Ninth Circuit Says Say-On-Pay Suit Should Stay In California Court

more+
less-

In enacting the Dodd-Frank Act, Congress made it clear to everyone, other than the plaintiffs’ bar, that say-on-pay votes were advisory only, did not create or imply any change in fiduciary duties of directors, or create or imply any additional fiduciary duties of directors.  15 USCS § 78n-1. In the eyes of the plaintiffs’ bar, failed advisory votes have become the basis of lawsuits.  The question then is whether the federal statute mandating say-on-pay votes confers jurisdiction on the federal courts.

In an opinion issued earlier this week, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that the argument that Congress did not intend to create additional liability for failed votes did not create a significant federal question conferring jurisdiction.  Dennis v. Hart, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 15648 (9th Cir. July 31, 2013)  As a result, the Court of Appeals instructed the District Court to remand the case to the California Superior Court.

The ruling represents a set-back for the defendants who evidently preferred to have the case tried in federal court.

 

Topics:  Directors, Dodd-Frank, Fiduciary Duty, Say-on-Pay

Published In: Business Organization Updates, Business Torts Updates, Civil Procedure Updates, Finance & Banking Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Allen Matkins Leck Gamble Mallory & Natsis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »