NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Excap123

Toastandbutter wrote: »

Careful everyone - in this society we are innocent until proven guilty.

These six have not yet been tried in court.

Anyone assuming their guilt is on very thin ice.

Alleged misconduct is the safe term.

Suggest you start re-editing entries now!

Introducing names speculatively is also rather dicey!

Toastandbutter is quite right. This forum is not moderated and the identity of some of you is well known. Under the law, ignorance is no defence so beware of the possiblity of defaming someone - not naming them is not enough to protect you.

goodbyepci

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/PMS-directors-face-legal-move.6630621.jp

I see there seems to be some extra text in the online News Letter article which I posted this morning

below -

An annex of the DETI letter accuses the director of a number of misdemeanours, including causing or allowing the PMS to:

* Carry on the business of banking contrary to the Industrial and Provident Societies Act.

* Accept deposits as a deposit-taking business in breach of the Banking Act 1987 and I&PS Act 1969.

* Carry on a regulated activity, namely accepting deposits, without authorisation under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.

* Making loans to non-PMS-members in breach of PMS rules.

* Failing to ensure the directors met sufficiently often to control PMS affairs.

* Pursuing investment/lending policies not consistent with PMS rules.

* Having a director who was not a member of the PMS.

* Allowing non-members to borrow money.

* Allowing non-Presbyterians to invest.

(* Although not mentioned by DETI, two PMS directors were already under investigation by their professional accountancy body).

anotherDonald

Here are some notes to editors from the Northern Ireland Executive website
http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news/news-deti/news-deti-january-2009/news-deti-130109-belfast-director-agrees.htm
Scroll to bottom of page

Notes to Editors:

1. Insolvency Practitioners acting as voluntary liquidators, administrative receivers and administrators have a duty to report unfit conduct to the Insolvency Service within the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.
2. The aim of the Department is to bring disqualification proceedings against those directors of failed companies who have abused the privilege of limited liability status through negligence, incompetence or lack of commercial probity. The legislation contained in the Company Directors Disqualification (Northern Ireland) Order 2002 (“the 2002 Order”) is for the protection of the public and trading community, but its operation should not inhibit genuine enterprise.
3. In cases where a person is subject to either a Disqualification Order made by the Court or a Disqualification Undertaking accepted by the Department, that person shall not be a director of a company, act as a receiver of a company's property or in any way, whether directly or indirectly, be concerned or take part in the promotion, formation or management of a company unless he has the leave of the High Court. A disqualified person cannot obtain permission to act as an Insolvency Practitioner.
4. Article 9 of the 2002 Order provides that where a director is found to be unfit he must be disqualified for a minimum period of two years, up to a maximum of fifteen years. The Courts have decided that the level of seriousness of unfit conduct can fall into three brackets with the top bracket of periods over ten years reserved for particularly serious cases, six to ten years reserved for cases which do not merit the top bracket and two to five years for cases where, although disqualification is mandatory, the case is less serious.
5. The 2002 Order also allows directors, with the agreement of the Department, to avoid the need for a court hearing by offering an acceptable Disqualification Undertaking. This has exactly the same legal effect as a Disqualification Order made by the court, and will usually include a schedule identifying the director’s unfit conduct. The consequences of breaching a Disqualification Undertaking are the same as those for breaching a Disqualification Order.
6. If anybody contravenes a Disqualification Order or breaches their Disqualification Undertaking they may be committing a criminal offence and could go to prison for up to two years or face a fine or both. Any person with information to suggest that a disqualified person has acted in contravention of this provision should contact The Insolvency Service’s Directors Disqualification Unit on .
7. The period of disqualification commences at the end of 21 days beginning with the day the Disqualification Undertaking was accepted by the Department.
8. Media enquiries please contact DETI Press Office, telephone 028 9052 9297. Out of office hours, please contact the Duty Press Officer via pager number 07699 715 440 and your call will be returned.

goodbyepci

http://sluggerotoole.com/2010/11/18/deti-seeking-disqualification-of-6-pms-directors/

joylikes2shop

http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Legal-move-on-PMS-chiefs.6632045.jp

Toastandbutter

Also a rather fiery letter from "voter no more" in News Letter today - sorry its not online.

Toastandbutter

From letters page of today's News Letter;-


'PMS WASN'T A TERRIBLE REGULATORY FAILURE'

I am writing to correct an inaccuracy in the article entitled "Two years on, PMS savers wait for a 'fair' resolution"; which was published on 17 November.

The first paragraph states "a month after the chancellor admitted a "terrible" regulatory failure was to blame in the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society";. This phrase is referred to again later in the article and has been repeated in a further article on Friday 19 November.

This term is incorect and misleading; the Chancellor was clearly making reference to regulatory failure in connection with Equitable Life - not the Presbyterian Mutual Society.

For your convenience, during the HMT Spending Review Statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Rt Hon George Osborne MP said:

"In Northern Ireland, the collapse of the Presbyterian Mutual Society has caused great hardship, and people have been left without their money for far too long. I confirm today that we will provide the Northern Ireland Executive with £25 million in cash and a £175 million loan to help those who have lost their life savings.

"We will also help those across the UK who have lost money as a result of the collapse of Equitable Life. For 10 years the Equitable Life policyholders have fought for justice. For 10 years the last Government dithered, delayed and denied them that justice.

"It is time to right the wrong done to many thousands of people who did the right thing, saved for their future and tried not to depend on the state, and then were the innocent victims of a terrible failure of regulation."

It is our opinion that your readers would be misled to believe that the Chancellor had made this comment about the Presbyterian Mutual Society. We would therefore be grateful if you would correct this inaccuracy as soon as possible.

Minister Foster and her Ministerial Working Group colleagues have, and continue to work, tirelessly to achieve an acceptable solution to a highly complex issue in a difficult economic climate, and this has borne fruit as is clearly evident from the Chancellor's recent Spending Review anouncement.

David Sterling
Permanent Secretary
Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment


fyi Mr Sterling was writing about this story;- http://www.newsletter.co.uk/news/Two-years-on-PMS-savers.6629076.jp

Any thoughts?

Toastandbutter

It seems to me that George Osbourne was speaking about both the PMS and Equitable Life when he said;-

"It is time to right the wrong done to many thousands of people who did the right thing, saved for their future and tried not to depend on the state, and then were the innocent victims of a terrible failure of regulation."

DETI appears to be still of the view there was no regulatory failure. That puts them at very clear odds with the Treasury Select Committtee and, it would appear from the above quotation, George Osborne.

brick

Anyone who purchased (openly) risky investments during the past decade will be familiar with the inescapable warning and cooling off period during which one had the right to cancel one's investment.

What constrains investment comapnies to ensure investors are made aware of risks in this manner? - assuming they don't do so out of their inherent good nature.

And how was PMS able to sell what are now known to have been risky investments without providing a similar warning and cooling-off period?

Is that one direct manifestation of the often referred to fatal regulatory gap affecting PMS?
(...not to be confused with the terrible regulatory failure affecting Equitable Life!)

goodbyepci

Toastandbutter wrote: »

It seems to me that George Osbourne was speaking about both the PMS and Equitable Life when he said;-

"It is time to right the wrong done to many thousands of people who did the right thing, saved for their future and tried not to depend on the state, and then were the innocent victims of a terrible failure of regulation."


DETI appears to be still of the view there was no regulatory failure. That puts them at very clear odds with the Treasury Select Committtee and, it would appear from the above quotation, George Osborne.

From page 4 of the Government Response to the Treasury Committee

4. We understand that the Registrar had no regulatory functions in relation to industrial and provident societies, and could take no action. But we do not believe that the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment NI was so circumscribed. We note DETINI's opinion that it was not their legal responsibility to regulate the PMS or manoeuvre them into regulation. We are dismayed, however, that the Department had access to all the relevant information and yet this did not result in any preventative action or further examination being undertaken. We are surprised that DETINI did not consider whether the regulatory gap needed to be filled. This might well have entailed action in London as well as in Belfast, but as the department closest to the problem, DETINI should have taken a lead in identifying the problem, and in seeking a solution. (Paragraph 38)
This is a matter for DETINI.
The growth of the Society should have been accompanied by a review of its governance.



What the Government response says would seem to agree with what George Osborne said?