NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

joylikes2shop

http://u.tv/News/PMS-in-High-Court-redistribution-bid/9bebebb5-ad74-4df3-beb8-8265fcf57690

john2009

BETRAYED wrote: »

John
Please tell me then why were PMS not told by Arlene Foster that under that act FSA were to regulate the societies registered under the N. I. Industrial and Provident Society Acts.
Same likewise for Credit Unions. They are only getting benefit of government guarantees in a bill today at Westminster.

Betrayed - you seemed to have missed the point again here. I dont think it is a politician's job to tell PMS that it should be regulated by the FSA. This was surely a matter for the directors. The bottom line is that the legislation you mentioned does actually apply in NI.

I'm not sure what bill for credit unions you are referring to as I had understood that Credit Unions in England have been subject to FSA for a while now, but I will look into it.

john2009

Any news on how the hearing went today?

BETRAYED

Treasury caves in over credit union expansion

</EM>
Wednesday, 27 January 2010


The Treasury has conceded to pressure from MPs and ministers in Northern Ireland to treat credit unions in Northern Ireland in the same way as those in Great Britain.
During a late night debate in the House of Commons on Monday, Treasury minister Ian Pearson gave a commitment that it would co-operate with introducing early legislation to bring the regulation of Northern Ireland credit unions under the Financial Services Authority and extend the range of services credit unions in Northern Ireland are permitted to provide.
The legislation will enable savers in credit unions here to have deposits guaranteed by the Financial Services Compensation Scheme.



Read more: http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-news/treasury-caves-in-over-credit-union-expansion-14653133.html#ixzz0dqdS8xVn

joylikes2shop

john2009 wrote: »

Any news on how the hearing went today?

This is the best I can find for now ( from the link I posted earlier)...


PMS in High Court redistribution bid

Wednesday, 27 January 2010

The administrator for the collapsed Presbyterian Mutual Society has gone before the High Court to seek a ruling on how a £20m pot should be distributed.

Lawyers for Arthur Boyd urged a judge to decide who falls within the category of creditors to be paid first from finances he is managing.
A further application for an extension to allow him to continue running its affairs for up to five years is not expected to be resolved until the payments issue is settled.


Nearly 10,000 Presbyterians across Northern Ireland lost access to their savings when the PMS went into administration just over a year ago following a run on its funds.
The Society includes two groups: those who invested up to a maximum of £20,000 in the form of shareholdings; and others wanting to put in larger amounts who loaned money to it.
Insolvency legislation normally requires creditors to take preference when it comes to paying back money.
But counsel for the administrator stressed how the PMS operated on a basis of mutuality and equality between all members.
Stephen Shaw QC told Mr Justice Deeny: "This is a matter which has occasioned concern among a very large constituency of the population and has been subject to active discussions on the internet, various groups and postings, and people are following this with some interest.
"The role of the administrator here is to try and ascertain, through your Lordship's authoritative decision, what he ought to do in the circumstances he finds himself in."
It was contended that all of those who are members, rather than just lenders, can be categorised as creditors.
Mr Shaw said the "benign objectives" of the Society since its establishment in 1982 was only available to members of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.
Stressing that no criticism was being made, he cited one case as part of an argument that there was no distinction made between investments in the form of shares and loans.
"If one individual was given to understand there was no difference between the treatment of loans and shares then perhaps such an understanding was conveyed to others," he said.
At one stage in the hearing Mr Justice Deeny pondered whether an arrangement could be made to ease the plight of those facing the worst circumstances.
Pointing out how all members were members of the same church, he asked whether, depending on his ruling, the administrator could decide to divide 90% of the £20m among loan capital holders.
The other 10% could be used to benefit shareholders suffering the financial hardship, it was suggested.
"I would not be inviting loan capital to abandon their claims, but to defer them," the judge added.
The hearing was adjourned until Thursday.

Lester_F

Ernest Howie isn't.

no_more_f.w.o

Lester_F wrote: »

Ernest Howie isn't.

Neither were some of the borrowers!! :eek:

(Allegedly) :cool:

Toastandbutter

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/High-Court-hears-debate-on.6020996.jp

totallyletdown

Betrayed, where you organising a meeting at some stage in January ?

expat68

Toastandbutter wrote: »

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/High-Court-hears-debate-on.6020996.jp

Is it just me or is there some irony in a foundation with charitable and christian in their name arguing in court that so many people should be deprived of their savings. I am reminded of the posting from January of the OAP who was unable to heat her home and the undoubted many more like her......good work Pastor Howie and God bless.