On May 30, Sejong, the law firm in charge of Min Hee-jin’s legal representation, announced,
“Hello. This is Sejong Law Firm, representing ADOR CEO Min Hee Jin.
On April 22, 2024, HYBE requested ADOR to convene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders regarding the dismissal of CEO Min Hee Jin, and the above-mentioned extraordinary general meeting of shareholders will be held tomorrow ( 9 am on May 31, 2024). However, this violated the shareholder agreement signed between CEO Min Hee Jin and HYBE, and accordingly, CEO Min Hee Jin applied for an injunction prohibiting the exercise of voting rights against HYBE on May 7. 2024, regarding the ‘firing of CEO Min Hee Jin’ to the Seoul Central District Court.
Internal Affairs Department No. 50 of the Seoul Central District Court decided to accept the above application for a temporary restraining order on the afternoon of May 30, 2024. Therefore, HYBE will not be able to exercise its voting right to support the ‘firing of CEO Min Hee Jin’ at ADOR’s extraordinary general meeting of shareholders to be held on May 31, 2024. If HYBE exercises its voting rights contrary to the decision of the ban, HYBE must compensate CEO Min Hee Jin with an indirect enforcement fee of 20 billion won.
From the time the application for temporary restraining order was received on May 7, 2024, until right before the court’s decision, HYBE’s litigation representative submitted extensive documents 11 times and CEO Min’s litigation representative also submitted documents 9 times to refute. Today, the court carefully considered both sides’ requests and upheld CEO Min’s request for a preliminary injunction. The court found that all the claims about HYBE’s ‘witch hunt’ that were indiscriminately spread in the media were inaccurate.
The key issue in this case is ① the shareholder agreement signed between CEO Min Hee Jin and HYBE, which stipulates that “HYBE must exercise its voting rights so that Min Hee Jin can maintain the position of CEO and executive director of ADOR for five years.” The question is whether the binding voting rights agreement can be enforced on HYBE and ② whether there is reason for dismissal or CEO Min Hee Jin’s resignation as director.
It is natural that the binding agreement on voting rights should be upheld since it is an agreement between the parties, but HYBE even denies such an express agreement. However, the court did not accept HYBE’s argument because the language in the contract between shareholders was very clear.
And on whether CEO Min Hee Jin had grounds to be fired or resign as director, the court rejected HYBE’s argument even though all the KakaoTalk conversations that HYBE disclosed to the media were brought to court. Therefore, HYBE cannot prove the reason why CEO Min Hee Jin should be fired or resign as director, and this is the core reason why this application for an injunction was accepted.
Since HYBE’s illegal audit began on April 22, 2024, data obtained through this illegal audit has been leaked to the outside world. However, it was combined with bad intentions, only a few Kakaotalk messages were revealed that pushed CEO Min Hee Jin into a ‘witch hunt’ and no evidence was found to support HYBE’s policy.”
“While the trial was ongoing, CEO Min’s personal conversations with third parties were maliciously arranged and indiscriminately distributed in the media. Some YouTubers and bloggers are still arbitrarily analyzing the Kakaotalk messages, violating her privacy, and defaming CEO Min and ADOR staff. We will take measures such as filing a lawsuit, so we request that you immediately delete the posted videos.
Additionally, we hope HYBE will respect the court’s decision on the ban. If HYBE takes action to exclude Min Hee Jin from the CEO position contrary to the ban, this will be a direct violation of the contract between shareholders. In addition, since there is no reason for CEO Min Hee Jin to be dismissed, there is also no reason for the two other directors besides CEO Min Hee Jin to be dismissed. If HYBE dismisses the above directors, it would be disrespecting the court’s decision and firing them without just cause.”
