Legal Validity of NewJeans’ Claims: An In-Depth Analysis

NewJeans Press Conference: A Bold Declaration

On the evening of November 28th, girl group NewJeans held a decisive press conference in Gangnam, Seoul, minutes after announcing the event. This impromptu gathering highlighted the group’s urgent need to clarify their position, as they opted for a live stream similar to former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin’s impactful sessions. At this event, the five members stood together, signaling unity and determination. Yet, questions linger regarding the legality and enforceability of their claims.

Clarifications Amidst Queries

During the conference, NewJeans fielded numerous questions, yet faced difficulty addressing one critical inquiry: “Have you undergone legal review?”

When pressed about their actions, the group responded, “We terminated the contract because HYBE and ADOR violated it. We had sufficient discussions, sent a certified letter, and acted per the terms outlined in that letter.” Yet, the ambiguity of their legal standing came to light when reporters queried whether the original contract contained a clause necessitating a response within two weeks to avoid termination. In response, the group indicated, “Legal discussions are ongoing, and there hasn’t been a case like ours before.”

Ongoing Legal Discussions

The event’s host added clarity by stating, “The legal review process is still underway,” suggesting that the group’s announcement may have been premature.

Terminating an exclusive contract typically involves following stringent legal procedures, such as applying for a preliminary injunction to suspend the contract’s validity. If granted, this action permits individual activities and enables new contracts with different agencies, while the primary lawsuit resolves issues of responsibility and breach.

When asked about pursuing an injunction, NewJeans countered that it was unnecessary, asserting, “Since ADOR and HYBE violated the contract, our termination renders it invalid, so we believe our future activities will remain unaffected.”

The Risks of Uncharted Territory

However, such a lack of precedent raises concerns. Should NewJeans act without legal validation, they could potentially be accused of breaching their contractual obligations. Speculation arises that they might be provoking ADOR to initiate legal proceedings, which could present grounds for a claim of broken trust—a crucial element for obtaining an injunction.

One significant threat is the possibility of penalty lawsuits, which could see NewJeans facing fines of up to 600 billion KRW, depending on whether their actions are classified as contract breaches. Undertaking projects without legal backing poses the risk of further penalties and could undermine their position in any future disputes.

Support and Criticism from Legal Experts

Conversely, some in the legal community view NewJeans’ approach favorably. Attorney Lee Hyun-gon from Saeol Law Firm remarked, “The standout aspect of the press conference is their decision not to pursue an injunction. This is unprecedented. By forgoing this step, NewJeans avoids being constrained until a ruling is made, effectively pushing ADOR to take the initiative with a lawsuit instead.”

Nevertheless, these actions pose a challenge to the fundamental principle that contracts are legally binding agreements.

ADOR’s Response

In resounding reply, ADOR stated, “It is regrettable that they proceeded with a termination press conference without adequate review or awaiting a response to the certified letter. ADOR did not breach the contract, and claims of broken trust do not constitute valid grounds for termination.”

The Impending Legal Showdown

The dispute between NewJeans and ADOR has escalated to a critical level, foreshadowing inevitable legal proceedings. While NewJeans retains strong support from their fanbase, the surrounding controversy threatens to alienate neutral observers.

Source: Daum

Source & Images