Hi_老虎社区_美港股上老虎

免责声明：上述内容仅代表发帖人个人观点，不构成本平台的任何投资建议。

精彩评论

我们需要你的真知灼见来填补这片空白

发表看法

{"i18n":{"language":"zh_CN"},"detailType":1,"isChannel":false,"data":{"magic":2,"id":601598759,"tweetId":"601598759","gmtCreate":1638542002781,"gmtModify":1638542002841,"author":{"id":3577334382857440,"idStr":"3577334382857440","authorId":3577334382857440,"authorIdStr":"3577334382857440","name":"Newthk","avatar":"https://static.laohu8.com/default-avatar.jpg","vip":1,"userType":1,"introduction":"","boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"crmLevel":2,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"individualDisplayBadges":[],"fanSize":6,"starInvestorFlag":false},"themes":[],"images":[],"coverImages":[],"extraTitle":"","html":"<html><head></head><body><p>Hi</p></body></html>","htmlText":"<html><head></head><body><p>Hi</p></body></html>","text":"Hi","highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":3,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"favoriteSize":0,"link":"https://laohu8.com/post/601598759","repostId":1121551693,"repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1121551693","kind":"news","pubTimestamp":1638540582,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1121551693?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-12-03 22:09","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Netflix Loses Appeal in Lawsuit Over Poaching of Fox Executives","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1121551693","media":"Bloomber","summary":"Trial court blocked Netflix from poaching Fox employees\nExecutives weren’t coerced into signing exte","content":"<ul>\n <li>Trial court blocked Netflix from poaching Fox employees</li>\n <li>Executives weren’t coerced into signing extensions</li>\n</ul>\n<p>Netflix Inc.lost its challenge to an order that the streaming giant stop poaching fixed-term employees fromTwentieth Century Fox, after a California appellate court upheld the injunction on Thursday.</p>\n<p>Fox sued the streaming service in 2016, alleging Netflix enticed certain Fox executives to leave the company, breaking fixed-term contracts.</p>\n<p>A state trial court in Los Angeles granted an injunction blocking Netflix from soliciting Fox employees on fixed-term employment agreements or inducing them to breach their agreements.</p>\n<p>The California Court of Appeal, Second District, upheld the injunction, rejecting Netflix’s argument that Fox’s fixed-term contracts were unconscionable and against public policy.</p>\n<p>The California Supreme Court has observed that there are public policy benefits to fixed-term contracts, Justice Dorothy C. Kim wrote in the unpublished opinion. And other provisions, including a confidentiality provision and a nonsolicitation provision, do not violate public policy, Kim said.</p>\n<p>Fox’s agreements provided “stability and predictability” for employees, Kim said. She also rejected Netflix’s argument that Fox pressured employees into extending their contracts, thereby holding them under contract longer than the legally allowed limit under California law.</p>\n<p>The poached employees in question were “sophisticated business executives who negotiated their fixed-term employment agreements with Fox at arm’s length,” Kim wrote. Nothing in the record indicated a restraint on mobility or any other public policy violation, she said.</p>\n<p>Justices Carl H. Moor and Brian M. Hoffstadt joined the opinion.</p>\n<p>Orrick, Herrington &amp; Sutcliffe represents Netflix. O’Melveny &amp; Myers represents Fox.</p>\n<p>The case is&nbsp;Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Netflix, Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., No. B304022, unpublished 12/2/21.</p>","source":"lsy1584095487587","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Netflix Loses Appeal in Lawsuit Over Poaching of Fox Executives</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nNetflix Loses Appeal in Lawsuit Over Poaching of Fox Executives\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-12-03 22:09 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/netflix-loses-appeal-in-lawsuit-over-poaching-of-fox-executives><strong>Bloomber</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Trial court blocked Netflix from poaching Fox employees\nExecutives weren’t coerced into signing extensions\n\nNetflix Inc.lost its challenge to an order that the streaming giant stop poaching fixed-term...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/netflix-loses-appeal-in-lawsuit-over-poaching-of-fox-executives\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"NFLX":"奈飞"},"source_url":"https://news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/netflix-loses-appeal-in-lawsuit-over-poaching-of-fox-executives","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1121551693","content_text":"Trial court blocked Netflix from poaching Fox employees\nExecutives weren’t coerced into signing extensions\n\nNetflix Inc.lost its challenge to an order that the streaming giant stop poaching fixed-term employees fromTwentieth Century Fox, after a California appellate court upheld the injunction on Thursday.\nFox sued the streaming service in 2016, alleging Netflix enticed certain Fox executives to leave the company, breaking fixed-term contracts.\nA state trial court in Los Angeles granted an injunction blocking Netflix from soliciting Fox employees on fixed-term employment agreements or inducing them to breach their agreements.\nThe California Court of Appeal, Second District, upheld the injunction, rejecting Netflix’s argument that Fox’s fixed-term contracts were unconscionable and against public policy.\nThe California Supreme Court has observed that there are public policy benefits to fixed-term contracts, Justice Dorothy C. Kim wrote in the unpublished opinion. And other provisions, including a confidentiality provision and a nonsolicitation provision, do not violate public policy, Kim said.\nFox’s agreements provided “stability and predictability” for employees, Kim said. She also rejected Netflix’s argument that Fox pressured employees into extending their contracts, thereby holding them under contract longer than the legally allowed limit under California law.\nThe poached employees in question were “sophisticated business executives who negotiated their fixed-term employment agreements with Fox at arm’s length,” Kim wrote. Nothing in the record indicated a restraint on mobility or any other public policy violation, she said.\nJustices Carl H. Moor and Brian M. Hoffstadt joined the opinion.\nOrrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe represents Netflix. O’Melveny & Myers represents Fox.\nThe case is Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp. v. Netflix, Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., No. B304022, unpublished 12/2/21.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":665,"commentLimit":10,"likeStatus":false,"favoriteStatus":false,"reportStatus":false,"symbols":[],"verified":2,"subType":0,"readableState":1,"langContent":"CN","currentLanguage":"CN","warmUpFlag":false,"orderFlag":false,"shareable":true,"causeOfNotShareable":"","featuresForAnalytics":[],"commentAndTweetFlag":false,"andRepostAutoSelectedFlag":false,"upFlag":false,"length":2,"xxTargetLangEnum":"ZH_CN"},"commentList":[],"isCommentEnd":true,"isTiger":false,"isWeiXinMini":false,"url":"/m/post/601598759"}