While the arrival of His Royal Highness Prince George Alexander Louis of Cambridge has dominated the British (and the world) headlines this week, the U.K. Supreme Court delivered its own long awaited bundle of joy earlier today. In the latest decision in the laborious Nortel and Lehman litigations, the U.K. Supreme Court reversed a lower court decision and held that pension claims should not be treated as priority claims and, instead, they should rank equally with general unsecured claims.

The Supreme Court has today ruled on the ranking of certain pension liabilities when issued to companies in administration or liquidation.

The Supreme Court yesterday issued its decision in the long-running case concerning financial support directions (“FSDs”) issued by the UK Pensions Regulator to various companies in the Nortel and Lehman groups. The case considered where a company's obligations under an FSD should rank in relation to its other debts if the company was insolvent when the FSD was issued.

We recently reported on the Court of Session's decision that a liquidator of a company being wound up in Scotland may abandon both heritable property and statutory licences. A full copy of that article can be accessed here.

The Court has now issued its written decision. This provides further analysis and confirms the position that we previously reported.

Parties represented

In an unusual move the High Court recently wound up a credit union on its own motion. Despite some procedural irregularities with the winding up petition, it was felt that the exceptional facts of this particular case justified the measure.

The case concerned a credit union registered under the Industrial and Provident Societies Act

On 6 June 2013, the Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision in The Trustees of the Olympic Airlines SA Pension & Life Insurance Scheme v Olympic Airlines SA from May 2012.

Last month the Chancery Division of the High Court in Manchester considered a challenge to the continuing ap-pointment of LPA receivers in the case of (1) Jumani (2)Tariq v (1) Mortgage Express (2) Walker Singleton ([2013] EWHC 1571 (Ch)).

The UK High Court today took a crucial step towards resolving the difficult issue of when administrators must pay rent.

Judgment date: 28 June 2013

Solicitor struck off for disgraceful conduct unconnected to professional duties

M, a solicitor, was struck off the Roll of Solicitors by the Solicitor’s Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal) following a finding that he was guilty of disgraceful conduct.

The Landlords of units occupied by Game have been given permission by the Court to appeal to the Court of appeal against the principles laid down in Goldacre (Offices) Ltd v Nortel Networks UK Ltd (In Administration) [2009] EWHC 3389 (Ch) [2010] Ch 455 that rent falling due before the commencement of an administration does not fall to be paid as an expense of the administration.