By Nate Raymond 

Feb 25 (Reuters) - Symantec Corp has won the dismissal of a lawsuit accusing it of not disclosing enough information about its compensation practices before a "say-on-pay" vote, in what marked the first ruling of its kind in a flurry of similar class actions.

Judge James Kleinberg of California Superior Court in Santa Clara County granted Symantec's dismissal motion on Friday. The lawsuit is similar to about two dozen others challenging proxy disclosures by large corporations in the run-up to shareholder votes on executive compensation matters.

Kleinberg's ruling is not binding on judges in other states, but it could have an outsize impact on other say-on-pay cases.

Although the judge granted leave to amend the lawsuit, his order left little room to actually do so, said Sarah Good, a partner at Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman who has been following the say-on-pay litigation.

There "is really not an opening for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint overcoming the challenges raised in the order," she said in an email.

The cases like the one against Symantec typically allege that companies failed to disclose material information about compensation practices in proxy materials circulated before advisory votes on executive pay. Those say-on-pay votes were mandated every three years under the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010.

Settlements have included further disclosures about the companies' compensation practices, no cash for investors and attorneys fees that in one instance reached $625,000.

As part of the litigation strategy, the lawsuits, almost all of which have been filed by the plaintiffs' law firm Faruqi & Faruqi, seek to enjoin those shareholder votes from going forward.

While judges have twice granted injunctions, they have also denied them in eight of the cases, according to a client alert Pillsbury published last week. The plaintiffs have dropped some of the cases after injunction demands were denied. In others, including the Symantec case, they have kept going.

The lawsuit against Symantec was filed in September by shareholder Natalie Gordon, who contended the company circulated materially misleading and incomplete proxy materials in connection with its say-on-pay vote.

The plaintiff moved for a preliminary injunction, but Kleinberg denied the motion in October. Symantec subsequently sought dismissal of the lawsuit.

SAME DAY RULING AS GREENLIGHT

Kleinberg in his ruling said that because shareholders approved the say-on-pay proposal in October after he declined to enjoin the vote, investors can no longer assert claims about lacking disclosures directly.

The judge said the plaintiff had not shown how the court could provide any remedy if he were to rule that the company violated its duties to shareholders due to insufficient disclosures.

And while the complaint had also accused Symantec directors of self-dealing and unjust enrichment, Kleinberg said only a derivative lawsuit brought on behalf of the company could assert those claims.

On top of that, Kleinberg said the plaintiff had not sufficiently alleged the company had not disclosed material information to investors. She had, for example, contended the proxy did not provide enough detail of a competitive market assessment analysis conducted by a consulting firm hired by Symantec.

"However, Plaintiff fails to allege how the omission of this information would have altered the total mix of information available to the Symantec shareholders through the Proxy," Kleinberg wrote.

Juan Monteverde, the Faruqi partner heading up all the cases, did not respond to an email seeking comment.

Representatives for Symantec did not respond to requests for comment.

The ruling was entered the same day a federal judge in New York enjoined a shareholder vote on a proxy proposal at Apple Inc's annual shareholder meeting last week in a high-profile case by David Einhorn's Greenlight Capital.

U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in the same opinion, though, denied a bid by another Apple investor represented by the plaintiff's firm Barrack, Rodos & Bacine to enjoin a separate say-on-pay vote.

In a memo to clients Monday, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz said that with the 2013 proxy season under way, the Apple and Symantec rulings "offer poignant reminders that many companies will likely face shareholder disclosure challenges this proxy season."

"Companies should carefully consider the risks posed by these potential challenges in crafting their proxy disclosures," Wachtell said in the memo.

The case is Gordon vs. Symantec Corporation, et al, California Superior Court, Santa Clara County, 12-231541.

For Gordon: Juan Monteverde and David Bower, Faruqi & Faruqi.

For Symantec: Dean Kristy and Kevin Muck, Fenwick & West.

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook