Peter Montagnon, who once wrote for the FT's influential "Lex" column of investment commentary, organized shareholders to voice, and vote, their displeasure over the proposed compensation package of the pharmaceuticals conglomerate's chief, Jean-Pierre Garnier. The meaty bone of contention: a severance provision in Garnier's remuneration agreement that could have netted him $36 million if he were to be fired.

At Glaxo's annual general meeting at the Queen Elizabeth II conference center, around the corner from Parliament, ABI member insurers -- which control an estimated 20 percent of Glaxo -- combined to defeat the lavish deal 51 percent to 36 percent, with 13 percent of shareholders abstaining.

"The remuneration package being offered Mr. Garnier was an egregious breach of our best-practice guidelines," says Montagnon, 53. "It's absolutely barmy." Among other features, the severance package offered continuing stock options.

The shareholder vote, however, is only advisory. The Glaxo board must decide whether Garnier is worth a platinum handshake. At the moment, the company is doing just fine: First-quarter sales are up 9 percent, while earnings per share are 26 percent higher, and Glaxo is outperforming the market.

If the board does disregard shareholders, and Montagnon, it had better brace for next year's AGM: The ABI is already lobbying for a shake-up of the Glaxo board, including a firm succession plan for chairman Sir Christopher Hogg and for more board representation by Glaxo executives.