NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

KingVardas

Hi, just read the BBC report which says the judge adjourned the case for a few weeks saying he was "minded" to grant the extension of the administration. It just shows that without a rescue, it will be a long haul - but I don't myself see the assets regaining anything near their value in the short term.. I am sure the first minister's mind is on other things, but what is happening to the government group's plan to find a bank to ride to the rescue. Don't see much about that.

crazymess

Why were we told yesterday that this case WAS NOT BEING HEARD or MENTIONED!!! today BECAUSE OF THE SNOW and was adjourned to 27th January.



Very interesting!

joylikes2shop

BETRAYED...many thanks for making your way to court today :T

I look forward to reading the full court transcript...or your version of events....when available.

expat68

BETRAYED wrote: »

Other matters came to light where the judge informed the court that Howie a creditor from L/Derry has been offered to have his legal fees paid by Mr Boyd.
Serious issues have arisen. I am trying to get a full court transcript before I post further informatio

Betrayed ; can you share any more detail on this. It seems like a very strange kind of arrangement - as if there wasnt enough of PMS savers cash already been paid to lawyers!!

Transcripts in theory should be available under Freedom of Information but there is an opt out.

john2009

It has been a few months since I posted on here but now things are getting to an important stage I thought I would pitch in again.

Thanks to Betrayed for the summary on the court. But aren't we all missing something here? Wasn't the administrator to ask the court if he should pay the share holders as well as the loan holders? Did the judge say anything about this? This is the big issue for me/mum.

Betrayed - are you sure the application to extend was refused? If it was the administrator will probably now move to liquidate (ie break up and sell)which would be disasterous for the majority of us.

BETRAYED

expat68 wrote: »

Betrayed ; can you share any more detail on this. It seems like a very strange kind of arrangement - as if there wasnt enough of PMS savers cash already been paid to lawyers!!

Transcripts in theory should be available under Freedom of Information but there is an opt out.

Please bear with me. I am hoping to have an information and educational day in Ballymena before the next High Court hearing on PMS. 27/01/10 re Credit Unions and Mutual Societies.
Watch this space.

KingVardas

john2009 wrote: »

It has been a few months since I posted on here but now things are getting to an important stage I thought I would pitch in again.

Thanks to Betrayed for the summary on the court. But aren't we all missing something here? Wasn't the administrator to ask the court if he should pay the share holders as well as the loan holders? Did the judge say anything about this? This is the big issue for me/mum.

Betrayed - are you sure the application to extend was refused? If it was the administrator will probably now move to liquidate (ie break up and sell)which would be disasterous for the majority of us.

From past experience, and with respect to anyone who was in the court, I would wait until the court makes its decision. The case today was ADJOURNED, so no matter what observations the judge made (according to BBC) the adminitrators applications for extension, who to pay the first payment to etc will not be heard until apparently January 27. If the BBC is correct, and there is nothing to suggest it got its report wrong, then the Judge is minded/inclined/going to grant an extension of the administration for five years, which I assume was applied for in case there is no rescue forthcoming in the short term. Without an extension, your assets will be sold to the first bidder and you'll all get a few pence in the pound. I humbly suggest a period of calm until a court decision is made. My point about the government working group needing a good nudge to get on with it is still valid.

Flinflon

jon_groovy wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8446432.stm

not going to be solved quickly

Helpful BBC story, subject as it was to the careful screenings of responsible editors. With the greatest respect, I would urge non-journalists to be very circumspect about reporting on court hearings--not only because they may unwittingly provide skewed or incomplete information, but also because they may not be fully aware of nuances in legal jargon, etc. For example, how can the BBC report that Boyd may be allowed to run the PMS for five years, while we see a non-professional account in our forum that Boyd's request for an extension was refused? And as for this Howie from L'derry....I venture to say that this information may be quite inaccurate. The Web offers a temptation: "You too can be a journalist!!!" Yeah, and we can all be electricians and brain surgeons, too. As for transcripts, Section 32 of the Freedom of Information Act is quite clear (I quote Heather Brooke's excellent guide on the subject, q.v. through Google), p.130: "Courts and public inquiries are not considered 'public authorities' under the FOIA." Court records are exempt from disclosure--and yes, that includes transcripts--although a court (i.e. judge) may see fit to order their release under a test for public interest. Rarely does a UK court see it that way. I, too, am sorry to have missed the hearing. My information re whether the hearing would be held was obviously incorrect, and I apologise if anyone was misled. I am not an expert on courts, but have attended many trials, hearings and inquiries in my past professional life, and have learned that the information received in them is to be handled with absolute care and accuracy. I respectfully urge others to tread carefully--especially as we have enough problems just trying to deal with the PMS.

john2009

KingVardas wrote: »

From past experience, and with respect to anyone who was in the court, I would wait until the court makes its decision. The case today was ADJOURNED, so no matter what observations the judge made (according to BBC) the adminitrators applications for extension, who to pay the first payment to etc will not be heard until apparently January 27. If the BBC is correct, and there is nothing to suggest it got its report wrong, then the Judge is minded/inclined/going to grant an extension of the administration for five years, which I assume was applied for in case there is no rescue forthcoming in the short term. Without an extension, your assets will be sold to the first bidder and you'll all get a few pence in the pound. I humbly suggest a period of calm until a court decision is made. My point about the government working group needing a good nudge to get on with it is still valid.

This answers my question, thanks KingVardas. I will take my heart out of my mouth and put it back in my chest. It is in no one's interest for the administration not to be extended. The vultures would have a field day with the assets, at our expense!!!!

If there is a committee who picks it?

BETRAYED

expat68 wrote: »

Betrayed ; can you share any more detail on this. It seems like a very strange kind of arrangement - as if there wasnt enough of PMS savers cash already been paid to lawyers!!

Transcripts in theory should be available under Freedom of Information but there is an opt out.

Judge wants some indication of how administrator is going to be supervised re. administration, on next hearing.
His barrister today said that there were different lobbying groups that Mr Boyd could consult.
Mr Boyd told me last September that he was in a position to do this.
Never heard from him regarding this.