According to a report in the Financial Times this morning, a person close to the situation said that WPP had rejected a request by Legal & General to hold a separate vote on Sir Martin's share incentive scheme.
News of the refusal follows WPP backing down on Friday from plans that could have seen Sir Martin paid a bonus of as much as £44m. WPP changed the way that the group's total shareholder return is measured in comparison with its competitors, such Publicis Groupe and Omnicom.
WPP changed its tack after it was threatened with a shareholder rebellion by groups including the influential Association of British Insurers. The U-turn has meant that WPP has had to reschedule an extraordinary general meeting, putting it back a week until April 16.
The move pleased the ABI, which has said that by moving the meeting it now had time to properly discuss the deal with its members and American investors the FT reported broadly happy.
However, it is still unclear if WPP has done enough to see off shareholder disquiet by altering the generous incentive scheme proposed for Sir Martin and 19 other WPP executives, who were set to be paid £112.5m.
Indications are that the pay deal may still be singled out as shareholders probe other areas of Sir Martin's contract.
The Daily Telegraph is reporting this morning that documents made available for inspection ahead of the shareholder vote show Sir Martin is not employed by the company in the UK but is instead paid via a private service company called JMS Financial Services, whose directors are Sir Martin, his wife and his mother.
It says that WPP also pays for its chief executive to stay in a New York apartment for business purposes and meets the cost of his membership of Manhattan's Harvard Club. In 2002 he was paid £1.6m.
If you have an opinion on this or any other issue raised on Brand Republic, join the debate in the .