"All Things Min Hee-jin Theory... Spitting in One's Own Face": Min Hee-jin's Side Rebuts Allegations of Responsibility for NewJeans Contract [Star Issue]

*This content was translated by AI.View Original

The side of former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin directly refuted HYBE's position regarding the exclusive contract for the group NewJeans.

On the 6th, the side of former CEO Min Hee-jin criticized HYBE's explanation regarding the NewJeans exclusive contract, stating, "Designing a structure where a subsidiary's CEO cannot approve without the approval of the HYBE CEO, and then distributing a statement creating a target to shift responsibility is akin to spitting in one's own face."

Previously, the U.S. New York Times (NYT) reported on the 5th (local time) that it had obtained and published the exclusive contract signed by NewJeans members with their agency ADOR in 2022, before their debut, when they were between 14 and 17 years old.

The NYT pointed out that while the contract lacked clauses guaranteeing the health rights, education rights, and sleep rights of minor artists included in the government's standard exclusive contract, it contained clauses restricting privacy and speech. It also raised issues regarding clauses allowing the use of the artist's image and voice even after the termination of the contract.

In response, HYBE and ADOR issued an official statement on the 6th to refute these claims. The ADOR side stated, "Labels under HYBE all sign both a standard youth supplementary agreement with each label's trainees," adding, "The supplementary agreement includes all protective clauses such as personality rights, sleep rights, education rights, and rest rights, and remains valid until the artist reaches adulthood."

They further explained, "The NewJeans exclusive contract includes basic human rights protection clauses, encompassing the contents guaranteed by the national standard youth supplementary agreement."

In particular, the HYBE and ADOR sides emphasized that former CEO Min Hee-jin was the principal party in the signing of the exclusive contract.

They stated, "We explained to the New York Times, with supporting evidence, that the NewJeans contract was coordinated in terms of wording and finally signed by Min Hee-jin, who was the CEO at the time, the vice-CEO appointed by Min Hee-jin, each member and their parents, and legal representatives for some members."

They also claimed, "We requested that the article explicitly state that Min Hee-jin was the principal party in the contract, but this was not accepted," adding, "The contract and litigation materials, which only the parties involved possess, are being leaked to overseas media and used as tools to attack K-pop."

In response, the side of former CEO Min Hee-jin refuted HYBE's claims, arguing that HYBE was shifting responsibility to ADOR without explaining the actual drafting and approval structure of the contract.

The side of former CEO Min stated, "HYBE claims there is no problem with the contents of the NewJeans exclusive contract while simultaneously stating that former CEO Min Hee-jin was the principal party in all these contracts," asking, "If so, did HYBE publish a lengthy explanatory statement because it wanted to praise Min Hee-jin?"

They further argued, "If the contract truly had no problems, HYBE would not only have had no reason to issue a statement refuting the NYT article, but also no reason to find a target to shift responsibility to."

The side of former CEO Min revealed that ADOR did not have an independent legal team at the time, and that the drafting and revision work for the NewJeans exclusive contract was led by HYBE's legal team.

They explained, "ADOR communicated with the artists' side based on the contract drafted by HYBE, and played a role in coordinating by conveying parents' questions and revision requests to HYBE's legal team."

They also claimed, "In actual contract operations, the structure was not one where the contract was finalized solely by the approval of the ADOR CEO," adding, "It required the agreement and approval process of HYBE's legal team, HYBE's CFO, and HYBE's CEO, as well as approval from a board of directors consisting of two HYBE personnel and one ADOR CEO."

They emphasized, "The contract could not be proceeded with without HYBE's consent. This is different from simply receiving legal advice," stressing that the substantive authority to draft and revise key clauses of the contract lay with HYBE.

The side of former CEO Min also cited as evidence the fact that former CEO Min had requested the authority to sign important contracts from HYBE in 2024.

They stated, "On January 25, 2024, then ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin requested the authority to sign important contracts, including exclusive contracts, during a meeting with HYBE CEO Park Ji-yoon, and on February 16 of the same year, submitted an amendment to the shareholders' agreement containing related contents."

They countered, "If ADOR had sufficient authority to independently decide and sign the key contents of the exclusive contract, as HYBE claims, why would the CEO separately request that authority from the parent company?"

They also mentioned that HYBE stated it had rejected the request at the time, arguing this served as proof that there were limitations on ADOR's independent decision-making authority.

They refuted HYBE's explanation regarding the cost burden of NewJeans members.

The side of former CEO Min stated, "ADOR made choices to reduce the artists' burden within the scope it could directly decide," adding, "When NewJeans members were transferred from Source Music to ADOR, it was decided not to impose related costs on the members, including costs incurred during their previous trainee period."

However, they emphasized that decisions regarding some of these conditions did not mean independent decision-making authority over the entire exclusive contract.

Regarding the clauses on the use of artists' images and voices, they stated, "HYBE's legal team prepared the draft at the time and persuaded the parents," pointing out, "The core issue is not whether HYBE plans to abuse those rights in the future, but who decided to include such rights in the contract and what approval process was gone through."

They also refuted HYBE's emphasis on the fact that it communicated with parents and coordinated wording for about three months during the contract signing process. While acknowledging that "the fact that parents ultimately agreed to and signed the contract is a factual aspect of the contract signing," they countered, "That alone does not conclude the explanation of who drafted the key clauses of the contract, who had the authority to revise them, or whether those clauses were fair."

The side of former CEO Min argued that this controversy was also linked to HYBE's multi-label operating structure.

They stated, "While operating a multi-label system, HYBE managed legal functions and contract-related information centrally," adding, "Labels communicated with artists and became the formal parties to the contracts, but the function of designing and reviewing the basic structure and key legal conditions of the contracts was concentrated in HYBE."

They pointed out, "A structural problem arises where the authority to design and approve key clauses is concentrated in the parent company, while external responsibility for those clauses is concentrated on the label, which is the party to the contract."

Finally, the side of former CEO Min emphasized, "The explanation needed now is not who signed the contract, but who actually could create and change the key clauses of the contract," stating, "That is the most important factual aspect missing from HYBE's explanation."

They strongly criticized, "Designing a structure where a subsidiary's CEO cannot approve without the approval of the HYBE CEO, and then distributing a statement creating a target to shift responsibility is akin to spitting in one's own face."

<© STARNEWS. All rights reserved. No reproduction or redistribution allowed.>

*This content was translated by AI.View Original