header-logo header-logo

26 July 2013
Issue: 7571 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Pensions win for Lehman & Nortel

"Victory for common sense" in Supreme Court

The trustees of Nortel and Lehman pension schemes have won their case at the Supreme Court over the priority ranking of financial support directions (FSDs) on insolvency.

The Court overturned previous decisions that the pensions regulator FSDs should be treated as an administration expense and therefore given priority over other debts, in Re Nortel; Re Lehman [2013] UKSC 52.

Instead, the court held that FSDs issued after Nortel and Lehman went into administration are provable debts that should be ranked alongside debts owed to other unsecured creditors, and behind any administration expenses.

The ruling reverses earlier decisions of the High Court and Court of Appeal.

Under the Pensions Act 2004, the pensions regulator can issue FSDs to ensure pension schemes are given sufficient financial support. Administrators for 20 companies in the Nortel and Lehman groups sought a ruling clarifying the status of FSDs.

Lehman Brothers collapsed in 2008, leaving pension fund deficits of £120m, while Nortel Networks folded in 2009, leaving a pension deficit of £2.1bn.

Tony Bugg, global head of restructuring and insolvency at Linklaters, who advised the Lehman administrators, said: “This decision is highly significant and a victory for common sense.

“It will be welcomed by unsecured creditors and the lending community alike, as these sorts of pension liabilities would swamp most insolvency estates leaving nothing for creditors. It also lays down principles which will govern how other statutory liabilities will rank in an insolvency—while something to be determined on a case by case basis, the Supreme Court’s judgment is clear that they will ordinarily simply rank with other unsecured creditors.

“An insolvency pits employees, pensioners, suppliers and other creditors against one another each fighting for a share of a limited pool of funds. The Supreme Court rightly decided that only the clearest of legislative intent should enable one group of creditors to claim priority over another.”

Stephen Soper, an executive director at the pensions regulator, said the judgment would “provide clarity to the UK’s restructuring and rescue practitioners that FSD liabilities have to be recognised in insolvent situations but do not have priority over administration expenses or secured debts”.

Issue: 7571 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers—4 Brick Court

42BR Barristers to be joined by leading family law set, 4 Brick Court, this summer

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Winckworth Sherwood—Rubianka Winspear

Real estate and construction energy offering boosted by partner hire

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Gateley Legal—Daniel Walsh

Firm bolsters real estate team with partner hire in Birmingham

NEWS
A wave of housing and procedural reforms is set to test the limits of tribunal capacity. In his latest Civil Way column for NLJ this week, Stephen Gold charts sweeping change as the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 begins biting
Plans to reduce jury trials risk missing the real problem in the criminal justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, David Wolchover of Ridgeway Chambers argues the crown court backlog is fuelled not by juries but weak cases slipping through a flawed ‘50%’ prosecution test
Emerging technologies may soon transform how courts determine truth in deeply personal disputes. In this week's NLJ, Madhavi Kabra of 1 Hare Court and Harry Lambert of Outer Temple Chambers explore how neurotechnology could reshape family law
A controversial protest case has reignited debate over the limits of free expression. In NLJ this week, Nicholas Dobson examines a Quran-burning incident testing public order law
The courts have drawn a firm line under attempts to extend arbitration appeals. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed of the University of Leicester highlights that if the High Court refuses permission under s 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996, that is the end
back-to-top-scroll