{"id":7806,"date":"2025-09-13T19:17:52","date_gmt":"2025-09-13T19:17:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/hybe-and-min-hee-jin-clash-in-court-over-shareholder-agreement\/"},"modified":"2025-09-13T19:17:52","modified_gmt":"2025-09-13T19:17:52","slug":"hybe-and-min-hee-jin-clash-in-court-over-shareholder-agreement","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/hybe-and-min-hee-jin-clash-in-court-over-shareholder-agreement\/","title":{"rendered":"HYBE and Min Hee-jin Clash in Court Over Shareholder Agreement"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/p>\n
\n

\n\tF<\/span>ormer ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin<\/strong>, who has been locked in a protracted legal battle with HYBE, appeared in person on Thursday (Sept. 11) at the Seoul Central District Court. It was her first court appearance since the dispute began last year. On the witness stand was HYBE\u2019s chief legal officer, Jung Jin-soo<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

\n\tThat day, the court heard two consolidated claims: HYBE\u2019s request to confirm the termination of a shareholder agreement, and Min\u2019s demand for payment under a put option (a contractual right to sell shares back). Positions between the parties remained sharply divided. The hearing revisited long-running flashpoints \u2014 allegations that HYBE\u2019s new girl group copied NewJeans, clauses described by Min as \u201cslave-like\u201d non-compete terms, and claims of \u201cforced album releases\u201d targeting NewJeans. Jung questioned Min\u2019s outside activities and possible breaches of contract, while Min countered, calling the narrative \u201cfiction\u201d and accusing the witness of \u201cmultiple false statements.\u201d The courtroom confrontation stretched for almost five hours.<\/p>\n

\n

\n

\t\t\t\t\tRelated\t\t<\/p>\n<\/h3>\n

\n
\n
\n
\n
\n

\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/p><\/div>\n<\/div><\/div>\n<\/div>\n

\n\tThe court plans to question Min again on Nov. 27 and wrap up arguments on Dec. 18, with a ruling expected in January 2026. At the heart of the civil dispute is the validity of a put option estimated at around 26 billion won (approximately $19 million USD). The shareholder agreement reportedly allows Min to sell up to 75% of her ADOR stake to HYBE, based on 13 times the company\u2019s average operating profit over the previous two years. Applying ADOR\u2019s 2022 loss of 4 billion won and 2023 profit of 33.5 billion won, the amount is calculated at roughly 26 billion. HYBE argues that the shareholder agreement was terminated in July 2023, nullifying the option, while Min maintains there was no termination and says she resigned only after exercising the option in November.<\/p>\n

\n\tLater that afternoon, a separate proceeding was held: the second closed mediation session in ADOR\u2019s lawsuit seeking confirmation of NewJeans\u2019 exclusive contract validity. At the first session on August 14, members Minji and Danielle attended, drawing heavy media attention, but no agreement was reached. The session ended after just 20 minutes without a settlement, and the court scheduled a main ruling for October 30. NewJeans members remain barred from independent activities under a preliminary injunction granted to ADOR.<\/p>\n

\n\tHYBE and Min Hee-jin\u2019s put-option case is expected to conclude arguments by the end of the year, with a verdict likely in January. The NewJeans-ADOR contract dispute is also nearing resolution, with a decision set for Oct. 30. Nearly a year of intertwined litigation among HYBE, Min Hee-jin, ADOR and NewJeans is heading toward sequential conclusions as the year draws to a close \u2014 and the industry is watching closely to see where this saga ultimately lands.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n

\n

\t\t<\/svg>\t\t<\/p>\n

Daily newsletters straight to your inbox<\/p>\n


\n\tSign Up<\/a>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin, who has been locked in a protracted legal battle with HYBE, appeared in person on Thursday (Sept. 11) at the Seoul Central District […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":7807,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[1612,6778,143,6467,1551,6466,574],"class_list":["post-7806","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-lawyers","tag-agreement","tag-clash","tag-court","tag-heejin","tag-hybe","tag-min","tag-shareholder"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7806","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7806"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7806\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7807"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7806"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7806"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/usatrustedlawyers.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7806"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}