Lawyers representing the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District say Disney's last-minute agreement with Reedy Creek is 'null and void'

Apr 19, 2023 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Posted: Wednesday April 19, 2023 11:00am ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

In a presentation by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District's high-profile lawyers, it was said that Disney's February 8 2023 developer agreements and restrictive covenants with Reedy Creek Improvement District prior to the new board taking over are "null and void."

Specifically, David H. Thompson from Cooper & Kirk said that Disney was in violation of the Florida Sunshine Law, and "failed to mail notice to the other property owners in the district." Adding that this alleged inaction "dooms their entire effort."

Secondly, it was said that such agreements can be entered into "only if the district has put in place to adopt such an agreement, Reedy Creek Improvement District neglected to do so."

More details are expected as lawyers continue their presentation today.

Signed into effect on February 8, just as the Florida House passed the legislation to take control of Reedy Creek Improvement District, the new Developer Agreement gives Disney significant control of the RCID landing and prevents the new board making any changes to the agreement.

At a March 29 special meeting, where the board discussed the new Developer Agreement, one member said, "We lose control over everything other than to maintain the roads and maintain the infrastructure." Board member Brian Aungst said, "We gave governmental control to Disney."

Disney is yet to comment on recent developments.

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

View all comments →

mikejs782 minutes ago

Nothing in the court case that is the subject of this settlement went sideways. In fact, another interpretation was that depositions were about to start and DeSantis and the CFTOD didn't want certain things to become public record.

pdude815 minutes ago

They can't pretend they are holding off on new development as a threat to the state while telling investors they are supercharging new development in the state. Those two things can't happen at the same time. And as the major taxpayer in the district, we know Disney was footing the bill for these "studies" designed to damage their reputation. And while they have dismissed the suit/countersuit and avoided setting a potentially bad legal precedent in Florida in relation to the development agreement, they only closed off the claims made in that specific state case. Would they be allowed a referendum by a certain percentage of voters in district to change the voting type for board seats? Or is that something that only the board can do? In my local district up north it is not that hard to get a ballot question up, as long as you follow the rubric and have enough signatures, but I don't know if similar rules apply for a multi-county special district in Florida.

Cliff38 minutes ago

I think you are correct. I do also see that Iger's mentality goes like this: "Any attack on me or my decisions as CEO...is an attack on 100 years of Disney itself..."and" every employee "and" every fan that loves MY company" Yeah....I easily see this style of thinking inside this man. His words and actions scream this loudly.

Sirwalterraleigh45 minutes ago

He’s convinced himself they’re one and the same Don’t look for a press release to confirm this…the history - the events and actions leave little doubt

Cliff48 minutes ago

Yes, there is very little public criticism that Peltz could say as a "board member". However ALL of that non-disclosure is null and void "IF" he finds "illegal" actions that have occurred. In "those" cases,...the exact OPPOSITE takes over. HE is legally BOUND and REQUIRED to report them to the IRS, SEC and DoJ. If Peltz gains access to information or data like that and does "not" report it? He now becomes "part of" the crime or cover-up. Again, this is just legal theory that does NOT apply to Iger or his Board. We as fans, know that Disney is 100% above board and would not have committed any problems like this. Guys,....Iger is fine and all the fans that are afraid for him,...need to relax. Iger is in full control of the company and his board even if Peltz get's on it. Peltz will be a minority board member with no teeth or claws. Look,....this discussion is going to get axed by the admins here. This is a strongly censored forum and these kinds of opinions are seen as "Disney-negative" and NOT welcome here. Many find this type of Iger\Peltz\Board-talk to be too disturbing to read about and they report posts like this. We need to change the subject back to RCID and CFTOD. Odds are this side-stuff will be deleted soon anyway.

Chi8454 minutes ago

There's a lot of nuance with the court cases that isn't apparent from news reports. The state case required determinations of fact issues, which means it was unlikely to go out on summary judgment for either side. That's why depositions were being taken - to flesh out what facts needed to be determined in court. In the federal case, the district judge dismissed the case at the pleadings stage based on his determination of the law (in fact, the application of a single case), which is the easiest determination to overturn on appeal. The appellate court would give no deference at all to the district court's judgment. And that particular judge has a history of being overturned by the 11th circuit. See Warren v. DeSantis USCA11 No. 23-10459 (reversing Allen Winsor), where the concurring judge stated "the state can't exercise its coercive power to censor so-called 'woke' speech with which it disagrees. What's good for mine is (whether I like it or not) good for thine." That's the decision that stood - not Judge Winsor's judgment. Where courts are involved, this kind of nuance is everything. The point is that neither of these cases were anywhere near to being over when this settlement was reached.

Sirwalterraleigh1 hour ago

…I shouldn’t make it so easy for you

monothingie1 hour ago

I don't disagree, but both sides were pretty much dug into their positions. Once the actual court cases started going sideways for Disney there was the realization that some type of settlement needed to be worked out. Just coincidentally it occurred after the Governor's political campaign ended.

Vegas Disney Fan1 hour ago

I think this is exactly how it went down, Disney’s been trying to resolve this for a year but DeSantis was dug in for personal reasons, now that he’s out of the election FL could finally sit down and listen to what Disney was offering without it “damaging” a campaign. 2 years of infighting with one of your state’s largest employers/revenue generators, and millions of tax dollars spent on lawyers, for political reasons, what a fiasco.

EPCOT-O.G.1 hour ago

Chapek is presumptively under an NDA. As a member of the BOD or an officer with TWDC, he would be bound by the same confidentiality restrictions and Bob Iger and Zenia Mucha were.

monothingie1 hour ago

And they stupidly overplayed their hands. If they had done nothing and ignored Peltz, he'd have a fraction of the attention he is currently getting.

monothingie1 hour ago

Huh? It reflects on the priorities of the leadership of the company. Bob, and everyone else not at room temperature, know that Peltz can't change anything at The Company. This whole PR exercise is about not making the CEO seem feckless and weak in the face of Peltz.

Disstevefan11 hour ago

The point is, Iger only cares about his legacy, he does not care about the company. Iger already has enough money for multiple lifetimes like a vampire.

Cliff1 hour ago

Damaging Iger's "ego" is in no way damaging to the company, it's business or it's employees.