NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

brick

Article about PM in Times - http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7097102.ece

Asked what had been his biggest mistakes in office, the Prime Minister said: "In the 1990s, the banks. They all came to us and said ’Look, we don’t want to be regulated, we want to be free of regulation’.
"All the complaints I was getting from people was ’Look, you’re regulating them too much’. And, actually, the truth is that globally and nationally we should have been regulating them more.
"So I’ve learnt from that. So you don’t listen to the industry when they say ’This is good for us’. You’ve got to talk about the whole public interest."

So PM reckons "truth" is HMG should have been "regulating more" for the "whole public interest".

Make your own mind up whether or not PM feels similar regret about (non?)regulation of PMS (a UK financial institution engaged in banking activity), and ensuing effect upon public who deposited so-called "share" savings with it.

I'm moaning too much - think that meeting yesterday got to me, with the apparent complete injustice (and absence of outrage) surrounding proposed differing treatment of "share" savers and "loan" savers.

Excap123

Brick . . .apparent complete injustice (and absence of outrage) surrounding proposed differing treatment of "share" savers and "loan" savers." You should take that up in the High Court. I think the court just confirmed what the law says - when a company goes insolvent, the creditors get paid first and the shareholders have to wait. tough as it sounds to you, the law is there for a good reason. At least the plan the politicians are talking about recognises the hardship of shareholders who should be able to exchange their shares for cash from a fund, or at least enough of it to keep them going until such time as the thing is wound up and any surplus returned to them.

totallyletdown

just wrote: »

I was in the public gallery yesterday for the meeting at church house. At first I was impressed with the words the moderator spoke and the gentleman that talked about the resolution no.7 should be amended to add to read " the general assembly agree in principle to contribute AT LEAST £1million to the hardship fund." Then it saddened me to hear the view it should not be changed incase they were asked to to give more, say £5 million. Hence the words "at least" were not added. I thought the Presbyterian Church was a caring christian church. The impression I got was we (PCI) will contribute the least amount that we can get away with. I hope the goverment does not have the same attitude. Is this the attitude we should have. Just as PCI tried to say the PMS was nothing to do with them when this mess came to light. Don't take any responsibilty unless you are forced to. I wonder if we put in our FWO envelope every Sunday morning the least amount we could get away with would this be the caring christian attitude?

PCI is not a compassionate caring church, that is one which has been highlighted over the past year and a half.

BETRAYED

Update from the Administrator 14 April 2010


The Administrator is aware that members/creditors have questions about the impact of the proposed plan to assist creditors and to provide practical help to deal with the hardship experienced by small savers. While he very much welcomes any steps to ease the plight of savers, the current position is that there is, as yet, no agreed plan. The Administrator is not in a position to comment on speculation about a proposed plan. Only when a package of assistance is formally offered will the Administrator be able to assess the implications for members/creditors.

allpoornow

Where has this notion that savings of over 20k are getting 8% interest coming from?

Does anyone know if this has any basis in fact or is it some corruption of the 12p in the £ the loan holders were due to get as an insolvencey dividend? (12% over 18 months = 8%)

Would be great if anyone could clarify.

crazymess

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Executive-to-consider-225m-PMS.6227621.jp

Lester_F

Excap123 wrote: »

Brick . . .apparent complete injustice (and absence of outrage) surrounding proposed differing treatment of "share" savers and "loan" savers." You should take that up in the High Court. I think the court just confirmed what the law says - when a company goes insolvent, the creditors get paid first and the shareholders have to wait. tough as it sounds to you, the law is there for a good reason. At least the plan the politicians are talking about recognises the hardship of shareholders who should be able to exchange their shares for cash from a fund, or at least enough of it to keep them going until such time as the thing is wound up and any surplus returned to them.

It was rather numbing when the injustice of the situation concerning shareholders was ignored at the Special Assembly.

I know that the law was applied correctly when Mr. Deeney judged that creditors have first right to their money. But lets not forget that the legal action that lead to this judgement was brought by Ernest Howie, a creditor of the PMS with over half a million invested who is not a member of the Presbyterian Church in Ireland.

Would a Presbyterian congregation with over £20000 in the PMS have taken this action? Would anyone with a love for the Presbyterian Church have taken this action?

BETRAYED

allpoornow wrote: »

Where has this notion that savings of over 20k are getting 8% interest coming from?

Does anyone know if this has any basis in fact or is it some corruption of the 12p in the £ the loan holders were due to get as an insolvencey dividend? (12% over 18 months = 8%)

Would be great if anyone could clarify.

NewsLetter today.

However, despite speculation from former Presbyterian Moderator John Dunlop at the Church's special assembly on Tuesday, it is not known if issues such as interest due to creditors and interest rates and terms on the Executive loan to the PMS have been settled.

This certainly confuses me.

BETRAYED

From PMS Savers' Lobby Group NI and ROI

During the General Assembly Rev Dr Dunlop referred to an 8% interest payment to creditors which has posed some questions.
I have taken advice and the specific answer to the question is that the 8% is not the same as your former dividend/interest payment.

It is a legal insolvency issue that can arise where creditors in an insolvency are repaid in full. If and when a workable plan is agreed it would have to be addressed in it.

Does this mean that creditors have a right to more funds starving Shareholders even more.

crazymess

http://www.u.tv/News/Executive-pledges-£50m-for-PMS-savers/2d44fd26-4865-400d-9f15-867d50a93045