Two broadcasting agencies, Freedom Radio Inc and Multi Technology Vision (MTV) on Friday filed legal proceedings in the High Court against the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) over a decision to impose fines for alleged infringements.Separate applications were filed by the two agencies, questioning a decision taken by the GNBA in relation to alleged infractions on their part and furthermore, the lawful appointment of their governing Board to appoint a committee to hear the matter.The applications were filed by Attorney-at-Law Anil Nandlall, while the respondents were listed as the Guyana National Broadcasting Authority (GNBA) and the Attorney General.General Managers of the applicants, Raymond Singh for Multi Technology Vision (MTV) and Raymon Cummings for Freedom Radio, made their applications on the basis that no Governing Board of Directors of the GNBA was lawfully appointed for the year 2019-2020.In the case of Freedom Radio, a letter dated July 12 and sent by the first respondent, informed the applicant that it had observed breaches of the broadcasting guidelines. The content broadcasted on a programme called “Free Talk”, which aired on June 4, 2019, was allegedly “in contravention with the Sections of the Guidelines which states: Controversial or offensive references to opponents shall be avoided.”In another letter, the applicant was invited to a hearing on July 26, 2019 “concerning an infraction on June 4, 2019”.After the hearing, they were informed that the alleged infraction will be taken against the governing Board of Directors. The applicant was invited to another hearing on September 25.In a letter dated August 21, the applicant was also informed of a breach in the broadcasting guidelines on a programme called “The Chat” which was aired on July 11, 2019. They were invited on September 17 to address the infraction.The hearings pertaining to both infractions were heard on September 25, 2019, before a hearing committee established by the GNBA. On October 2, they were asked via a letter to pay a fine of $75,000 along with a written statement from the broadcaster, stating that the host would not repeat the infraction.Meanwhile, for MTV, a letter was sent by the GNBA on March 21, informing them that an infringement was detected during a February 2 airing of one of their programmes called “Viewpoint”.On April 12, the applicant was informed of another infringement detected on another programme titled: “On The Precipice of a Constitutional Crisis” which was aired on March 21.By letter dated June 3, the applicant submitted a written response to the GNBA pertaining to several identified purported infringements. But on July 12, they were notified by the authority of a breach of the Broadcasting Guidelines in the content broadcasted on a programme called “Ed Live”, which aired on the June 8.On September 25, the applicant was invited to a hearing on September 25, concerning the three infractions. In the October 2 letter, they were slapped with a fine of $150,000.As such, the applicants are requesting an order to quash the decision of a hearing committee that was established by the Governing Board, on the grounds that the Board was not lawfully appointed, and because the said decision was “unconstitutional, unlawful, illegal, unenforceable, invalid, irrational, unreasonable, capricious, arbitrary, null, void and of no effect”.“Effective from the 1st February 2017, the members to the Governing Board were appointed by Prime Minister Moses Nagamatoo for a term of two years. Since the expiration of the abovementioned appointment on the 31st January 2019, no Governing Board of Directors has been appointed or reappointed,” proceedings filed in the court stated.The document states that the decision, which was disbursed via a letter on October 2, 2019, by the Board Secretary, Violet Boyal, and addressed to the applicants “is in violation of the doctrine of separation of powers, contrary to and in violation of Article 144 (8) of the Constitution of Guyana, unlawful, void, illegal and of no effect” and on the grounds “that the decision is ultra vires, capricious, arbitrary, unconstitutional, null, void and of no effect”.Also, the applicants argued that the committee is “not a tribunal prescribed by law for the determination of the existence or extent of any civil right or obligation as provided for and contemplated by Article 144 (8) of the Constitution of Guyana”.The requests called for a declaration that the decisions of the hearing committee which were addressed to the applicants are in violation of their rights and freedom of expression as guaranteed by Article 146 of the Constitution, and in violation of their right and freedom of protection of the law as prescribed by Article 144 (8).
The pension fund alleges that four Netflix executives reaped millions of dollars from the improper bonuses. Ted Sarandos, the chief content officer, is accused of taking $10.5 million. Neil Hunt, the former chief product officer, is alleged to have gotten $12.6 million. Greg Peters, the current chief product officer, is accused of taking $3.2 million. David Hyman, the general counsel, is alleged to have received $800,000.The lawsuit echoes a 2017 article in the Financial Times, which noted the “uncanny accuracy” of Netflix’s projected bonus payments. The article noted that the company established a bonus pool of $18.75 million for three of its executives in 2016. According to regulatory filings, those executives ended up receiving $18.7295 million in bonuses for that year.In response to the Financial Times, Netflix said its executive compensation practices are consistent with federal statutes.“The fact the targets are set during guidance makes them inherently uncertain, and not a foregone conclusion,” the company told the FT. “To hit the target, it requires effort and management skill by the executives. It is also a benefit to the company as we receive a tax deduction.”The shareholder suit was first reported by the Hollywood Reporter. Netflix declined to comment, saying the company would weigh in “at the appropriate time.”Netflix Birmingham Relief Retirement by gmaddaus on Scribd A Netflix shareholder has filed a federal lawsuit accusing the streaming giant of awarding lavish bonuses to top executives.The suit, brought by the City of Birmingham Relief and Retirement System, alleges that Netflix violated tax law by giving “multi-million dollar windfalls” to executives including Ted Sarandos based on performance targets the company knew it was almost certain to achieve.“Through their conduct, Defendants rigged the compensation process, guaranteeing Netflix officers huge cash payments while misleading investors into believing that these payments were justified by attainment of real performance goals,” the suit alleges.Public companies are allowed to deduct salaries for top executives up to $1 million. Above that threshold, compensation may only be deducted if it is based on performance goals. The law requires that the goals be “substantially uncertain” at the time they are set. The Netflix bonuses were based on streaming revenues, which the pension fund alleges were highly predictable once the company knew how many subscribers it had in a given quarter. ×Actors Reveal Their Favorite Disney PrincessesSeveral actors, like Daisy Ridley, Awkwafina, Jeff Goldblum and Gina Rodriguez, reveal their favorite Disney princesses. Rapunzel, Mulan, Ariel,Tiana, Sleeping Beauty and Jasmine all got some love from the Disney stars.More VideosVolume 0%Press shift question mark to access a list of keyboard shortcutsKeyboard Shortcutsplay/pauseincrease volumedecrease volumeseek forwardsseek backwardstoggle captionstoggle fullscreenmute/unmuteseek to %SPACE↑↓→←cfm0-9Next UpJennifer Lopez Shares How She Became a Mogul04:350.5x1x1.25×1.5x2xLive00:0002:1502:15 Popular on Variety