NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

crazymess

Just to clarify again re the missing post - email

It was sent from, it seems, a Lobby Group to Clerks of Presbyteries, who in turn forwarded out to Ministers who in turn forwarded on to their congregations and it seems now that other members of the Lobby group got it and forwarded on to some others.

I received it from a Minister and thought it important enough to tell the rest of the Forum -

Perhaps in hindsight - the telephone numbers on the original email to all those mentioned above - should have been deleted from the mail before it was issued in the very first place to all of those people mentioned.

Thank you Joylikestoshop for your further details -

We still do not know -where this information originated from before reaching the Lobby Group or if in fact it is true and accurate - but it seems all of those who received the email as and when - have dealt with it as they feel appropriate - either by registering with a Solicitor or not.

We are all walking around blind - and unforunately trying to unscramble and work out this very sad situation for all.

fivealive_2

Dr._Who wrote: »

Yes there is - just recently material went out to the Clerks of all the Presbyteries about a lobbying campaign at Westminster. People have been working hard at this and it deserves support - this material should be made available to all our Congregations - if you want to know more contact the Clerk of your local Presbytery ( members of your Kirk Session should be able to tell you who this is). It might also be helpful if EVERY PCI Congregational Committee considered picking up on this initiative and wrote to the Treasury themselves - lobbying works!! We have to do something to help ourselves here - there are lots of people with influence working on this but we need to pick up on this latest initiative and do something about it. Also understand that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury may be in Norn Iron soon to discuss this at Stormont.

I know that for most of you the above post and lobbying letter to which it refers is now history but I still have a bee in my bonnet about the fact that it does not appear to have been distributed in my local Presbytery. I belong to a newly formed Presbytery and the Clerk will not be officially installed until May.
Dr Who, does this mean that none of the 47 churches within this Presbytery will have received the lobbying letter because there was no Clerk in place at the time of distribution?

brick

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8025361.stm

Dr._Who_2

In our system NO court of the Church i.e. Kirk Session, Presbytery or General Assembly can operate without either a Moderator or a Clerk: in the event of the Moderator being absent someone else must act in his/her place to constitute the court. There will always be either a permanent Clerk or someone appointed to act as Interim (or Acting) Clerk until a permanent appointment has been made - this would have been the case in your situation.
It seems that both the petition and the lobbying letter were distributed in a somewhat haphazard fashion, unfortunately: however, we can but do our best.
Lessons need to be learnt after this experience is over and I hope they WILL be learnt - we speak about "Duty of Care" and I am more and more inclined to the view that "Duty of Care" is an issue here, for one thing. Take care.

joylikes2shop

29 April 2009 - Ministers meet with Treasury Chief Secretary to discuss Presbyterian Mutal Society


Finance Minister Nigel Dodds and Enterprise Minister Arlene Foster today met with Chief Secretary to the Treasury Yvette Cooper to discuss developments relating to the winding-up of the Presbyterian Mutual Society, (PMS).
Speaking after the meeting, Minister Dodds said: “This is the latest in a number of representations that I have made to the Chief Secretary on this issue. Today I impressed upon Ms Cooper the need to ensure early resolution of this situation and to bring comfort to members of the Presbyterian Mutual Society.”
The Chancellor announced in his November 2008 Pre-Budget Report that he was establishing a review of the legislative framework for Credit Unions and Industrial and Provident Societies in Northern Ireland.
Minister Dodds added: “My officials have been working closely with colleagues in the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment and HM Treasury on this issue. There is a pressing need to bring greater clarity to the regulatory regime that applies in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that all possible measures are in place to create confidence for members when making important financial decisions.”
Arlene Foster said: “The Northern Ireland Executive has taken all the action it can. It has legislated for the Presbyterian Mutual Society to enter into administration to allow depositors’ assets to be maximised.”
She continued: “In providing help to building societies like the Dunfermline and guaranteeing deposits for the Icelandic bank, Icesave, Her Majesty’s Government’s actions were designed to directly offset the potential effects on depositors. As UK tax payers, PMS members with deposits should be afforded the same treatment.
“It is now up to the UK Government to honour the Prime Minister’s commitment to do ‘whatever it takes’ to protect people’s savings and not let any UK depositor lose out. It is important that Northern Ireland depositors in the PMS are treated no less fairly than their counterparts whose deposits in the Icelandic banks, for example, are being fully protected.”
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dfp-290409-ministers-meet-with

goodbyepci

http://www.londonderrysentinel.co.uk/news/Church-39is-not-closing39.5216906.jp

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Treasury-told-to-resolve-PMS.5220292.jp

Toastandbutter

Guys

reference the email about the solicitors, the administrator did issue some guidance on this matter which many here dont seem to be aware of;-

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Administrator-tackles-PMS-email-rumours.5210933.jp


Incidentally there are two letters in the paper today also, not online.

KingVardas

I looked at what the Administrator said about the missing post/email which everyone is concerned about and all I can conclude from my experience and what he has said on his website and through the News Letter story, that it is not a matter for him - so therefore there was no cause for him to contact members about it. I suspect the post was taken off this thread because it was just plain wrong and misleading. The Administratr seems to be saying that all members have a right, if they wish (and have taken appropriate legal advice) to take legal action against the directors and this right exists throughout the administration. Whether that is a sensible move is a matter for you as shareholders - but it has nothing to do with the administration process. (Whether you would have a case that had the slightest chance of success is another matter entirely. And you can't sue for a loss when you don't know how much you've lost.) Directors of a company can take out insurance in the event of legal action against them, but that's a matter for them as individuals. I don't wish to cast aspersions on soliticitors, but are some of them taking advantage of PMS savers and using scare tactics to tout for business? If you are really confused, I agree with others, ask a solicitor - these are legal matters.

joylikes2shop

Thanks Toastandbutter for reminding us about the Newsletter article which highlights some of the points the administrator put on the new web site.

I would also like to highlight a few points from the above info AND from other information I've gleamed from solicitors when enquiring into this issue.

Hopefully this information might reassure anyone that hasn't already ''registered their protection of rights'' with a solicitor.

I too -like everyone else it seems - panicked when I read the information on the forum about the insurance,the expiry date and the urgency....however having had time to analyse everything and to 'think straight' again, I think that this has probably been a 'storm in a tea cup' which was caused by NO INFORMATION or guidance or help from anyone that really knows whats going on - which in my opinion is the Administrators department- and probably started with a rumor !! so here's my synopsis .....

NO ONE KNOWS IF THE SAID INSURANCE EXISTS.... Apparently individuals and solicitors alike have tried to find this out (I believe directly with the Administrators office ??) but more than one solicitor confirmed with me that they'd been unable to verify with the PMS whether directors' and officers' insurance is actually in place'

At the moment some solicitors are acting purely on rumor - again- fueled by non existance of ANY formal official information. This is causing even more worry, expense and stress for people who are already very vulnerable.


PERSONALLY I'VE BEEN LED TO BELIEVE THAT EVEN IF THE SAID INSURANCE DOES EXIST, THE DATE OF IT'S EXPIRY IS iRRELEVANT BECAUSE AS LONG AS INSURANCE WAS IN PLACE WHEN THE PMS WENT INTO ADMINISTRATION, A CLAIM CAN STILL BE MADE (any legal eagles out there feel free to comment)...so my understanding of insurance coupled with the following info from the PMS site..''As far as the Administrator is concerned, members and creditors have an ongoing right of action against directors and officers of any company in Administration. This right exists throughout the course of an Administration''.....reassures me that 'TIME' (and in particular the date of 30th April) may not be such a big issue.

Lastly, in my opinion ...the chances of any insurance policy coming close to covering the £100+ Million short fall is probably unlikely


So in summary....if you've NOT already 'registered' try not to panic or worry any more, because the only people I see benefiting from this whole exercise are the solicitors.