...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Employment relations today >Supreme Court Watch: Continued Uncertainty in the Collective-Bargaining Process and Change in Standards for ERISA Breach-of-Fiduciary-Duty Claims Brought Against ESOP Fiduciaries
【24h】

Supreme Court Watch: Continued Uncertainty in the Collective-Bargaining Process and Change in Standards for ERISA Breach-of-Fiduciary-Duty Claims Brought Against ESOP Fiduciaries

机译：最高法院观察：集体谈判过程中的持续不确定性以及针对ESOP信托人的ERISA违反信托义务索赔标准

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Late this term, the Supreme Court issued two decisions dealing with areas of law important to employers. In Unite Here Local 355 v. Mulhall, a divided Court declined an opportunity to provide much needed guidance as to the scope of an important anticorruption provision of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). In Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer, the Court held that the "presumption of prudence" applied by the majority of federal courts should not be the pleading standard used when dealing with Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) claims made against fiduciaries of employment stock-option plans (ESOPs). This article provides an overview of these two cases, both of which have important implications for employers.
机译：在本学期末，最高法院发布了两项裁决，涉及对雇主重要的法律领域。在“在这里团结起来”案355诉Mulhall一案中，有分歧的法院拒绝就《劳动管理关系法》（LMRA）一项重要的反腐败规定的范围提供急需的指导。在Fifth Third Bancorp诉Dudenhoeffer案中，法院裁定，大多数联邦法院采用的“审慎性推定”不应成为处理《就业退休收入安全法》（ERISA）针对就业股票的受托人的诉求的恳求标准。选择计划（ESOP）。本文概述了这两种情况，这两种情况对雇主都有重要影响。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号