Team Bunnies Releases Statement Supporting NJZ

(03.26) The NJZ fandom Bunnies announces its position that we will stand with the members until the end and support their stance that they cannot continue with HYBE and ADOR.

On March 23, at the ComplexCon concert in Hong Kong, Minji, Hanni, Danielle, Haerin, and Hyein announced that they would temporarily suspend activities in respect of the court’s decision.

Team Bunnies supports the members and stands behind their decision.

Regarding this injunction ruling, fans have varying degrees of understanding, and much misinformation and misunderstanding has been spreading. To prevent this, we have compiled answers to what we believe are the most common questions. This content was prepared by Team Bunnies with consultation from multiple attorneys, and we note that much of the content has been edited to avoid any negative impact on future proceedings.

Q) How long will the appeal process take?
Some fans mistakenly believe that this ruling means activities will be suspended until the main lawsuit is decided, or that the appeal will take a long time. However, there are still objection and appeal procedures remaining as part of the injunction process, and a faster decision can be reached by requesting expedited proceedings. If procedures are followed without delay, we anticipate the appeal results could come around late May to early June of this year.

Q) Why not file an immediate appeal?
Procedurally, an appeal can only be filed after submitting an objection to the injunction ruling and receiving the result. Since objections are reviewed by the same court, there is a high likelihood of the same conclusion being reached. Therefore, the plan is to quickly complete the objection process and immediately proceed with the appeal, which will be reviewed by a different court. We also anticipate that some people will misread the objection result as if it were the final conclusion. As explained, since objections are reviewed by the same court, there is a high likelihood of the same conclusion being reached, so we hope Bunnies will not be misled.

Q) What is the essence of this case?
The essence of this case is whether the exclusive contract was validly terminated, and by its nature, the “high degree of trust” required must be considered. As stated in the court’s ruling, the Supreme Court has ruled that “exclusive contracts by their nature require maintaining a high degree of trust between the contracting parties to achieve the contract’s purpose, and the obligation of exclusive activities that an entertainer bears under an exclusive contract cannot be performed by someone else.” The Supreme Court has also ruled that “if the trust relationship between the parties has broken down, forcing an entertainer to continue exclusive activities against their free will on the grounds that the breakdown does not constitute a serious reason making it impossible to expect the contract to continue would excessively infringe upon the entertainer’s personal rights, and therefore, if mutual trust has broken down, the entertainer may terminate the exclusive contract.”

Q) Lack of comprehensive consideration
In this court ruling, the court acknowledged the following facts: the court recognized that HYBE’s CEO told NewJeans he would give them “a long vacation of 1 year and 6 months”; that HYBE’s PR told a reporter that “NewJeans’ Japanese album isn’t selling well”; that there was a dispute with NewJeans’ music video production company immediately after the ADOR CEO was replaced; that HYBE’s report contained content stating “abandon ‘New’ and start fresh”; that similarities were confirmed with other HYBE groups in planning documents and photoshoots; and that NewJeans’ trainee photos and videos, which had been Source Music’s internal materials, were posted on Dispatch.

However, when making its judgment regarding the exclusive contract and trust relationship, the court did not comprehensively consider the above incidents but instead judged each reason individually. Rather than comprehensively considering incidents such as the “long vacation of 1 year and 6 months,” “HYBE’s PR director disparaging NewJeans’ achievements,” “disputes with producers immediately after the ADOR CEO change,” and “contents of HYBE’s document” to conclude that the trust relationship between the parties had broken down, the court individually determined that each incident was insufficient grounds for “terminating the exclusive contract.” In the objection and appeal procedures, we will request judgment by comprehensively describing the context and flow of these incidents, and we believe there is sufficient possibility of a different outcome.

Q) Formalistic reasoning regarding ADOR’s legal personality
The court also ruled that “ADOR under CEO Min Hee-jin” had taken corrective measures, and therefore accepted ADOR’s injunction application. It determined that since former CEO Min Hee-jin (who was ADOR’s CEO at the time) had already protested against various incidents within the company, ADOR had effectively protested.

However, the catalyst and core of this dispute is the dismissal of CEO Min Hee-jin. The essence of the problem lies in the difference between “ADOR” before and after her dismissal. Considering that CEO Min Hee-jin’s dismissal was unjust, the court’s decision is disappointing in that it was caught up in the “formal fact” that ADOR is a single legal entity and overlooked the crucial difference between CEOs.

Furthermore, the following was not comprehensively considered: the fact that while individual incidents may seem relatively minor, taken together they can only be seen as sustained harassment; the fact, acknowledged by the court, that these incidents occurred during the process of HYBE forcing out CEO Min Hee-jin; and the fact that they ultimately replaced CEO Min Hee-jin and filled the current “ADOR” management with HYBE personnel. In subsequent proceedings, this context must be structurally explained. Given the short deliberation period for injunction proceedings, there are aspects that are difficult to view as having been comprehensively considered.

Q) Impossibility of achieving the contract’s purpose
The current ADOR management filed an injunction application with the court to prohibit NewJeans’ activities, arguing that since NewJeans is ADOR’s only artist, ADOR’s very existence would be jeopardized without NewJeans. However, if the current ADOR management truly considered NewJeans a group that affects ADOR’s very existence, the timing, method, and reasons for dismissing CEO Min Hee-jin, who played a core role in NewJeans’ success and growth, are even more difficult to understand.

As the court acknowledged, “ADOR was established from the beginning for NewJeans’ entertainment activities, and NewJeans is ADOR’s only artist.” And the person who established ADOR and served as NewJeans’ executive producer is Min Hee-jin. However, the current “ADOR” suddenly dismissed NewJeans’ executive producer and CEO without prior discussion with the members, resulting in the complete halt of preparations for the follow-up album, domestic fan meeting, and world tour that NewJeans had planned for the second half of the year.

HYBE and ADOR’s current board of directors suddenly dismissed the CEO of an entertainment agency during the crucial third year of a girl group’s career and replaced her with HYBE’s HR executive, who had no experience in the entertainment industry. Yet these facts were explained only in fragments without context. If the current ADOR board truly dismissed CEO Min Hee-jin based on pure “business judgment,” then

1. The fact that CEO Min Hee-jin had a trust relationship with the members

2. The fact that she was the core figure who planned and developed NewJeans

3. The fact that she was responsible for both NewJeans’ producing and management

4. The fact that numerous directors and producers who had collaborated with NewJeans had signed contracts with ADOR based on their trust in CEO Min Hee-jin, and do not wish to collaborate with an ADOR without Min Hee-jin—considering all these factors, there should have been efforts to build trust through prior discussion with the members regarding the timing and method of the CEO change and preparation of countermeasures.

However, the court noted that the current ADOR management offered CEO Min Hee-jin producing work while dismissing her from the CEO position, and concluded that CEO Min Hee-jin could have continued producing NewJeans but chose to quit herself. This judgment did not consider the process and methods by which HYBE forced CEO Min Hee-jin out of her position as ADOR’s CEO. Furthermore, questions remain as to whether the producing contract containing poison pill clauses presented to her—despite CEO Min Hee-jin continuously requesting maintenance of the previous system, with her opinions being ignored—was a sincere offer and whether it was something she could have accepted. This is also an issue that must be properly explained in subsequent proceedings.

Conclusion.
This court ruling is a “provisional injunction” and not a final decision, yet some media outlets are already churning out articles criticizing the members. Although this media play has continued for several days, HYBE and ADOR have not taken any measures to protect the members. This alone should make it clear to anyone what the current reality looks like.

It is very disappointing that various contexts were not considered or were insufficiently explained in this initial ruling. However, as summarized above, there were many parts where important core contexts were not reflected at all, and given the nature of injunction proceedings, it should be taken into account that it may have been difficult to fully understand the complexity of this matter within the short deliberation period.

After consultation with multiple attorneys, we have determined that in the appeal, if the intent of the Supreme Court precedent premised on “high degree of trust” in entertainer exclusive contracts—which was inadequately considered in the original ruling—and the fact that forcing exclusive activities in the absence of a trust relationship seriously infringes on the members’ personal rights and that the purpose of the exclusive contract cannot be achieved, are judged with comprehensive consideration of the context of this case, there is sufficient possibility of a different outcome.

Lastly, we have received multiple reports about the actions of some fans.

First, Team Bunnies clearly states that we have no sympathy whatsoever for fans who prioritize their own emotions over the personal rights and wishes of the members themselves.

The members have experienced sustained harassment while working under HYBE. For example, the incident where the Chairman of the Board of Directors ignored the members’ greetings may seem trivial to outsiders, but knowing how much sustained contempt within a company can devastate a person, we as fans cannot help but hurt alongside them.

The members have consistently said that they “have not been treated as equals within HYBE” and that “this lawsuit is not a game to win or lose, but something they had no choice but to pursue to protect their human rights.” As fans who love the members more than anyone, Team Bunnies cannot spend even one second with a company that does not treat the members as equal human beings. Not only the members but also Bunnies have watched clearly throughout the year what kind of reverse viral marketing and slander have tormented the members, which is why we support them even more strongly.

We have determined that those who do not agree with this can no longer be considered Bunnies, and we clearly state that whatever independent actions they may take from now on, those are not the opinions of Bunnies as a whole. We are only worried that their foolish and selfish actions may once again make the members victims of media play.

Team Bunnies, as the NJZ fandom, will continue to voice strong support for the members.