NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

sickasaparrot

The lobby group would like to remind people that email and letter writing is crucial in the run up to the Government meeting later this month. If you have not already done so, please write to the following:-


First & Deputy First Ministers - [EMAIL="ps.ministers@ofmdfm.ni.gov.uk"]ps.ministers@ofmdfm.ni.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Arlene Foster MLA - [EMAIL="arlene.foster@niassembly.gov.uk"]arlene.foster@niassembly.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Nigel Dodds - [EMAIL="DFP.enquiries@dfpni.gov.uk"]DFP.enquiries@dfpni.gov.uk[/EMAIL]

Also please write to Liam Byrne who took over from Yvette Cooper in the Cabinet reshuffle as Chief Secretary to the Treasury. It is very important that Mr Byrne understands the savers' plight.

Mr Liam Byrne - [EMAIL="byrnel@parliament.uk"]byrnel@parliament.uk[/EMAIL]

brick

freddiemae wrote: »

Does this not mean they were still officially trading on 27th October since they had not called in an administrator or receiver at that point.

PMS office staff willingly accepted repayment requests on 10Nov, advising that it would be 21 days before payment would be issued.
No indication was given by staff that "trading" was suspended, or that all repayments had already stopped.

If my recollection is correct, it was later that same week (i.e. after 10Nov) that the undated (why?) letter was issued by PMS directors indicating that:-
- "it MAY NOT be possible to pay shareholders in accordance with rules"
- "IF THESE [withdrawals] CONTINUE, repayments to shareholders will be possible only from proceeds of the sale of assets or when loan debts are recovered"
- "FURTHER withdrawal of funds can have an adverse effect"
Again, no indication was given that "trading" was suspended, nor that all repayments had been stopped over two weeks earlier. Had they?

I'm prepared to be corrected regarding date of the letter by a more diligent record keeper.

Lester_F

Nobody has mentioned this legislation. One of the new offences that it created was fraud by abuse of position of trust. It is my view that the secretary / directors of the PMS may have committed this offence.

brick

The undated directors' letter I refer to above also summarises money-out activity as "the making of loans to churches and private individuals, and some investment in commercial property".

Even at that late stage (w/c 10Nov), an interesting choice of words.

Make your own mind up as to whether or not those words gave a fair indication as to how deposits were being used.

freddiemae

brick wrote: »

PMS office staff willingly accepted repayment requests on 10Nov, advising that it would be 21 days before payment would be issued.
No indication was given by staff that "trading" was suspended, or that all repayments had already stopped.

If my recollection is correct, it was later that same week (i.e. after 10Nov) that the undated (why?) letter was issued by PMS directors indicating that:-
- "it MAY NOT be possible to pay shareholders in accordance with rules"
- "IF THESE [withdrawals] CONTINUE, repayments to shareholders will be possible only from proceeds of the sale of assets or when loan debts are recovered"
- "FURTHER withdrawal of funds can have an adverse effect"
Again, no indication was given that "trading" was suspended, nor that all repayments had been stopped over two weeks earlier. Had they?

I'm prepared to be corrected regarding date of the letter by a more diligent record keeper.

Brick this fits in with my thinking that the PMS was still in official business when they went to the church as per the report above. It looks to me they might have thought the church might possibly bail them out but came away empty handed - why else would they go to a non-legal entity for advice.

Toastandbutter

jon - you are obviously very hurt and angry. The FSA has passed judgement on the directors, but not prosecuted. the paper trail connecting to PCI is undeniable should anyone wish to pursue in court.

but would it not be more helpful in the long run to channel this anger constructlively towards a solution?

Toastandbutter

BETRAYED - You say you have asked for meeting with administrator and got no reply.

I dont have any special knowledge on this, but for the sake of balance and context, we should remember that there are some 9500 shareholders involved.

- I wonder how many are asking for such meetings? No doubt a reply would be nice though.

crazymess

Lester F

Would this be relevant?



2

[FONT=BookAntiquaParliamentary,Italic][FONT=BookAntiquaParliamentary,Italic]Fraud Act 2006 (c. [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=BookAntiquaParliamentary,BoldIt][FONT=BookAntiquaParliamentary,BoldIt]35[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=BookAntiquaParliamentary,Italic][FONT=BookAntiquaParliamentary,Italic])[/FONT][/FONT]

(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

brick

http://zoomtard.furiousthinking.org/2009/06/09/pms-bellyaching/

The bloggers do all have their own interpretations! (...and if you didn't appreciate Rev McKelvey you won't like this one - be forewarned)

Toastandbutter

I sure havent heard anyone say I'm sorry - the single biggest gap in all the PCI talk imo.

Saying that, it would appear that very few directors were on whatever commitee dealt with loans and relevant policy.