NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

MamaMia_2

Does anyone else think that all of this faffing about by PCI, DETI and Mr Brown is trying to delay the FSA report and a bail out plan until AFTER the new set of voting proposals by Mr Boyd?

If the PMS investors have proposals before them which they have voted on does this take pressure off PCI, DETI and Mr Brown to assist?

Thoughts on this anyone?

(Not sure if faffing is a word but you all know what I mean!)

readyforaction

[FONT=&quot]Can I suggest the following to you?

1. PMS was running as a company. When any company fails, the creditors are paid first - why should PMS be treated differently?

Government recognise PMS as a company, as do DETI.
PCI recognise it as a company as do PMS itself?

So why is it so important to change the creditor's law of the land now to accommodate PMS?
Is this just a way of the church, DETI and devolved government and UK government trying to get out of their responsibilities.

PCI encouraged you from their pulpits to save with PMS and help fellow Presbyterians?

Moderator, Clerk you need to act now.

Share note holder (Up to £20,000), you need to act now too and make your voice heard up in Church House? Older people think that the church will not let them down and will come to their aid. Have they done so yet? What are they waiting on? Perhaps they are waiting for you, in your ignorance (I mean this respectfully), to think that half a return is better than nothing at all?

Well you saved all your life and you deserve better. You should be getting it all back.

2. Why is everyone stalling and not sorting this out sooner?
Are they hoping that when the administrator sends out his voting papers that everyone will feel morally obliged to vote mutually?

3. The DETI, Government and PCI want everyone to vote mutually and then they will be truly able to wash their hands off the affair as their first line of defence will be THE PMS MEMBERS MADE THE DECISION. Do you realise that mutuality will only get some of your money back?

Be careful, why should you not get all that you are entitled to back again?

Think about it:
DETI are very very quiet on this.
PCI are trying to look busy with their petitions.
Government are hoping to be able to squeeze their way out of it.
PMS directors are hoping that they will get 'off the hook'!

The loan note holders/ creditors stand to lose HALF of their savings.
Can you loan note holder/ creditor afford to do that?

SOME OF YOU HAVE ALL OF YOUR LIFE SAVINGS WITH PMS.
How are you managing and really who is caring about you?
Loan note holders must VOTE TO RETAIN THE CREDITOR'S RIGHTS and let the Government, the DETI and the PCI meet the needs of the shareholders. After all there are 7,500 of them.

PCI cannot afford to let the shareholders walk away with nothing.

Share note holders - you think that mutual is the right way to vote.
Well, would you not rather get all of your money back than get half of it?
Force the inactivity of the Government, the DETI and the PCI into action.

If the Government, DETI and PCI united, they could make up the difference without any issue.

PCI are very well aware of all of this and they on their own can make up the difference over time. Shareholders, start shouting.

Think of the uproar and the irreparable damage to the church, if PCI allowed 7,500 people to lose out (as if there has not been enough damage done already).
It's over to you to sort this out PCI, in conjunction with all the other agencies or 7,500 members will lose their money.

If this is repetitive, all the better, as the graveness of the situation may now be sinking in.
[/FONT]

brick

readyforaction wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]their first line of defence will be THE PMS MEMBERS MADE THE DECISION. [/FONT]

Spot on.

That very (somewhat sickening) line/argument has been spewed out already - "Members voted near unanimously for an orderly wind-down" - as if members had any real choice.

It bugs me no end.

I believe your point is that there may in fact be a serious choice to be made next time – not necessarily the one that various parties would hope for.

But (if the situation arises), presenting the case/argument widely and getting a meaningful block vote would surely be the challenge.

Cullies

Ref S. Ireland savers..

I am pleased to say that after I emailed Seymour Crawford this am(councillor in Rep of Ireland), he called me back to discuss the situation
He informs me that there are many presbyterians in S Ireland, that he is aware of, with their savings frozen in PMS. To date he has been lobbying Brian Cowan & the British Irish Parlimentary Body (it met last week-end) - this body is made up of 25 members from W Minister, 25 from Aireachtas & 4 members each from Scotland, Wales & N Ireland (Peter Hain is joint chair) - he informs me that this executive are looking into the PMS debacle..
He is very determined to do whatever he can & on behalf of those savers from S Ireland involved we welcome his support.
He wasn't aware of this forum, so I have passed the details on, so he can keep updated

goodbyepci

readyforaction wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]

Moderator, Clerk you need to act now.

PCI cannot afford to let the shareholders walk away with nothing.

PCI are very well aware of all of this and they on their own can make up the difference over time. Shareholders, start shouting.
[/FONT]

Does anyone know if the plight of the PMS savers, particularly the shareholders, is on the agenda for the General Assembly?

Is there going to be a decent time for a debate/discussion devoted to it?
I would suggest it would need at least half a day (not the 1 1/2 hours of the General Board meeting)

If it is not on the agenda what should we do to make sure that it is?

Please is there anyone out there who knows how these things work?

warmhands.coldheart

I know on many occasions it has been suggested that the "Directors" of the PMS made a b*lls up but has anyone actully made any effort to look into sueing them for misconduct or fraud or the likes. after all they did make investments seemingly outside the "Rules". I don't mean talk about it I mean actually spoken to a solicitor about it and if so what was the outcome?

crazymess

Readyforaction

A truly to the point post

The sad thing about of all this is that many Savers - especially Shareholders are from the over 60s group. I have been quite shocked over the last five months at the lack of age range of savers.

It seems as if many of these Savers were conned into saving WITHIN THEIR CHURCH and they believe and have faith THAT THEIR CHURCH will sort this out for them.

Many of the shareholders and creditors don't really understand the impact of the next vote - I therefore think that it is important that they are made aware of the next stage and my view has always been that the creditors have no choice but to vote for themselves and the shareholders will lose out.

It is therefore very important that the PCI step up now and ensure that Presbyterian shareholders do not lose any of their savings.

They must get a loan from somewhere to sort this deficit.

It is still quite amazing that approx a quarter of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland are affected by this and YET the HIERARCHY OF THE CHURCH do not seem to want to accept their responsibility - they continue to do mission work in ireland and overseas and yet, at home, they are sitting on a serious problem.

We understand that you are not financial people - but get some help and deal with THIS now. There is no point at the end of the vote when Creditors gain the day to come in and help - a bit like no communcation when the PMS news broke in November and then after some pressure begin to work on Mr Callaghan's petition.

portstewart

The PMS file on this property purchase would make interesting reading particularly the written advice received from the professional advisors.

Were things so out of control by this stage that even the clerics on the Board were dazzled by the numbers and couldn't see PMS was on the road to ruin.

So much for the Directors responsibilities to shareholders.

In the meantime PCI were doing their best to encourage members to "get a slice of the action".

Ballymackeonan

Surely, where investments on this scale were made, there were "due diligence" reposrts from professional advisors? If so, is there not a claim against them, under professional indemnity insurance - or if these reports were not requested, the directors were negligent?

BelfastGran

Problem with the internet, only working for a few hours daily, is anybody else having a problem.

Belfastgran