NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

Flinflon wrote: »

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

I attended court today on behalf of suffering shareholders.
Thank God one BBC reporter was there to report the facts.

crazymess

17 July 2009
Presbyterian Mutual Society working group

The Prime Minister recently announced that a working group of Ministers would be formed to look specifically at problems at the Presbyterian Mutual Society. The working group had its first meeting on 16 July and is scheduled to report back to the Prime Minister in the autumn.
The Administrator of PMS is also in parallel to this, progressing with his enquiries and is due to report back to members and creditors in September.
Membership

Chief Secretary to the Treasury
Economic Secretary to the Treasury
Secretary of State for Northern Ireland
Minister for Finance and Personnel, Northern Ireland
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Investment, Northern Ireland
First Minister
Deputy First Minister
Terms of reference

• To investigate the circumstances surrounding the collapse of the PMS.
• To consider the losses incurred by PMS members
• To consider what, if any, action can be taken to mitigate members' losses, particularly those hardest hit by the collapse of the PMS.

The Working Group will take account of the legislative framework under which PMS operates; the work of the Administrator; wider financial services policy, fairness and value for money.
The Group will submit a draft report to the Prime Minister in September.




REMEMBER THIS!!!

ARE WE GETTING FINANCIAL HELP OR NOT??

WE DESERVE AN ANSWER.

BETRAYED

Crazymess

Quote

The Working Group will take account of the legislative framework under which PMS operates; the work of the Administrator; wider financial services policy, fairness and value for money.
The Group will submit a draft report to the Prime Minister in September.




REMEMBER THIS!!!

ARE WE GETTING FINANCIAL HELP OR NOT??

WE DESERVE AN ANSWER.

Sorry for posting this again.
Belfast NewsLetter Sat 29 Nov. 09
Finance Minister Sammy Wilson has told the NewsLetter that a Treasury minister accepted a Department of Finance proposal in July that the Treasury would provide a guarantee for any gap in finances for the PMS while its property portfolio recovered.

NAR

BETRAYED wrote: »

I attended court today on behalf of suffering shareholders.
Thank God one BBC reporter was there to report the facts.

Is this because you didn't - post #3444 refers?

john2009

Did anyone pick up any developments today?

As those of you who know me, I live across the water. My mum lives in Belfast and has quite a bit of money tied up in this mess. I rely heavily on this site to help me guage the mood and to keep up to date. I work in finance. I don't have a great deal of knowledge about administrations but a few my friends have been trading free lunches for knowledge recently. I'm indebted to them Anyway... you will have seen from my posts last night that I panicked a little about the report on the court hearing. KingVardas allayed this but I woke up this morning feeling extremely dissatified so I plucked up the courage to call the administrator's solicitor. I thought that since my mum was paying him, I would take a few minutes of his time. His direct dial is on his firm's website if you have any questions for him, although this might change after today.

I got him on the second attempt. I don't think he was very happy. Shocked might be a better description of his reaction but he did give me a fair hearing.

He was reluctant to get into a discussion about the court hearing as this was "a matter before the court". However when I mentioned the speculation about the application for an 5 year extension being refused, he did say that this was not correct and that the application had been adjourned.

I asked if the court would rule that the administrator will pay share holders and loan holders at the same time or if the loan holders would be paid first (my mum only has shares). I was told that if he knew the answer to this, the administrator wouldn't be asking the court. I said that shareholders normally get paid last in an administration but I was told that the law wasn't entirely clear on how "withdrawable shares" should be treated. I will look into this over the weekend.

Can anyone else add anything to this?

expat68

john2009 wrote: »

Did anyone pick up any developments today?

I asked if the court would rule that the administrator will pay share holders and loan holders at the same time or if the loan holders would be paid first (my mum only has shares). I was told that if he knew the answer to this, the administrator wouldn't be asking the court. I said that shareholders normally get paid last in an administration but I was told that the law wasn't entirely clear on how "withdrawable shares" should be treated. I will look into this over the weekend.


Can anyone else add anything to this?

John 2009

Haaaa - would have loved to have seen his face, did you hear the sound of him spitting out his coffee in shock ?

http://www.communityshares.org.uk/sites/default/files/CommunitySharesFactsheet5v1.0.pdf

Some info I managed to find - I think it relates to IPS in England but it gives a good overview.

I hadnt really thought about the different classes of share capital before but it is an interesting point as it is really only IPS which have this type of capital and I'm not aware that any has ever been through administration before hence the need for a judge to rule. It is still share capital and therefore would still rank behind creditors/ loans - what do you think?

BETRAYED

Article with comments from Erskine Holmes

http://www.thenews.coop/features/Wider%20Co-op%20Movement/1540

BETRAYED

john2009 wrote: »

Did anyone pick up any developments today?
..............................

I asked if the court would rule that the administrator will pay share holders and loan holders at the same time or if the loan holders would be paid first (my mum only has shares). I was told that if he knew the answer to this, the administrator wouldn't be asking the court. I said that shareholders normally get paid last in an administration but I was told that the law wasn't entirely clear on how "withdrawable shares" should be treated. I will look into this over the weekend.

Can anyone else add anything to this?

John
Many thanks for your endeavour. Some time back when Mr Boyd said to me that he could not himself meet me I asked could I meet his solicitors. He said "No, because I have instructed them".
On leaving Court last Thursday I met the barrister in the corridor and asked his name. I also asked the name of the judge who heard the case.
The barrister politely told me what I wanted to know and introduced me to Mr Boyd's solicitor who was with him.
In such circumstances I did not consider it proper or protocol to raise any matters relating to the case with either the barrister or the solicitor.

In Mr Boyds last report to creditors (which he also sends to shareholders) Page 8 Par 3.9 he lists the four issues he wishes to have direction from the court on.
The barrister opened his address to the judge by stating that items 1,2 and 3 were being dealt with on 27th January but he wished to proceed with item 4.
I was taken aback when I heard the period of extension asked for was 5 years. Mr Boyd did not have the courtesy to state that in his report.
I was impressed how well informed Judge Deeny was on the PMS matter and when he raised the matter of creditor representation I could not help but feel that at least court has concern for the rights of individuals.

The case continues.

john2009

expat68 wrote: »

John 2009

Haaaa - would have loved to have seen his face, did you hear the sound of him spitting out his coffee in shock ?

http://www.communityshares.org.uk/sites/default/files/CommunitySharesFactsheet5v1.0.pdf

Some info I managed to find - I think it relates to IPS in England but it gives a good overview.

I hadnt really thought about the different classes of share capital before but it is an interesting point as it is really only IPS which have this type of capital and I'm not aware that any has ever been through administration before hence the need for a judge to rule. It is still share capital and therefore would still rank behind creditors/ loans - what do you think?

Thanks expat68. I will do some digging about too and ask a few of my insolvency friends if they can shed any light on it (it might cost me the price of a lunch but if it is of any use to us, we can have a whip round for ths cost:) ).

john2009

BETRAYED wrote: »

John
Many thanks for your endeavour. Some time back when Mr Boyd said to me that he could not himself meet me I asked could I meet his solicitors. He said "No, because I have instructed them".
On leaving Court last Thursday I met the barrister in the corridor and asked his name. I also asked the name of the judge who heard the case.
The barrister politely told me what I wanted to know and introduced me to Mr Boyd's solicitor who was with him.
In such circumstances I did not consider it proper or protocol to raise any matters relating to the case with either the barrister or the solicitor.

In Mr Boyds last report to creditors (which he also sends to shareholders) Page 8 Par 3.9 he lists the four issues he wishes to have direction from the court on.
The barrister opened his address to the judge by stating that items 1,2 and 3 were being dealt with on 27th January but he wished to proceed with item 4.
I was taken aback when I heard the period of extension asked for was 5 years. Mr Boyd did not have the courtesy to state that in his report.
I was impressed how well informed Judge Deeny was on the PMS matter and when he raised the matter of creditor representation I could not help but feel that at least court has concern for the rights of individuals.

The case continues.

Betrayed - I wouldn't focus too much on the period of 5 years. Administrators tend to be cautious about things so Boyd is probably asking for a bit more time than he really needs, just to be on the safe side. The key issue in all of this is how the shares are treated. Lets not lose sight of this.