This is a “thinking out loud” post, which means I’m not sure
I’ve got the analysis correct, but feel it’s worth floating by readers in
draft form in an attempt to generate some discussion (which may include the
comment: “you are obviously wrong, and here’s why”).  I realize not all academic bloggers agree
this is an appropriate use of the blogosphere, but you now know my current
position on that issue.  (By the way, if
you do post a comment, please consider also emailing me directly at
spadfie@uakron.edu because I’m not clear on what sort of comment alerts we get
when comments are posted and I’d hate to miss one.)  So, with disclaimers firmly in place:

A few weeks ago, The CLS Blue Sky Blog posted a piece by
Pepper Hamilton on Round Two of Shareholder Say-on-Pay Litigation. Here is a relevant excerpt:

The third proxy season of the Dodd-Frank Act’s mandatory shareholder
“say-on-pay” advisory votes is well underway, and “round two” of shareholder
say-on-pay litigation is in full swing. Unlike the first round of say-on-pay
lawsuits, which were based on negative advisory votes that had already
occurred, this second wave of shareholder litigation, which began

…