News Hybe/MHJ Civil War Megathread (2 Viewers)

[Selfmate]

last i checked it was way down lol you buy it all back? :)

shhhhhhh it's a secret!!!

 

[Selfmate]

Workers are not slaves, audit and surveillance are different

HYBE disclosed Min Hee-jin's KakaoTalk chat logs, temporary illegal possession of forensic data without consent, and without the consent of trainer Kang Hyeong-wook to view employee messenger messages , there is a possibility of CCTV surveillance in violation of the Information and Communications Network Act and workplace harassment.

There are two issues that have heated up Korean society recently. The conflict between HYBE Entertainment and Ador CEO Min Hee-jin, and the controversy over Bodeum Company CEO Kang Hyeong-wook's verbal abuse and surveillance of employees. There is something in common in labor relations law between the two seemingly unrelated issues. The question is to what extent is the company's supervision of its executives and employees legal and justifiable?

First, the case of Representative Min. The incident came to light last month when HYBE released KakaoTalk conversation logs between CEO Min and Vice President Ador, claiming it was an attempt to seize management rights. And until recently, HYBE has continued to claim that CEO Min is not qualified to be an Ador manager by disclosing other conversations between CEO Min and Vice President, and even the KakaoTalk conversation transcripts of CEO Min and an acquaintance, to the media.

The problem lies in how HYBE obtained the transcripts. The KakaoTalk conversation released by HYBE is not a direct conversation between HYBE and CEO Min. This is material that HYBE looked into as a third party, in which it did not participate as a party to the conversation. In addition, it includes content prior to the establishment of Ador, and the conversation partner was not limited to Ador's vice-president, so it appears that a wide range of data was obtained, including CEO Min's personal conversations beyond business communication.

Ador claimed that the conversation logs obtained by HYBE were data that were not submitted with CEO Min's consent, and that they were evidence obtained illegally through forensics on devices returned during the audit. If the circumstances of HYBE's acquisition are like this, there is a possibility that the evidentiary capacity and legitimacy of the conversation logs may be damaged due to violations of the Information and Communications Network Act, etc.

Representative Min also revealed his KakaoTalk conversation with HYBE Chairman Bang Si-hyuk and HYBE CEO Park Ji-won at a press conference, but there is a big difference. All of the conversation records released by Representative Min are conversations she had directly with the other party. Therefore, there will be no need to consider the legality of the acquisition of the conversation transcripts disclosed by Representative Min.

The difference between workers and slaves is that executives and employees and the company have a relationship based on a legally equal contract. HYBE and Bodeum Company may also have attempted to supervise their executives and employees according to their own purposes and needs, but audits are permitted only to the extent possible under contracts and laws. There are also views that regard a company's right to audit as if it were the right to investigate. However, the right of a company to investigate or monitor beyond audit is nowhere written down.

/Labor Attorney Eunsoo Yoo

Source: http://www.kyeongin.com/main/view.php?key=20240529010002929

 

[Selfmate]

HYBE criticized for alleged media play against Min Hee Jin and manipulation of NewJeans' parents

HYBE is currently facing criticism for alleged media plays against Min Hee Jin and manipulation of NewJeans' parents.

On May 28, media outlet Ilgan Sports released a report alleging HYBE's PR department pressured their reporters to write negative articles about ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin. Ilgan Sports exposed HYBE for alleged media plays against her, stating, "The goal of this kind of media play is unclear. Are they trying to fire Min Hee Jin? Or make her an outcast in society? HYBE's nonsensical media play continued. For 3 days, article after article was released about how Min Hee Jin allegedly claimed RIIZE, TWS, ILLIT, and BTS were made by copying her."

According to Ilgan Sports, a HYBE marketing officer had also met with media outlets to demand they exclude investors names from reports. The media outlet stated, "HYBE publicly revealed Min Hee Jin had met with executives for the label's major shareholders, but then ridiculously demanded the media outlet remove all the names of the executives that were previously revealed."

Ilgan Sports continued, "The most irrational media play was 20 minutes before HYBE's press conference when they announced their audit. HYBE released a press statement stating Min Hee Jin was seeing a shaman to run ADOR. The allegations in the press release that claimed Min Hee Jin was being guided by a shaman were all denied by Min Hee Jin the day before in her answers to HYBE's questioning on the 24th. Even more of a problem is that once Min Hee Jin sent her answers to HYBE's questioning, HYBE refused to release them and threatened to take legal action against any media outlet that did. Then 20 minutes before the press conference, they released a press statement saying Min Hee Jin was the one threatening legal action."

The media outlet further claimed HYBE attempted to pressure news outlets to write negative articles about Min Hee Jin. Ilgan Sports stated, "After the April 25 audit announcement, HYBE's head PR representative asked why Ilgan Sports and xx were on Min Hee Jin's side. We never sided with Min Hee Jin. We only wrote about her press conference."

Ilgan Sports also revealed HYBE had been acting in the same confusing manner with the NewJeans members' parents. According to their report, "This shaman report is what made NewJeans' parents lose faith in HYBE. Three of the members' parents met with HYBE's CEO Park Ji Won and the label's executives. After revealing the shaman allegations to NewJeans' parents, HYBE told the parents not to share the news with their children as it may hurt them. However, the articles were released just 1 hour after their meeting. The members' parents then felt they couldn't trust HYBE as the label pretended to care about their daughters only to release the articles themselves."

In related news, HYBE founder Bang Si Hyuk was previously accused of ignoring the NewJeans members when they would greet him according to one member's parent.

Source: https://www.allkpop.com/article/202...-jin-alleged-manipulation-of-newjeans-parents

 

[RandAlThor]

Workers are not slaves, audit and surveillance are different

HYBE disclosed Min Hee-jin's KakaoTalk chat logs, temporary illegal possession of forensic data without consent, and without the consent of trainer Kang Hyeong-wook to view employee messenger messages , there is a possibility of CCTV surveillance in violation of the Information and Communications Network Act and workplace harassment.

There are two issues that have heated up Korean society recently. The conflict between HYBE Entertainment and Ador CEO Min Hee-jin, and the controversy over Bodeum Company CEO Kang Hyeong-wook's verbal abuse and surveillance of employees. There is something in common in labor relations law between the two seemingly unrelated issues. The question is to what extent is the company's supervision of its executives and employees legal and justifiable?

First, the case of Representative Min. The incident came to light last month when HYBE released KakaoTalk conversation logs between CEO Min and Vice President Ador, claiming it was an attempt to seize management rights. And until recently, HYBE has continued to claim that CEO Min is not qualified to be an Ador manager by disclosing other conversations between CEO Min and Vice President, and even the KakaoTalk conversation transcripts of CEO Min and an acquaintance, to the media.

The problem lies in how HYBE obtained the transcripts. The KakaoTalk conversation released by HYBE is not a direct conversation between HYBE and CEO Min. This is material that HYBE looked into as a third party, in which it did not participate as a party to the conversation. In addition, it includes content prior to the establishment of Ador, and the conversation partner was not limited to Ador's vice-president, so it appears that a wide range of data was obtained, including CEO Min's personal conversations beyond business communication.

Ador claimed that the conversation logs obtained by HYBE were data that were not submitted with CEO Min's consent, and that they were evidence obtained illegally through forensics on devices returned during the audit. If the circumstances of HYBE's acquisition are like this, there is a possibility that the evidentiary capacity and legitimacy of the conversation logs may be damaged due to violations of the Information and Communications Network Act, etc.

Representative Min also revealed his KakaoTalk conversation with HYBE Chairman Bang Si-hyuk and HYBE CEO Park Ji-won at a press conference, but there is a big difference. All of the conversation records released by Representative Min are conversations she had directly with the other party. Therefore, there will be no need to consider the legality of the acquisition of the conversation transcripts disclosed by Representative Min.

The difference between workers and slaves is that executives and employees and the company have a relationship based on a legally equal contract. HYBE and Bodeum Company may also have attempted to supervise their executives and employees according to their own purposes and needs, but audits are permitted only to the extent possible under contracts and laws. There are also views that regard a company's right to audit as if it were the right to investigate. However, the right of a company to investigate or monitor beyond audit is nowhere written down.

/Labor Attorney Eunsoo Yoo

Source: http://www.kyeongin.com/main/view.php?key=20240529010002929

Hmm .

Still think mjh is screwed. Anything you do on company computers/ electronics they have access too.
all the passwords you have stored ect.
what ya bought on amazon.
your chat messages, whatever.

 

[Selfmate]

Hmm .

Still think mjh is screwed. Anything you do on company computers/ electronics they have access too.
all the passwords you have stored ect.
what ya bought on amazon.
your chat messages, whatever.

I still would like to know how hybe obtained those chat messages

 

[lily]

Hmm .

Still think mjh is screwed. Anything you do on company computers/ electronics they have access too.
all the passwords you have stored ect.
what ya bought on amazon.
your chat messages, whatever.

Yeah I think so too. That was stupid of her. I never do personal stuff on my work laptop or my work phone. Even using this site, I use a personal laptop or phone

 

[mysteric]

is it too early to call this a victory for her?
also not @ hybe managing to piss off the major newspapers enough for them to go scorch earth on their mediaplay attempts w them

 

[catonkatonk]

I'm drinking the tears of the company stans.

 

[catonkatonk]

RE: HYBE's statement,

Additionally, HYBE intends to continue pursuing CEO Min's dismissal through legal battles. The HYBE representative stated, "We find significance in the court's ruling, which explicitly mentioned CEO Min's intention to independently control ADOR."

In fact, the court explained that while it prohibited the exercise of voting rights, stating that the reasons for CEO Min's dismissal require thorough investigation and careful consideration, it seems evident that CEO Min sought ways to leave HYBE's sphere of influence with NewJeans or to weaken HYBE's control.

Consequently, HYBE is expected to focus on the allegations of breach of duty in its accusations against CEO Min. Last month (April), based on the audit results concerning CEO Min and ADOR, HYBE filed complaints against CEO Min and related parties on charges including breach of duty. HYBE claims to have secured testimonies and material evidence supporting the breach of duty allegations.

Can someone explain what duty MHJ is supposed to have breached? Per this injunction, MHJ has not harmed Ador, and her duty to HYBE extends only as far as they are shareholders. Her seeking "ways to leave HYBE's sphere of influence" or to "weaken HYBE's control" are not criminal acts, nor are they a breach of her contract. And it's very telling that they use "seeking ways to leave" rather than, you know, actually attempting it. That distinction is crucial, as I've been saying all along, and that distinction was material in this case: The judge found that MHJ had not acted on her plans.

 

[Selfmate]

NewJeans, ILLIT and the law: The future of dance copyrights in Korea

A new discussion opened up in the field of culture due to the ongoing conflict between girl group NewJeans’s producer Min Hee-jin and HYBE: the issue of choreography copyrights.

One of the reasons surrounding Min Hee-jin's claim that girl group ILLIT “copied” her girl group was due to dance choreography. Min said the moves were “obviously” similar to those of NewJeans. Similar opinions were spread by fans online, adding fuel to the fire of Min's conflict with HYBE.

Aside from whether or not ILLIT’s choreography is in fact similar or not , the accusation has resulted in the subject of dance choreography copyright rising to the national agenda for the first time in Korea. Discussions surrounding giving official credit — as well as profit — to choreographers have begun.

In a world where the K-pop market has grown astronomically, K-pop choreography can become a formidable product, especially with the ever-growing popularity of K-pop challenges on social media that use iconic moves from a song to promote artists and music.

Major dancers in Korea have come together to tackle the issue as a group through the Korean Choreography Copyright Association (translated), while the government is also looking to tackle the issue, promising to establish laws to properly protect the rights of choreographers and their work.

NewJeans versus ILLIT
“Everything is just copy and paste,” dancer Kim Eun-ju, known as girl group NewJeans’s performance director, said on May 13 on her Instagram, after ILLIT released its music video for the song “Lucky Girl Syndrome” on April 17.

Black. Q, also a choreographer for NewJeans, expressed he was upset about the choreography of ILLIT’s track.

The two dancers alleged that ILLIT copied the choreography from NewJeans’s McDonald's advertisement.

The dancers' allegations follow Min’s accusation, which first surfaced in April, stating that the choreography of ILLIT’s “My World” plagiarized NewJeans’s “Attention” (2022) and ILLIT's “Magnetic” copied NewJeans's “Ditto” (2022).

If such disputes go to court, however, it's difficult to determine copyright infringement based solely on the choreography's movements, as it is hard to prove that a certain movement is entirely new.

To determine an infringement, the court must first look into whether NewJeans made a unique dance movement that is different from general, basic dance moves. Then, the court has to observe and determine if ILLIT copied the unique dance moves on purpose. The result would be up to the judge’s own discretion, as there is currently no determined criteria for decisions.

Though there have been numerous accusations of plagiarism in choreography, no case has been sent to court. The reason is that filing a suit does not provide any practical benefit for the choreographers, as choreography copyrights do not yield much profit.

The story changes, however, if the choreography copyright becomes profitable.

No profit for copyrights
It is common for choreographers to receive payment only for their services in creating choreography and for them to accept clauses stating that the right to their creation belongs to the entertainment company.

As a result, choreographers such as Lee Ju-sun, who created the horse-riding dance for singer Psy’s “Gangnam Style” (2012), and No:ze, who created the viral dance to David Guetta’s “Hey Mama” (2015) in Mnet’s dance survival program “Street Woman Fighter” (2021), did not receive any profit from the copyrights of their choreography.

Choreographers are also neglected on social media platforms like TikTok, Instagram’s Reels and YouTube. Even though their choreography can go viral, the profits only go to the music copyright holders.

K-pop choreographers have started to raise their voices about choreography rights, as the status of K-pop choreography continues to rise globally.

The Korean Choreography Copyright Association was launched on April 24 led by 1Million Dance Studio, a renowned dance academy run by dancer Lia Kim as co-CEO. Lia Kim was named the first president of the association and other famous dancers, including Honey J, Bada, Vata and Choi Young-joon, also added their names to the association's list.

The goal is to design a profit distribution structure for choreography copyrights and to make them operational for K-pop dances.

Government involvement
The Ministry of Culture, Sports and Tourism also holds the protection of choreography copyright as one of its central projects.

Culture Minister Yu In-chon announced last December that it plans to advise music TV shows to state the choreographers’ names in broadcasts and is currently conducting research into a rewards system alongside the Korea Copyright Commission (KCC).

“We are conducting a market survey to systemize the registration of choreography copyrights and establish a structured rewards system for profit distribution,” an official from the Culture Ministry’s Copyright Policy Division said. “We are planning to recommend improvements in stating choreographers’ names and will implement a standardized contract form within this year.”

Such initiatives are garnering global attention, as Korea is the first country to push the profit distribution of choreography copyrights in the pop music scene.

In March, 1Million Dance Studio was invited to Geneva by the World Intellectual Property Organization to talk about the current status of Korean choreography and copyright.

Korea is pioneering these initiatives as a result of K-pop's skyrocketing popularity, which opened the era of watching music on online video platforms.

Though viral dance music existed, with the track “Macarena” (1993), in the 1990s, choreography was generally perceived as playing a supporting role to the music.

However, the perception shifted with Psy’s “Gangnam Style,” which changed the Billboard standards in 2013 to add YouTube views to its tally system.

The modification was made, as “Gangnam Style” kept sitting at No. 2 on the Billboard Hot 100 charts, which didn't reflect how well the song was going on YouTube with its views. Back then, Billboard only considered the number of radio broadcasts for its rankings system.

After the modification, K-pop groups, such as boy band BTS and girl group Blackpink, were able to put their names on the Billboard charts more often.

In other words, it is not hard to say that the choreographers were the key drivers of the K-pop syndrome around the world.

Still the underdog
While the influence of K-pop choreography has risen, nothing much has changed for the choreographers in terms of their status.

“Though dance survival shows like ‘Street Woman Fighter’ and ‘Street Man Fighter’ garnered major public attention, only the leaders of each dance crew gained popularity. The popularity of other dance crew members remained unchanged compared to before the show was aired,” Yoon Yeo-wook, co-CEO of 1Million Dance Studio, said. “I want to make a system rewarding one’s effort.”

However, making a rewards system is not an easy task.

Currently, many K-pop choreographies are the result of joint work from numerous choreographers. K-pop companies usually choose the parts they need and combine them from choreography drafts sent from different choreography teams.

As a result, tens of people may be involved in creating a piece of choreography, and their level of contribution may also differ.

The implementation of a standardized contract is also needed, as choreography teams are generally required to give up their copyrights when participating in a draft.

“We have to break the industry practice [of requiring such clauses],” Lia Kim said. “I was told that some companies keep dancers from disclosing their choreography participation, even on social media, meaning that the companies think of the dancers as an outsourcing service rather than as creators.”

“Choreographers tend not to go against the companies, as they have to continue their careers. It’s a common practice. That’s why an association is needed and a standardized contract is needed. Things have to change.”

Although a solid guideline for registering copyrights for choreography doesn't exist, current copyright law considers a choreography work to be a subclass of a theater work and does not separately categorize it.

In Korea, the number of registered copyrights related to choreography has been negligible, while the number of general copyright registrations surged to some 70,000 in 2023 from some 40,000 registrations in 2019, according to the KCC.

Only 191 choreography copyrights were registered over the past five years, representing just 0.061 percent of the total number of registered copyrights. Among them, no K-pop dances were registered.

Only dances for performances, like "Hangul B-boy," and traditional dances, such as janggeommu or “long sword dance,” were some of the few registered dances.

Better late than never
The timing may have been a little awkward, but this may be just the right timing.

A choreographer for girl group Secret’s “Shy Boy” (2011) filed a copyright infringement and compensation suit in 2011 against a dance academy for using the choreography to teach its students and in promotions without consent. The court partially sided with the choreographer in 2011, and awarded the choreographer compensation from the academy.

BTS's J-Hope was also accused of copyright infringement due to one of his performances in 2018.

On Dec. 1, BTS showed off a gugak, traditional Korean music, version of its track “IDOL” at the 2018 Melon Music Awards. At the beginning of its performance, member J-Hope performed samgomu, a type of traditional Korean dance involving beating traditional drums, called buk.

However, after the performance, what was known to be a traditional Korean dance was discovered to have been copyrighted as a creation of Ubong Lee Mae-bang (1927-2015), which caused disputes within the dance field. Later, samgomu was acknowledged by a court as a creative work.

A famous choreography copyright lawsuit case overseas was the dispute between U.S. game company Epic Games and choreographer Kyle Hanagami over an avatar in the popular video game Fortnite.

Hanagami sued the company in 2022, claiming that one of its emotes in Fortnite copied his dance moves. The U.S. court initially dismissed Hanagami’s lawsuit later that year, citing that a short series of "poses" could not be copyright protected.

However, the appellate court overturned the initial ruling, saying that the composing and arranging of the “short poses” constitutes a creative work that should be copyright protected. In February, the two parties reached an agreement, resolving the case.

As the choreography copyright discussion becomes more prevalent, it will not only lead to legal issues but also increased resistance within the entertainment industry.

Until now, it was possible for fans to believe that their favorite K-pop singers also participated in creating choreography because the company did not need to disclose who the choreographer was.

“The reason that choreographers were always less mentioned and hidden behind the scenes is not because they lack creativity, but is because their status within the market is low,” Professor Hong Seung-ki of Inha University’s Law School said.

“The first thing that needs to be resolved is broadcasters stating the choreographer’s name, but it’s not easy due to the entertainment industry's age-old hierarchy,” Park Jin-ik, co-CEO of intellectual property trading platform WITZ, said. “The change should be made, even if governmental authority is required, to quickly spread the awareness [of choreography copyright].”

“I’m looking forward to who will be the first to accept such initiatives in the entertainment industry. Though major entertainment companies may ignore the change and use only choreographers under their company, it is time for choreographers to pay attention to protecting their own rights and benefits.”

Another question that may arise is whether choreographers will demand compensation for dance challenge videos created by the general public or street flash mobs, given that they can earn profits through using these choreography copyrights.

Judge Ham Seok-cheon is the president of Choreo Creation, an academic association discussing the matter of choreography copyright. He described choreography copyright as a “sea of profit,” saying that copyright should not be seen as just a right but also an industry.

“After accumulating the sea of choreography copyrights, choreographers should exercise their rights by sharing rather than claiming them as individual rights and restricting others from using them. If they don't, they will ultimately lose money,” Ham said.

“We need choreographers to perceive that they can earn profits without noticing, especially when they let the public widely use their dance moves. Dance is a field that has enormous potential and a field in which Korea can do well in the changing media world. When choreography copyright develops into an industry, it will become a good earnings source for the future generation.”

Source: NewJeans, ILLIT and the law: The future of dance copyrights in Korea (joins.com)

 

[Selfmate]

This is Sejong Law Firm, representing Adore CEO Min Hee-jin.


On April 22, 2024, Hive requested Adore to convene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders regarding the dismissal of CEO and executive director Min Hee-jin, and the above-mentioned extraordinary general meeting of shareholders will be held tomorrow (May 31, 2024, 9 o'clock). . However, this was in violation of the shareholder agreement concluded between CEO Min Hee-jin and Hive, and accordingly, on May 7, 2024, CEO Min Hee-jin was prohibited from exercising voting rights against Hive on the 'removal of CEO Min Hee-jin and executive director'. An application for a provisional disposition to prohibit the exercise of voting rights was filed (Seoul Central District Court 2024 Kahap 20635 Case).

The 50th Civil Affairs Division of the Seoul Central District Court decided to accept the above application for provisional injunction on the afternoon of May 30, 2024. As a result, Hive will not be able to exercise its voting rights in favor of the 'dismissal of executive director Min Hee-jin' at Adore's extraordinary general shareholders' meeting to be held on May 31, 2024. If Hive exercises voting rights contrary to the injunction decision, it must compensate CEO Min Hee-jin with an indirect enforcement fee of 20 billion won.

From the time the application for provisional injunction was received on May 7, 2024, until just before the decision, Hive's litigation representative submitted extensive documents on as many as 11 occasions, and Representative Min Hee-jin also submitted written documents on 9 occasions, refutating all of them. Today, the court carefully examined both sides' claims and upheld Representative Min's request for a preliminary injunction. The court judged that all of Hive's witch-hunting claims, which were indiscriminately spread through the media, were incorrect.

The key issue in this case is ① the shareholder agreement signed between CEO Min Hee-jin and Hive, which stipulates that “Hive must exercise its voting rights so that Min Hee-jin can maintain her position as CEO and executive director of Adore for 5 years.” The questions were whether the voting rights binding agreement could be enforced on Hive, and ② whether CEO Min Hee-jin had grounds for dismissal or resignation as a director.

It is natural that the voting rights binding agreement must be kept as it is an agreement between the parties, but Hive even denied such a clear agreement between the parties. However, the court did not accept Hive's argument because the language of the contract between shareholders was clear.

In relation to whether CEO Min Hee-jin had grounds for dismissal or resignation as a director, the court rejected Hive's argument even though all KakaoTalk conversations that Hive had leaked to the media were presented to the court. As such, Hive was unable to prove the reason for CEO Min Hee-jin's dismissal and resignation as director, which is the core reason why this application for injunction was accepted.

Since the illegal audit of Hive began on April 22, 2024, the data obtained through this illegal audit has been leaked without filtering. However, if combined with malicious intent, only some Kakao Talk Saddams that could lead to a witch hunt against CEO Min Hee-jin appeared, and no evidence was found to support Hive's claims.

While this trial was in progress, maliciously edited private conversations between third parties were indiscriminately distributed to the media, and even now, some YouTubers and bloggers are infringing on the privacy of CEO Min and Adore members by interpreting the edited KakaoTalk as they wish. , is defaming. We plan to take action, including filing a complaint, so we ask that you immediately delete the currently posted video.

In addition, Hive hopes to respect the court's decision to injunction. If Hive takes action to exclude CEO Min Hee-jin from the position of CEO and executive director contrary to the injunction decision, this will be a direct violation of the contract between shareholders. In addition, since there is no reason for CEO Hee-jin Min to be dismissed as a director, there is no reason for CEO Hee-jin Min's two inside directors to be dismissed as directors, so if Hive dismisses the above directors, it is not respecting the court's decision and dismissing them without justifiable reason. Let me make it clear.

thank you

Source: https://m.entertain.naver.com/article/112/0003700283

 

[Selfmate]

Hive side “Respect the court’s decision… Min Hee-jin’s search for independence will definitely lead to follow-up procedures” [Official]

On the afternoon of the 30th, Hive announced, “Out of respect for the court’s judgment, we will not exercise our voting rights in favor of the ‘dismissal of executive director Min Hee-jin’ at this extraordinary general meeting.”

However, “In this decision, the court ruled that ‘CEO Hee-jin Min took Newgenes out of the scope of Hive’s control or pressured Hive to sell Adore’s shares held by Hive, thus weakening Hive’s control over Adore. “It is clear that Min Hee-jin was seeking a way to independently control Adore, so we plan to take follow-up procedures within the bounds of the law in the future,” he added.

Source: https://m.entertain.naver.com/article/468/0001064848

 

[Selfmate]

[Exclusive] Ji-won Park, CEO of Hive, sends an in-house email in response to the injunction.. “Please carry out your work without hesitation.”


Hive CEO Park Ji-won sent an email to Hive executives and employees regarding the court's decision in favor of Adore CEO Min Hee-jin.

On the 30th, Hive CEO Park Ji-won sent an internal notice email with the title “To all Hive members.” CEO Park Ji-won said, “You may have already heard the news through the press board, but today a decision was made to ban shareholders from exercising their voting rights regarding the dismissal of Adore’s CEO. “The company will comply with the court’s orders,” he wrote.

CEO Park Ji-won said, “However, in this decision, the court said, ‘CEO Min Hee-jin weakened Hive’s control over Adore by either leaving the scope of Hive’s control with New Genes or pressuring Hive to sell the shares of Adore held by Hive. “It is clear that CEO Min Hee-jin sought a way to independently control Adore, so we plan to initiate follow-up procedures within the framework of the law.”

This is in line with the official position distributed by Hive that day.

CEO Park Ji-won said, “We will carry out the best measures the company can as planned to ensure that the hard work of our members, who have trusted the company and are doing their best in their respective positions, is not in vain. “We ask our members not to worry and to work unwaveringly.”

He added, “We will do our best to ensure that the value of the IP and work achievements that our members have worked hard to achieve are not damaged.”

Source: https://m.entertain.naver.com/article/241/0003354227

 

[Selfmate]

is it too early to call this a victory for her?
also not @ hybe managing to piss off the major newspapers enough for them to go scorch earth on their mediaplay attempts w them

yes this is a major victory but we shall see how hybe reacts and how they wish to proceed

 

[catonkatonk]

I actually think this the best possible verdict for HYBE:

• NewJeans can continue without hiatus. I know some people cast doubt on the CEO's comments regarding this, but think about it. All of the creatives around NewJeans are MHJ-aligned. Their producer, their choreographers, their visual director etc. Some of them are friends of hers going back years. Losing her means losing the entire team. If the rumours of the creation of Ador are true (IE, that Ador was created by poaching Source staff), it's an example of how HYBE doesn't just have a surplus of creative staff that they can shuffle around. So it would take time to build a whole new team that can execute at NewJeans level. And that last part is critical, because every song NewJeans put out is going to be benchmarked against the likes of Ditto.
• Ador has been in the process of creating a boygroup. This represents a huge potential profit-maker for HYBE, there will be in-built hype with the MHJ/NewJeans association. Getting rid of MHJ means throwing out most of the existing creative work (probably) and again having to delay to build a new team and find a new direction. And there won't be the good-will bump of being From The Mind of NewJeans*.
• Ador is, IIRC, the third-most profitable HYBE label. Meanwhile they have deadweight like HYBE America posting damn near a $100m loss in 2023. Better not to disrupt something that's contributing to your actually meagre net profits (IIRC, HYBE only made like 2 milli in the most recent quarter??).
• I heard from the company stans that actually, HYBE's system is not supposed to be like the division systems of JYPE 2.0 or SM 3.0. Instead, the labels are supposed to compete against each other. Well! Now it's definitely on. It's probably good if BeLift and Ador have an extremely bitter rivalry and try to do everything possible to beat each other then. Right?

If I was HYBE I would just drop the whole thing and spend my efforts in figuring out how to get rid of Scooter Braun instead.

*Some will argue that this is an albatross rather than a bump because many HYBE stans hate her and will boycott her groups now. True! But NewJeans are still doing extremely well. Better than RM right now I think. Certainly better than my girlgroup faves Twice lollol. There's still a captive audience.

 

[RandAlThor]

I actually think this the best possible verdict for HYBE:

• NewJeans can continue without hiatus. I know some people cast doubt on the CEO's comments regarding this, but think about it. All of the creatives around NewJeans are MHJ-aligned. Their producer, their choreographers, their visual director etc. Some of them are friends of hers going back years. Losing her means losing the entire team. If the rumours of the creation of Ador are true (IE, that Ador was created by poaching Source staff), it's an example of how HYBE doesn't just have a surplus of creative staff that they can shuffle around. So it would take time to build a whole new team that can execute at NewJeans level. And that last part is critical, because every song NewJeans put out is going to be benchmarked against the likes of Ditto.
• Ador has been in the process of creating a boygroup. This represents a huge potential profit-maker for HYBE, there will be in-built hype with the MHJ/NewJeans association. Getting rid of MHJ means throwing out most of the existing creative work (probably) and again having to delay to build a new team and find a new direction. And there won't be the good-will bump of being From The Mind of NewJeans*.
• Ador is, IIRC, the third-most profitable HYBE label. Meanwhile they have deadweight like HYBE America posting damn near a $100m loss in 2023. Better not to disrupt something that's contributing to your actually meagre net profits (IIRC, HYBE only made like 2 milli in the most recent quarter??).
• I heard from the company stans that actually, HYBE's system is not supposed to be like the division systems of JYPE 2.0 or SM 3.0. Instead, the labels are supposed to compete against each other. Well! Now it's definitely on. It's probably good if BeLift and Ador have an extremely bitter rivalry and try to do everything possible to beat each other then. Right?

If I was HYBE I would just drop the whole thing and spend my efforts in figuring out how to get rid of Scooter Braun instead.

*Some will argue that this is an albatross rather than a bump because many HYBE stans hate her and will boycott her groups now. True! But NewJeans are still doing extremely well. Better than RM right now I think. Certainly better than my girlgroup faves Twice lollol. There's still a captive audience.

I think they will still seek to fire her. they are going to live and die on she did damage to hybe line
this bit I do not think they will rest until she is gone dead and burried.

However, “In this decision, the court ruled that ‘CEO Hee-jin Min took Newgenes out of the scope of Hive’s control or pressured Hive to sell Adore’s shares held by Hive, thus weakening Hive’s control over Adore. “It is clear that Min Hee-jin was seeking a way to independently control Adore, so we plan to take follow-up procedures within the bounds of the law in the future,” he added.

They did not front the money and set her up to have her stab them in the back ( is i am sure how they look at it )

as to the bg they will just yank it like ador did teh source girls.

 

[catonkatonk]

Here's what the court says

법원 '민희진 해임안' 제동…"배신적 행위여도 배임은 아니다"(종합2보)

민희진 일단 대표직 유지…"하이브, 의결권 행사하면 배상금 200억원""표절 의혹 제기, 뉴진스 지키려는 것…차별대우 주장 근거없지 않아"발언하는 민희진 어도어 대표(서울=연합뉴스) 윤동진 기자 = 민희진 어도어 대표가 25일 오후 서울 서초구 한국컨퍼런스센터에서 입장 발표 기자회견을 갖고 있다. 2024.4.25 mon...

n.news.naver.com

Machine translation:

**Translation:**

(Seoul=Yonhap News) Reporters Lee Dae-hee, Han Joo-hong, and Lee Young-seop: The court has accepted a request for an injunction filed by Min Hee-jin, CEO of ADOR, to prevent HYBE from exercising voting rights at an extraordinary shareholders' meeting. As a result, CEO Min will be able to maintain her position for now.

On the 30th, the 50th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Chief Judge Kim Sang-hoon) granted CEO Min’s request for an injunction to prohibit HYBE from exercising voting rights.

Additionally, the court ruled that HYBE must compensate 20 billion KRW if it violates the obligation to refrain from exercising voting rights.

The court explained the decision, stating, "HYBE bears the responsibility of proving the reasons for dismissal or resignation, but based on the claims and materials submitted so far, it is judged that these reasons have not been sufficiently proven."

Furthermore, the court added, "It is necessary to determine whether such reasons exist for CEO Min through thorough evidence examination and detailed deliberation in the main trial."

The court continued, "Considering that the extraordinary shareholders' meeting is imminent, and that CEO Min would suffer irreparable harm if she loses the opportunity to perform her duties as ADOR director during the remaining period, which cannot be compensated by monetary damages afterwards."

The court noted that while it was clear that CEO Min sought ways to independently control ADOR by detaching it from HYBE's control or pressuring HYBE to sell ADOR shares, it could not be concluded that she had moved beyond seeking to actual implementation. Though it might be seen as a 'betrayal,' it was difficult to see it as an act of 'breach of duty' towards ADOR.

Regarding CEO Min’s allegations of plagiarism against HYBE’s girl group 'I-LIT' related to NewJeans, the court stated, "Around the debut of I-LIT, opinions were raised among the public about similarities in concepts, choreography, and costumes. CEO Min has a duty of loyalty to take necessary actions to protect NewJeans, ADOR's core asset, and thus it is difficult to see it as a breach of duty."

The court also mentioned that representatives of NewJeans members submitted petitions demanding action on the plagiarism issue to CEO Min.

Regarding CEO Min’s strong criticism of HYBE in press conferences, the court stated, "It is difficult to see how damaging the reputation of HYBE’s management or affiliates constitutes an act that causes financial harm to ADOR."

Moreover, the court pointed out, "Considering the issues CEO Min raised about HYBE’s discriminatory treatment of NewJeans and the alleged push to promote albums of HYBE-affiliated artists, it is hard to conclude that CEO Min intentionally or through gross negligence caused harm to ADOR, HYBE, or its affiliates."

The court judged, "Given ADOR’s business performance, it is difficult to see that there are significant reasons to prohibit CEO Min from performing her duties based solely on HYBE’s claims."

With the court’s decision coming a day before ADOR's extraordinary shareholders' meeting scheduled for the 31st, CEO Min will be able to retain her position for the time being.

On the 7th, CEO Min filed for an injunction to prevent HYBE from exercising voting rights in favor of her dismissal proposal, which was to be on the agenda at the extraordinary shareholders' meeting.

During the hearing on the 17th, CEO Min’s side argued that, according to the shareholders' agreement, HYBE is required to allow CEO Min to maintain her position as CEO and internal director of ADOR for five years.

CEO Min’s side also countered HYBE's claim that she sought ways to harm HYBE’s major interests by changing ADOR’s governance structure, stating that it was not true.

On the other hand, HYBE argued that the shareholders' agreement allows for CEO Min’s dismissal if she causes more than 1 billion KRW in damage to ADOR or commits illegal acts such as breach of duty or embezzlement, and thus there are grounds for her dismissal.

ADOR is the label of the group NewJeans and a subsidiary of HYBE. HYBE is seeking to replace CEO Min and the current ADOR management due to allegations of a 'coup for control.'

The paragraph about Illit bodes very ill for the BeLift vs. MHJ defamation case lollol

 

[mysteric]

I think the funniest part is how bang pd has been catching strays from everyone amidst all this
ador performance team celebrating, ex yg director celebrating, aespa choreographer running out to say it's not her fault, derek guy calling his suit a shein poly blend, winter laughing at the step on aespa comment, like no one is taking this man seriously any more
trying to sue guiltyarchive now too over the dahnworld tweets

 

[Selfmate]

I think they will still seek to fire her. they are going to live and die on she did damage to hybe line
this bit I do not think they will rest until she is gone dead and burried.

However, “In this decision, the court ruled that ‘CEO Hee-jin Min took Newgenes out of the scope of Hive’s control or pressured Hive to sell Adore’s shares held by Hive, thus weakening Hive’s control over Adore. “It is clear that Min Hee-jin was seeking a way to independently control Adore, so we plan to take follow-up procedures within the bounds of the law in the future,” he added.

They did not front the money and set her up to have her stab them in the back ( is i am sure how they look at it )

as to the bg they will just yank it like ador did teh source girls.

the issue is that Hybe 's CEO said that they won't even be exercising their right to remove the current ADOR board which I found interesting since if they still wanted to remove MHJ one of the ways was to install their own board members and remove the MHJ-associates from the current baord

EDIT: ignore what I wrote

 

[Selfmate]

apparently Hybe just fired the two MHJ-associated directors

HYBE Labels dismisses two ADOR officers who sided with Min Hee Jin, appoints three new board members

On the morning of May 31 KST, an extraordinary board meeting of shareholders took place at the HYBE Labels subsidiary ADOR.

On this day, HYBE Labels appointed three new board members at ADOR: Kim Joo Young, HYBE's chief human resources officer (CHRO); Lee Jae Sang, HYBE's chief security officer (CSO); and Lee Kyung Joon, HYBE's chief financial officer (CFO).

The two officers who had held board member positions at ADOR prior to the recent internal issues, vice president Shin and director Kim, were formally dismissed during this board meeting. These two officers were known to have sided with CEO Min Hee Jin when the internal feud came to light.

Meanwhile, on May 30 KST, the 50th Civil Affairs Division of the Seoul Central District Court approved of the injunction filed by CEO Min Hee Jin against HYBE Labels, protecting her position as CEO of ADOR.

In response to the court ruling, HYBE Labels stated, "We respect the decision made by the court and assure that we will proceed with follow-up procedures which fall within the boundaries of the law."

Source: https://www.allkpop.com/article/202...-min-hee-jin-appoints-three-new-board-members