A better headline would probably be "Netflix Sues a Former Exec For Allegedly Collecting Kickbacks". His current job is not relevant to the suit.
It depends who's perspective you're looking at. The article could have been titled "Yahoo's new CIO accused of accepting kickbacks at former employer".
This story is about Netflix suing a former employee who _happens_ to be working at Yahoo currently.
Is the relevance to the readership that matters and Yahoo is still better known than Netflix in the general populace.
I was pondering what he could have done? Resell Netflix or redistributed captured video from Netflix?
Nope... Nope...
Its about suing form employee, who is also the now cio of yahoo, defrauded netflix and took money from Netflix by taking cuts of deals aka "kickbacks" from vendors where netlfix paid to vedors $X but the guy took 15% of $x for himself through a IT firm he has/had(?) On the side.
It is pertinent to note he is CIO of yahoo as there would probably be repercussions to yahoo if he gets convicted, but leaving out he is a former employee and these fraudulent actions took place while he was employed by Netflix, not yahoo, at the time
They may even drop him before/even-if-not convicted. It's bad PR for Yahoo to say the least. (and it's unlikely that such a bold/public claim will end up being completely meritless)
People are not convicted in civil suits, but in criminal trials. "Found liable" would be more appropriate here; the distinction is somewhat significant because a criminal conviction has greater weight in future litigation, whereas a civil verdict is only particularly significant in future litigation between the same parties.
If Yahoo has a clue you can be sure they'll be going over his actions at the company with a fine toothed comb.
They probably are bringing it up since it's twice now that a high profile Yahoo executive has been sued for fraud.