Array
(
    [results] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1306430
                    [Title] => Positive turns for Pryce, Phl Prudential planholders
                    [Summary] => 
After having written six pieces in this space, detailing the complaints of unfair and unjust treatment of policy/plan holders by two big insurance and two pre-need companies, positive turns have developed for the aggrieved planholders of Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Co. and Pryce Plans, Inc.

                    [DatePublished] => 2014-03-29 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [1] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1303726
                    [Title] => Revisiting Pryce Plans’ unjust, unfair ‘settlement’
                    [Summary] => 
Six years ago (March 17, 2008) my modest pension-plan contract with Pryce Plans, Inc. matured, after I had diligently paid P256,800 in premiums over 10 years.  The company asked me to choose the mode of payment on my claim. I chose immediate full lump-sum: P300,000.

                    [DatePublished] => 2014-03-22 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [2] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1128091
                    [Title] => Parallels: Pork barrel, insurance, pre-need scams
                    [Summary] => 
This column’s August 17 piece (“Insurance Commission remiss in regulating pre-need firms”) has elicited more reader reactions.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-08-24 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [3] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1100271
                    [Title] => Insurance Commission remiss in regulating pre-need firms
                    [Summary] => 
Last April 20 and 27, I wrote about how Pryce Plans, Inc. and its president, Salvador P. Escano, treated me over the lump-sum payment of my modest (P300,000) pension plan that the company was obligated to hand over to me in 2008.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-08-17 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [4] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 935449
                    [Title] => Other victims outraged by Pryce Plans unfairness
                    [Summary] => 
Strong reactions from readers met last week’s column piece detailing how Pryce Plans, Inc. tried, in vain, to induce me into accepting only 40% of the cash value of my P300,000 pension plan that matured five years ago or taking 80% equivalent in liquefied petroleum gas or memorial plots.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-04-27 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [5] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 932739
                    [Title] => My pension plan issue with Pryce Plans, Inc.
                    [Summary] => 
Five years ago, I entertained hopes of promptly receiving the lump-sum cash settlement of a modest pension plan I had signed 10 years earlier with Pryce Plans, Inc., based on the tenor of the notice they sent.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-04-20 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [6] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 440466
                    [Title] => Pre-need planholders get LPG, memorial lots
                    [Summary] => 
MANILA, Philippines - Cash-strapped pre-need firm Pryce Plans Inc. has opted to fulfill its obligation to plan holders by paying them in kind – specifically, through medicines, cooking gas and memorial lots.
                    [DatePublished] => 2009-02-16 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133272
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 
                    [AuthorName] => 
                    [SectionName] => News Commentary
                    [SectionUrl] => news-commentary
                    [URL] => http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/706/sfthumbyl9.jpg
                )

            [7] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 289597
                    [Title] => SEC issues show-cause letters to 4 pre-need firms
                    [Summary] => The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued separate orders directing four other pre-need companies to explain why they should not be sanctioned for violation of the rules on the sale and registration of pre-need plans.


The four are Platinum Plans, Pryce Plans, AMA Plans and Primanila Plans.


The show-cause letters were already sent to the four companies and the SEC is now awaiting their reply prior to imposing any sanctions against them.


                    [DatePublished] => 2005-08-03 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133272
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804021
                    [AuthorName] => Zinnia B. Dela Peña
                    [SectionName] => Business
                    [SectionUrl] => business
                    [URL] => 
                )

        )

)

PRYCE PLANS

Array
(
    [results] => Array
        (
            [0] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1306430
                    [Title] => Positive turns for Pryce, Phl Prudential planholders
                    [Summary] => 
After having written six pieces in this space, detailing the complaints of unfair and unjust treatment of policy/plan holders by two big insurance and two pre-need companies, positive turns have developed for the aggrieved planholders of Philippine Prudential Life Insurance Co. and Pryce Plans, Inc.

                    [DatePublished] => 2014-03-29 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [1] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1303726
                    [Title] => Revisiting Pryce Plans’ unjust, unfair ‘settlement’
                    [Summary] => 
Six years ago (March 17, 2008) my modest pension-plan contract with Pryce Plans, Inc. matured, after I had diligently paid P256,800 in premiums over 10 years.  The company asked me to choose the mode of payment on my claim. I chose immediate full lump-sum: P300,000.

                    [DatePublished] => 2014-03-22 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [2] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1128091
                    [Title] => Parallels: Pork barrel, insurance, pre-need scams
                    [Summary] => 
This column’s August 17 piece (“Insurance Commission remiss in regulating pre-need firms”) has elicited more reader reactions.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-08-24 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [3] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 1100271
                    [Title] => Insurance Commission remiss in regulating pre-need firms
                    [Summary] => 
Last April 20 and 27, I wrote about how Pryce Plans, Inc. and its president, Salvador P. Escano, treated me over the lump-sum payment of my modest (P300,000) pension plan that the company was obligated to hand over to me in 2008.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-08-17 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [4] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 935449
                    [Title] => Other victims outraged by Pryce Plans unfairness
                    [Summary] => 
Strong reactions from readers met last week’s column piece detailing how Pryce Plans, Inc. tried, in vain, to induce me into accepting only 40% of the cash value of my P300,000 pension plan that matured five years ago or taking 80% equivalent in liquefied petroleum gas or memorial plots.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-04-27 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [5] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 932739
                    [Title] => My pension plan issue with Pryce Plans, Inc.
                    [Summary] => 
Five years ago, I entertained hopes of promptly receiving the lump-sum cash settlement of a modest pension plan I had signed 10 years earlier with Pryce Plans, Inc., based on the tenor of the notice they sent.

                    [DatePublished] => 2013-04-20 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133567
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804785
                    [AuthorName] => Satur C. Ocampo
                    [SectionName] => Opinion
                    [SectionUrl] => opinion
                    [URL] => 
                )

            [6] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 440466
                    [Title] => Pre-need planholders get LPG, memorial lots
                    [Summary] => 
MANILA, Philippines - Cash-strapped pre-need firm Pryce Plans Inc. has opted to fulfill its obligation to plan holders by paying them in kind – specifically, through medicines, cooking gas and memorial lots.
                    [DatePublished] => 2009-02-16 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133272
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 
                    [AuthorName] => 
                    [SectionName] => News Commentary
                    [SectionUrl] => news-commentary
                    [URL] => http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/706/sfthumbyl9.jpg
                )

            [7] => Array
                (
                    [ArticleID] => 289597
                    [Title] => SEC issues show-cause letters to 4 pre-need firms
                    [Summary] => The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued separate orders directing four other pre-need companies to explain why they should not be sanctioned for violation of the rules on the sale and registration of pre-need plans.


The four are Platinum Plans, Pryce Plans, AMA Plans and Primanila Plans.


The show-cause letters were already sent to the four companies and the SEC is now awaiting their reply prior to imposing any sanctions against them.


                    [DatePublished] => 2005-08-03 00:00:00
                    [ColumnID] => 133272
                    [Focus] => 0
                    [AuthorID] => 1804021
                    [AuthorName] => Zinnia B. Dela Peña
                    [SectionName] => Business
                    [SectionUrl] => business
                    [URL] => 
                )

        )

)

abtest

Positive turns for Pryce, Phl Prudential planholders

By AT GROUND LEVEL | By Satur C. Ocampo | March 29, 2014 - 12:00am

After having written six pieces in this space, detailing the complaints of unfair and unjust treatment of policy/plan holders by two big insurance and two pre-need companies, positive turns have developed for the...

Opinion

Revisiting Pryce Plans’ unjust, unfair ‘settlement’

By AT GROUND LEVEL | By Satur C. Ocampo | March 22, 2014 - 12:00am

Six years ago (March 17, 2008) my modest pension-plan contract with Pryce Plans, Inc. matured, after I had diligently paid P256,800 in premiums over 10 years.  The company asked me to choose the mode of payment...

Opinion

Parallels: Pork barrel, insurance, pre-need scams

By AT GROUND LEVEL | By Satur C. Ocampo | August 24, 2013 - 12:00am

This column’s August 17 piece (“Insurance Commission remiss in regulating pre-need firms”) has elicited more reader reactions.

Opinion

Insurance Commission remiss in regulating pre-need firms

By AT GROUND LEVEL | By Satur C. Ocampo | August 17, 2013 - 12:00am

Last April 20 and 27, I wrote about how Pryce Plans, Inc. and its president, Salvador P. Escano, treated me over the lump-sum payment of my modest (P300,000) pension plan that the company was obligated to hand over...

Opinion

Other victims outraged by Pryce Plans unfairness

By AT GROUND LEVEL | By Satur C. Ocampo | April 27, 2013 - 12:00am

Strong reactions from readers met last week’s column piece detailing how Pryce Plans, Inc. tried, in vain, to induce me into accepting only 40% of the cash value of my P300,000 pension plan that matured five...

Opinion

My pension plan issue with Pryce Plans, Inc.

By AT GROUND LEVEL | By Satur C. Ocampo | April 20, 2013 - 12:00am

Five years ago, I entertained hopes of promptly receiving the lump-sum cash settlement of a modest pension plan I had signed 10 years earlier with Pryce Plans, Inc., based on the tenor of the notice they sent. ...

Opinion

Pre-need planholders get LPG, memorial lots

February 16, 2009 - 12:00am

MANILA, Philippines - Cash-strapped pre-need firm Pryce Plans Inc. has opted to fulfill its obligation to plan holders by...

News Commentary

SEC issues show-cause letters to 4 pre-need firms

By Zinnia B. Dela Peña | August 3, 2005 - 12:00am

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has issued separate orders directing four other pre-need companies to explain why they should not be sanctioned for violation of the rules on the sale and registration...

Business