It's fun to argue about what various sentences do or do not mean. Some of us might even be right.
But at the end of the day, Disney holds both first-mover and scale advantages. Disney gets to make the initial decision about how they are going to interpret those sentences, and they will act accordingly. If some people disagree with that interpretation, it will be up to them to convince Disney--either directly or through a court action--that their alternative interpretation is correct.
When engaging in that dispute, Disney has the advantage of (a) money and (b) an army of talented in-house counsel. So, "those who disagree" may well have a bigger task on their hands than they are willing to undertake. Disney might well be wrong, but it might be the case that no one has the means and inclination to convince them of that fact.
There has been one example where "those who disagree" have convinced Disney to change their interpretation without needing to go to the courts. Namely, the "
lockoff premium"
point charts that were walked back a few years ago. [That one was also interesting in that I don't think
anyone thought Disney's position made sense. It made sense for studios to go up, sure. But it made no sense for 1BRs to go up as well.]
Disney has done other things that seem to directly contradict what seems to be clear language in the offering statements, and essentially dared someone to stop them. The most notable example I can think of is the Treehouse reallocation in 2013. My understanding of the documents is that they require reallocations to keep annual point totals constant
within a Unit. But, the Treehouse reallocation was
across Units. They did the same thing, again, with the Standard/Preferred reallocation in 2017. (No Unit spans two buildings in the Declaration, AFAIK.) When last I checked, both reallocations were still in place.
Interestingly, OKW also created the equivalent of Preferred/Standard categories in its "Hospitality House" vs. "General Resort" booking categories. But, those did not change points requirements; both were the same the entire time.
That was in 2008. It was the same idea as the SSR Preferred/Standard split. But the OKW change was not accompanied by a change in the respective point for the buildings--it did not reallocate anything, let alone across units. It also happened before the Treehouse reallocation, which did do so across units.
My best guess is that at some point between '08 and '13 Disney decided that the phrase "the total number of Home Resort Vacation Points existing within a given Unit ... at any time
may not be increased or decreased because of any ... reallocation" [emphasis in the original*] does not mean that the points for a given Unit have to remain the same, but instead means something else, and that something else allows them to add points to e.g. the Treehouse Units and take them away from other Units in SSR.
I don't see how Disney's apparent changed interpretation, as applied to SSR, can possibly be consistent with the language in the offering statement. But Disney's interpretation of what that phrase means is the one that is applied in actual fact, so (again
de facto) that's what it means---at least until it means something else
de jure.
So, even if some folks are correct that the language guarantees three years of AP discounts "or the equivalent", Disney (a) disagrees, (b) is not providing either AP discounts or their equivalent, and (c) isn't about to change of their own volition until they are good and ready.
---------
My source for the POS language is
https://*******.com, but apparently that's not legal here.
. We like to be with the cool kids. And they’re no longer at Disney unfortunately.
