News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

[lazyboy97o]

I heard from some lawyers last night after they did a skim of the new suit. Some thoughts:

• The Lack of Consideration claim ignores what Disney's waiving: the right to contestthe taking of the land. With an eminent domain claim, Disney could have, for example, sued to say that:
  • The board's stated purpose for the land doesn't fit within its charter
    -or-
  • The amount of land being taken is excessive for the stated goal ("you're taking all of EPCOT to build a lemonade stand")
    -or-
  • The specific land taken isn't needed to achieve those same ends (like, "you can do this anywhere, why pick the middle of Main Street, U.S.A.?")
• The state's filing assumes that any eminent domain claim they could make would have been automatically approved by a court. That's obviously not true - eminent domain stuff gets litigated all the time, and governments sometimes lose.
• Disney's waiving the right to contest, and just agreeing to fair market value, is a benefit to the district in that it reduces uncertainty, reduces costs, and speeds up timelines for improvements.

The folks I spoke to said this was a weaker argument, which is probably why it went last, and that it opens the board to follow-up questions that they might not like to answer, e.g., "What purpose does the district serve?"

This whole effort brings up questions the board doesn’t want to or can’t answer. They jumped right to “this impedes us” but haven’t identified what needs it actually impedes.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I am serious, right now, the DeSantis district is in power. I hope the DeSantis district doesn't make too much trouble for the day to day operation of WDW as this drags along in the courts for years.

There are obvious ways they could.

I think my point is there’s no doubt they’ll try to do that. Zero doubt. Cause this is a PR aimed at the boondocks…

But as pointed out: injunctions are very likely

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

17 billion in investments is certainly consideration. Further since the 17 billion was talked about in the yearly stockholders meeting it has to be true
It was also talked about in their legal filing. The new board is full of it.

That $17B was an obvious move as part of this…a smart one…

But “it’s in their stock meeting so it has to be true”
????

That’s a joke, right? What country is this?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This whole effort brings up questions the board doesn’t want to or can’t answer. They jumped right to “this impedes us” but haven’t identified what needs it actually impedes.

I think the “impediment” is actually a massive, intellectually driven bowel blockage

 

[Disstevefan1]

I think my point is there’s no doubt they’ll try to do that. Zero doubt. Cause this is a PR aimed at the boondocks…

But as pointed out: injunctions are very likely

True, most likely injunctions will happen so WDW can operate under Disney's control while the lawsuits go on.

There's no way injunctions won't happen, right?

 

[Surferboy567]

True, most likely injunctions will happen so WDW can operate under Disney's control while the lawsuits go on.

There's no way injunctions won't happen, right?

The district also requested an injunction to stop Disney from saying the developer agreements are valid.

Not sure how to deal with an injunction that conflicts with another injunction.

Disney needs to be granted theirs very soon though.

 

[GoofGoof]

That $17B was an obvious move as part of this…a smart one…

But “it’s in their stock meeting so it has to be true”
????

That’s a joke, right? What country is this?

It has to be true that their intent as of the day of the meeting is to invest $17B over the next 10 years. They have a 10 year plan and I’m sure that number is in there somewhere. Are they contractually required to spend the money? No. The SEC very loosely regulates the content of an earnings call and the auditors will at least take a look at it, but nobody will go back after the fact to see if you follow through. The street will judge you based on your transparency. If a company consistently gives earnings projections or capital spend numbers that are wildly inaccurate they will get called out on it by the sell side analysts on the call who built a model around those projections.

I think the bigger point which is a valid one is that Disney is showing their intent to grow their business and expand. The $17B is probably less critical than the 13K jobs. What is the point of a development agreement? Why would any local government want to give a landowner control over developing a property? The short answer is the development is good for the community. Disney adding 13K jobs is a big win for the local economy.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The district also requested an injunction to stop Disney from saying the developer agreements are valid.

Not sure how to deal with an injunction that conflicts with another injunction.

Disney needs to be granted theirs very soon though.

injunctions on both sides - what a mess. THANKS RON!

 

[GoofGoof]

True, most likely injunctions will happen so WDW can operate under Disney's control while the lawsuits go on.

There's no way injunctions won't happen, right?

The district also requested an injunction to stop Disney from saying the developer agreements are valid.

Not sure how to deal with an injunction that conflicts with another injunction.

Disney needs to be granted theirs very soon though.

Disney asked for the injunction in their filing. There’s no guarantee they get it. It is up to the judge. If the board acts to restrict them then it is possible they ask for an emergency injunction which would expedite the process. As far as I know the Federal injunction would reverse the bill that changed over the board so if that goes through the contract question is mostly irrelevant because the board that is suing would be relieved of power at least temporarily.

 

[JAB]

That $17B was an obvious move as part of this…a smart one…

But “it’s in their stock meeting so it has to be true”
????

That’s a joke, right? What country is this?

It's certainly a bit of a stretch to say "it has to be true," but there are SEC regulations against making deliberately misleading statements in shareholder meetings. It doesn't preclude Disney from changing their plans, but it does add some extra scrutiny if they do.

 

[lazyboy97o]

The district also requested an injunction to stop Disney from saying the developer agreements are valid.

Not sure how to deal with an injunction that conflicts with another injunction.

Disney needs to be granted theirs very soon though.

Disney asked for the injunction in their filing. There’s no guarantee they get it. It is up to the judge. If the board acts to restrict them then it is possible they ask for an emergency injunction which would expedite the process. As far as I know the Federal injunction would reverse the bill that changed over the board so if that goes through the contract question is mostly irrelevant because the board that is suing would be relieved of power at least temporarily.

The injunctions being sought in the cases are permanent injunctions. They would not come until the end of the trial process, however that may play out.

What people have generally been referring to as injunctions are temporary injunctions. These prevent parties from acting during the course of a trial to prevent imminent, irreparable harm from occurring while a dispute is being litigated. A likely one would be for the Board to follow the development agreement and covenants, so they couldn’t do something like expand planning review or start work on an affordable housing development.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's certainly a bit of a stretch to say "it has to be true," but there are SEC regulations against making deliberately misleading statements in shareholder meetings. It doesn't preclude Disney from changing their plans, but it does add some extra scrutiny if they do.

They can back door out of everything with “plans change”

There just can’t be a “deliberate attempt to mislead for fiduciary gain”…which is like trying to Stop a mouse getting through Swiss cheese (don’t know if that’s a pun or not?)

One of my many pets is the “they can’t lie” opining of the ceo and board that fans have to get to sleep at night.
Of course they can and do every single day…it’s just common practice because there’s no will to enforce and it’s nearly impossible to prove.

That’s just nonsense. If they say they’re building new teacups - but have no intention to - and the stock goes up $1…some who can’t live without their happy view of Disney think the SEC is coming after them.

I suggest dumping that and trying warm milk and cookies.

 

[JAB]

On one side, we have O'Melveny & Myers. On the other side, Lionel Hutz.

CFTOD legal team...

 

[RamblinWreck]

Winning or losing isn’t the biggest problem for DeSantis. It’s the discovery process.

 

[LittleBuford]

This is what I’ve felt from the beginning.

Winning or losing isn’t the biggest problem for DeSantis. It’s the discovery process.

I don’t think discovery will reveal all that much more than his own public statements have already laid bare. He hasn’t been shy about the fact that his actions are retaliatory; on the contrary, he’s brandished it as a matter of pride.

 

[GoofGoof]

The injunctions being sought in the cases are permanent injunctions. They would not come until the end of the trial process, however that may play out.

What people have generally been referring to as injunctions are temporary injunctions. These prevent parties from acting during the course of a trial to prevent imminent, irreparable harm from occurring while a dispute is being litigated. A likely one would be for the Board to follow the development agreement and covenants, so they couldn’t do something like expand planning review or start work on an affordable housing development.

So to recap how I’m understanding it, the filing currently out there asks for an injunction which reverses the bill which changed the board. If the judge rules in favor of Disney and that injunction goes into effect the board is reverted back to RCID. I said temporary since it’s possible an appeals court reverses that reversal. If Disney also wins on appeal or the case is never appealed then the injunction is permanent and the RCID board is reinstated. The Supreme Court would be the final appeal if the Federal appeals court rules so just 2 levels of appeal and no guarantee the Supreme Court takes the case.

As far as I know Disney hasn’t asked for a temporary or emergency injunction (one that goes into effect immediately before the case is final). I assume that has to be done as a separate filing or motion to the judge and would be based on some direct action by the board that could cause irreparable harm.

 

[Lilofan]

I don’t think discovery will reveal all that much more than his own public statements have already laid bare. He hasn’t been shy about the fact that his actions are retaliatory; on the contrary, he’s brandished it as a matter of pride.

DeSantis went full force in government punishing critics when he won in 2022, FL voters who supported him believed in his agenda and he was victorious. This is not your fathers Republican party as some had noted. His future aspirations pretty much is dead on arrival , and I think he will for the next two years leading FL will keep punishing his enemies who don't line up and drink the Kool Aid he is peddling.

 

[GoofGoof]

I don’t think discovery will reveal all that much more than his own public statements have already laid bare. He hasn’t been shy about the fact that his actions are retaliatory; on the contrary, he’s brandished it as a matter of pride.

Agreed. Normally you would comb through e-mail and phone records in the hope of finding a smoking gun that points to an intent to retaliate. This time the Governor made it easy…..he wrote a book bragging about it

 

[WDWHero]

DeSantis went full force in government punishing critics when he won in 2022, FL voters who supported him believed in his agenda and he was victorious. This is not your fathers Republican party as some had noted. His future aspirations pretty much is dead on arrival , and I think he will for the next two years leading FL will keep punishing his enemies who don't line up and drink the Kool Aid he is peddling.

Just look at Andrew Warren, who has a case against the Gov coming up soon. These people don't believe in democracy or free speech.

 

[castlecake2.0]

DeSantis & Oversight District Board Members Served Summons in Disney's Federal Lawsuit Against Them

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis has been served a summons for the lawsuit that Disney World has brought against him

blogmickey.com