Why is everything difference between the hotel and the society since January 1st, 2005?

The operator agreement between HNP and TSH has been terminated per December 31st,2004.

This agreement (concluded in 1998 between HNP and TSH was terminated on December 31st, 2003 effective December 31st, 2004) essentially governed the financial processing of the usufructuary agreement as registered in the land registry. It allowed the ability to execute the usufruct (enjoyment of benefits). The usufructuary agreement granted the society a usufructuary right in certain parts of the house against compensation of costs.

Chronology:

In 1987 the then owner of Hotel Neue Post, TSH Hotel Neue Post Beteiligungs- GmbH und Co KG, had a usufructuary right registered with respect to TSH Ferienclub Hotel Neue Post to its shares in the property; concurrently, the society assigned all membership rights (weeks!) to TSH KG.
TSH GmbH und Co KG sold these weeks (society memberships) and managed the hotel via TSH Beteiligungs- GmbH (and not via the "GmbH und Co KG"!). The managing director of the "GmbH" (limited liability company), the KG (limited partnership) and the executive directors of the society were (among others) Mr. Pasterer and Mr. Schwabl.

In 1994, the business with timeshare weeks broke down throughout Europe, and especially in Germany and Austria. The numerous fraudulent sales practices concerning time sharing were made public in the media. The TSH Group ran into financial problems.

Bankruptcy was initiated over the assets of the various TSH firms in the year 1996.

The society survived the bankruptcy through financial contributions made by RCI, society members (300 DM donation) and not least because of the Schwabl family and tried to manage the hotel itself in the years 1996 and 1997.

The "burdens of the past", lack of experience and an unfortunate choice of partners led to a qualitative and financial disaster in this time.

The society's hotel purchase plans failed miserably.

In 1997, a number of members of the society were willing to invest and take risks. Hotel Neue Post Erwerbs- und BetriebsgmbH was founded. HNP signed a purchase option in 1997 and has been managing the hotel since December 19th, 1997 and purchased the real-estate shares put up for sale in 1998. The restaurant (currently the "Octopussy") belonging to the hotel was outsourced by consultants of the society already at the beginning of 1997 as a part of an (adverse) financial project. The registered encumbrance was cancelled and offered to another company group via an option. HNP had no possibility to acquire the restaurant.

Since the society was not (and is not) able to cover the costs of the usufruct, it was necessary in 1998 to find a financing form in order to generate the respective funds for cost coverage. HNP assumed this task and has assumed the entire funding of the project, the hotel and the operations, as also the management. The questions as to who pays what and when is governed in the operator agreement.

This agreement had the big advantage for the society that operating costs only need to be paid when the society member pays his club membership and has used his weeks. As a result, the society and its members only had to bear a very low part of the hotel costs (in 2003 only approx. 15%) and should also not have any financial obligations that were not paid beforehand. The society thus did not incur any debts through its ordinary business activities (timeshare – use of weeks).

For HNP this operator agreement led to the advantage that the weeks not used by timesharing could be marketed for tourism. The precondition was that the free capacities would have to be known in due time (i.e. long before the date of use) in order to allow the performance of respective marketing measures and the conclusion of contracts with travel agencies. The run-up time for tourist marketing is 12 to 14 months. The financing of the entire project on this basis seemed feasible.

It worked to some extent.

The so-called "sins from the past" of the former owner (improper sales, dubious contracts) and a number of unfortunate law suits incurred serious debts to the society. Following respective pressure applied by HNP to do something against this in time, the executive board of the society responded evasively;
did not carry out prepared lawsuits;
concluded silly contracts from a business standpoint;
did not enforce its by-laws;
outsourced the society's billing system;
demanded dubious settlement fees from a number of members (who have always paid everything until now);
repeatedly pointed out its usufructuary right and the big spender who eventually will purchase and pay for everything.

In 2002, the society's outstanding accounts were more than € 200,000.00 (financed by HNP). HNP sued for these and concluded an amicable settlement in 2003 for € 160,000.00.

The society's executive board terminated the operator agreement on December 31st, 2003, effective December 31st, 2004. It is unknown why the society's executive board terminated this agreement (which offered ONLY advantages to the society and its ordinary members). It was never explained officially. (There is also no logical reason for this step.)

The termination occurred simultaneously with the "sale" of a couple of hundred weeks to the former THS hotel owners. The termination prevented HNP from marketing the hotel in a purposeful manner for 2005. We informed the society's executive board about this fact and also informed it that we would thus lose approximately € 300,000.00 in contribution margin in 2005, which the society didn't care about.

After the agreement was terminated, the THS society should deal with its members' possibilities for use and cost coverage of the usufruct. This did not happen.

In 2004, HNP's claims against the society grew to over € 100,000.00 again. The society's members still paid their club fees to the society, used their weeks in the hotel, and the society paid its operating cost bills only very slowly or not at all. Time was getting short, the operator agreement was running out and the society actions became increasingly more dubious. HNP litigated again to reclaim the outstanding accounts.

The society failed to inform its members about the consequences from January 1st, 2005. The legal consequences of the activities of the society's executive board will be revealed by the next lawsuits. Several members of the society have filed respective legal action against the society.

The beginning of 2005 was therefore accordingly chaotic. Members who were not informed or wrongly informed traveled to the hotel, but did not find a booked or free room. Others were informed by the society that they could continue to use the society's benefits, irrespective of the payment situation.

Therefore there was much understandable anger directed against the innocent employees of HNP. The messenger of bad news is usually abused and not the party causing the unfortunate situation.

On January 31st, 2005 the final chapter of the history between TSH and HNP was concluded for the time being. The society and HNP have come to an amicable settlement on all mutual claims and payments. The effective date is December 31st, 2004.
The society will pay HNP an amount of € 60,000.00 in three installments (until the end of April). This settles all mutual claims and obligations from the operator agreement.

The following facts are clear:

1. HNP is the owner of the property and operator of Hotel Neue Post
2. A usufructuary right is registered for the benefit of "TSH Ferienclub Hotel Neue Post" Society. Only the society has the usufructuary right.
3. The society has split up its usufructuary right into so-called timeshare weeks = category (!!) and RCI weeks. By acquiring at least one week and payment of the society's fees one becomes an ordinary member in the society and can use the accommodation rights (weeks) through and via the society.
4. No society member has a usufructuary right that is personally registered in the land registry or a week that is also registered individually in the land registry.
5. No society member has purchased a specific apartment or a right to a specific apartment (room number). Your certificate states the following Category ….. LIKE No. …… Should you have been informed otherwise, then this was certainly not the last lie made towards you in connection with time sharing. Exceptions prove the rule.
6. At best (when all agreements are fulfilled by all parties) you have acquired through your membership in the society a usufructuary right to a certain time period and a certain category which the society must grant you without any legal hassles.
7. Your individual contractual claims must be directed against the society and not against the hotel. Your contracting partner as the society's member is the society.
   If for any reason you are unable to stay at the hotel as a society member, then the society is responsible for you or your stay. (The hotel/HNP is responsible towards the society.)
8. Our hotel is obviously pleased (like any other hotel) about any paying guest, which also obviously includes you as an ordinary society member! (See below for further information)
9. For obvious reasons we have no interest in rejecting a guest who is willing to pay. If however the society pockets the money and we provide the service (= pay), then we have a problem and will prevent this.
10. You are obviously at liberty to sue the hotel, HNP or even me because we might prevent your personal right to accommodation (which is not our intention, quiet the opposite, even if sometimes it does not look that way), but you will certainly be suing the wrong party.
11. In 1998, when HNP purchased the hotel and thus ensured the continued existence of the society (all other TSH societies no longer exist), the society concluded with HNP an agreement drafted by the society's executive board. The so-called operator agreement governs the cost distribution between hotel and TSH.
12. This operator agreement was terminated by the society in 2003 effective December 31st, 2004. Only the agreement on the usufruct remains. The society is allowed to use as long as it pays the costs.
13. We asked the society's executive board repeatedly in 2004 what it plans to do in 2005.
    The executive board stated repeatedly that it intended to use the usufructuary right as a whole, similar to the agreement as registered in the land registry.
14. This use is obviously possible, by requires the coverage (in accordance with the agreement) of the costs that are thus entailed. HNP demanded a bank guarantee for securing this amount. The amount of the demanded bank guarantee for the operating costs was approx. € 10.00 per available bed. This was refused by the executive board.
15. We have repeatedly notified the society's executive board about the consequences of its actions. It neither called a general meeting, nor did it inform the ordinary members about its actions.
16. The society's executive board "sold" the society's entire assets (expropriated weeks) to a "Pasterer/Schwabl" firm in 2003 (€ 333.00 per week, which also includes New Year's Eve, and also includes 305 weeks!!).
    Society fees were billed neither for 2003 nor for 2004.
17. The compensation to be paid according to the society's by-laws to the expropriated members was not made. It is also unknown whether the further regulations according to the by-laws were observed in the expropriations.
18. In the general meeting that finally took place at the end of November, the society's executive board had completely negated the current situation (motto: "the society uses, but HNP pays").
19. The fact that HNP, which to date has paid all investments, all fees and levies, all taxes, wages and salaries and has thus assumed the entire financial responsibility for the hotel (and thus also the responsibility for the assets of the ordinary time sharing members) cannot accept this situation is pretty obvious.
20. The society's executive board has instructed Mr. Pasterer (!) to prepare a new society register. This register, as also all memberships in the society, is completely unknown to HNP. We have no information about the current status.
21. Based on my personal private situation (jointly with my sister-in-law I am a member in the society with three weeks and have paid all agreements and society contributions since 1989 and this membership was unknown to the executive board during the last meeting), I know that the new register represents a split over the old register and is objectively wrong.
22. The society's executive board refuses to change the address for service (hotel, hotel phone, hotel fax), but does not make available the documents at this address which it should according to the society's by-laws.
23. HNP does not represent the society, does not administrate the society, is not responsible for the society and have no business relationship with you in your capacity as a society member.

If you should have transferred your club fees in 2005 plus the operating costs contained therein directly to the society:

It is not the hotel that prevents the use,
but rather the society that does not ensure it!!

Conclusion:

HNP GmbH is a dormant company. All shareholders are time sharing and (former) society members. We founded the company with the sole goal of saving the investments made as society members when the TSH firms went into bankruptcy and almost lost everything. We have managed to do this to the satisfaction of all hotel guests and all ordinary time sharing members.
The enclosed published balance sheets show that none of the shareholders has gained financially from this investment. Every euro earned was reinvested to 100%. The financial risk was not compensated in any way. The maintenance or increase in value is to the benefit of all (which also includes all society members). HNP's overall balance sheet has (regretfully) still been negative since 1998.

The fact that your society memberships (weeks) have become non-saleable is the sole responsibility of the society's executive board. It did not make a single confidence-building measure. Why should anyone wish to buy into this society?

In the past seven years, since HNP has been managing the hotel, there has not been any reason for complaint for any ordinary time sharing member. Our RCI ranking is excellent, the operating costs (but not the society fees) are stable and certainly competitive.

The question as to why the society's board wishes to change this and promote those people who were responsible for the last bankruptcy remains a mystery and is as unclear to us as to you. Please ask the society but not us.

We are still firm supporters of time sharing because, if done properly, it is a good deal for all the parties involved.