Pelican Resort Club - St. Maarten - Enforcement of contracts.

I have not been able to get an answer on these questions anywhere. So I will try to be more detailed in my questions. I know there isn't an easy answer as this falls under - International Law with many borders. But I am looking for some kind of legal opinion if it was a company located here in the states. This is effecting 17,000 owners of timeshare, most owners are located throughout the USA. Money collected is collected through a Florida office. The timeshare Resort is located in St. Maarten. Board members are located in the USA. The Corporations I am referring to are working in a vendor capacity using these contracts to control the resort, as well as the ten's of millions of dollars collected each year. The resort “vendor’s” handpicked board does not even question these actions to my knowledge. I have asked this question in an owner’s public forum with no answer forthcoming in weeks. No one, the Resort’s Board or a representative of these de-listed companies have either admitted or denied these allegations.

The facts, as I am to believe from the document I have read are as follows. The 4 Cayman Island Corporations as stated here. (THE COMPANIES LAW (2002 REVISION) COMPANIES STRUCK FROM THE REGISTER TAKE NOTICE THAT the Registrar of Companies, having reasonable cause to believe that the under-mentioned companies are no longer carrying on business or are not in compliance with Section 189, has struck the said companies from the register as at 31st December 2002. In accordance with the provisions of section 175 of the Companies Law. DELANO SOLOMON Registrar of Companies (Cayman Islands) 1. RR MANAGEMENT CO., LTD. 2. RR MARKETING CO., LTD. 3. TRIDENT SALES & MARKETING, LTD. 4. FRIENDLY ISLAND PROPERTIES, LTD.

Cayman Law - Sec 189 states.... 189. Any exempted company which fails to comply with section 187 or 188 shall be deemed to be a defunct company and shall thereupon be dealt with as such under Part VI but without prejudice to its being registered again as though it were being registered for the first time. Failure to comply with s.187 or 188 190. Before taking action under section 189, the Registrar shall give one month's notice to the defaulting company and, if the default is made good before the expiry of such notice, sections 187 and 188 shall be deemed to have been complied with Registrar to give notice)

The aforementioned companies entered into and signed contracts in 2000 with the Pelican Resort Club - all 4 Corporations have since been confirmed de-listed as not carrying on business by the Cayman Islands. The operators of these corporations have yet to make this known to the ownership base, yet are still carrying on business under said de-listed corporations. The parent company is said to be Royal Resorts Group out of Cancun. To my knowledge nowhere have I seen any agreement or legal document that has this company name listed in regards to the Pelican Resort and officially signed by this Royal Resorts Group. only signed by one of their directors Richard Sutton.

My questions: 1:Can a Cayman Island company / corporation being de-listed still carry on the day to day business with regards to enforcement of contracts signed by these corporations prior to being de-listed. After said companies have been de-listed according to the Cayman registrar years ago in 2002? As they have continued to do so. 2: In this situation can the contracts signed under these de-listed corporations be nullified? Can it be nullified as being a non-existent company? 3: Can they still use votes as agreed upon in these de-listed company agreements? Noting it’s said they haven’t even paid the Annual Maintenance Fee’s as is required by regular owners to remain members in good standing, but yet have been voting their claimed FRIENDLY ISLAND PROPERTIES, LTD, block of votes. Each year since being de-listed over the last years. Which the resort is still being charged a 10% fee under and to the RR MANAGEMENT CO., LTD, agreement. These shortfalls in part to the resort have been used as a form of loan to the Pelican Resort. Also used as a threat of bankruptcy for not following Royal Resort Groups / Richard Sutton's agenda. 4: Can they just move to another country and still enforce these contracts by re-incorporating under the same or another name? There is no indication by the Cayman registrar that these corporations have transferred their charters to any other port. 5: What other options could we take here in the USA where most owners live. Type of Law firm, state Dept or attorney general’s office? I would think this is a newsworthy story at the least for the right attorney. 6: What could be a reason for a company to carry on business in such a secret haphazard manner as this? 7: Shouldn’t a company contract be updated as to whom the resort is really doing business with? I don't believe the resort board even knew about this until i pointed it out. 8:Should action be taken on the Resorts board of directors for not making sure who they are really dealing with? 9: Protecting the owners. I know their directors insurance coverage they carry - does not include breach of their fiduciary duty of the Board, willful misconduct and gross negligence in the performance of their duties… Can the T.a.p.r.c. board as the Pelican’s Resorts board is called, be held personally libel in any event such as this?

In my mind, from what I know of law, it’s black or white and needs to be in print. When I found these companies were de-listed as per the Cayman registrar years ago in 2002. Wouldn’t these de-listed companies be non-existent entities once being de-listed? Would this not be a fair assessment of this situation???

There is a lot more to this in regards to building a new project under the agreements called the Pelican Marina Residences a 50 million plus new joint venture. Which i might add most owners of the resort didn't want and were not told until a year after the agreements were made.

The objective here would be to brake these contracts and bring some type of order / control back to the owners of this resort where it belongs. My only concern is that everything is legal and there is nothing-underhanded going on. It just all seems to be very shady with all these unanswered questions. Thank you for any suggestion, opinions or help you may lend in this matter.