Team Bunnies Releases Some Hearing Details from ‘ADOR v. NewJeans: Lawsuit to Confirm Validity of Exclusive Contract – 3rd Hearing’

“The origin of this entire dispute was HYBE’s audit in April 2024. At that time, while auditing Min Hee-jin, HYBE claimed that she ‘attempted to usurp management rights.‘ Throughout that process, they kept bringing up ‘taking NewJeans away,’ the so-called tempering issue, but back then, the tempering issue was not included at all in the grounds for the audit or dismissal. In other words, the ‘taking NewJeans away’ argument that took up a significant portion of today’s hearing was never actually a reason for the audit or dismissal in the first place.”

“The claims raised as grounds for the audit, and the contents that were in the audit report, were all determined to be false by the investigation, resulting in a decision not to prosecute due to lack of evidence on July 14. Therefore, the audit that ADOR initiated six days after Min Hee-jin’s protest was an audit conducted with a clear direction and purpose, with conclusions predetermined. This dispute arose from the fictitious frame of ‘management rights usurpation attempt’ that HYBE fabricated as retaliation.”

“The decision not to prosecute is presented as Evidence No. 224. The most important content is this: ‘Contrary to what was stated in the audit report‘ appears on the third line. In other words, after predetermining the conclusion and conducting the audit, while the audit report stated ‘attempted to usurp management rights,’ the investigative authorities are saying ‘no, contrary to the audit report, it was not management rights usurpation.’”

“If you look at paragraph 5, it originates from opposition to various illegal aspects within entertainment companies, and therefore the investigative authorities evaluate that it is questionable whether such acts as the protest letter regarding the copying issue could be considered acts of betrayal against ADOR’s parent company. It is unclear whether there was intent to benefit third parties, and it is also difficult to see that there was intent to cause damage to ADOR. Furthermore, it cannot be said that she recognized that her actions violated her duties as someone handling ADOR’s affairs. And most importantly, Min Hee-jin’s actions were not violations of duty, but rather actions that constituted her obligations as ADOR’s CEO—meaning it was judged that she merely fulfilled her duty as ADOR’s CEO to protect the members.”

“The decision not to prosecute states that it appears to have been aimed at protecting ADOR’s interests and achievements, not harming them. The KakaoTalk messages shown earlier were recorded with a different meaning than their actual intent in the audit report, and the content was distorted to make it look like management rights usurpation, but upon closer examination, the investigative authorities determined it was not intended as management rights usurpation. This means the KakaoTalk messages shown for about 10 minutes earlier were not meant that way.”

“Additionally, Min Hee-jin’s internal whistleblowing was triggered by unethical practices in the entertainment industry, such as ‘album pushing’ practices and subsidiary copying issues, and this cannot be considered an act of betrayal against HYBE or ADOR, nor can it be seen as an act that increased the possibility of terminating NewJeans’ exclusive contract.”

“1,700 news articles were released about the start of the internal audit. This was five days before NewJeans’ comeback. When idols have a comeback approaching, they become extremely sensitive, being careful even of falling leaves. But with these articles coming out five days before, NewJeans’ comeback was completely buried, and articles pouring out with provocative words like ‘betrayal idols’ flooded in.”

“In other words, as a result of this audit, it was NewJeans who suffered the greatest damage.” “Having created a situation where there was no exit for Min Hee-jin other than leaving, they essentially expelled her and are now saying she left on her own. There was no contingency plan after Min Hee-jin left. Even Lee Do-kyung says, ‘Ah, it’s burdensome. We can’t do anything right now. We have no plan.’ They kicked her out, but what about NewJeans? They expelled her without any plan. In this situation, the members found themselves in a position where they couldn’t receive any management or protection.”

“This came up during the court’s clarification questions. Was there any consultation with or explanation to the members who would be most affected before dismissing Min Hee-jin? No. Did you develop any plans to ensure the members could continue normal activities after dismissing Min Hee-jin? No. That was the plaintiff’s answer. Then, regarding the claim that a work delegation contract was proposed before dismissing CEO Min Hee-jin, was there any consultation about that? No, they said. In other words, even according to ADOR’s own answers, when they dismissed Min Hee-jin, there was no plan for how to manage the members after Min Hee-jin left.”

“We explained on page 94 the absurd situation where the management doesn’t even know what songs the members performed at their concert. At the very least, the management that claims to protect, cherish, and manage NewJeans doesn’t even know what songs the members sang at their concert or whose songs those were. Can you entrust management to such people?”

“Of course, there was a court ruling, but injunctions are provisional measures made quickly without an evidence examination process. In contrast, the decision not to prosecute that was issued this time was a decision made after the investigative authorities meticulously obtained evidence through a compulsory investigation, reviewed it, synthesized both the complainant’s and the accused’s opinions, and deliberated over a long period of time. Therefore, the suggestion that the injunction ruling is superior to the decision not to prosecute is not valid.” “And regarding the police investigation results, you mentioned that the audit procedures were lawful and regulations were followed. But that content means there were no procedural defects in the audit and that regulations were followed—it does not mean the grounds for the audit were recognized. The fact that the audit procedures were lawful is compatible with the fact that the audit grounds and conclusions were found to be wrong upon investigation.”

“What we are concerned about is that the Hanni HR controversy might sound like a childish matter about senior-junior hierarchy or greetings between idols. But that’s not the case. The HR controversy was mentioned as circumstantial evidence of organized ostracism and ignoring of the defendants within HYBE affiliates. What we take issue with even more is not the act of not greeting itself, but the fact that in the process of explaining and establishing the facts, they deleted the video that could prove Hanni’s account and made Hanni out to be a liar. The issue is not that someone didn’t greet her, but the series of events that occurred in the process of destroying that evidence. Therefore, ADOR’s side has missed the point on that matter.”