NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

HOPE

The Telegraph article must have been inaccurate otherwise there would not be an apology,

joylikes2shop

goodbyepci wrote: »

I missed the original article
Please can someone post the link, or the gist of what was said?

Thanks

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/bu...-14421969.html

Presbyterian Mutual Society Limited

</EM>
Tuesday, 21 July 2009

• (in administration)The Business Telegraph “Opinion” column published on 7th July criticised the Administrator of the Presbyterian Mutual Society Limited (in administration) for failing to disclose certain information to members/creditors.

We wish to clarify that the Administrator’s report to the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment on the conduct of directors prior to the Administration is legally confidential and he is prohibited in law from disclosing the contents to anyone other than the Department.
Moreover, an Order of the High Court in Belfast on 7th January 2009 prohibits the disclosure of the identity of borrowers of the Presbyterian Mutual Society. We acknowledge that in the circumstances the Administrator’s Six Monthly Progress Report of 15th June 2009 did not raise more questions than answers as stated.
It was also reported in the Business Telegraph on 7th July that a “creditors’ committee” would be established in September. We wish to clarify that the Administrator’s progress report stated only that the committee was under consideration in the context of a formal arrangement for the winding down of the PMS which the Administrator hopes to put to members in September.
We are happy to make this clear and apologise to the Administrator for any misunderstanding

expat68

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/revealed-why-presbyterian-mutual-society-collapsed-14387906.html

A Boyd or his laywer obviously complained about the original article. I dont think the original article was inaccurate as such but the new article provides further explanation behind the (essentially correct) facts in the first article.

Also worth pointing out that it was administrator who applied for the high court order prohibiting disclosure of borrowers details. Bit odd saying he is legally unable to disclose information when it was him who filed the court order preventing it in the first instance.

Think it would be better if the administrator concentrated on the job in hand rather than the pedantics of articles in the belfast telegraph

goodbyepci

expat68 wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/revealed-why-presbyterian-mutual-society-collapsed-14387906.html

A Boyd or his laywer obviously complained about the original article. I dont think the original article was inaccurate as such but the new article provides further explanation behind the (essentially correct) facts in the first article.

Also worth pointing out that it was administrator who applied for the high court order prohibiting disclosure of borrowers details. Bit odd saying he is legally unable to disclose information when it was him who filed the court order preventing it in the first instance.

Think it would be better if the administrator concentrated on the job in hand rather than the pedantics of articles in the belfast telegraph

No mention here of a creditors committee, or of "raising more questions than answers"
Maybe it was somewhere else in the paper on that day?

Toastandbutter

If the administrator had the freedom to publish his report on the PMS directors and refused, that could easily be seen by readers as a slur on his character.

However this was not the case, he legally cannot publish the information, therefore the true report, that he cannot publish, bears no reflection on his character.

To suggest that his last report raises more questions than answers was a potential slur on his professional capability.

There are ways and means of expressing opinions, but this obviously wasnt one of them. it is a fine line, but the protection afforded to the administrator in this matter is actually only what any one of us would expect for our own reputation if we were in a similar situation.

What you can say is that you believe you have a moral right to know what is in the report and that the rules should be changed to allow this if necessary.

That is not impugning anyone's character.

HOPE

I could not agree more. Well said.

KingVardas

Some people do talk a lot of rot. Toast and Butter, I suggest, has got it spot on. If a newspaper critcises someone such as an Administrator for failing to disclose something which in law he is not allowed to disclose, then that is defamatory of the Administrator. It's not press censorship. Everyone, including forum members, are entitled to an opinion - but only opinions based on the facts are worth a damn. I note this forum is not moderated so, as I've advised before, if you don't know the facts or don't understand the law in this regard, you'd be advised not to say anything. No doubt the Administrator's smart lawyers read the forum too. I haven't seen what the Telegraph wrote but if they apologised, you can bet they got it wrong. And the reason you probably can't find the orginal article on line is that the paper will have pulled it. If you do have the article and you POST IN ON THIS FORUM, be warned - by knowingly repeating a libel you, too, are liable.

HOPE

You have hit the nail right on the head. The law is the law!!

Toastandbutter

btw I am not giving my opinion of this matter, just my assessment of the facts.

libel is not a criminal offence, but if anyone wants to dabble in it they better have deep pockets - it is a civil action.

BETRAYED

PMS in Administration is different from any other ordinary company administration or liquidation. All of the creditors and borrowers in PMS are shareholders.
It is my opinion that this matter has been prolonged unduly by the administrator.
PMS was owned by Presbyterians, its problems were caused by Presbyterians and Presbyterians will have to play a part in resolving the matter even with government help.
Mr Boyd has never attempted to find out how many shareholders would leave their funds in the Society for a term of years to allow it to trade out of the present situation.
He did say that he could not ask government for help but he would help those who would. I have yet to find out how.
Jimmy Delargy in one UTV programme said it was a chicken and egg situation. The administrator was waiting to see what the government were going to do and government were waiting to see what the administrator was going to do.
I do know the administrator has a great deal of work to do in the background including selling houses.
I think a creditors' committe would have been a help to him and there was the provision for setting it up.
The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 (No.2405 (N.I.) 19)
Main Body
Part III Administration Orders

Creditors' Committee

If such a committee is established, the committee may, on giving not less than 7 days notice, require the administrator to attend before it at any reasonable time and furnish it with such information relating to the carrying out of his functions as it may reasonably require.