In World Financial Group, Inc. v. HBW Ins. & Financial Services, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1561, plaintiff WFG alleged that defendants HBW and its agents used plaintiff's confidential information and trade secrets to solicit plaintiff's agents to leave plaintiff and join HBW. (Id. at pp. 1565-1566.) Among other things, the complaint referred to a conference call during which an employee of HBW invited several of plaintiff's associates to join HBW, and alleged that another of HBW's employees attempted to recruit four of plaintiff's associates. (Ibid.) Defendants filed an anti-SLAPP motion, urging that the speech and conduct giving rise to WFG's claims were protected activity because "'the pursuit of lawful employment pursuant to Bus. & Prof. 16600'" and 'workforce mobility and free competition' are matters 'of public interest and protected public policy.'" (Id. at p. 1569.) The trial court denied the motion, and defendants appealed. (Id. at pp. 1566-1567.) The Court of Appeal affirmed. It explained that while employee mobility and competition "are undoubtedly issues of public interest when considered in the abstract," the fact that "'"a broad and amorphous public interest" can be connected to a specific dispute is not sufficient to meet the statutory requirements' of the anti-SLAPP statute." (World Financial Group, supra, 172 Cal.App.4th at p. 1570.) The court continued: "By focusing on society's general interest in the subject matter of the dispute instead of the specific speech or conduct upon which the complaint is based, defendants resort to the oft-rejected, so-called 'synecdoche theory of public issue in the anti-SLAPP statute,' where 'the part is considered synonymous with the greater whole.' (Commonwealth Energy Corp. v. Investor Data Exchange, Inc. (2003) 110 Cal.App.4th 26, 34 (Commonwealth ).) In evaluating the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute, we must focus on 'the specific nature of the speech rather than the generalities that might be abstracted from it. .' (Ibid.)" (Ibid.)