NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Excap123

It's a fair point that shareholders of the PMS should have been more alive to what was going on. A friend in business said the same to me - you owned the company, you appointed the directors, if it went down you are as much to blame as anyone. Thousans of people in the UK are in the same position and don't ask others to bail them out. While I don't exactly see it that way, there is no doubt there's many out there including Presbyterians who do. I worry that if the hat is passed around in church, it could end up being an embarrasingly small amount. The problem is that all the politicians have taken the side of PMS savers and they're going to be pretty annoyed if the church doesn't stump up a few millions along side money from tax payers. This could degenerate into a shouting match. Im afraid the attempts by many on this forum to blame everyone but themselves and insisting it's all the money back or nothing are not helping the case.

BETRAYED

Insolvency Order (NI)
[4] Paragraph 4(1) of Schedule B 1 reads:
“4(1) The administrator of a company must perform his functions with the objective of:
(a) rescuing the company as a going concern, or
(b) achieving a better result for the company’s creditors as a whole than would be likely if the company were wound up (without first being in administration), or
(c) realising property in order to make a distribution to one or more secure or preferential creditors.”

Could anyone tell me why the Administrator has not considered (a) above.

I also want to know why the process of setting up the 'Creditors' Committee' has not commenced.
Judge Deeny spelt out very clearly in Court to Mr Boyd how to go about it.

Creditors need proper representation.

The key to a resolution could lie with creditors. PCI congregations have 28m in PMS.
Congregations and creditors could help to pay off small shareholders and many creditors whom I have spoken to would support this.

I question some aspects of the running of this administration.

pms_overload

NAR wrote: »

Did the Ministers/Church not recommend this to the congregations? Without telling people it was not without risk, then surely this is a case of misselling. Get them to cough up.

Who are the church? Answer: the people in the pews!

crazymess

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Prayers-call-ahead-of-PMS.6216650.jp

http://www.presbyterianireland.org/assembly/report.html

NAR

pms_overload wrote: »

Who are the church? Answer: the people in the pews!

So do you really not believe that there are millions of your hard earned cash salted away somewhere?

brick

pms_overload wrote: »

it did exactly what it said on the tin.

You must have been looking at a different tin than many of the savers, or investors, or members, or Presbyterians, or whatever you want to call them:-
http://voxo.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/questions-for-the-presbyterian-mutual-society/

See the "Is my investment safe?" section.

brick

pms_overload wrote: »

Will investors be permitted to take part in the Special Assembly? The Code of PCI prevents those having a pecuniary interest taking part in Congregational Committee meetings discussing such matters. If that is right for Committees it is right for the General Assembly as well.

Anyone in a position to answer that question might also comment on whether or not those who participated in the run by withdrawing their own savings or by influencing the decision of a church or entity to withdraw its funds would be permitted to take part in the Special Assembly - assuming such individuals exist(?) and might otherwise be eligible.

BETRAYED

Sunday Sequence William Crawley 11 April 2010

Go to 9.48


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rzt1j

freddiemae

BETRAYED wrote: »

Sunday Sequence William Crawley 11 April 2010

Go to 9.48


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/console/b00rzt1j

Am I the only one to see the "Hardship fund " -as described by Stafford Carson as a humiliating cop-out where savers have to beg and be means tested for their own money. This whole set-up of loans (with interest to be paid) and an administrated hardship fund will eat into the available funds just to keep the paperwork going. A poor result for the PMS. I hope some savers get back enough to sue the indemnity insurance of the ones who got you into this mess.

brick

freddiemae wrote: »

Am I the only one to see the "Hardship fund " -as described by Stafford Carson as a humiliating cop-out where savers have to beg and be means tested for their own money.

No, based on what was outlined in Sunday Sequence you certainly aren't.