Examination Date for Injunction to Convene ADOR Extraordinary Shareholders’ Meeting and Reappoint Inside Director
A HYBE internal employee reported that ILLIT’s creative director had requested the NewJeans planning proposal from the initial conception stage of ILLIT, and that ILLIT’s planning proposal was identical to that of NewJeans.
The whistleblower delivered the materials at the request of ILLIT’s creative director but expressed discomfort at BELIFT LAB’s claims that the plagiarism allegations are false, stating, “I really couldn’t have imagined they would make it exactly the same. It seems like the exact same materials have been submitted to the court, and I keep thinking ‘They looked at all of this and referenced it, so why do they keep denying it?’”
They claimed that the above evidence proves that former CEO Min’s internal complaint about ‘ILLIT copying NewJeans’ on April 3 was justified.
They stated that in addition to HYBE’s neglect of ILLIT’s copying of NewJeans, HYBE committed countless acts of betrayal and harassment including negative viral campaigns against NewJeans, concealment of workplace harassment, and media manipulation to damage their reputation. They also expressed that HYBE unilaterally claims the shareholders’ agreement has been terminated while ignoring the court’s preceding injunction decision.
Former CEO Min Hee-jin explained that this is why she filed an injunction requesting that HYBE vote in favor of ‘the appointment of Min Hee-jin as internal director’ at the extraordinary shareholders’ meeting, and that HYBE direct the directors it appointed to vote in favor of ‘the appointment of Min Hee-jin as CEO’ at the ADOR board meeting.
They stated that at the time of the preceding injunction, the shareholders’ agreement had not yet been terminated, and the issue was whether the creditor had committed breach of trust as an ADOR director. They explained that in this filing, the issue is whether the shareholders’ agreement was lawfully terminated.
Citing the previous injunction where the court ruled that (the creditor’s alleged conspiracy to seize management control) could constitute a betrayal against the debtor, they explained that the debtor terminated the shareholders’ agreement based on this judgment due to breach of trust.
They explained that this audit was not a retaliatory audit triggered by the creditor’s protest email regarding the similarities of the group ‘ILLIT,’ and that the creditor is framing it as a retaliatory audit, but this is merely fiction to evade responsibility.
They stated that while the creditor asks how a 20% shareholder could attempt to seize management control without the consent of the 80% shareholder, a low probability of success does not mean it is not an act of betrayal. They explained that in the entertainment industry where intellectual property (IP) is everything, seizure of management control is possible regardless of shareholding percentage.
They countered that before the audit began, the creditor’s side was already aware that ‘plagiarism is ambiguous’ regarding the ILLIT plagiarism issue, and it has been proven that they conspired to use plagiarism as one of the items to attack HYBE in advance and wage a public opinion war to seize management control.
The court pointed out that former CEO Min’s side and HYBE’s side are repeating matters that were already mentioned in the preceding injunction. The court then asked both sides to focus on the purpose of this injunction filing and present their opinions accordingly.