Music

NewJeans and ADOR Head to Court for Second Round in Contract Dispute

NewJeans and ADOR continue exclusive contract dispute in court.

NewJeans and ADOR’s legal battle over exclusive contract heats up

NewJeans and ADOR Back in Court

The ongoing legal dispute between K-pop group NewJeans and their label, ADOR, is back in the spotlight. On October 4, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Agreement Division 41 will host the second hearing of the exclusive contract validity lawsuit filed by ADOR against NewJeans.

Past Allegations and Conflicts

In the initial hearing in April, ADOR expressed hopes for a settlement, but NewJeans remained steadfast in their opposition. They claimed that Min Hee-jin, former CEO of ADOR, was ousted in a retaliatory manner. NewJeans stated that they could no longer associate with ADOR without Min Hee-jin.

ADOR’s Rebuttal

ADOR denied the claims of retaliatory motives, explaining, “Min Hee-jin left of her own accord.” Further complicating matters, ADOR highlighted NewJeans’ recent performance at ComplexCon in Hong Kong, asserting that the group prepared and executed their performance independently without Min Hee-jin’s involvement.

Contract Termination and Legal Actions

In November of last year, NewJeans announced the termination of their contract with ADOR due to alleged obligations not being fulfilled. They rebranded as NJZ and continued independent activities. In response, ADOR filed a lawsuit in December to confirm the validity of the exclusive contract. They also sought an injunction in January to prevent NewJeans from entering independent commercial agreements and to halt their entertainment activities.

Recent Developments

The court recently ruled in ADOR’s favor, stating NewJeans had not sufficiently demonstrated that ADOR violated essential contractual obligations. Following this decision, NewJeans took to the stage in Hong Kong to present their new song before announcing a temporary cessation of activities as they ratchet up their legal counteractions. An objection to the court’s ruling was filed on March 21.

Leave a Reply