NI Presbyterian mutual society, Short of funds for withdrawal?

calm your jets everybody! did any one of you think you were putting your savings in anything other than a savings account? albeit with slightly higher % than, say, halifax? even reading the rule book etc. one would still concider it a savings account! especially if you're unfamiliar with finance! WE ARE SAVERS! GB has said that "NO UK SAVER HAS LOST THEIR MONEY"! we are NOT INVESTERS, SPECULATORS, GAMBLERS etc! WE ARE SAVERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

amadan22 wrote: »

b*gger tactics. i'm a saver, was always a saver! all monies in my eyes are savings! i have substantially more than the share threshold involved! from day 1 we were encouraged to SAVE with the pms! THE SHARES DO NOT DISAPPEAR!!!!!!!!!!!! i concider this fundamental!!!!

Your are quite right, your shares have not disappeared. This is indeed fundamental. You still have your shares (or loan notes) but unfortunately they are likely to be worth less than when you purchased them (welcome to the world of global recession).
Now that you have given the Administrator the go-ahead to develop a formal arrangement for winding the company down, he will be able to give you some idea of the timescale required and what returns on your shareholding you might get back; whether that is 60p in the £ or 90p in the £ or whatever will depend on a number of things such as the value of assets at the time they are sold. It is clear that selling them off straight away in a liquidation would bring a poor return at present, which is why members voted for a longer-term option. Buy the way, PMS Limited is in administration which means it is protected from legal action - so a group of people cannot sue for the return of their money at the expense of others. so my thoughts are, don't waste money on legal advice, because that is what you will be told.
If 75% of members accept the terms of a voluntary arrangement when it is proposed to them, it is legally binding on everyone.
As I said in an earlier post, members should be grateful that the Executive changed the law to allow for Administration - the alternative would have been much much worse. I know, I have lost money in a company liquidation - got only 10p in the £ because the company had traded on knowing the future was bleak and so there wasn't much left in the kitty. At least PMS ceased trading when they saw the money flowing out.

KingVardas

thank you for your comments

But in this situation - the law states that the Creditors get paid first - ie loan note holders - therefore shareholders - those with up to £20,000 get paid after - if anything left. It also means that those with over £20,000 will lose their first £20,000.

savings up to £20,000 = shareholder

savings of more than £20,000 = creditor (loan note holder)
first £20,000 is shares and balance
thereafer even up to one million pounds
is a loan to PMS - so therefore PMS owe
the creditors first

This is the way Inudstrial and Provident Societies are set up.

so if you have 75,000 - then you lose the first 20,000 as a shareholder and you should get the remaining apportion per £ of the next £55,000. Some see this better than a return of (mutual) dividing it in half. A return of £37,500.

The PMS was a trading Company - and as such will have to wind up as a trading company - The excitement with the Directors of PMS when everyone unanimously agreed for the slow wind -down - what else could we all have done?? This was not a coup or a win for the Directors - it was sensible business decisions - you see in theory - I beginning to believe that the Directors didn't even know what they were involved in - they were smiling at the fact we all voted for the slow wind-down - and that everyone would be alright - were they aware of the next more important vote? If 50 million pounds worth of creditors decide they want paid first - then that is what will happen.

This is why, I and others, are trying to get a cash injection to help with the shortfall - ie get money to pay the shareholders of which there are 7000 of them - and a balance of £100 million to find.

That is why it is now more important that ever that the SHAREHOLDERS START DOING SOMETHING TO GET THEIR MONEY BACK OR I'M AFRAID THEY WILL LOSE IT. DON'T SIT BACK AND HOPE SOMEONE ELSE WILL DO THE WORK FOR YOU.

No time will make this amount of money returned. The PCI, DETI and the Government all know this.

readyforaction wrote: »

Loan note holders must VOTE TO RETAIN THE CREDITOR'S RIGHTS and let the Government, the DETI and the PCI meet the needs of the shareholders. After all there are 7,500 of them.

Share note holders - you think that mutual is the right way to vote.
Force the inactivity of the Government, the DETI and the PCI into action.

Assuming a mutuality vote was to arise, can I just check that what you're advocating here is as follows:-

1) Members with "larger" deposits (something >£20K) vote against mutuality - because they would then stand to benefit by getting a substantially better return on their loan amount.
That said, I guess the actual cross-over point is going to be in excess of £20K before the benefits of the creditor's rights (on loan amount) outweighs the loss of the shareholder £20K.
Someone smarter than me can present a formula; it may be simple.

AND

2) Members with "smaller" deposits also vote against mutuality, banking/hoping that Government/DETI/PCI/mystery-man simply won't allow them to lose all of their savings?
Sounds like a risky game for the smaller saver to play???
I guess the larger savers would also be hoping to stand to benefit (in this way) in relation to their shareholder £20K?

Just to be sure I'm not missing anything.

Can i enquire if/when it comes to a mutuality vote does anyone know if all members get a vote or do only the creditors get a vote and is the vote loaded by the amount a person is owed?