On Feb. 22, in the same decision in which it enjoined Apple from holding shareholder votes on certain “bundled” amendments to its articles of incorporation, the federal district court for the Southern District of New York rejected a shareholder’s effort to enjoin Apple’s say-on-pay vote, as discussed by James Morphy here:
The “say-on-pay” complaint received by Apple is similar to those a number of companies have received in recent months. Similar complaints have also sought to enjoin votes on the approval of new or amended equity compensation plans, arguing that insufficient detail was provided in the description of the plan. While a small number of companies have entered into settlements or put out supplemental disclosure to avoid the risk of a delay of their annual meeting, most courts that have considered the issue have sided with the issuer and denied the request for an injunction.
Going on to note the Brocade decision as the exception that proves the rule.