Min Hee-jin strongly rejected HYBE’s explanation of NewJeans’ exclusive contract, saying HYBE controlled approvals and shifted blame.

Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin directly countered HYBE’s explanation regarding the clauses in NewJeans’ exclusive contract. In an official statement today (the 6th), Min Hee-jin said, “HYBE is shifting responsibility to its subsidiary while creating a unilateral approval system that is impossible without the CEO’s approval,” and revealed that it is “doing something like spitting on its own face.” She then said, “HYBE claims that there is nothing wrong with the contents of NewJeans’ exclusive contract, but at the same time says that the subject of all these contracts was former CEO Min Hee-jin. Then I would like to ask whether HYBE issued a long statement because it wanted to praise Min Hee-jin,” and pointed out, “If it were truly a contract with no problems at all, there would be no reason for HYBE to issue a statement in response to the New York Times article, and there would not even be a reason to look for someone to shift responsibility onto.” She continued, “HYBE does not sufficiently explain the most important part, the ‘system for the substantive drafting and approval of the exclusive contract,’ and repeatedly emphasizes only the superficial fact that ADOR’s management participated in the contract and signed it,” and said, “The fact that ADOR was the contracting party and participated in the contract negotiations at the time is a completely different issue from whether it had the authority to substantively determine the main clauses of the contract.” According to the statement, ADOR at the time did not have an independent legal team, nor legal experts who directly created and reviewed the main clauses of the exclusive contract. This was due to HYBE’s “Shared Function” policy, under which the creation of independent organizations under labels was not permitted in HYBE’s operating system. Min Hee-jin said, “The draft of NewJeans’ exclusive contract was prepared by HYBE’s legal team, and the revision work was also carried out through HYBE’s legal team. ADOR communicated with the artists based on the contract prepared by HYBE, conveyed questions and requests for revisions from the parents to HYBE’s legal team, and played the role of coordinating them,” and explained, “As for the explanation and persuasion process excluding coordination, lawyers from HYBE’s legal team directly explained and responded.” Even in the process of finalizing the contract, it was a system that could not be completed by the representative director’s approval alone. Agreement and approval procedures by HYBE’s legal team, HYBE CFO, and HYBE CEO continued, and approval by the board of directors composed of two HYBE personnel and one ADOR representative director also had to be obtained. Min Hee-jin cited the company-wide legal management procedures clearly stated on page 56 of HYBE’s “2022 Sustainable Management Report,” and emphasized that it shows HYBE was not merely providing a reference contract form for artists’ exclusive contracts, but was directly involved in the internal contract approval procedures. At the time, due to the lack of authority, ADOR’s former vice president even conveyed a message in a conversation with the parents saying, “The contract is commonly used by HYBE-affiliated companies, so it is difficult to revise all of the contents you requested. This is because HYBE is included in the final decision-making process. However, since Min Hee-jin is the representative director, please trust ADOR and the staff she leads and leave it to them.” In addition, the process by which Min Hee-jin met with HYBE CEO Park Ji-won on January 25, 2024, requested authority over important contract conclusion matters, and conveyed a revised shareholder agreement including this on February 16 was also newly revealed. Min Hee-jin, who asked, “If, as HYBE claims, ADOR had sufficient authority to independently decide and conclude the exclusive contract, why did the representative director separately request that authority from the parent company?” pointed out, “HYBE itself announced through the media in May 2024 that it had ‘rejected’ such requests, proving the contradiction in HYBE’s claim that the label had independent decision-making authority.” She also clarified HYBE’s claims regarding some settlement conditions. When NewJeans members moved from SOURCE MUSIC to ADOR, ADOR decided not to charge the members for costs incurred during their trainee period. At the time, it was understood that other HYBE labels were charging trainee costs after debut, but ADOR made that choice from a standpoint of consideration, taking into account circumstances such as the members’ original debut plan having fallen through. She also pointed out that the proposal presented by HYBE’s legal team was adjusted after oral communication of other labels’ cases and management policy, so one should not overinterpret only the written record of rejection as evidence of independent decision-making authority. Regarding the clause on a new business using the artist’s image and voice after the contract ends, she added that it was a matter beyond the scope of ordinary management and that the parent company’s legal team drafted it. As for the email exchanges and Q&A with the parents over the three months before the contract was signed, she said they were “only limited revisions to clarify wording and reduce misunderstandings, and could not change the substantive structure in which the parent company creates the core clauses of the contract and holds the final approval authority.” Furthermore, regarding HYBE’s multi-label structure, she said it “created a structural contradiction in which authority is concentrated in the parent company and responsibility is transferred only to the subsidiary through a centralized legal function and unilateral approval system,” and criticized that “creating a system in which the subsidiary’s representative director cannot approve unless HYBE’s CEO approves, and then issuing a statement while creating a target to shift responsibility onto, is truly like spitting on one’s own face.” Finally, Min Hee-jin emphasized, “What is needed now is not who signed the contract, but who actually created and could change the main clauses of the contract. That is the most important factual issue missing from HYBE’s explanation,” and said, “If one truly wishes for the development of the K-pop industry, then even if the contract contents are disclosed externally, one must be able to properly explain the drafting and approval procedures, as well as the reasonableness and fairness of the contents. That should be the attitude of a truly responsible company.” Previously, HYBE had responded to the New York Times report. HYBE explained, “The exclusive contract contains clauses protecting basic rights at the level of a youth subsidiary agreement, such as personality rights and sleep rights, and it is a contract concluded after three months of lawyer review and consultation with parents.” It also said regarding some conditions such as cost burden, “The legal team proposed a plan to reduce the burden on the artists, but at the time ADOR’s vice president rejected it,” and emphasized, “The contract was one that former CEO Min Hee-jin, ADOR’s management, the parents, and legal representatives all adjusted the wording together and ultimately signed.” ・Did NewJeans bear the cost of cosmetic surgery? HYBE responds to the New York Times report on the contract contents ・HYBE Chairman Bang Si-hyuk files a 4.2 billion won loan repayment lawsuit against Min Hee-jin