Previously, I wrote about how cool it is to be able to refer to a key ERISA preemption case in the state-law UBIT area as the Schwarzenegger case.* Well, I've now come upon the Seinfeld v. O'Connor/Seinfeld v. Slager cases, which arise in one of those 162(m)-informed situations where there were allegations of misleading proxy disclosure and excessive compensation.
So now I can cite to Seinfeld, in addition to citing to Schwarzenegger. Now, I get it - the Schwarzenegger case really is Ah-nold (as the Governator), while the Seinfeld cases really aren't Jerry (not at all). But, who cares?
And I'm quite aware that, following in the footsteps of Elaine (who just wanted to get rid of Ed) and Jerry (who so wanted to get Jean-Paul to the race), I'm getting to this particular party like about four or five years late. Not that there's anything wrong with that . . .
* In what is a nice coincidence, my prior Schwarzenegger post was around the time of Obama/McCain, and was titled "Elections". I guess my timing regarding the back-reference to that particular post is pretty good.
Search This Blog
Wednesday, November 2, 2016
Seinfeld in the Land of 162(m) Joins Schwarzenegger in the Land of ERISA Preemption
Posted by xtremErisa - at 3:21 PM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Post a Comment