Website Heading

CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

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

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.

 

 

Share on:

ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING CALIFORNIA CORPORATE AND SECURITIES LAW? CONTACT US DIRECTLY

We offer expert advice with the intricacies of California law.

Our years of experience and expertise allow us to help clients navigate the business laws in California.

CONTACT US

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER AND NEVER MISS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN ABOUT CALIFORNIA CORPORATE & SECURITIES LAW

We respect your email privacy

Related Articles