The group claims the contract has been terminated according to the certification of contents, while ADOR asserts it remains valid. NewJeans has refrained from filing an injunction to suspend the contract’s validity, alleging ADOR is at fault, while ADOR filed a lawsuit on December 3 with the Seoul Central District Court to confirm the contract’s validity.
The two parties are locked in a dispute over the contract’s termination. During a press conference on November 28, NewJeans stated, “We demanded rectification of breaches via certification of contents, but since no action was taken within the stipulated period, the contract will be terminated as of midnight on November 29.” ADOR, however, argues, “A contract cannot be unilaterally terminated based on one party’s claim.”
The crux of the issue lies in their differing views on what constitutes grounds for termination. NewJeans accuses ADOR of failing to protect them, hindering their activities and even engaging in defamatory behavior, which they believe qualifies as grounds for termination under the contract. On the other hand, ADOR argues the claims in the certification of contents do not justify termination and insists the contract remains binding. Legal experts suggest that NewJeans would need to substantiate their claims in a formal lawsuit.
Kim Tae-yeon, a leading attorney at Tae-yeon Law Firm, commented, “The lack of clear, severe issues complicates the case. While ADOR and industry associations argue minor grievances don’t justify termination, such grievances may be significant to the artist. The outcome hinges on how well the claims are substantiated.”
The dispute complicates third parties’ interactions with NewJeans. ADOR insists the group is still under contract, while NewJeans denies this. Advertisers and collaborators are likely to avoid involvement until the matter is resolved. Lawyer Kim predicts NewJeans may need to file an injunction to minimize downtime and enable their activities.
Regarding penalties, opinions vary. Lawyer Noh Jong-eon of Jonjae Law Firm stated, “Penalties apply only if NewJeans is at fault, and apart from their notification of termination, no clear grounds exist. In cases of mutual fault due to trust breakdown, penalties for both parties might cancel each other out.” However, lawyer Noh argues that without evident grave faults on ADOR’s part, penalties are likely to be upheld, although rarely in their entirety. NewJeans emphasized in a recent statement that they have already returned profits exceeding ADOR’s investment.
Discussions also center on whether NewJeans can retain their group name. While standard contracts stipulate that trademarks revert to the artist upon contract termination, if ADOR holds the rights, reclaiming them could prove challenging. Even if NewJeans prevails, ADOR may demand compensation, potentially leading to further disputes.
Most legal experts agree that NewJeans working directly with former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin anytime soon would not be advantageous. Lawyer Noh speculated, “It might take about five years for such a partnership to be viable again. Even outsourcing contracts with Min might not be pursued for now.”
Regardless of the lawsuit’s outcome, the conflict could harm both parties. Historical parallels, such as JYJ’s separation from TVXQ and their subsequent exclusion from major broadcast appearances, illustrate the potential fallout. Lawyer Noh noted, “Given ADOR’s proactive legal measures, further lawsuits, akin to SM Entertainment’s past actions, cannot be ruled out.”
As NewJeans navigates this turbulent chapter, their future remains uncertain, with the legal battle casting a shadow over both their career and ADOR’s reputation.
Source: Daum