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

Snapshot

The Supreme Court handed down its long-awaited judgment today in the Nortel/Lehman case on where a contribution notice (CN) or financial support direction (FSD) issued by the Pensions Regulator (TPR) on a company that is already in insolvency proceedings (eg administration) ranks in the order of priority of payment.

The Supreme Court handed down its decision yesterday on the combined appeals of Nortel GmbH (In Administration) ("Nortel") and Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (In Administration) ("Lehman Brothers") (together, the "Appellants") against the Pensions Regulator ("tPR").

We note with interest the Government's Discussion Paper, 'Transparency & Trust: Enhancing The Transparency of UK Company Ownership And Increasing Trust in UK Business', published yesterday.

In the Paper, the Government proposes to (amongst other things):

The Bank's Restructuring Proposal

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)).