NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

Nomad25

Thank you john2009. This is potentially a glimmer of hope for the savers, if it could be proven and 'food for thought' by thread monitors in Church House.
Unfortunately this is liable to take some time isn't it?

What is needed is a whistle-blower.

john2009

In England, actions of that type would normally be taken in the first six months of the administration, after the report on the conduct of directors has been submitted. This type of action has to be taken by the administrator rather than DTI and in England they are heard in open court, so anyone can toddle along. You may need a big court in Belfast?

J

Nomad25

so anyone can toddle along. You may need a big court in Belfast?

and some heavy-scene crowd control!

goodbyepci

Does anyone know if the General Board meeting was minuted?

Was anyone here at it, or has heard more than is written in the Newsletter?

I wonder would it be worth requesting a copy of the minutes?

expat68

abeliever wrote: »

Is it time to shift the emphasis to ....."how best to get funds back"?

Surely PCI can persuade HMG to loan it whatever is needed to pay out to individual investors who presently wish to realise their investment ....& over time this loan can be repaid by PCI to HMG from the available & ongoing PMS cashflow stream.

The PMS as we all know was not FSA regulated so I think the most practical solution is to assign the PMS assets to the Bank of England exchange scheme with the PCI underwriting the difference as I dont think BoE will give the original book value. I think the harsh reality is that every investor whether big or small wants their money back, does anyone really want to leave money in the PMS given all that has happened

fivealive_2

quote=john2009;18543507]Hi folks,

I have been watching this thread for a while. I drifted from the PCI a few years ago but my parents remained loyal and invested in PMS. I work for a large accountancy firm in Manchester and my firm has an office in Belfast. I have been making some enquiries and thought I would share the following with you:

1. Getting any real info from the administrator about PMS lending policies etc and the directors will be impossible. But it will all come out eventually. The administrator must report his findings to DETI within 6 months from his appointment and DETI then have 18 months to issue proceedings against the directors.

2. The administrator is not one of the big four accountancy firms but he used to be a partner in one of them. So we should get the expertise of an experienced practitioner but for half the cost!

3. If an administrator does not thoroughly investigate the directors, he will lose his licence and get sued.

4. Administrations are not cheap and the costs of this administration could be in excess of £1million. Apparently the costs of the Woolies administration was £4million.

5. My firm's office is Belfast also use the administrator’s legal adviser and they rate him very highly.

6. I have asked some of my insolvency colleagues to look at the proposals put forward by the administrator and they thought an “orderly wind down” was the only way forward.

7. The administrator cannot give us answers at the moment but apparently there is a better way to deal with our questions about what went wrong. In England where a company fails but it is in the public interest to examine what happened an investigator can be appointed by the DTI. It is like a public enquiry. There should be similar laws in NI but it is worth checking out.

Will keep you informed of any other bits and pieces I pick up.

J


Ps – thanks for posting the newspaper clippings![/quote]

Welcome aboard John2009
:j
Your professional knowledge and clarity of expression is potentially very useful to us.

abeliever

expat68

Given full disclosure ....& not unreasonable prospects some "Mutual" investors, including myself, may be prepared to stay invested. This will improve short/mid term cash availability for those who really need it.

expat68

abeliever wrote: »

expat68

Given full disclosure ....& not unreasonable prospects some "Mutual" investors, including myself, may be prepared to say invested. This will improve short/mid term cash availability for those who really need it.

This is all very reassuring and should greatly assist the "business case" for some form of government/ PCI intervention as they would know they were not signing up to a mass withdrawal of funds. If that is the case then some combination of guarantee for the "stayers" and cash injection for the most needy may work. Food for thought for those approaching Gordon Brown and the Treasury and indeed PCI who I am sure could well contribute on both guarantee and cash injection.

crazymess

goodbyepci wrote: »

Eric Cairns said he wanted to leave his money in :T[/quot


WHERE ARE THEY ALL COMING FROM ...........


IF ALL WAS OKAY - WE WOULDN'T BE IN THIS MESS

crazymess

john2009 wrote: »

Yes, it means that the administrator has to find out who withdrew their money in the period prior to administration and find out what knowledge they had about the PMS's financial problems. If they were "in the know", the adminstrator will ask for the money back and if they refuse to pay, he will issue legal proceedings. The idea is that if a company is in difficulty, no one member should be allowed to get their money out before anyone else.

We have been led to believe that none of the Directors withdrew any money prior or during the collapse of the PMS. We were told that one Director withdrew £3000 early Sept for univ fees - which seems reasonable. This was told at an open meeting, many PMS savers heard this.