NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

purt

Details of the deal to be published this morning. Doesn't look as though the plight of the PMS savers has been dealt with though.

expat68

culchied wrote: »

Details of the deal to be published this morning. Doesn't look as though the plight of the PMS savers has been dealt with though.

The PMS is not specifically mentioned in the agreement - not to say a side deal hasnt been done but the waiting goes on

Silent_Witness_2

john2009 wrote: »

I'm with expat68 on this. Well done the Howie Creditor Trust.


Isn't it interesting that Silent Witness appears with his/her first only very recently... a sign as to their identity perhaps...

Hello John2009,

What is it that you would like to know vis-a-vis my identity? - that - I am a pensioner holding a current bus pass - that I am a PMS member, that my wife is a PMS member, that I am going to lose £20,000:00 if the Administration of PMS under Insolvency is the correct process; that I am a Presbyterian Elder, that I am a trustee of more trusts that I could spontaneously outline in 5 minutes, [one being The Howie Christian Charitable Trust] and wait for it - that I am listed as a Trustee of the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland. What odds - anyway - outside of that.

To get with the programme - the rationale behind co-ordinating the application of the HCCT into the Chancery Court evolves from the reality that:

1. There was an abject failure by the legislatures in not having in place good regulatory governance in fiscal and monetary matters generally.

2. There was at least a prima facie case for suggesting that the conduct of the Directors and Officers of the Society fell below that which was required of them by law.

3. The greed and self serving impulses in the world of Banking.

I outlined this rationale in the early part of 2009 to my fellow HCCT trustees [and others] and I also recorded that the Presbyterian Church was a very effective marketing representative fot the Presbyterian Mutual Society and that Presbyterian Mutual members are entitled to have the breach of trust to which they were then [and continue to be] subjected remedied.

In relation to re-instatement of monies and remedies to PMS members:-

I am on record as outlining the correcting process for 1,2,and 3, to be:

(a) Directions of the court on the correct process for the Administration [first request in that regard to the Administrator was on 27 May 2009];

(b) Determination as to the level of Indemnity available from Government [and how long has that been goin on for? !!!]; - maybe we are now into happy days post Policing and Justice - who knows?

(c) Determination as to the level of Indemnity available from the Directors and Officers of PMS;

(d) Determination as the the level of Indemnity available from the Professional Adviser to PMS;

(e) Determination as to the level of Indemnity available under any breach of EU legislation.

and staying further with the programme:-

(i) (a) and (b) should be determined shortly - What about a deadline of 31 March 2010 for that;

(ii) (c) John23 - you might like to re-call a previous posting of your own [1005] and you will be able to deduce how your reasonings in that post dovetail into (c) above - are you up for those proceedings? If (a) and (b) come together giving pound for pound back for shareholders and loan note holders alike - then there will be no need for anything else to be done. If you are not up for 1005 action - I am trustee of a small fund which will be wiped out completely if the Administration is to be processed under Insolvency legislation - and I will follow through on John23's 1005 posting.

If I was a betting man, I would take any odds, that the legal position in relation to any PMS shareholder wishing to proceed as outlined at post 1005 is that he or she is in no worse a position than any other creditor.

Lets leave (d) and (e) for the moment - time for me to go back to being silent!! [John23 your postings have been most constructive - from 944 onwards - on posting 1009 I might disagree - I think the HCCT have the best!

Tiocfaidh 'ar la'

Josef

I note that some folk expected all to come good as a result of a side deal at the Hillsborough talks. We have waited and waited and still wait for a proper settlement. As Mutual Presbyterians we are an honourable people with a simple case. Our life savings have been denied to us and we want no side deals which might imply that our cause is less than just!!

freddiemae

excellent post outlining your position. I hope you get a just result from the court case. You all deserve to get your money back since you were misled as to the nature of the risk.

I hope there is going to be a resolution outwith P&J since I feel this injustice should be rectified by the governments concerned and the indemnity insurance of liable persons and not seen as a side issue.

Good luck with your efforts - I hope to see a happy gathering in Belfast celebrating the successful return of you long awaited savings.

expat68

Silent_Witness wrote: »

Hello John2009,


If I was a betting man, I would take any odds, that the legal position in relation to any PMS shareholder wishing to proceed as outlined at post 1005 is that he or she is in no worse a position than any other creditor.

Lets leave (d) and (e) for the moment - time for me to go back to being silent!! [John23 your postings have been most constructive - from 944 onwards - on posting 1009 I might disagree - I think the HCCT have the best!

Tiocfaidh 'ar la'

Silent Witness - don't go silent just yet. So if I understand correctly does the HCCT plan involve the creditors getting the vast majority of their funds back via strict legal interpretation of the administration process (vs. the reality of how the PMS was run on a day to day basis) followed by the shareholders sueing the directors/ advisors etc for any residual losses they would incur? My thinking is that the majority of people with savings under £20K probably dont have the funds or back up to pursue a legal case - this is why although legally they have the same rights as creditors the theory falls down on the financials and know how.

If HCCT get their funds back (less £20K) do they walk away and leave the savers with less than £20K to their own devices?

Can you also end speculation as to who is paying for your most excellent legal advisers?

Lester_F

What is your name?

expat68

Lester_F wrote: »

What is your name?

One of the benefits this site affords is the anonymity - people can be much more open that they would if their identities were known. I think silent witness' posts are good as it gives us an insight into what is driving the legal process. Clearly we wont always agree with other peoples postings but everyone is entitled to an opinion - such as Jon Groovy's continued love in with the PCI :rotfl:

Presbyterians are a retiring bunch as we all know so if everyone starts using their names the postings will stop very quickly. Just a view

fivealive_2

expat68 wrote: »

Can you also end speculation as to who is paying for your most excellent legal advisers?

Maybe they have within their ranks a professional legal advisor who has money tied up in the PMS???

fivealive_2

mackm wrote: »

Is the Howie Christian Charitable Trust connected to the Presbyterian Church?
If not, how can they have money in the PMS?

Ernie Howie used to belong to a Presbyterian Church; I know of nothing in the constitution of the PMS that states you have to withdraw your monies when you leave the PCI!!