Daniel had been a member of the Teamsters Union and an employee of the same trucking firm for 23 years. The company had signed a collective bargaining agreement with the union, and that agreement contained a pension plan. Under the plan, an employee had to work for 20 continuous years for the company. Daniel had not worked for 20 continuous years because he had had a single short break in his employment. He claimed that the pension plan constituted a "security" under the 1933 and 1934 Securities Acts, and he sued the union for fraud under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and SEC Rule 10(b)-5. The union denied that the pension plan qualified as a security. Who won this case, and why?