Abstract
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.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
