NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

Ballygal wrote: »

Can i enquire if/when it comes to a mutuality vote does anyone know if all members get a vote or do only the creditors get a vote and is the vote loaded by the amount a person is owed?

Perhaps you might want to confirm this with Arthur Boyd and Co but apparently all will vote - but you have to remember those with over £20000 are shareholders and creditors - therefore have more pounds in so that is equal to more votes - so creditors could, in theory, out-vote the shareholders.

brick

BelfastGran wrote: »

Some where so trusting they put their life's saving in this organisation.

It wasn't just OAPs that trusted PMS' categoric assertion of no speculation, and assumed/trusted that Government would have in place a just/fair regulatory framework that protects all UK savers equally, not just those with favoured/selected financial institutions.

I know I am being repetitive.

brick

KingVardas wrote: »

there are defamation laws that apply as much on the internet as any other medium (others don't seem concerned by that, but I am.)

KingVardas makes a very important point.
I would encourage the regular posters here to help keep each other "right".
In an emotional, heated and "group" subject of this nature, it is easy to inadvertently jot down stuff that could land you in court... so look out for each other (and edit/retract anything that, on reflection, might have been better not stated).

KingVardas - If you have noticed things that you suspect may have crossed the line, do please PM the poster a gentle hint. There are probably people here who never posted anything to web before this debacle.

KingVardas

jon_groovy wrote: »

i'm taking my lead off the ministers who lifted their money when they heard the PMS was in trouble and voting the way that suits me best !

Obviously, unlike you, I do not have access to details of the transactions of PMS prior to the cessation of trading - so I will not make any observation.

KingVardas

brick wrote: »

KingVardas makes a very important point.
I would encourage the regular posters here to help keep each other "right".
In an emotional, heated and "group" subject of this nature, it is easy to inadvertently jot down stuff that could land you in court... so look out for each other (and edit/retract anything that, on reflection, might have been better not stated).

KingVardas - If you have noticed things that you suspect may have crossed the line, do please PM the poster a gentle hint. There are probably people here who never posted anything to web before this debacle.

I am not a regular reader but, unless you are prepared to go to court and prove such things, then suggesting that Directors, named or not, acted in any way contrary to the law or, to use one word I see, "lied" could be actionable by one or more directors. For instance, the FSA has issued a statement clearing the Directors from suggestions they acted outside the regulations laid down for the PMS. So any suggestion that they might have been involved in deception, wrongful trading or anything else, would amount to potential defamation.
It is quite understandable that people get heated and emotional and the only advice based on experience I can give them is please be patient - insolvency laws exist to protect people in your situation but it is a long drawn-process. It is the members of the PMS who will ultimately decide on what happens.

crazymess

Kingvardas

Take your point - but there are too many Savers, on this site and elsewhere who are feeling so hurt.

Our money was in a Financial Institution and many people - perhaps 90% of the savers, were LED to believe it was the CHURCH -


We are where we are - I agree with that - but someone, some organisation is responsible for this disaster - and the Savers deserve Justice -

readyforaction

King Vardas,
You appear on this site every now and again when people increase their activity to apply pressure to get their savings back.

Share holders and loan note holders would be very grateful if you would spare the time to share how you would take this forward.

So what constructive suggestions would you bring to help those share holders and loan note holders in their quest to return their savings?

Thank you.

Whatnow?_3

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-cleared-over-banking-claims.5161295.jp

KingVardas

readyforaction
I'm not a PMS member and only came across this forum when looking for information on something else. But as someone who has lost money myself I was trying to use my experience of another company wind-up to guide anyone interested. As I travel a lot, I'm not often around (its holiday time now). I thought some of the posts were genorating more heat than light but I'm in no great position to give specific advice, only perhaps to point to the realities of the administration process as I have previously experienced it.
The shareolder/creditor thing is an issue for you because you all regard yourselves, rightly, as savers. It would not be an issue if there was sufficient funds to cover all the Society's debts - so my only advice is to continue to pressing government to make up the shortfall - it mightn't be a huge sum for them. Only technical problem is you don't know the shortfall until assets are sold and the deficit is clear. But a committment from government to cover that deficit would indeed enable Gordon Brown to say "no UK saver has suffered". I doubt the government reads this forum so you need to use political help, the media etc to push your case. My earlier point about defamation is that no-one will back you up if you make claims that can't be substantiated.
Hope that helps

brick

Whatnow? wrote: »

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-cleared-over-banking-claims.5161295.jp

From Newsletter report:-
"However, we remain in touch with the administrator and, if further information comes to light relating to the issues we have investigated, we will look into it."

Does the FSA report get published?
How would the public (esecially PMS savers) know what was, and wasn't, looked into?
What came to light that prompted FSA involvement in first place?
How would anyone know if they had (or were aware of) further material information that has potentially not been considered by investigators?
etc.