Former ADOR CEO Min Heejin appeared on the afternoon of the 18th at a hearing of the Seoul Central District Court’s Civil Division 31 for her lawsuit against HYBE seeking payment of the share purchase price related to the exercise of her put option, and stated, “I wanted to protect NewJeans.” She explained that raising the issue of alleged plagiarism by ILLIT was “to protect NewJeans.”
She said, “If you think about my real objective logically, it’s actually simple. If I had just stayed quiet, I could have exercised my put option in one or two years, who would act the way I did? This didn’t come from a simple plagiarism dispute. Chairman Bang Sihyuk truly went too far. From debut, they made things this difficult, and I started to wonder whether they had already squeezed everything they could out of us.”
Min continued, “From the perspective of ADOR’s CEO, all the damage is borne by NewJeans. The CEO could just stay quiet and get paid, but the harm goes directly to NewJeans. Protecting them is what a CEO is supposed to do.” She added, “People take plagiarism and similarity lightly, but for someone, this is a matter of survival.”
She further stated, “Especially when the parent company (HYBE) didn’t look after us, there were all kinds of issues, not just plagiarism but also a lack of promotion. If I hadn’t raised an objection to the plagiarism, they would have denied it, so that’s why I raised the objection.”
Min notified HYBE in early November last year of her intention to exercise the put option on her ADOR shares. According to the shareholders’ agreement, the years used to calculate the put option were 2022–2023. During that period, ADOR recorded an operating loss of 4 billion won in 2022 and an operating profit of 33.5B won in 2023. In 2022, ADOR posted a deficit because NewJeans, its only artist at the time, debuted in July of that year.
According to ADOR’s audit report disclosed last April, Min owns 573,160 shares of ADOR (18%). Based on this, the amount she could receive is estimated to be around 26B won.
HYBE argues that because the shareholders’ agreement was terminated in July, the exercise of the put option is invalid. Min counters that there was no breach of the shareholders’ agreement on her part and that HYBE’s notice of termination therefore has no legal effect.
source: https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/477/0000584694
original post: here
0 Comments