1. Someone suggested that Cummings can hurt the Park City community if it serves his business interest and that Cummings has no duty to the community. That is not true.
2. Tball suggested that it was all up to Cummings and he had two options on charging Vail huge rents for base area. Not likely. With Cummings owing Talisker $60M (+/-) the third option is more likely.
3. Vail rented property from Talisker and has not had access. There may be legal requirements for Talisker suit against Cummings to move forward that Talisker would need Vail to sue so Talisker could show its losses.
Maybe you have a different definition of duty?
a moral or legal obligation; a responsibility. (e.g. "it's my duty to uphold the law")
a task or action that someone is required to perform.
One might argue that Cumming has a moral obligation to not take actions that would cause harm to the local economy, but that kind of moral obligation is not along the lines of "duty to uphold the law". One might also argue that there are tenants with leases that stipulate that the resort must be in operation. That has not been alleged and is not likely. If there is no penalty for failing to perform a duty, is there a duty? We all agree that there will be consequences. We disagree that there is a "duty".
You assume that Cumming will owe $60M and you assume that Cumming will be unable to pay that amount. Methinks you assume too much, at least at this point.
It's a nice theory that Vail needs to sue Talisker (and win) so that Talisker has some actual damages to show and can therefore go after PCMR for. The first problem with this is that Talisker has not failed to deliver on anything promised. There is nothing to sue for. The second problem is that would be a really slow way to do something that is not needed. Talisker has easily established losses in lost rent and has already sued for all of the profits earned after the lease has expired. They already have enough legal action in progress to force Cumming into action. The third problem is that MTN is control of the legal strategy. Suing between the partners is an unnecessary complication of that relationship. This is especially true since MTN can sue GPCC directly for damages for not being able to use the land they have leased.
Have another beer and make another observation. You are falling behind.