NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

thestack

Originally Posted by brick
Quote "Let us all know what happened in your church today"

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

No mention in my mothers church either!!!

Noz

The thread has returned!

Nomad25

Hallelujah!

joylikes2shop

Noz wrote: »

The thread has returned!

I got an email from the MSE forum team at 12.40 today to let me know that this thread was back in the NI forum again......Many thanks MSE forum team, now, back to the matter in hand...


Anyone been in touch with administrator today to get answers to any of the following questions ???

1) Did the legal team he's using, used to have a senior partner who was the actual director that resigned in September ?
2) Is there still an option to request a meeting of creditors if enough people - with the right percentage of financial interest request it ?
3) Can he offer any assistance in suggesting a way of setting up a creditors forum/support group ?

If anyone knows the answers to any of these questions,or has some others that need asking could they please post them here,and maybe someone could make a phone call today to have most of the issues addressed.

goodbyepci

How about asking the administrator does the High Court Order limit disclosure of the Related party transactions of the Directors?
These are in the 2007 and 2008 reports as below.

2007 financial report (March 2007)
page 25 item 17 Related party transactions
Directors had investments of £1,236,093 and borrowings of £170,684

2008 financial report (March 2008)
page 17 item 18 Related party transactions
Directors had investments of £1,569,014 and borrowings of £26,428

Mark789

Crazymess,

The "right" thing to do is vote for equality. By voting to keep the default "creditors first" approach, one becomes no better than those who, allegedly, withdrew their money on inside info, i.e. put their own financial interests before the greater good of the Presbyterian Congregation.

goodbyepci

The numbers make the vote a foregone conclusion anyway!

7000 against 2500........no contest!

crazymess

not right goodbyepci

This is why I thought I should mention it:

The 2500 investors will have many more votes than 2500 as it goes on their investments - it goes on £1 for vote - I think I am explaining this correctly - therefore my assumption is that if higher investors have a bigger vote then the 7000 shareholders may not count.

crazymess

mark 789

So are you suggesting that a person with say £650,000 votes for equal treatment - and therefore they will probably lose half of their investment in order to share the whole amount out with everybody.

Whereas if they voted creditors to get paid first, then they would lose first £20,000 - and because there will probably be enough to pay all creditors they could come out with £630,000 instead of going down your route and end up with say £325,000

Big moral issue here for all those higher investors.

Glad I don't have this problem however they could be our problem.

LETS HOPE AND PRAY GOVERNMENT INTERVENES WITH CASH AND we all get paid back!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ONLY HOPE I THINK??????????

goodbyepci

Nice on message sycophantic piece in the Tele'

http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/business/business-money/business-investments/the-presbyterian-mutual-mdash-decision-time-14157373.html

The Newsletter must have stopped posting their articles online, maybe they thought they were losing sales