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?).