NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

goodbyepci

crazymess
I just don't understand this
It says on page 29 of the report appendix 3 section 3.1 that the committee is normally established at the meeting of creditors which the administrator is required to hold within 10 weeks of the start of administration.
But he says on page 8 section 2.5 that the meeting is to be held by correspondence to consider his proposals.

It's all very confusing.

Maybe people will step forward and offer themselves for the committee, I can't see how else it can happen?

Dee1412

Seems like the directors were playing one big game of monopoly with our money.
But it's not funny anymore and I want it back :mad:

Thanks everyone for keeping me informed

presbyteriannomore

Having just listened to the Moderator on Sunday Sequence I am appalled. It seems that PCI's strategy now is to keep repeating the mantra that Gordon Brown is to blame because of the guarantee given to the banks!!!!!!!. He actually said that everything was going along nicely in the PMS until this happened - is he serious?! What about the major loss of value in the assets that was already underway before the guarantee was put in place? This is typical PCI policy to blame someone else and accept no responsibility.

The blame for what happened with the PMS lies firmly, and only, with the decision to invest so heavily in development land, commercial property and buy to lets without any regard for the possibility that the value could fall, despite warnings in the past couple of years that the property bubble was about to burst. Whoever made these investment decisions is entirely to blame. The fact that it seems that these investment decisions were made without the knowledge of PMS members only adds to the injustice of this whole situation. PCI is desperately hoping that the petition will work so that everyone will go quietly away and the questions that need to be asked about what happened in PMS in the past year will never see the light of day. No wonder the Moderator is so keen to push the petition, it's his only hope. I wonder how keen he would be to promote a petition seeking a transparent investigation into PMS actvities He wants the taxpayer to pay for PMS mishandling but many taxpayers will object to this you can be sure. I want to see the ordinary trusting members of PMS reimbursed but PCI cannot throw this entirely on the taxpayer whilst they sit on £42 million.

The Moderator didn't seem at all sure if the meeting of the General Board was open to the public, but he did say that PCI was an open and democratic organisation with nothing to hide (???!!!) so perhaps it's worth finding out if investors can attend the General Board meeting.

wildatheart_2

I was at Joymount in Carrickfergus today and the congregation were encouraged to sign the petition either in the church or online. Our minister has had meetings with investors since this all started and has been very pastorally supportive. Hopefully this is the same in other churches.

joylikes2shop

I Know It's Over The '5 Working Days' Deadline By Which A Request For A Creditor Meeting Would Have Needed To Have Been Received By The Administrator......(but Because The Piggin Report Was Posted Out 2nd Class,the 5 Day's Was Practically Up By The Time My Mum And Many Others Received It Anyway.)

I'm Assuming Most People Will Only Be Returning Their Forms This Week...and I'm Wondering If Everyone Put An Additional Letter In The Envelope Requesting A Meeting, Would The Sum Total Of Such Requests Maybe Be Enough,and Would The Administrator Honour Such A Request Even Though It Was Requested Slightly Later Than Specified ???

Thoughts From Anyone Still Following This Thread ??

expat68

Well seems like the petition is moving along nicely - notice mixed feelings on the motives for the moderator in trying to get GB to sort it out but if it works I dont care too much about his reasons.

I got some info. from a few people on the status of the creditors meeting. I think the administrators were getting a few calls on this last week and i heard they drafted in a few lawyers to quote the law and put people off. That's the same law firm that has an ex partner who shares a name with the PMS director who resigned before it all blew up . Its not an uncommon name so it could be a horrible co-incidence - if anyone can clear this up we can all move on.

I got the impression that the lawyers are actually running the show and have probably gagged a lot of people - PCI, PMS directors, secretary etc. The relevant section for the formation of a creditors meeting is 2.8 on p9 of administrators report. Creditors with loans to PMS would need to hold a meeting at their expense to which all creditors could attend - the administrator would also have to attend but he probably wouldnt tell you anything that wasnt in the report. At such a meeting the creditors could resolve to form a committee which would involve regular meetings with the administrator. Under law the administrator doesnt have to facilitate this - it is normally done as best practice but most firms in administration probably have a lot fewer creditors than PMS so it is easier and more practical to fix. To cut a long story short the administrator (and his legal advisors) arent going to hold a meeting and as a result it will be very difficult to organise a meeting - unless someone has some spare cash to book the Oddessy - or the cheaper option of a low loader and some very very big speakers at the front of the City Hall!!

I also believe one possible topic of discussion at the meeting of presbytery clerks last week may have been for the clerks to form a committee and feed back to the congregations - anyone else hear anything along these lines.

I think what is clear is that this is by no means your average run of the mill administration but the law for administration is being rigourously applied as it helps to keep everything contained. There needs to be a push to ensure a better and more transparent information flow as supported by Jeffery Donaldson last week. A lot of the creditors are pensioners who dont even have access to the internet let alone a chance of understanding the legal mumbo jumbo of the administration process.

Last point is that the adminstrator is duty bound to produce a report on the actions of the directors within (I think) 9months. bad news is that you wont see it - I think it goes to DETI (may be wrong) and stays there.

Lets see what next week brings - reassuring that its staying on the local news agenda - I'm sure there are lots of people who would prefer that wasnt the case. Newsletter seem to be doing a good job.

goodbyepci

I see we've made the Financial Times now!

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9771a4ac-eb35-11dd-bb6e-0000779fd2ac.html

:T

loganjh

brick wrote: »

Quote "Let us all know what happened in your church today"

No mention in mine today; I believe it may be mentioned next week.

Hamilton Road (Bangor) made no mention - planned for next week

Noz

Nomad25 wrote: »

If that was the case then understandable. Still think the NI board is more appropriate for locals.

The only reason I mentioned the Savings board is that you may gain further support and advice from not necessarily local users, who are involved in the Safe Savings issue as a whole.

Certainly there is no advantage to this thread being placed in a forum that requires registration rather than open to public view.

crazymess

Post 541

Maybe the Ministers and specific congregations that have funds involved in PMS have acted in a more efficient manner informing of the Moderators letter and also the Petition yesterday morning.

Our own church did speak about it and also many people signed the Petition.