I agree that there are many culpable parties in this situation: Kildare and Manek, Scotiabank, RCI, and Endless Vacations. But those that purchased during the past couple of years must bear their share of the burden as well. They may have been corralled and high-pressured, but they were not held captive and had the option to say no thanks. Caveat emptor is more than just an expression, it is a business principle that requires one to protect oneself, preferably in writing. Generally most contracts also contain an "Entire Agreement" clause that states all the terms and conditions of the agreement are contained therein, and no other verbal promises or guarantees are part of or are enforcable under the contract.
I stop short of including Ray Sidhom on that list because I don't know what was involved in the negotiations and what assurances he was given. Depending on the result of any any litigation and/or social media smear campaigns as suggested, he may end up becoming another victim as well.
Like I said in my earlier post, to me everything hinges on how the original contract's somewhat loosely worded "successors and assigns" provision (as shown in BobDot's post) is interpreted by the courts.