Court Decision Supports Min Hee-jin: “HYBE and Min Hee-jin Are Wasting Time”

On October 11, a legal confrontation took place in court between Min Hee-jin, the former chief executive officer of ADOR and the main producer behind the girl group NewJeans, along with representatives from HYBE. Both parties leveled accusations of betrayal and erosion of trust against each other.

Min Hee-jin specifically asserted that she had been “betrayed and dismissed” by HYBE, while HYBE retaliated by claiming that “Min Hee-jin sought to leverage NewJeans to establish ADOR as an independent entity.”

The court proceedings commenced at the Seoul Central District Court as Min Hee-jin sought a reinstatement as CEO of ADOR. This conflict arose following HYBE’s decision to oust Min Hee-jin from her role on August 27, appointing Ju Young Kim, a corporate director, to replace her. Nevertheless, ADOR clarified that Min would maintain her position as an internal director and would still oversee the production of NewJeans.

Min Hee-jin contested the decision, labeling it an unjust contract, and proceeded to file for an injunction to convene a temporary shareholders’ meeting to facilitate her reinstatement as an internal director of ADOR. She argued that her dismissal was in violation of the shareholder agreement with HYBE and contradicted a court ruling that restricted HYBE from exercising voting rights in such contexts.

According to Min’s legal representatives, despite successfully elevating ADOR’s revenue to 110.2 billion KRW (approximately 81.6 million USD) and producing an operating profit of 33.5 billion KRW (24.8 million USD) over two years, HYBE’s treatment of her was unjust and violated their agreement. They alleged various acts of betrayal and misconduct by HYBE, including allowing another label’s girl group, ILLIT, to imitate NewJeans, initiating adverse viral campaigns targeting NewJeans, concealing workplace harassment claims against NewJeans member Hanni, and conducting smear campaigns in the media.

Furthermore, Min’s team presented evidence from an internal HYBE employee who claimed that ILLIT had been replicating NewJeans’ style from the outset.

Conversely, HYBE contended that Min, along with ADOR’s vice president, was attempting to break away and control ADOR autonomously, which they argued shattered the trust between the parties. HYBE also accused Min of directing the vice president to level plagiarism allegations against ILLIT and of leveraging NewJeans members and their families to instigate a public relations battle, causing significant damage.

HYBE refuted Min’s assertion that the audit was retribution for the plagiarism claims, clarifying that investigations into Min’s attempts to act independently had been ongoing long before these allegations came to light and that the audit was essential for the protection of the company’s interests.

The court remarked, “Both sides appear to be making assertions independently; thus, what is the relevance of the legality surrounding the dismissal, workplace harassment, and the handling of NewJeans in this situation?” and added, “It is unfortunate that both parties are revisiting an injunction established on May 30, as it results in a wasted allocation of argument time.”

They expressed their intention to wrap up the hearing by the end of October, if feasible.

In May, the court had previously granted an injunction requested by former CEO Min Hee-jin against HYBE, preventing it from exercising its voting rights.

Specifically, in the May ruling, the court supported Min’s injunction, stating that while Min explored options to facilitate ADOR’s independence, her strategies remained within the realm of planning and did not constitute a breach of duty. Consequently, the court determined that HYBE’s voting rights should be curbed, effectively halting Min’s dismissal at that time.

Source: Daum

Source