Battle over not so friendly levy
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.MEMBERS of the Lancashire & Yorkshire Assurance Society will this week be asked to vote on a rule change that will allow imposition of a pounds 10m levy on its policyholder's funds.
The society said it was forced to make the levy to cover losses on property investments made through its Capital Secure Fund and to meet an extra pounds 2m tax liability.
John Burlton of Croydon, a member of the friendly society, is angry at the way it has handled the AGM at which members will be asked to vote, and is among those planning to vote against the rule amendment.
Mr Burlton said he received notification of the AGM, to be held on 25 May, and a proxy voting form, on 9 May - with the friendly society's annual report and accounts. He said there was a letter enclosed stating that the society would be insolvent if the members did not vote in favour of the change to allow the levy, but he added: 'They did not include a copy of the rule change which we are being asked to vote on.'
Mr Burlton said he requested a copy of the rule change, which arrived on 12 May. 'The change gives them unlimited powers to levy people's funds,' he said. 'They want some now. They could come back and want another nibble. I want to see the unlimited side of the rule change quashed.
'We want more details of their plans for the future. I want to see a new board appointed.'
He added: 'I would like to see the society wound up.'
John Ramsden, the chairman of Lancashire & Yorkshire, said that of the 1,800 proxy voting forms that had been received to date, the overwhelming majority had been in favour of the rule change. The proposal follows a decision in the High Court on the validity of the property investments. Some of the policies allowed investment in property, while some did not. The levy will compensate the policyholders whose policies did not allow such investment. The High Court ruled that it was up to the members of the society to decide whether to allow the levy.
The firm of Eversheds Alexander Tatham, solicitors, has been acting on behalf of many disgruntled investors. Antony Gold, a partner, said he was considering a report prepared by solicitors Taylor & Emmett that examines the events leading up to the property losses.
'The process of looking at that is not yet completed,' Mr Gold said, adding that the report could have some bearing on any decision to attempt a recovery of the lost funds from the society's former management and advisers.
He said there would be no point in taking legal action against someone over the investment mistakes made if they did not have the money to make up the losses.
(Photograph omitted)
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments