NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

john2009 wrote: »

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.

Administrator could get yearly or half yearly extensions from court.

The Insolvency laws under which he operates were never designed for an IPS.
We only got there because of DETNI's order brought by the N I Assembly.
I may be wrong but I see no provision within The Insolvency(Northern Ireland) 1989 where any judge could allow the administrator to treat shareholders as creditors.

We are still in desperate need of H M Government and Treasury assistance.

Could it be that Boyd's application to court could be a wake up call for something to come out of The Working Party Report.

BETRAYED

Good weekend reading. Do not print.....Large Document.

The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/uksi_19892405_en_1

Part III Administration Orders is the section I consider most relevant.

Lester_F

There are a number of large creditors aggressively pushing to get their money first and therefore at the expense of shareholders. Ultimately, a court will decide whether creditors get preferential treatment.

I wonder who if anybody is putting the shareholders' case before the court?

BETRAYED

Lester_F wrote: »

There are a number of large creditors aggressively pushing to get their money first and therefore at the expense of shareholders. Ultimately, a court will decide whether creditors get preferential treatment.

I wonder who if anybody is putting the shareholders' case before the court?[/QUOTE


Answer nobody ...not even PCI

Administrator it could be argued is asking for permission to treat shareholders as creditors.

john2009

BETRAYED wrote: »

Administrator could get yearly or half yearly extensions from court.

The Insolvency laws under which he operates were never designed for an IPS.
We only got there because of DETNI's order brought by the N I Assembly.
I may be wrong but I see no provision within The Insolvency(Northern Ireland) 1989 where any judge could allow the administrator to treat shareholders as creditors.

We are still in desperate need of H M Government and Treasury assistance.

Could it be that Boyd's application to court could be a wake up call for something to come out of The Working Party Report.

Everytime the administrator goes into court, his costs (and his lawyers costs) continue to increase so I wouldn't be that keen on six monthly extensions.

As boyd is an officer of the court he can go before the court on any point he is unsure about. Here in England as administrator has a general power to seek direcions under Insolvency Act 1986 - I understand the position is the same in NI.

It's a fair point about the Working Party. Boyd might be saying he has had enough of this waiting around and that he is getting on with his job of paying back money to us.

john2009

BETRAYED wrote: »

Good weekend reading. Do not print.....Large Document.

The Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1989/uksi_19892405_en_1

Part III Administration Orders is the section I consider most relevant.

Betrayed - I have found a list of current insolvency legislation on DETNI's website. Parts of this legislation seem to have been replaced in 2005, including the section referred to on administration orders. I'm afraid its no longer relevant.

Lester_F

Are you prepared to be treated equally with PMS shareholders?

BETRAYED

Lester_F wrote: »

Are you prepared to be treated equally with PMS shareholders?

Lester
I myself and a good number of creditors (some with millions in PMS) are willing to be treated as shareholders.
We understand the suffering and distress of the under £20,000 saver and we were aware when we put our savings in PMS that it was a Mutual Society.
Furthermore a goodly number of larger savers would be happy to keep a substantial part of their money in PMS to help resolve this situation.
Mr Boyd does not want to know.

KingVardas

john2009 wrote: »

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.

John2009, in my experience I believe you are correct in this assessment. I think the administrator is planning ahead in the event that the government group doesn't come up with a solution, and by seeking five years is only reflecting reality and saving the costs of having to keep applying the court every six months for another extension. It's also clear that contrary to one report on this thread, the judge has not refused the extension, he is actually minded to grant it. On the other point of a direction on how to treat shareholders v loanholders, it appears to me that this is just in the case of the first pay-out. It would not necessarily hold good for the distribution of all capital. Hasn't the administrator said a formal arrangement for winding down your society can be put to members at a later stage, if necessary, and I presume at that point members can vote on how shareholders/loanholders are treated. It's crystal clear to me that everyone, including the administrator, is fervently hoping the government will find a rescuer. If not, then the reality is that - as envisaged from the start - there will have to be a period of years over which the value of the assets will recover and enable most, if not all the capital, to be returned.
As to insolvency law, it's very complicated at the best of times and I for one will not try and pre-judge the judge!

KingVardas

jon_groovy wrote: »

Is there any way we can let mr boyd know that this would be a real possibility for loads of people and would help all involved ?

Please think about this for a moment. Say, in theory, there were people who wanted to keep a substantial part of their money in the society (very generous and honourable), does that mean that they would refuse to accept the distribution of most their capital back to them during the insolvency? If they did, then look at what would happen - others would get their money back more quickly but those that left it there would get very little. To be realistic, everyone needs to understand that with the society in administration, they can't leave their money in a company that is (i) insolvent under the law (ii) where shareholders have already voted for it to be wound down and their capital returned and (iii) the FSA has forbidden the society to trade. Let's ground the discussion in reality.