Document:
II states "This Disclosure Document is provided for the purpose of explaining the reservation rights afforded to Club Members through the DVC Reservation Component. Club Members may only access DVC Resorts, other than their Home Resort, through participation in the DVC Reservation Component in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Disclosure Document." - So this states that the Disclosure Document is the governing body of how the DVC Reservation Component works.
III.1 states "Since availability of the DVC Reservation Component is part of the services offered through the Club, membership in the Club is necessary for a person to access and use the DVC Reservation Component. Membership in the club is an appurtenance to all Ownership Interests at DVC Resorts..." - This is not saying the Club Membership is guaranteed access to the DVC Reservation Component. So looking for that in
IV.1 states "A Club Member may voluntarily participate in the DVC Reservation Component to reserve available Vacation Homes in DVC Resorts other than their Home Resort." - This is finally where it says as a Club Member you have the right to book at other resorts than your own. However, as noted this right isn't attached to your Deed but is a right that was granted to Club Membership.
Now can they amend the BVTC Disclosure Document:
The Multi-Site POS states in §III.2.b "BVTC, in its sole, absolute and unfettered discretion, may change the terms and conditions of the Disclosure Document. These changes may affect a Club Member' right to use, exchange and rent the Club Member's Ownership Interest and may impose obligations upon the use and enjoyment of the Ownership Interest and the appurtenant Club Membership" - So BVTC can absolutely modify it in particular that modification could effect your right to "exchange" your Ownership Interest, this is precisely what Disney has done.
So what changes did they make to the BVTC Disclosure Document (which they maintained the right to amend and remember they don't have a fiduciary responsibility to us)
III.1 now states "....membership in the Club is not a guarantee of access to the DVC Reservation Component as set forth in the DVC Resort Agreement and this Disclosure Guide"
III.3 was updated to add all the restrictions were added and you can review the documents attached for this restrictions.
So all in all I think they modified the BVTC Disclosure Document properly, a right BVTC maintained, to allow them to say the access to the DVC Reservation Component isn't guaranteed as a club member. And BVTC isn't a fiduciary so has no responsibility to act in our best Interest. Now what about DVCMC who is a fiduciary are they in violation, no, because according to our Resort Agreements BVTC in it's own discretion (independent of ours) reserves the right to associate any new resorts as long as it is substantially similar to ours. So my point made earlier is that DVCMC in theory should be suing on our behalf to void our contracts with BVTC, but is that what most club members would actually want or would they want Riviera removed or our Resort Agreements modified.
Now as for modifying the Resort Agreements CCV has added language to specifically allow this in Exhibit G Section 10.3 "BVTC, in its discretion, may change the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Disclosure Document." - This specifically grants them rights to change the Resort Agreement and reaffirms the right to change the Disclosure Document, which they already defined in the Multi-Site POS and Disclosure Document, which our Resort Agreement was subject to. So for CCV at least they were allowed to do what they wanted. As for the other resorts can they I'm not sure since 10.3 doesn't exist in those and haven't skimmed through the POS completely but I suspect there is language in their somewhere that says they might. Also they may not need to if Riviera is "substantially similar" now that they separated the access to the Reservation Component from the Club Membership in the Disclosure Document. But the substantially similar part is still the issue I find concerning, but I suspect members would likely not win this battle since Disney seems to have prepared itself fully for this, by removing DVCMC's say in any changes thus removing the fiduciary protection.
To be honest I can't see in any of the Resort Agreements where they state the right of the DVC Reservation Component is dictated directly in it. Though it does have the following language to suggest the groundwork for what they did
5.1 ".....DVC Reservation Component shall be made in accordance with this Agreement and the Disclosure Document as promulgated or amended from time to time by BVTC."
6.2.d "BVTC does not anticipate that the rules and regulations governing reservations among the DVC Resorts will be affected by adding additional resorts as DVC Resorts. However, BVTC has reserved the right to amend the Disclosure Document..." Again they have reaffirmed their right to do so merely stating they didn't anticipate they would which is a far cry from saying they wouldn't.
Both of the above two section existed in the Resort Agreements all the way back to the Boardwalk Villas (being the second. I suspect that OKW is slightly different having been the first resort and was a bit more difficult to follow since it said DVD would be the one responsible for trading, so I assume it might have an Resort Agreement executed at some point with BVTC).
All in all I think an argument with Disney would be a goodwill argument as best and I think the legal arguments are much harder to win than the 2020 Point Reallocation. At least on that part you had the overarching fiduciary obligation to give weight to the argument the Members didn't want it and it wasn't in their best interest. Here you can't rely on that because all changes were reserved to be made by BVTC without input by DVCMC. And overall I think the changes were done in the confines of what was legal but was shady that is for sure.