Company Overview of Pixar, Inc.
Pixar, Inc. creates animated feature and short films. It also offers RenderMan software products for creating visual effects; and on demand software. The company was founded in 1986 and is headquartered in Emeryville, California. As of May 5, 2006, Pixar, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.
1200 Park Avenue
Emeryville, CA 94608
Founded in 1986
Key Executives for Pixar, Inc.
Executive Vice President and General Counsel
Chief Creative Officer and Executive Vice President of Creative Division
Compensation as of Fiscal Year 2012.
Pixar, Inc. Key Developments
Federal Judge Denies Tech Workers" Class Action Against Apple, Google, Intel Corp, Adobe Systems, Pixar and LucasFilm
Apr 8 13
A federal judge has struck down an effort to form a class action lawsuit to go after Apple, Google, Intel Corp, Adobe Systems, Pixar and LucasFilm for allegedly forming an illegal cartel to suppress workers" wages and prevent the loss of their best engineers. US District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California, issued a ruling on April 6, 2013 concluding the companies" alleged collusion may have affected workers in too many different ways to justify lumping the individual claims together. She denied the request to certify workers" lawsuits as a class action and collectively seek damages on behalf of tens of thousands of employees. The allegations will be more difficult to pursue if they can't be united in a single lawsuit. Koh, though, will allow the workers" lawyers to submit additional evidence to persuade her lawsuit merits class certification. Apple, Google and the other companies targeted in the lawsuit have been vigorously fighting the allegations. More is at stake than paying out damages to more than 100,000 workers. If the lawsuit proceeds, it could also expose secret discussions among prominent technology executives who entered into a "gentlemen’s agreement" not to poach employees working at their respective companies.
Apple Inc., Google Inc., and Others Fail to Kill Worker Antitrust Suit
Apr 20 12
Apple Inc., Google Inc. and five other Silicon Valley tech companies will have to prove in court that they didn't illegally conspire not to poach each other's workers. U.S. District Court Judge Lucy H. Koh in San Jose division ruled against the companies' motion to dismiss the case brought by a group of workers. The group of software engineers claim that between 2005 and 2007, Apple, Google, Adobe Systems Inc., Intuit Inc., Intel Corp., Walt Disney Co's Pixar unit and Lucasfilm Ltd. agreed not to 'cold call' each other's workers to lure them with job offers. 'The fact that all six identical bilateral agreements were reached in secrecy among seven defendants in a span of two years suggests that these agreements resulted from collusion, and not from coincidence,' Judge Koh wrote. The companies settled similar charges in 2010 by the Department of Justice when it conducted antitrust probes that were settled without admitting any wrongdoing. The companies at that time agreed not to restrict competition for workers . An interesting note on the case is that all of the companies involved had boards whose members overlapped with those of Apple or were under the control late Apple CEO Steve Jobs. He is alleged in the case to have threatened Palm Inc. with litigation when it wouldn't enter a "do not cold call" agreement.
Apple Inc., Google Inc. and Intel Corporation Denied Motion to Dismiss Hiring Suit
Apr 20 12
Intel Corporation, Apple Inc. and Google Inc. has denied a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit from employees claiming that a group of high profile tech companies including Apple and Google conspired in a 'no poaching' deal. The defendants, which also include Intel, Adobe Systems Inc., Intuit Inc., Lucasfilm Ltd. and Pixar, Inc. have been accused of conspiring to limit worker salaries and mobility by agreeing not to pursue each others' active employees. Five former employees who are suing the group for violating claims brought under the Sherman Antitrust Law and The Cartwright Act. The tech companies had hoped to get the case dismissed but where refused on grounds of plausible interference. The fact that all six identical bilateral agreements were reached in secrecy among seven defendants in a span of two years suggests that these agreements resulted from collusion, and not from coincidence.
Similar Private Companies By Industry
Recent Private Companies Transactions
|No transactions available in the past 12 months.|