or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Park City Lease Dispute -
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Park City Lease Dispute - - Page 2  

post #31 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SportyandMisty View Post

I heard a radio interview with a Canyons exec; he claimed they found out they were being sued from the media, not from PCMR.  He says he was shocked & thought negotiations were progressing.

 

Separately, I think I read the long term lease PCMR was paying Talisker was something like $40K/year -- a pittance. 

 

I also read the land owned by Talisker underneath PCMR does not have separate access (it is land locked).  Not all of PCMR land is owned by Talisker; my impression from the article is that much less than half is owned by Talisker, but that is just an impression.

 

I ski Canyons, Deer Valley & PCMR quite a bit.  Canyons is a ton better than just a few years ago, putting a ton of emphasis on employee service & friendliness, and doing the right thing for custoemrs.  PCMR seems to have more employee turnover; friends who work there are not particularly happy. Deer Valley seems to have a larger percentage of learning skiiers on runs that I wish they would not be on, and it is home to over-groomed hardpack blue runs (kinda like concrete with a dusting of snow on top).

 

I'd rather ski both Canyons and Deer Valley; I ski PCMR every now and then for variety.  

 

 



The lease is around $155,000 per year per the media articles.  The best article I can find by a neutral third party is found here: http://skiingbusiness.com/12513/newswire/attorney-sheds-light-on-pcmr-talisker-lawsuit/  .  There is no question about how Canyons has changed for the better and there is no question that PCMR is a major employer with a lot of loyal employees who are nervously wondering what the heck is going on...but the issue here is about the lease (or lack thereof) and the reason why PCMR is asking for a declaratory judgement. 

 

Park City has three world-class ski resorts who want to link up with the four Cottonwood resorts to form an "Interconnect."  The resorts certainly aren't going to help their cause through a very public fight with each other.  The complaint does mention that PCMR and Canyons were previously in discussion over joint trails, interconnecting chairlifts, joint lift ticket revenue sharing, etc.  

 

 

BTW, PCMR posted a copy of the complaint (so you don't have to pay up for a legal site):  http://www.supportpcmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Complaint_PCMR-vs.-UPCMC-Talisker_030920121.pdf  .  It will be interesting to see how the complaint is answered and how quickly the court rules on a declaratory judgement.  Regardless, I still find it incredulous that PCMR didn't send the letter on time (Why else would they ask for a declaratory judgement affirming the leases and subleases did not expire?).

 

post #32 of 63

Updated article from SAM (Ski Area Management) Magazine:  http://www.saminfo.com/news/article.php?tid=5727

 

Talisker responded to the PCMR suit with a Motion to Dismiss, yet the negotiations are continuing again despite the court filings.

 

From the SAM website:

 

PARK CITY, TALISKER STILL NEGOTIATING NEW LEASE

 

April 16, 2012

 

button_article_comment.gif
 

SAM Magazine—Park City, Utah, April 16, 2012—Continuing a three-year wrangle, Park City Mountain Resort and its landlord, Talisker, remain in negotiations regarding PCMR’s lease of much of its ski terrain, despite a series of legal moves in the courts.

Last week, Talisker responded to a lawsuit filed by PCMR in early March, in which PCMR claimed Talisker was trying to force PCMR out of business, PCMR asked the court to compel an extension of the lease through 2051. Talisker claimed that it was not trying to put PCMR out of business, but argued that PCMR allowed the lease to expire in 2011 and failed to provide written notice that it wished to extend the lease. Talisker asked the court to dismiss PCMR’s lawsuit.

PCMR responded in turn to Talisker’s motion for dismissal. “Our legal team has reviewed the motion and believes it lacks merit,” PCMR communications director Krista Parry told SAM. “We will ask the court to deny the motion so that we can proceed with litigation and resolve this case based on the merits.”

The situation is complicated by the fact that Talisker also owns Canyons Resort, PCMR's neighbor and competitor. Canyons’ managing director, Mike Goar, told The Associated Press that lease negotiations are continuing. "We’re back at the table, talking about a solution. I’m optimistic we’re going to work through it," Goar said.

Talisker, a real estate developer with a long history in the Park City area, acquired the PCMR lease when it became majority owner of United Park City Mines, which holds the lease to much of PCMR’s 3,000+ acres of ski terrain, in 2003. Talisker bought Canyons in 2008. Local businesses have reportedly urged the two resorts to resolve the issue for the sake of the local economy.

“Our desire has always been to quickly and fairly resolve this dispute for the benefit of our team members and our community, who truly bear the brunt of uncertainty,” Parry told SAM. “We will continue our discussions with Talisker and look forward to working with them on a reasonable solution.”

post #33 of 63

 

Article about the offering of "new leases" from the April 14, 2012 Deseret News:

 

 

PARK CITY — A Park City ski area said Friday it was willing to offer new leases for much of the land where a neighboring rival operates and settle a lawsuit that had merchants and town officials begging both sides for a settlement.  Park City Mountain Resort filed the lawsuit last month accusing the Canyons resort of trying to drive it out of business by refusing to extend the leases for years longer.

 

The Canyons' Toronto-based resort operator, Talisker Corp., filed court papers Thursday saying Park City Mountain Resort let the leases expire and failed to submit written notice it wanted them extended. Talisker asked a state judge in Summit County to dismiss the lawsuit.

 

However, the Canyons' managing director, Mike Goar, told the Associated Press that negotiations are ongoing on a new set of leases.

"We're back at the table, talking about a solution. I'm optimistic we're going to work through it," Goar said Friday.

 

Talisker, a longtime real-estate operator around Park City, owns much of the ski terrain at Park City Mountain Resort, which leases 3,700 acres of upper-mountain land for ski lifts, lodges and slopes.

 

It isn't clear how or why Park City Mountain Resort let Talisker snatch up its prime ski terrain. Park City had leased the ski lands from United Park City Mines since the 1960s, but Talisker bought the mining company in 2003 and became a landlord. Then, in 2009, Talisker bought the Canyons resort from American Skiing Co. Talisker outbid Colorado's Vail Inc. for what is now Utah's largest ski area.

 

"Our desire has always been to quickly and fairly resolve this dispute for the benefit of our employees and our community, who bear the brunt of uncertainty," Jenni Smith, president and general manager of Park City Mountain Resort, said in a statement released Friday to the AP.

She added, "We will continue our discussions with Talisker and look forward to working with them on a reasonable solution."

 

Neither side is revealing terms of the negotiations, but Park City Mountain Resort had been paying just $155,000 a year in rent for the Talisker-owned land, according to its lawsuit.

 

Canyons officials say they pay $3 million a year to lease much of their ski resort from independent landowners.

 

post #34 of 63

Sorry about all the posts on this, but people are reading them (I look at the views) and it seems something new comes from each media article.  Below is the new Park City Record article dated April 17th.  It discusses a part of the motion to dismiss that pertains to the notification for extending the lease.  It seems the envelope containing the lease renewal was mailed after the lease expired:

 

The resort "attempted to revive the expired leases" by sending a confirmation that they had been extended, the document says, "even though no written notice had previously been provided."

The document also disputes PCMR's timeline, claiming that the confirmation letter, dated April 30, was not sent prior to May 2 since $5.59 in postage was not affixed until the later date.

"Thus, the Leases expired by their own terms without renewal on April 30, 2011. They have not been and cannot be revived," the document says.

 

 

April 30, 2011 was a Saturday.  Just for fun I'd love to know if some clerk hit Happy Hour with the envelope in his/her car and remembered to mail it after the Post Office closed on Saturday?  Did a sophisticated attorney or lease manager just screw up?  Was the postage machine broken so a clerk just left the envelope on a desk until Monday? The legal fiasco going on in Park City has reminded me to review the details of every lease agreement I have.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Talisker labels PCMR lawsuit 'futile,' asks for case to be tossed

Landowner wants to continue talks with the resort as legal battle progresses


 

A firm under the Talisker umbrella has asked that a lawsuit filed by Park City Mountain Resort centering on the resort's two leases of Talisker-controlled land be dismissed, claiming, in a blunt statement, that the leases have expired.

In documents filed in Third District Court at Silver Summit, attorneys for Talisker Land Holdings, LLC and United Park City Mines, claim that PCMR did not submit written notice by the deadline to extend them. Talisker Land Holdings, LLC and United Park City Mines "had no duty to remind" PCMR about the deadline, the documents say.

The documents were filed a little more than a month after PCMR sued Talisker Land Holdings LLC and United Park City Mines, claiming it must stop the firms from interfering with its business or trying to shut the resort down. Resort officials have said they could not say with clarity whether PCMR would be able to open for the next ski season as a result of the dispute.

Talisker Land Holdings LLC owns the land that was once under the control of United Park City Mines. PCMR operates on some of the land.

The resort's March lawsuit claims that Talisker Land Holdings, LLC in late December told PCMR its right to use the land had expired and it must vacate or reach another deal to use the land.

Mike Goar, the managing director of Talisker-owned Canyons, said in an interview he hopes there are additional negotiations between the two sides even as the court case is continuing.

"We are asking the court to dismiss the original claim. In the other pieces, we ask, as we have been, that the parties continue to talk," Goar said.

No court dates have been scheduled.

The dispute will almost certainly be one of the most closely watched legal cases in the Park City area in years. In the little more than a month since PCMR filed the lawsuit, there have been concerns about the long-term impact on both the resort and the city's wider economy.

In a document filed in support of the request to dismiss the case, Talisker Land Holdings, LLC calls the PCMR lawsuit a "futile request" to have a court declare that the resort extended the leases. It says that the leases expired on April 30, 2011, but PCMR did not try to extend them until after the April 30 date.

The resort "attempted to revive the expired leases" by sending a confirmation that they had been extended, the document says, "even though no written notice had previously been provided."

The document also disputes PCMR's timeline, claiming that the confirmation letter, dated April 30, was not sent prior to May 2 since $5.59 in postage was not affixed until the later date.

"Thus, the Leases expired by their own terms without renewal on April 30, 2011. They have not been and cannot be revived," the document says.

The Talisker Land Holdings LLC side on Dec, 30 told PCMR that the lease expired on April 30. The firm allowed PCMR to remain on the land through the end of the 2011-2012 ski season, even though it was "under no obligation to do so," according to the document.

It says the two sides started negotiations about a new lease when PCMR filed the lawsuit and then "launched a widespread public-relations campaign."

The document outlines 18 cases as precedents in its argument. One of them, more than a decade old, involved White Pine Touring and its onetime landlord when the outdoors store was located on Heber Avenue. White Pine Touring moved out of the location as a result of the case. The lawsuit centered on a dispute about a renewal of a lease.

In a prepared statement released by PCMR, the resort's president and general manager, Jenni Smith, said the other side's move to dismiss the case "lacks merit."

"We will ask the court to deny the motion so that we can proceed with litigation and resolve this case based on the merits," Smith said in the statement, adding, "Our desire has always been to quickly and fairly resolve this dispute for the benefit of our employees and our community, who bear the brunt of uncertainty. We will continue our discussions with Talisker and look forward to working with them on a reasonable solution.


Edited by quant2325 - 5/22/12 at 8:06am
post #35 of 63

There is no agreement to date, even though both side claim to be hopeful. Regardless, the issues in front of the court remain (no ruling yet on the request for a declaratory judgment). Here is a monthly update on this ongoing saga followed closely by most people living in Park City:

 

From the Standard-Examiner

2 Park City ski areas still fighting lease dispute

http://www.standard.net/stories/2012/05/22/2-park-city-ski-areas-still-fighting-lease-dispute

May 22, 2012
 

PARK CITY -- Park City Mountain Resort says it's still hoping to resolve a lease dispute that threatens to shut down the ski area even as it amends a lawsuit against a cross-town rival.

Park City Mountain Resort has added antitrust claims to its March lawsuit against the parent company of the Canyons Resort, claiming its landlord is trying to ruin a competitor.

The Canyons' Toronto-based resort operator, Talisker Corp., owns much of the land where Park City Mountain Resort operates. It's offering the nearby ski area a new lease, but argues terms of a previous lease expired.

Park City Mountain Resort insists it has an option to extend the lease for years longer and that Talisker is trying to dramatically increase its cost of business.

Both sides say they hope to resolve the dispute with negotiations.

 

From the "Support PCMR" website:

 

http://www.supportpcmr.com/

(May 21, 2012) – Today the owner of Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) asked the Court for permission to amend the complaint to assert two new claims for Talisker’s violation of the Utah Antitrust Act. In the proposed amended complaint, PCMR alleges that Talisker, which owns Canyons Resort, and its affiliate United Park City Mines Company have unlawfully attempted to shut down Park City Mountain resort or to increase dramatically the Resort’s cost of operations, thereby disabling it as a competitor. PCMR alleges that Talisker objective has been to obtain ownership and control of Park City Mountain Resort, thereby monopolizing or attempting to monopolize the relevant markets for skiing and snowboarding. PCMR contends that Talisker’s conduct was not justified by any legitimate economic reason and involved its intentional nondisclosure of material facts and its breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the parties’ leases.

—————————————————————————————————————–

(May 15, 2012) – Today the owner of Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) filed papers opposing the motion to dismiss previously filed by United Park City Mines Company and Talisker Land Holdings and supporting PCMR’s right to relief. PCMR’s papers argue that it would be premature for the Court to dismiss PCMR’s complaint and that United Park and Talisker should be prevented from contending that critical leases expire before the year 2051. We argue that, according to records of the Utah State Tax Commission from the early 2000’s, United Park obtained a significant reduction of its property taxes based on representations that PCMR’s leases would not expire until 2051 and that PCMR would have the right to use the land until then. PCMR has always desired a fair and prompt resolution to this dispute and we are confident in our case moving forward.

 

From the Ski, Esq. blog:

 

(May 25, 2912) http://www.skiesq.com/2012/05/update-park-citytalisker-lawsuit.html

 

 

Note: I'll add another update in a month if this dispute is still not settled.

 


Edited by quant2325 - 5/26/12 at 10:35am
post #36 of 63

Just as with the NBA Walkout/Lockout and prior individual athlete contracts, there is just too much money at stake for PCMR & Talisker not to come to a deal -- probably about November 15th

post #37 of 63

I'll list all the June updates on this post and just "Edit" if anything of substance comes along.  So far, only an article that states Orrin Hatch decided to act as a "facilitator" getting the two sides in the dispute to the table.  Of course, as the article points out, he is also running for a 7th term.   http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_20815729/pcmr-talisker-lawsuit-orrin-hatch-rescue  .  In other words, nothing new in terms of the negotiations or civil suits.

 

6/14/2012 Update:  Park Record article about PCMR selling season passes with a major disclaimer:  http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_20841680/pcmr-talisker-case-resort-selling-season-passes-major

 

6/14/2012 Update: David Cronheim's SKI ESQ blog contained his legal concerns about the season passes being sold with a "disclaimer", which he believes is a" guarantee".  Cronheim contends that  "the language in PCMR's guarantee conflicts with the language of the resort's season pass waiver, which in two separate places indicates a no-refund policy."  See: http://www.skiesq.com/2012/06/legal-issues-surrounding-2012-2013-park.html


Edited by quant2325 - 6/14/12 at 11:00pm
post #38 of 63

Park City Mountain Resort is virtually guaranteed to open according to a release published by Talisker and reported in several media articles. The dispute over the lease continues.  Apparantly, much of the earlier information assuming PCMR may close was wrong.  PCMR was given written assurance this past April for a rent that would virtually guarantee a profit, as reported by the Salt Lake Tribune, the Park Record, and other media sources:

 

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/54437185-78/pcmr-park-ski-talisker.html.csp

 

http://m.sltrib.com/sltrib/mobile2/54437185-218/pcmr-park-talisker-ski.html.csp

 

"Talisker confirmed today that it has provided Park City Mountain Resort with a written commitment not to close PCMR during the upcoming 2012-13 ski season," it said. "That binding commitment, at a rent that essentially assures PCMR a profit over this period, was delivered to PCMR in April, weeks prior to PCMR’s suggestion to the marketplace that it might not be open for the upcoming ski season."  The statement went on to say Talisker "is disappointed that PCMR continues to circulate incorrect and inflammatory information to the public."

 

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/ci_21000652/talisker-pledge-we-wont-force-pcmr-shutdown-next

 

"Talisker Mountain Inc. said in a prepared statement Tuesday it has given Park City Mountain Resort a written assurance that it will not force the closure of the resort for the upcoming ski season, a commitment that seems to remove uncertainty about whether PCMR will be open for the 2012-2013 season.  According to the statement, Talisker Mountain Inc. agreed to rent "that essentially assures PCMR a profit" during the ski season. Talisker Mountain Inc. said the commitment was provided to the resort in April."

 

 

http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2012/07/06/park-city-mountain-canyons-talisker-dispute-land-lease-lawsuit/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+firsttracksonline%2FpDno+%28First+Tracks!!+Online+Ski+Magazine%29

 

"In a statement released this week, Talisker indicates that in April it provided PCMR with a binding commitment that will allow PCMR’s 2012-13 ski and snowboard season to proceed as planned.

“That commitment was provided to minimize distractions to the Park City community while the contractual disagreement between PCMR and Talisker works its way to resolution,” Talisker’s statement read."

post #39 of 63

A new The Salt Lake Tribune article was published today about the parties finally going to court tomorrow.  Both sides agree what issues they want the court to decide.  Jack Bistricer has stated that he does not want to take over PCMR (you can forget about that silly rumor).  I guess we will see what, if anything, the mailing of the lease renewal letter a few days late will cost PCRM.   If the lease renewal was mailed in a few days earlier there would be no doubt about PCMR's right to an amazingly cheap lease deal. The letter was postmarked after the lease renewal date making this a huge landlord-tenant lease dispute.   See: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55149742-78/pcmr-park-ski-resort.html.csp

post #40 of 63
Thread Starter 

I'm assuming that both resorts have been conducting business as usual while getting ready for ski season? 

post #41 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

A new The Salt Lake Tribune article was published today about the parties finally going to court tomorrow.  Both sides agree what issues they want the court to decide.  Jack Bistricer has stated that he does not want to take over PCMR (you can forget about that silly rumor).  I guess we will see what, if anything, the mailing of the lease renewal letter a few days late will cost PCRM.   If the lease renewal was mailed in a few days earlier there would be no doubt about PCMR's right to an amazingly cheap lease deal. The letter was postmarked after the lease renewal date making this a huge landlord-tenant lease dispute.   See: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55149742-78/pcmr-park-ski-resort.html.csp

Sounds like they are minimizing the points of conflict.  Frenemies can still work together to make the interconnect a reality, so I'm glad to see tangible developments that show that PCMR may make a bit LESS profit, but otherwise life goes on.

post #42 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

Jack Bistricer has stated that he does not want to take over PCMR (you can forget about that silly rumor).

 

What did you think he's say,  " I'm going to drive those SOB's out of business and pick up their assets for pennies on the dollar"?

post #43 of 63

I'm wondering what PCMR locals think of Powdr Corp. Being from Canada I'd never heard of Powdr Corp until I skied a couple part days at Mt. Bachelor on the way to last year's Tahoe Gathering. I've never seen such a universally hated ski area ownership (well not quite as hated as the Scurfield family ownership of Banff's Sunshine Village) as Powdr's ownership of Mt. Bachelor.

Randomly met people on chairlifts were trashing Powdr without me even bringing up the subject, it was actually kinda spooky that there was such a hate going on for the ski resort owners. It was like the locals were getting torches, tar and feathers ready!

post #44 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by SHREDHEAD View Post

 

What did you think he's say,  " I'm going to drive those SOB's out of business and pick up their assets for pennies on the dollar"?

My guess is PCMR doesn't fit into Talisker's buiness model.  It does fit into Cumming's PWDR Corp. business model!  At questions is a $155,000 per year lease payment (that may or may not be extended for another 40 years since the lease renewal letter was mailed late) vs. market rent (e.g., Canyons pays $3mm per year). 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

I'm wondering what PCMR locals think of Powdr Corp. Being from Canada I'd never heard of Powdr Corp until I skied a couple part days at Mt. Bachelor on the way to last year's Tahoe Gathering. I've never seen such a universally hated ski area ownership (well not quite as hated as the Scurfield family ownership of Banff's Sunshine Village) as Powdr's ownership of Mt. Bachelor.

Randomly met people on chairlifts were trashing Powdr without me even bringing up the subject, it was actually kinda spooky that there was such a hate going on for the ski resort owners. It was like the locals were getting torches, tar and feathers ready!

 

I think most employees of all three PC resorts are happy.  Most locals like a local employer (PWDR is local but Ian Cumming's lives elsewhere).  There are rumors on the chat lines that PCMR wants employees to vote a particular way, but you can read this crap yourself and determine if it is bogus or not.  Talisker is running Canyons similar to the way Deer Valley is run in terms of service.  Many employees were kept after Talisker took over, but some were let go after the purchase a few years ago and were bitter.  I seriously doubt you will ever hear a Canyons or Deer Valley employee complain in front of a customer because of the way they are trained.  All three resorts seem like "good" employers. 

 

If you read the comments online elsewhere, the local perception has changed or been modified since this issue first came to public knowledge.  Talisker does not want PCMR out of business and PCMR is not in danger of closing (that is the spin PCMR originally put on all this).  Canyons also became a Top Ten SKI MAGAZINE resort and employs a few thousand people, which locals realize. Canyons also offers year round employment and is a center for many summer events (more to come when the golf course is completed).   In other words, people are realizing that there is no big, bad gorillia here and that this is simply a business (landlord-tenant lease) dispute.  Regardless of the outcome, all three PC resorts want to be part of the Interconnect.  It is much more important from a jobs, revenue and tax perspective to compete on a friendly basis.  After all, there could someday be a PCMR/Canyons connecting lift and revenue sharing.  I still believe all 7 resorts think the real competition is Colorado and not each other.

 

My take is that the local vibes were at first anti-Talisker and are now neutral with the facts now being out in the open.   Most locals probably agree with the PC mayor and simply want the dispute to go away.  After all, how many mayors can boast three "Top Ten" resorts when talking up tourism?  Park City runs on tourism.  I suspect that employees at all three PC resorts are mostly happy, glad to be employed, and are looking forward to making some money this season.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

I'm assuming that both resorts have been conducting business as usual while getting ready for ski season? 

Yes (see my mid-July posts).  But it should be noted that this whole dispute could have been avoided if the lease renewal letter was postdated with a $5.59 stamp on April 30, 2011 and not on May 2, 2011.  Regardless of the outcome, someone should be fired--if they haven't been already sacked--for sending the lease renewal letter late (it doesn't matter if the wrong postage was attached since it arrived late) possibly deeming a very generous lease to be "expired."   Note to self:  Self, don't make leasehold improvements if you aren't sure you have another ____ years left in a lease.


Edited by quant2325 - 10/30/12 at 11:39am
post #45 of 63

Now we all wait a couple of months for the judge to rule.  Here is the Trib article (more detailed than the article from The Park Record)  http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/news/55177605-78/park-pcmr-talisker-resort.html.csp

 

From The Park Record dot com (easier of the two to cut and paste):

 

PCMR and Talisker hit courtroom

Resort warns of catastrophe if it loses case while Talisker says skiing would continue

 

An attorney for a firm under the Talisker umbrella Tuesday morning accused Park City Mountain Resort of using "scare tactics and spin" in a legal case centering on leases that could ultimately decide the fate of the resort.

Daniel Bella, one of the attorneys representing Talisker Land Holdings, LLC and United Park City Mines, told a judge the case would not result in a loss of jobs at PCMR if the Talisker Land Holdings side prevails in the PCMR-filed lawsuit. He said skiing would continue at the resort and there will not be cows grazing the land.

Bella, speaking to Judge Ryan Harris in Third District Court at Silver Summit, said the court system is not intended to "bail out a party" that did not protect its own interests. He said the PCMR side did not adhere to the terms of the option attached to the lease agreement allowing the resort to operate on the Talisker Land Holdings acreage.

PCMR since it filed the lawsuit last spring has mounted a public-relations campaign in an effort to influence Parkites and other fans of the resort. PCMR has argued upward of 1,200 jobs are at stake in the case.

Bella, though, steered his comments to case itself, saying that the community will not be hurt as PCMR claims it will. Bella appeared the more aggressive of the attorneys who represented the two sides on Tuesday.

The lawsuit, which was filed in March, centers on two leases held by PCMR to operate the resort on ground under the control of the Tailsker firm. PCMR's side contends the leases were properly extended until 2051. Talisker, though, claims PCMR did not comply with the terms of the option to extend the leases.

Talisker Land Holdings wants the case dismissed. PCMR, in its bid to continue the lawsuit, argues United Park City Mines, now part of the Talisker corporate family, in 2003 represented to state tax officials the expiration of the leases would not be until 2051. In doing so, PCMR says, there was a reduction in property taxes. Talisker should not be able to claim the leases have expired, PCMR says.

But Talisker Land Holdings argues the leases expired on April 30, 2011 after PCMR did not provide written notice it wanted to extend the leases. A letter of confirmation about the lease extensions from PCMR's side was not mailed until after the deadline, Talisker Land Holdings has said.

In his arguments to the judge, PCMR's lead attorney, Alan Sullivan, said the resort verbally communicated its interest in extending the lease over the years and would have provided the written notice by the deadline. He acknowledged the confirmation letter was not sent until after the deadline, though.

He said a breach on PCMR's part, if one occurred, was not significant. The loss of leases would be catastrophic, he said. Sullivan said the Talisker side had the duty to inform PCMR that its belief was the leases had expired. Instead Talisker Land Holdings continued discussions with PCMR about connecting the resort and Talisker-owned Canyons.

Meanwhile, Sullivan said the contested leases do not cover the PCMR parking lots or the lower section of the skiing terrain. He said Talisker Land Holdings does not own the water rights or snowmaking and sewer infrastructure at PCMR. He said there were a number of reasons why Talisker Land Holdings could not simply lease the land to another resort operator or open its own resort there.

The judge did not issue a ruling on Tuesday. Harris will eventually issue a written ruling, but a date for the ruling has not been set.


Edited by quant2325 - 10/30/12 at 10:07pm
post #46 of 63

Now we wait a few more months, unless they can negotiate the end of this.

 

 

 
 
  4 8 5 , 6 5 3 , 8 8 8  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

 

 
 

Third District Court Judge Ryan Harris, calling the lease dispute between Park City Mountain Resort and a firm under the Talisker Corporation umbrella "unfortunate," on Tuesday dismissed key parts of PCMR's lawsuit against its landlord.

 

Talisker Land Holdings, LLC and United Park City Mines won dismissals of six points of PCMR's case, including one focused on PCMR's assertion that Talisker Land Holdings, LLC had a duty to remind the resort of the requirements of a lease renewal as the expiration date approached. The 47-page ruling also dismissed PCMR's antitrust claims against Talisker Land Holdings, LLC.

 

" . . . The Park City Parties had an obligation to strictly comply with the Leases' renewal provisions, and they failed to do so," Harris wrote.

Harris, meanwhile, allowed the PCMR side to press forward with two points -- one encompassing a contention that Talisker Land Holdings, LLC waived its right to claim or is stopped from claiming the leases expired and the other for damages if it is found that Talisker Land Holdings, LLC failed to disclose early on that it saw the leases as having expired.

 

The lawsuit focuses on PCMR's two leases of Talisker Land Holdings, LLC ground, approximately 3,700 acres, to operate the resort. The Talisker Land Holdings, LLC side claims PCMR did not provide written notice of its intent to extend the leases on time and they expired in April, 2011. PCMR says it communicated an interest in extending the lease, but it has acknowledged that a confirmation letter was not sent until after the deadline.

 

The judge's ruling includes a strong statement on the point, saying that the leases are written in "plain language."

 

"The Park City Parties maintain that this language allows them to make a non-written 'election,' as long as they provide to the Talisker Parties, at some later point, written confirmation of this election. This is simply not a tenable interpretation of the plain language. Indeed, this interpretation borders on the nonsensical, and contains no conceivable logical limit," he wrote.

 

The lawsuit has been closely watched in the Park City area and its outcome could have wide-ranging impacts on the local ski industry. The PCMR side has claimed the Talisker Corporation side wants to eliminate it as a competitor to Talisker-owned Canyons.

 

"The current situation is unfortunate. The Court is aware of, and mindful of, the importance of PCMR and The Canyons to Summit County's economic, cultural, and recreational well-being," Harris wrote in his ruling. "The Court is, like many citizens of Summit County and of the State of Utah, hopeful that these parties can resolve their differences and keep both resorts operating in an economically beneficial manner . . ."

Attorneys for Talisker Land Holdings, LLC and PCMR, speaking in interviews after the ruing was released, said their sides are willing to engage in settlement negotiations. They did not provide details. If a settlement is not reached, the sides intend to enter the discovery phase of the lawsuit, when the attorneys conduct depositions and obtain documents from the other side.

 

Daniel Beller, the lead attorney for Talisker Land Holdings, LLC, said in an interview his side is confident in the facts of the case. Alan Sullivan, the attorney who represents PCMR, said if his side prevails on the remaining points Talisker Land Holdings, LLC could be prevented from claiming the leases have expired.

 

Share this article Share
 
post #47 of 63

More of the same until the courts settle the lease dispute.  PCMR is issuing the season passes with a disclaimer similar to last year:

 

"Park City Mountain Resort is confident it will operate business as usual for the 2013-14 season, its 50th anniversary. Talisker Land Holdings, its landlord, has stated publicly numerous times that it will not interfere with Park City Mountain Resort's ability to operate. In the unlikely event the Resort is forced to close for the 2013-14 season, the Resort will refund the full season pass price paid by holders of 2013-2014 season passes. If the Resort is forced to close for a portion of the 2013-2014 season, the Resort will prorate the refund based on the period the Resort is closed."

 

See: http://www.parkrecord.com/news/ci_23167790/pcmr-v-talisker-season-passes-again-sold-caveat?source=rss

post #48 of 63
Thread Starter 
This just in from unofficial networks
http://unofficialnetworks.com/vail-resorts-operations-canyons-resort-park-city-122710/

How will this impact the situation?
post #49 of 63

VR already has an option to lease PCMR,  if Talisker preVails.

post #50 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trekchick View Post

This just in from unofficial networks
http://unofficialnetworks.com/vail-resorts-operations-canyons-resort-park-city-122710/

How will this impact the situation?

As I understand it the UPCM lease could be part of the deal, but it depends upon how the courts rule.  Regardless, the effective sale to VR (a 50-year lease + 300 years of potential extensions is essentially a sale) puts a lot of pressure on Powdr, the owner of PCMR.  PCMR season passes are priced approximately $100 to $500 more than the most expensive EPIC Pass, and the EPIC Pass includes resorts in three states along with a week at Verbier and Alberg. 

 

How does this impact things?  I'll bet there is a link between PCMR and Canyons within a year if Talisker prevails in court, with VR running everything because Powdr won't find it easy to pay seven figures in lease payments. They will  link PCMR with BCC through private land.  Park City becomes the effective capital of Utah skiing, since there will never be adequate lodging and dining in the Cottonwood Canyons and the resorts there don't have money for development (if they could get it approved).  Anyone staying in Park City will eventually find it easy to get to the Cottonwoods  provided they don't find enough adequate snow in the combined 7800 PCMR and Canyons skiable acres.  My guess is there will be plenty of snow to go around.  Best of all, they won't have to put up with the Cottonwood traffic and delays during epic powder days.   The arrival of Vail Resorts guarantees more east coast skier days, more Asian skier days, and more European skier days.  VR offers great benefits and is considered a good employer.  Katz is running the company well, and the stock could also do well based upon the additional revenue that comes from any snowballing effect (more skier days lodging and food, then  linked resorts leading to more skier days, a potential Interconnect leading to more revenue, predatory pass pricing leading to more skier days, etc.

 

Does this mean Utah is now on par with Colorado?  No, not yet.  But the linking of the resorts in Utah will certainly grow Utah skiing a lot faster than in Colorado.  Heck, you can't beat the season ticket pricing.


Edited by quant2325 - 5/29/13 at 2:17pm
post #51 of 63

the vr execs are on a conference call answering questions.http://wp.me/a3h878-c2


Edited by veteran - 5/29/13 at 2:55pm
post #52 of 63

VR dominates skiing in Colorado, and is under way toward doing so in Utah and Tahoe it would seem. I guess Whistler is next.

post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanoT View Post

VR dominates skiing in Colorado, and is under way toward doing so in Utah and Tahoe it would seem. I guess Whistler is next.

The Squaw guys already own an interest in Whistler. 

post #54 of 63

Squaw / KSL Capital picked up the 24% held by Intrawest

 

Plus they are offering Access to Sierra At Tahoe on their Gold/Silver pass levels

 

So at least in Tahoe there is some parity with Vail's holdings

 

But if Vail offers up enough money 

 

Ya never know cool.gif

post #55 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by near nyquist View Post

Squaw / KSL Capital picked up the 24% held by Intrawest

 

Plus they are offering Access to Sierra At Tahoe on their Gold/Silver pass levels

 

So at least in Tahoe there is some parity with Vail's holdings

 

But if Vail offers up enough money 

 

Ya never know cool.gif

From a strategic standpoint, who is going to lose from Vail Resorts economies of scale, referral sources and season pass pricing? What will they do?

 

What many people do not realize is that there is going to be a huge investment in lift replacement in the coming decade, and I'll bet the resorts have not been adequately reserving for this. All those original quad lifts are getting old and many doubles--the ones without the safety bars--are anitques. The lifts get overhauled every now and then, but at some point it is too expensive to maintain old lifts and they (cables, motors & chairs) should be replaced. In Lake Tahoe the smaller resorts mostly have the older lifts and now have a problem with two 600 pound gorillas eating away at the customer base giving skiers a darn good bang for the buck. I'll wager some of these resorts can't afford another bad year and they don't want to lower lift ticket and pass prices. They are prime for a sale.   In Utah  VR is effectively owning and operating a world-class resort and coming in with predatory season pass pricing (great for the consumer and bad for other resorts). So what do the competitors like PCMR do? It will be interesting to see.  Most of us likely don't care so long as we get more resorts to ski at a lower season pass price.

post #56 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by quant2325 View Post

 In Utah  VR is effectively owning and operating a world-class resort and coming in with predatory season pass pricing (great for the consumer and bad for other resorts). So what do the competitors like PCMR do? It will be interesting to see.  Most of us likely don't care so long as we get more resorts to ski at a lower season pass price.

I wish this would be true in the long future! But as soon as VR kills PCMR prices will go up again, good prices are only in place when there is competition, once you are alone you do whatever you want! I can be a little optimist and see things like they are going towards a MCP kinda deal everywhere, we can only hope things stay that way for many years, but I'm afraid they might not...
post #57 of 63

Meanwhile, back to the original posting from TC:  The subpoenas have begun as the discovery moves along.  See: http://www.parkrecord.com/news/ci_23628616/pcmr-v-talisker-subpoenas-have-started  

 

It seems unlikely this will ever be resolved outside of court.  The earliest trial date will be in 2014.  

post #58 of 63

The latest about Park City vs Talisker includes Vail because of Canyons.

 

http://www.parkrecord.com/news/ci_23767415/pcmr-open-court-challenges-talisker-corp-vail-deal

post #59 of 63

From the Denver news

 

Quote:
 

PARK CITY, Utah (AP) — It’s a battle of ski resort titans that could bring a hostile takeover at Park City Mountain Resort.

A company managed by Vail Resorts Inc. is trying to evict the Park City resort from 3,700 acres of ski terrainicon1.png — a fight that took a turn in a court hearing Friday.

Vail Resorts recently took over neighboring Canyons ski area from Talisker Corp., a longtime real-estate operator around Park City that owns much of the land at Park City Mountain Resort.

The Vail-Talisker combination argues that Park City Mountain Resort waited too long to renew a sweetheart lease granted decades ago by a mining company. Park City Mountain Resort was served an eviction notice Aug. 28 demanding it get off the land and leave chair lifts and ski lodges behind.

On Friday, 3rd District Judge Ryan Harris ordered Park City Mountain Resort to turn over 22 confidential emails it traded with attorneys that could explain why or how the resort backdated a letter trying to renew the lease. Harris said he will review the emails first to determine which, if any, Vail and Talisker can use to press their case for eviction.

The dispute escalated last week when a former Vail Resorts’ lawyer, acting for Talisker Land Holdings LLC, accused Park City Mountain Resort of backdating the letter to make it appear it had renewed its lease for 29 years.

Under that lease, Park City Mountain Resort pays just $155,000 a year for its ski terrain.

Canyons officials have said they pay $3 million a year to lease much of their ski area from independent landowners. And Vail says it’s paying $25 million a year for rights to operate Canyons, Utah’s largest ski area. With that, Vail is taking up the fight against Park City Mountain Resort.

Vail said last week it wasn’t trying to “take any action that would prevent PCMR’s ability to operate their resort during the upcoming 2013-2014 ski season.”

Vail chief Rob Katz toldinvestorsicon1.png in May the possibility of taking over Park City Mountain Resort “could add significant value to our opportunity.” The Colorado-based company is entering the Utah ski market for the first time.

An escalating lease dispute could damage Park City’s economy, a major tourist hub, if it forces Park City Mountain Resort to shut down this winter or next, said Alan Sullivan, an attorney for the ski area’s corporate entities.

Park City has three ski areas, including independently owned Deer Valley. For Park City Mountain Resort, the dispute could depress season-pass sales.

Sullivan said a shutdown would undercut local businessicon1.png, depress condo rentals and furlough 1,200 employees. Park City Mountain Resort says it owns its base area, parking lots and water-rights for snowmaking outright, making it difficult for Vail to operate the resort on its own.

“We think the court needs to understand the consequences of shutting down the resort,” Sullivan said.

The case began in March 2012 when the parent company for Park City Mountain Resort sought a court declaration that it properly renewed the lease and can’t be evicted.

The recent eviction notice was “obviously intended to interfere with our business,” said Jenni Smith, president and general manager of Park City Mountain Resort. Vail and Talisker have rejected “our reasonable offers” to settle the matter, she said Friday.

Vail Resorts operates 10 ski areas, including four in Colorado.

Park City Mountain Resort is owned by Powdr Corp., which operates seven major U.S. ski areas, from Vermont’s Killington to Oregon’s Mt. Bachelor.

By Paul Foy, AP Writer (© Copyright 2013 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)

 
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philpug View Post
 

From the Denver news

 

 

 ordered Park City Mountain Resort to turn over 22 confidential emails it traded with attorneys that could explain why or how the resort backdated a letter trying to renew the lease.

Phil, PCMR should have hired Rosemary Woods.

 

It is funny what happens when a court and opposing attorneys are lied to.  Of course, PCMR will say it was all just one big misunderstanding while Talisker/Vail  smells blood.  As veteran posted in another thread (http://www.epicski.com/t/121382/this-sounds-messy-park-city-mountain-resort-receives-eviction-notice), this case could be complicated by what the parties to the lease did before it was purchased by Talisker, and for other reasons already pointed out here and elsewhere.    

 

The articles on the subject fail to mention two things of importance when looking at the big picture.   Talisker still has a larger presence in Park City than most people think, owning significant holdings in Deer Valley plus the restaurant (Talisker on Main could be the best restaurant in Utah) and retaining the right to develop real estate at Canyons.  Also, all seven of the ski areas that are so close as the crow flies (four boarder each other) would love to "interconnect" giving a skiing experience that would blow away anywhere else in North America and filling up the beds in Park City (not a lot of slope-side accommodations in the Cottonwoods). The SkiLink (the only link through federal land) is on hold for now, but could be resurrected once this dispute is settled.  Once it is settled, I'd expect a quick link-up with PCMR and Canyons, and PCMR and Brighton with Guardsman Pass possibly becoming in bounds.  Of course, Alta and Snowbird already boarder each other, as does Deer Valley and PCMR.  

 

No mater what happens, Vail Resorts and local skiers cannot lose.  Vail effectively bought Canyons (50-year lease + extensions), and will increase skier days like they always do.  Vail will put pressure on competitors because Vail can afford better season pass pricing.  Vail becomes hedged if an "interconnect" happens because what they would lose in Colorado skier days will more than be made up for in Utah skier days and lodging.  Most importantly, Vail has a free option (by just picking up the legal costs) on the lease dispute, which is looking likely to give them either more rent off the UPCM lease or the whole enchilada (PCMR). 

 

I always wondered why PCMR (Cumming) never gave better deals to locals given the inexpensive UPCM lease. The deal PCMR had/has is like me renting my house for $50 a month (or less).  Well, now the pricing wars have already begun because of the EPIC pass deals.  The other UT resorts may not be able to match the pricing, but they are offering free days at competitor resorts as a way to compete.  It may not matter in a few years if they all link up in some way.

 


Edited by quant2325 - 9/7/13 at 9:33am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Skiing News
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › EpicSki Community › Skiing News › Park City Lease Dispute -