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

Eight employees, claiming to have been discharged1 for refusing to take part in their respective employers' antitrust violations, recently filed suits in federal court.2 Each plaintiff sought relief under section 4 of the Clayton Act, which provides a private damage action for "[a]ny person who shall be injured in his business or property by reason of anything forbidden in the antitrust laws." Five courts dismissed the suits or directed a verdict5 for the employer-defendants on the grounds that the plaintiffs failed to allege an antitrust injury or lacked antitrust standing.' Two courts held

Employees Discharged in Retaliation for Resisting Employers' Antitrust Violations: The Need for a Federal Remedy