Ending the Silence: Shareholder Derivative Suits and Amending the Dodd-Frank Act so 'Say on Pay' Votes May Be Heard in the Boardroom

W. Nelson
{"title":"Ending the Silence: Shareholder Derivative Suits and Amending the Dodd-Frank Act so 'Say on Pay' Votes May Be Heard in the Boardroom","authors":"W. Nelson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1988544","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) has broad and deep implications that will touch every corner of the financial services industry, as well as multiple other industries. This article is the first to fully examine shareholder derivative lawsuits filed after a negative “say on pay” vote on executive compensation under the Dodd-Frank Act. The article begins by providing a history of “say on pay” votes and examining the “say on pay” provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The article transitions into a discussion of how the Dodd-Frank “say on pay” provisions are currently being utilized by shareholders in derivative lawsuits. Specifically, the article will analyze in detail the legal theories raised and remedies sought by the litigants in the only two post-Dodd-Frank decisions that have been handed down by courts to date. Based on this analysis, the article provides recommendations for companies on how to re-write their “pay for performance” executive compensation policies and how to respond positively and actively to a negative “say on pay” vote on executive compensation. The article concludes by proposing an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act which, if promulgated, would provide that a second successive negative “say on pay” vote (50% or more of shareholder votes cast against the proposed executive compensation package) on executive compensation would prompt a vote on a “spill” resolution and, if that resolution passes, all directors, except for the managing director, must stand for re-election at a special “spill” meeting within 90 days of the annual shareholder meeting where the “spill” resolution passed.","PeriodicalId":431402,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","volume":"202 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LSN: Securities Law: U.S. (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1988544","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”) has broad and deep implications that will touch every corner of the financial services industry, as well as multiple other industries. This article is the first to fully examine shareholder derivative lawsuits filed after a negative “say on pay” vote on executive compensation under the Dodd-Frank Act. The article begins by providing a history of “say on pay” votes and examining the “say on pay” provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act. The article transitions into a discussion of how the Dodd-Frank “say on pay” provisions are currently being utilized by shareholders in derivative lawsuits. Specifically, the article will analyze in detail the legal theories raised and remedies sought by the litigants in the only two post-Dodd-Frank decisions that have been handed down by courts to date. Based on this analysis, the article provides recommendations for companies on how to re-write their “pay for performance” executive compensation policies and how to respond positively and actively to a negative “say on pay” vote on executive compensation. The article concludes by proposing an amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act which, if promulgated, would provide that a second successive negative “say on pay” vote (50% or more of shareholder votes cast against the proposed executive compensation package) on executive compensation would prompt a vote on a “spill” resolution and, if that resolution passes, all directors, except for the managing director, must stand for re-election at a special “spill” meeting within 90 days of the annual shareholder meeting where the “spill” resolution passed.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
打破沉默:股东衍生诉讼和修改多德-弗兰克法案,让“薪酬话语权”的投票可以在董事会中听到
《多德-弗兰克华尔街改革和消费者保护法案》(“多德-弗兰克法案”)具有广泛而深刻的影响,将触及金融服务业的各个角落,以及其他多个行业。本文首次全面研究了在多德-弗兰克法案(Dodd-Frank Act)对高管薪酬“话语权”(say on pay)投票否决后,股东提起的衍生诉讼。本文首先介绍了“薪酬话语权”投票的历史,并考察了《多德-弗兰克法案》(Dodd-Frank Act)的“薪酬话语权”条款。文章过渡到多德-弗兰克“薪酬话语权”条款目前如何被股东在衍生诉讼中利用的讨论。具体而言,本文将详细分析在多德-弗兰克法案颁布后的两项法院判决中,诉讼当事人提出的法律理论和寻求的补救措施。在此分析的基础上,本文为企业如何重新制定“绩效薪酬”高管薪酬政策,以及如何积极主动地应对高管薪酬“薪酬话语权”的负面投票提出了建议。文章最后提出了对《多德-弗兰克法案》(Dodd-Frank Act)的一项修正案,该修正案如果颁布,将规定对高管薪酬进行连续第二次否决的“薪酬话语权”投票(50%或以上的股东投票反对拟议的高管薪酬方案),将促使对“溢薪”决议进行投票,如果该决议通过,除常务董事外的所有董事,必须在通过“泄漏”决议的年度股东大会90天内举行的特别“泄漏”会议上竞选连任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Raiders, Activists, and the Risk of Mistargeting The Economics of Securities Regulation: A Survey Autonomous Vehicles, Moral Hazards & the "AV Problem" Regulatory transparency and the alignment of private and public enforcement: Evidence from the public disclosure of SEC comment letters The '7% Solution' and IPO (Under)Pricing
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1