NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

BETRAYED

Thought our dear minister Arlene Foster was off to London this week looking for a solution.

Dr. Carson met people from the Treasury on Tuesday asking if they could support "Any Bank" to 'take over' PMS.

I would like him to gather his scribes together at Church House, invite Arthur Boyd to meet them and work out some practical solution.

Praying and begging seem to be the only solution being focussed on.
Larger creditors should be asked for their opinion.

amadan22

well? did anyone watch? for the smaller saver i thought it was a little too much like a funeral:- "hello. how are you? sorry for your trouble." and walk away.

crazymess

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8536921.stm

Silent_Witness_2

amadan22 wrote: »

lester f, why all the assumptions, presumptions and suspicion? i don't really see the point in tracking down a contibuter's id. what does it matter? it's not a game of cluedo. all info and contributions welcome. personally, i think it was colonel mustard, in the library, with the candlestick.

I actually thought it was the Professor in the kitchen with a knife [or maybe a revolver and a rope].

Silent_Witness_2

Lester_F wrote: »

I presume that Setanexample's very first post takes issue with my recent posts concerning the Howie Christian Charitable Trust and their recent court action. The timing of his first post might imply that he has a link or association with the Howie Christian Charitable Trust?

There have been a large number of posts highlighting the Directors, Secretary, Moderator, Church, Politicans and others. Why did Setanexample not respond to these posts?

The legal action taken by the HCCT trustees has resulted in PMS shareholders losing their right to a share of £20 million generated by the PMS since Administration.

Law and morality are not the same thing. Silent Witness, if he is who is says he is, a Presbyterian Elder and Trustee of the General Assembly of the PCI has attempted to justify the actions of the HCCT, legally. This is one of the reasons why I think he is a lawyer. Can he justify his actions morally?

I think that Silent Witness has put the HCCT before his Church, before the Church he chooses to lead.

If I'm wrong or missing something please let me know.

Whenever I signed on to this forum, my intention was to provide an informed analysis on the PMS debacle, associated with purposeful and constructive observations, capable of being dissected, [most certainly] challenged [by all means] and critically commented on [absolutely, absolutely].

Your derogatory, personal, and indeed defamatory comments are lacking in purpose.

BY WAY OF INFORMED ANALYSIS:-
The Administrator in the PMS debacle was NEVER EVER going to be in a position to provide the members of PMS “… with an opportunity, if they wish, to reinstate the original Rules of the Society or such other terms as they may approve at a later date …”
[extracted from paragraph 3, page 5 Administrator’s letter to all known members [of PMS] dated 12 January 2009.
WHY?
“… no office holder appointed in response to an insolvency whether an Administrator, an Administrative Receiver or a Liquidator owes any duty to the shareholders of a distressed company”.

This is fundamental fact which the Administrator and his legal team should have known when the letter of 12 January 2009 was being circulated. They were certainly reminded of that fact on many occasions in 2009 after the letter of 12 January 2009 had been circulated.

That reality was affirmed by Mr Justice Deeny [more than a year later] and was always the position post 14 November 2008, [with or without any input from any Shareholder or Loan Note Holder of PMS participating in any legal action].

The Loan Note Holders’ position is clear. [Judgment of Mr Justice Deeny 12 January 2010]

The Shareholders’ Position

The concept that “members come last” [ie Shareholders in PMS] can take nothing until Creditors have been paid in full has the benefit of the Ruling in a 1997 House of Lords decision. “A principle is not members come last: a member having a cause of action independent of the statutory contract [i.e. that contract created between a company and its members and its members inter se, by its articles of association] is in no worse a position than any other creditor.

In essence, in the case of PMS, Shareholders [and indeed Loan Note holders] can pursue avenues of redress by way of representative legal action, particularly on behalf of all the sub £20,000 PMS members – following the chronology outlined in Post 3568.

For the avoidance of all doubt, my past, present and future endeavours vis-à-vis PMS is on a pro bono basis!!

complete_mess

Came across this site recently. Very interesting but I am not keen on the playground squabble.
Only fair to make it clear I nor any member of my family do not have nor ever had any investments in PMS. I am a member of a Church Committee with a shareholding ie under £20,000 in PMS
I found the House of Commons Treasury Committee report to be very interesting but not comforting. John McFall is very straight talking and highly respected.
Pages 19/20 of the report highlights a case where a large sum of money (approx £2m) is invested with the Society on behalf of a young person who received serious injuries in an acccident which was not his/her fault.
My experience would suggest these funds are held on trust and if this is the case it is incumbent on the Trustee to take every legal action to potect this young person investment. Failure to do so could leave the Trustee open to a financial claim for the shortfall. I hope these comments will take the heat out of some of the correspondence

expat68

Silent_Witness wrote: »

This is fundamental fact which the Administrator and his legal team should have known when the letter of 12 January 2009 was being circulated. They were certainly reminded of that fact on many occasions in 2009 after the letter of 12 January 2009 had been circulated.

That reality was affirmed by Mr Justice Deeny [more than a year later] and was always the position post 14 November 2008, [with or without any input from any Shareholder or Loan Note Holder of PMS participating in any legal action].

When this was always so clear cut from a legal point of view why then did HCCT have to instruct a QC ? I think this is where people had some issue - it was perceived by many as intervening unnecessarily to look after your own interests.

On other avenues my understanding is that to pursue a negligence claim against directors there must be a loss involved and until the PMS is wound up and losses crystallised it is not possible to quantify this and indeed confirm that a loss has even been incurred- when all of this eventually happens a lot of the shareholders will have anyway passed away.

On another point (and not aimed at you SW) since day 1 everyone has been talking about what is legal and not legal rather than what is right and not right which would seem more appropriate for a presbyterian institution. Church folk do the denial thing very well.....

crazymess

http://news.bbc.co.uk/democracylive/hi/northern_ireland/default.stm

listen from 0.54 in

Lester_F

Silent_Witness wrote: »

For the avoidance of all doubt, my past, present and future endeavours vis-à-vis PMS is on a pro bono basis!!

Silent Witness,

Just to clarify. Are you offering your legal services Pro Bono to any PMS saver?

goodbyepci

http://www.cobdencentre.org/2010/02/presbyterian-mutual-society-and-a-solution-to-pay-out-all-its-creditors-and-its-place-in-the-honest-money-movement/