English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The recent decision of the Supreme Court in International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Daniel' is a pyrrhic victory for those who argue for a rational accommodation of the securities laws to employee benefit plans. While the threat of liability under Rule 10b-52 of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) may have put fear in the hearts of many,3 that threat was only a minor aspect of the irrationality of trying to govern employee compensation arrangements by laws designed for vastly different purposes. Although the relatively narrow Daniel opinion may have removed the immediate fear, the decision has only increased the likelihood of continuing an unduly complicated set of rules for coordinating many legitimate employer-employee desires within a securities law framework.

Accommodating the Securities Laws to Employee Benefit Plans