I don't think losing your CEO + entire production team is a 'minor issue'. It does affect financial bottom line - getting delayed an entire year could mean losing an entire world tour worth of profit sharing in a 7 year contract. Why is it only idols have to pay for damages, and not the company when it's the company's fault that idols can't reach their financial potential?
Imagine - we have a contract, I pay you $1000/day, but only if you work. The contract says you can't work anywhere else, or else you owe me $1M because I trained you. Now, I say you can't work for a year because the building isn't ready yet. Why should you not be able to terminate that contract without penalty? This is effectively what happened.
I also think having the new CEO unwilling to terminate contracts with HYBE after poor performance (LV contract mismanagement, failed investigations by HYBE HR, unwillingness to take down negative PR and investigate from HYBE marketing, leaks that HYBE marketing attempted to harm ADOR PR) isn't a minor issue. Imagine if it wasn't HYBE but a third party company managing ADOR's advertising contracts and did this, or their HR, or their PR - they would be fired. But ADOR can't fire HYBE. So once again, ADOR isn't acting on behalf of ADOR, but of HYBE, which is the whole crux of the issue.
Personally, I think NJZ misplayed the trial because they're trying to be nice and get positive PR, as well as support MHJ as much as they could. Honestly I've felt some of these legal arguments by 'top Korean law firms' to be awful, not much logic and a lot of PR spin. Go back to the facts and contract theory.
They 100% should have requested damages for delayed world tour due to losing BANA because of ADOR's shareholders aka HYBE. They should have requested termination of all ADOR-HYBE service contracts related to failed services provided. They should have requested ADOR sue HYBE for damages for bad PR (slander/libel). Once those requests weren't granted (because ADOR would never go against HYBE), they should have then terminated the contract to show the world that the sub-label system is a joke. That ADOR's shareholders damaged the profit in their contract and did nothing to mitigate it. The only way to truly break contracts.