Park City/Talisker-Vail Lawsuit

Edd · Sep 4, 2013

Park City handed Eviction Notice

First Tracks said:
The only reason that Talisker was able to enter into negotiations regarding the lease's terms was because Powdr failed to renew it timely. I'd hate to have been the Powdr employee who blew that deadline!

Yeah, we will no longer be needing your services. If this is the first straw then it's automatically the last.

[/QUOTE]The current Notice to Quit (in essence, an eviction notice) is Talisker (and by inference VR) lobbing its latest shell at Powdr over PCMR. I expect that to lead to a separate lawsuit to attempt to evict Powdr from PCMR.[/QUOTE]

That is hard to imagine. Drama, indeed. I'm assuming PCMR is one of the more profitable mountains in N. America but I could be dead wrong.

jaytrem · Sep 4, 2013

Also of note is that PCMR would still own all the lifts and other improvements. Assuming they do get kicked out, they could either remove everything and sell on the open market or sell it all to Vail. If they choose the removal option I suspect they would intentionally destroy all the lift foundations in the process.

bigbog · Sep 4, 2013

First Tracks said:
.........I'd hate to have been the Powdr employee who blew that deadline!.........

One would rationally think ex-Powdr employee Marc....but with how the daily lives of the rich operate, who knows... Almost approaching a Who's On First level..:lol:

steamboat1 · Sep 4, 2013

PCMR will park the cars, charge for lift service, & blow snow. Vail Resorts will pay the rent.

thetrailboss · Sep 4, 2013

Nick said:
Anyone read this news? Some dramarama

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/09/03/park-city-mountain-resort-owners-handed-eviction-notice/[/URL]

More at the link.

If I understand correctly:

Talisker Land Resolution LLC (who owns Vail), issued this to Powdr Corp, who operates Park City on land leased from Talisker. (phew).

We've been talking about this for a while in the other thread. Marc got it all there with the details as to who's who. It is crazy. There are now three companies essentially fighting it out. Talisker has tried to bow out by giving the lawsuit to Vail to pursue, and they are.

What I find interesting is that none of the Killington haters have been jumping on this one because POWDR owns PCMR. If it is true that POWDR not only failed to renew the lease, but also tried to file a postdated letter, then I would imagine that the POWDR haters will be howling again.

The thing is that if Vail/Talisker win, then they are still screwed because POWDR owns the base facilities.

thetrailboss · Sep 4, 2013

jaytrem said:
Also of note is that PCMR would still own all the lifts and other improvements. Assuming they do get kicked out, they could either remove everything and sell on the open market or sell it all to Vail. If they choose the removal option I suspect they would intentionally destroy all the lift foundations in the process.

Not necessarily. It depends on Utah law, which generally is pretty conservative.

Generally speaking, the original rule was that if you leased real property and placed fixtures on it, you lose them when the lease ends. But that of course is back in the day and now things may be different.....

First Tracks · Sep 4, 2013

jaytrem said:
Also of note is that PCMR would still own all the lifts and other improvements.

Not true. The lease agreement states that all fixed improvements on the property... lifts, etc. ... revert to landlord ownership.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

thetrailboss · Sep 4, 2013

First Tracks said:
Not true. The lease agreement states that all fixed improvements on the property... lifts, etc. ... revert to landlord ownership.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

That was the default rule that I mentioned. Boy that would suck for PCMR.

And again if it were true that POWDR completely blew the deadline then that would be a huge screw up and a huge "wow".

First Tracks · Sep 5, 2013

thetrailboss said:
That was the default rule that I mentioned.

Yeah, we were both writing our responses at the same time. :lol:

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

thetrailboss · Sep 5, 2013

First Tracks said:
Yeah, we were both writing our responses at the same time. :lol:

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

Yeah I hear you! :lol: The two SLC members of the board too!

jaytrem · Sep 5, 2013

First Tracks said:
Not true. The lease agreement states that all fixed improvements on the property... lifts, etc. ... revert to landlord ownership.

You sure about that? I read an article the other day that stated just the opposite. I'll see if I can dig it up. I also wonder if lifts would count as fixed improvements. As we've seen in Idaho, they can be repossessed.

Come to think of it, I'm 99% sure I read that stuff in the comments section after an article. It was pretty detailed, but yeah, can be taken as a grain of salt.

First Tracks · Sep 5, 2013

jaytrem said:
You sure about that? I read an article the other day that stated just the opposite. I'll see if I can dig it up.

The Notice to Quit is very specific on that point, and particularly names the lifts. I read the notice myself when preparing our article. The relevant portion is quoted verbatim at:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/09/03/park-city-mountain-resort-owners-handed-eviction-notice/

jaytrem said:
I also wonder if lifts would count as fixed improvements. As we've seen in Idaho, they can be repossessed.

Tamarack is a totally different situation. First off, that was a bankruptcy and the subject situation is not. Secondly, Tamarack leased those lifts from Bank of America so they were owned by BOA, not Tamarack. That situation was akin to a bank repossessing your car.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

jaytrem · Sep 5, 2013

First Tracks said:
The Notice to Quit is very specific on that point, and particularly names the lifts. I read the notice myself when preparing our article. The relevant portion is quoted verbatim at:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2013/09/03/park-city-mountain-resort-owners-handed-eviction-notice/

Tamarack is a totally different situation. First off, that was a bankruptcy and the subject situation is not. Secondly, Tamarack leased those lifts from Bank of America so they were owned by BOA, not Tamarack. That situation was akin to a bank repossessing your car.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

Got it, thanks. So are any of the lifts on both of their properties? I would think the lower mountain ones would cross property lines. What becomes of those?

My Tamarack example was to illustrate that since ski lifts can be removed and moved some what easily, it could set a precedent that they could be considered non-fixed assets. Bit of a stretch, but that's what lawyers do. Of course since the lifts are specifically mentioned it sounds like PCMR is screwed.

jaytrem · Sep 5, 2013

A few of the actual documents...

Notice of Quit...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164018965...document-filed-with-Park-City-Mountain-Resort

Cover Letter...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164019581...er-Land-Holdings-to-Park-City-Mountain-Resort

Letter to Judge...
http://www.scribd.com/doc/164017980...Park-City-Mountain-Resort-vs-Talisker-lawsuit

thetrailboss · Sep 5, 2013

I think that if it went to court what may happen is that Talisker/Vail would get possession of the lifts and improvements but would have to pay fair market value to PCMR for those fixtures. It's kind of a split-the-baby approach I guess. Either way though it is NOT good for PCMR and POWDR. By the way I'm pretty sure that one of the Cummings owns "Ted's House" overlooking Snowbird. I think it's funny that he skis at a resort that he does not own. :lol:

jimmywilson69 · Sep 5, 2013

Does losin PCMR submarine Powder's ability to operate other Ski Areas? Or does it give them more latitude to do improvements or have to do improvements to make $$$.

Or does this become an ASC thing where they syphon everything from their other resorts to keep PCMR?

thetrailboss · Sep 5, 2013

jimmywilson69 said:
Does losin PCMR submarine Powder's ability to operate other Ski Areas? Or does it give them more latitude to do improvements or have to do improvements to make $$$.

Or does this become an ASC thing where they syphon everything from their other resorts to keep PCMR?

That is a good point. I have not seen anything that indicates which resorts are profitable and which are not for POWDR. Based on my observations and probably pure speculation, I'd say that PCMR is one of their big moneymakers because they have very low lease payments, have a real cache with the brand, and as anyone who's been to Park City knows they have a big draw.

Perhaps Marc has some solid information that supports this one way or the other. I also think that PCMR was one of POWDR's first ventures.

First Tracks · Sep 5, 2013

thetrailboss said:
That is a good point. I have not seen anything that indicates which resorts are profitable and which are not for POWDR.

And you won't, as the company is privately held.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

thetrailboss · Sep 5, 2013

First Tracks said:
And you won't, as the company is privately held.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2

I could see them being pretty tight lipped. Some privately-held companies do speak in broad terms about how things are going, but POWDR is probably not one of them. I just went to the corporate website and it has not been updated in at least two years.

Nick · Sep 5, 2013

Godda*(&t I keep forgetting about this post and creating new ones. Sorry TB!

Park City/Talisker-Vail Lawsuit

Well-known member

Well-known member

Active member

New member

Moderator

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Well-known member

Member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Member

Moderator

Administrator

Similar threads