NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

freddiemae

goodbyepci wrote: »

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/pms-savers-facing-more-misery-over-court-ruling-14680870.html

very telling quote from that article


“All other financial institutions have been rescued, including those who were behaving recklessly and endangering depositors' money.

“To date, neither director, auditor nor regulator has been asked to pay any price for their failure.”

crazymess

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Court-ruling-blowfor-PMS-savers.6069775.jp


Following the meeting, Mr Robinson said work would continue to try to secure a settlement for savers but warned the process could not be rushed.

He added that he would do what he could to assist those affected.

Mr Robinson said: "Almost 10,000 people have been affected by the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society, I am determined that their plight will not be forgotten.

"I and my Executive colleagues will continue to press the Prime Minister and the Treasury until a satisfactory solution to this problem is found."

Mr McGuinness said: "Many people have put their trust in the PMS and found themselves victims of circumstances way beyond their control."




Presbyterian moderator Stafford Carson said yesterday that Justice Deeny's comment that "any redress must be found elsewhere" highlights the need for the Government to urgently find a resolution to the PMS situation.




"any redress must be found elsewhere" - what does this actually mean??

Lester_F

pensiongone wrote: »

Read the link below
http://www.4ni.co.uk/northern_ireland_news.asp?id=106728
quote
Mr Justice Deeny said there was a lack of definition of "creditors" in the relevant legislation.

He referred to case law however and concluded that a shareholder in the PMS would only become a creditor of the Society when he or she has an entitlement to receive the sum which he has paid up on his share.

This would be at the time he or she applied to the Society to withdraw their shares. At that point they would be owed money by the PMS and would become creditors.

Mr Justice Deeny sympathised with those shareholders who have found themselves in difficult circumstances but concluded that the shareholders of the PMS who did not withdraw their shares either before the PMS imposed a 21 day notice period in October 2008 cannot be creditors.

Question 1
Can anyone remember when the 21 day notice period was imposed?

Question 2
If you applied to remove your savings during the 21 day notice period, does that make you a creditor or not? - I'm confused here.

From my records the 21 day notice period was implemented on Monday 27/10/08.

I don't know the answer to your second question. I think it is an important point as a large number of shareholders requested to withdraw money during the 2 / 3 weeks after the 21 day notice period was implemented and before the PMS went into Administration. Are these shareholders classified as creditors?

PMSSaver

jon_groovy wrote: »

do you think mutuality was applied when some ministers lifted their money when they found out it could have been in danger.

lets stand back and see how some congregations with more than 20k will take their payout while individuals starve

I think the ruling yesterday is very unfair, and many of us are suffering because of it, but I don't think that there is a Presbyterian whose congregation would let them starve. I have seen folks starving. To describe this situation in those terms is objectionable.

You say that there were ministers who lifted their money. I think that you would need to substantiate that accusation or retract it.

BETRAYED

Mr Robinson said: "Almost 10,000 people have been affected by the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society, I am determined that their plight will not be forgotten.

Is the First Minister considering the erection of some memorial recording the suffering, anxiety and injustice that we have all experienced for sixteen months as a result of British and Northern Ireland government ministers' incompetence.

BETRAYED

warmhands.coldheart wrote: »

Here's my idea for what it's worth... (Probably mentioned before)
how about having a meeting of ALL savers/investors (regionally) and trying to get some agreement so the PMS can keep running as a going concern?
I mean I can't imagine every single person in the PMS needs the money they have invested/saved... All the government would have to do is Invest some taxpayers money like they did with Northern Rock and gaurantee the savings making people happier that there was some security there. maybe the people would feel more secure and then look at it as a long term investment.... property will recover... it'll just take a few years....

maybe it's not just that easy !!

Well said.

There must now surley be a Creditors' Meeting appointing a Creditors' Committee of up to five people.
The administrator has been told in court that he will only get his five years extension if he comes to court with some proposal of creditors' representation.
Major creditors, including PCI congregations should look at paying off the disadvantaged shareholders who hold shares under 20K and have no loans to the society.
We need further information from the administrator regarding sums involved.

We are now in theory demutualised. Creditors would become total owners of all commercial property, houses and building land in the administrator's portfolio.

It is now creditors that the administrator has to look to.
Any proposals from him have to be approved by them.

Praying is just one of the things we have to do.
What will clergy from the 'caring church' have to say in Church this morning to the small shareholder, who is now not entitled to any payout.

freddiemae

One thing that worries me - since the Judge has said that the shareholders (savers) are in law shareholders then if the government does step in to help PMS will they still be left out in the cold because it would create a precedent for the government to be forced to bail out bank shareholders (like Northern Rock)'

This would be a double blow against the small savers(shareholders).

The small shareholders would need to band together in that situation and sue the persons responsible who have indemnity insurance.

BETRAYED

freddiemae wrote: »

One thing that worries me - since the Judge has said that the shareholders (savers) are in law shareholders then if the government does step in to help PMS will they still be left out in the cold because it would create a precedent for the government to be forced to bail out bank shareholders (like Northern Rock)'

This would be a double blow against the small savers(shareholders).

The small shareholders would need to band together in that situation and sue the persons responsible who have indemnity insurance.

I agree with what you say.
As time goes on this mess is getting more and more messy.
The judge did comment at one hearing that it was a pity that the order of the Northern Ireland Assembly which put us into administration did not give shareholders and creditors equal rights.

Tommy80

How many agree with me that the PCI, especially the ministers, should have done far more to help those in financial difficulty?

How much longer will ministers be provided with free houses, free central heating, free phones, etc. etc.?

How many ministers have suffered financially due to the PMS meltdown?

Isn't it big of them to decide not to have a pay increase this year?

I suggest that, if churches continue to own manses, ministers pay rent if they wish to live in them?

All replies welcome.

D.A.

Tommy80 wrote: »

I suggest that, if churches continue to own manses, ministers pay rent if they wish to live in them?

And it has occurred to you of course that the rent money would be coming from money which has already been given by the congregation?