I think they forgot what to sing in songs. If they don’t perform this song on encores, I don’t even know.
Posts by Karl-III
-
-
Nobody, I would conduct a normal vote with the participation of more people and then draw some conclusions.
-
Display More
Min Heejin will only produce for NewJeans for 2 more months
Min Heejin’s side “The production contract is too short, only 2 months, and is full of unreasonable and toxic terms”
1. Because she was at a disadvantage, she mentioned NewJeans again
2. The future of NewJeans becomes unclear
3. She seems to think that only she can create NewJeans, but HYBE doesn’t think so. NewJeans is so talented and has a lot of fans so I don’t think it would be a big deal if the production changed. Take the fight to court
4. Min Heejin, stop it. You and HYBE are no different
5. I think NewJeans will do well now, regardless of who is in charge of production….
6. So have you apologized to the victim properly?
7. But why does she always post about her statement?;;
8. I’m really worried about NewJeans’ activities…ㅠㅠ
9. I like NewJeans songs but it’s a shame that the music color will change
10. Why can’t someone who cuts another person’s salary by 40% tolerate her own injustice?
People who think that NewJeans will feel good under HYBE are just stupid. Show me at least one successful girl group of HYBE, there are none simply because the company does not know how to work with girl groups at all. Le Sse who survived two major scandals, Illit who survived one major scandal and are still a copy of NJ, fromis_9 who have comebacks in the form of a single once every 2 years.
-
Too many gallups
i didn't know they aren't the same. Both do polling and research tho.So gallup korea is a part of
It doesn't matter, it doesn't change the essence.
People live in the era of the Internet, where polls can be conducted on several million people, but of course someone thinks that the opinion of 1000 will reflect the mood of the entire population, this does not happen simply because it is extremely difficult to have accurate data based on only 0.0002%. The problem is that most likely these 1000 people were polled only in a couple of large cities of the country. In my country, polls are conducted every month, but these polls are conducted only in a couple of large cities where the mentality of people is different from others, different standards of living, different accessibility. Should we trust the results based on the more successful part of the population?
-
I didn't say they were Korean, secondly, do you believe that if they are from the US, then they have a high level of reliability? Gallup's research methodology is long outdated, now it is completely irrelevant.
-
And they also criticize Koreans who believe in shamans, while they themselves believe in the reliability and validity of some surveys.
-
-
Most survey's are such. You can quibble about sample size, but the sample sizes are always going to be small. Yet they do largely reflect the public opinion, though the rankings may not be accurate - you could add 5% variation.
But if the gap between ranks are considerable, the variation also will not matter.
A sample of 1000 people is very low; for a population of 50 million in my country, similar surveys are conducted with a low sample, and in 99% of cases this is not an indicator at all and does not correspond to reality. Nowadays, in the Internet era, it is possible to vote on 10% of the total number, if not more.
-
If they were reliable, they would conduct a survey not with 1 thousand people, but with at least 100 thousand people. If you consider data collected from 0.00002% of the population to be the sentiment of the entire crowd, then you have a problem. I am sure 0.00002% of the Korean population considers North Korea to be heaven on Earth.
-
They won't remove him because he's the only member to actually using and loving Samsung and everybody knows it, including Samsung.
He also loves:
-
In a country with a population of 50 million people, based on the votes of 1000 people, a conclusion was made about popularity. To be fair, it was possible to make an online vote, where many more people would take part, based on this, to make some kind of conclusion. Too small a sample of people.
-
Display More
Min Hee-jin "Contract between shareholders is valid" vs. Hybe "It's up to the court to decide"
Former CEO Min Hee-jin of Ador has objected to Hybe’s termination notice, claiming that the shareholder contract she made with her parent company, Hybe, is still valid. also emphasized, “Min Hee-jin has never violated the shareholder contract, and this has been confirmed through the court’s injunction order,” and “Therefore, Hybe does not have the right to terminate the shareholder contract, and Hybe’s notice of termination of the shareholder contract has no effect.”
The lawyer in charge of former CEO Min Hee-jin's side, Sejong Law Firm, released a statement today ( the 29th ) and claimed, "The contract between shareholders is still valid," and "Min Hee-jin's rights, such as put options, are still valid."
Last month, Hybe notified that it would terminate the shareholder contract with former CEO Min and filed a lawsuit with the court to confirm the termination of the shareholder contract. If the shareholder contract is terminated, Min Hee-jin will lose her basis for maintaining her position as CEO and a huge put option worth 100 billion won. Former CEO Min’s side argued, “Hybe attempted to dismiss Min Hee-jin as a director, and this time, Ador’s directors violated the shareholder contract by dismissing Min Hee-jin,” and “Min Hee-jin has the right to terminate the shareholder contract.” They also explained, “If Min Hee-jin terminates the shareholder contract, Hybe will be liable for damages for the profits that Min Hee-jin could have received through the shareholder contract, including the put option amount, and the profits that she could have received while working as CEO for 5 years.”
In response, Hybe emphasized, “The shareholder contract is merely an agreement between shareholders, and Ador’s directors are not parties to the shareholder contract and can therefore make independent judgments. The termination of the shareholder contract is unrelated to the dismissal of the CEO,” and “It is up to the court to decide whether the termination of the shareholder contract is effective.” They added, “The only thing related to the shareholder contract is the put option, and it has nothing to do with the dismissal of the CEO or working with New Jeans.”
Afterwards, on the 27th , the board of directors held a meeting and dismissed Min Hee-jin from the position of CEO, and appointed Kim Joo-young, an internal director (Hybe CHRO and Chief Human Resources Officer), as the new CEO.
The only thing I don't understand is that they say that the shareholder agreement is an agreement between the shareholders and not ADOR's management, but nevertheless, the shareholder agreement was what kept Min Hee-jin as CEO and where it was written down, judging from the previous court case. They could have fired her, contrary to the shareholder agreement, but instead they terminated it.
-
-
That why it is called unilaterally terminated. If it were with her consent it would be called MUTUALLY terminated.
HYBE had notified that it would terminate the shareholder contract with former CEO Min and filed a lawsuit with the court to confirm the termination of the shareholder contract in July.
Now it is for the Court to decide whether the termination of the shareholder contract is effective.
The court cannot do this, the most it can do is force MHJ to sell the put option at the current price. To terminate the agreement in favor of HYBE, MHJ must have committed a felony.
-
Seriously? MHJ is not some average producer in the industry, she has connections among the heads of other companies, she will sue HYBE a lot of money and may well open her own label. There is experience as well as connections, then he can join the same SM as a sub.
There are a lot of development options, and the main asset of HYBE (NewJeans) will most likely go with it. By the way, it is possible that she will also try to sue the NewJeans brand as created by her.
-
Display More
Hybe did a fatal mistake.
HYBE (ADOR) vs MHJ: WHO VIOLATED THE SHAREHOLDERS' AGREEMENT?
let's simplify the current details we have regarding the latest update shared by sejong (mhj's legal team) on their stance against hybe (ador) and their decision to terminate the shareholder's agreement and dismiss mhj as ceo of ador.
WHAT WE KNOW:
1. on 8/27 hybe (ador) released a statement that mhj "stepped down" as ceo of ador and has agreed to terminate the shareholder's agreement and resume an in-house director (producer) role that will look after newjeans.
2. with the termination of the shareholders agreement, she not lonly loses her director post but also loses her put options and term guarantee (until november 2026).
3. hybe filed a 'confirmation of termination of shareholder agreement' to the court last july '24 with mhj as a defendant.
source for items 1-3: topdaily.kr/articles/98841
4. on 8/28 sejong law firm disclosed their position regarding hybe (ador's) ruling on mhj's dismissal as ceo and stated that the board's decision to dismiss her "directly contradicts the shareholders' agreement and the court's injunction prohibiting the exercise of voting rights"
5. sejong firmly stated that despite the court's ruling that mhj was not guilty of any illegal actions claimed by hybe, the hybe majority controlled ador board, dismissed ceo mhj. moreover, they are distorting facts to mislead the public as if it wasn't a dismissal.
6. sejong added that mhj was dismissed against her will and did not step down voluntarily. the hybe (ador) board unilaterally notified her that she will be assigned producing duties.
source for items 4-6:
hankyung.com/article/202408…
listing down the critical pieces which hybe and hybe (ador) failed to comply with.
1. injunction ruling last may 31
2. shareholders agreement (ador)
3. civil code articles 543, 544
"a contract cannot be unilaterally terminated by either party unless both parties agree or one party violates the contract. the right to terminate arises only when the other party breaches the contract, and upon expressing the intention to terminate, the contract is considered terminated."
other key items that hybe and hybe (ador) has allegedly done to dismiss mhj of her ceo role:
1. updating the notification period for board meetings through the articles of incorporation from seven days to one day.
2. released official statements that mhj has "stepped down" from her role as ceo when it was clear that the board (hybe-ador) has dismissed her by exercising their votes.
what's in it for mhj if she wins this case against hybe and hybe (ador)?
1. mhj will have the right to terminate her shareholders agreement and therefore be able to exercise her put options if proven that hybe has indeed violated the shareholders agreement.
2. should mhj push through with the termination of the shareholders agreement, this requires hybe to then pay her damages along with her put options.
3. the amount she could receive in terms of damages may be in the millions (krw) but her put options as well as benefits she could have received had she served her term for five years as ceo could be in the hundreds of billions (krw).
personal take: alongside this, mhj could also demand that njs contracts be terminated for continuous violation of their contracts, the risk factors involving the members safety, violating the personal information protection act, breach of trust, etc.
source: sports.khan.co.kr/article/202408…
that's the recap of the entire dismissal of mhj as ceo of ador! hopefully, this gives you a bit more insight on the things that have happened.
thanks for reading!
External Content x.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.Finally, the desire of ARMY and Hybe stans will be satisfied, Min Heejin will leave HYBE Labels along with NewJeans.
-
-
Actually, what I was talking about is that terminating options is a serious mistake.
You can't just terminate any contract because you decide to do so. Hybe probably thought that the court would approve the termination based on some internal disputes, but that's not how it works. The shareholder agreement is outside the jurisdiction of the work system, even if ADOR under MHJ's leadership incurs losses for HYBE, it will be extremely difficult to terminate the agreement even based on this, since they have different spheres of influence.
-
-
MHJ still calling herself CEO in her media statements lol
I read all of her statements and she’s going with the: shareholder agreement termination is false!!!!!, violation of shareholder agreement, and back to court’s decision last time to keep her.
Will the FSS clarify if they did or didn’t approve the termination of the shareholder agreement? Media reported that it was processed in July via public records - so I dunno….
So the termination of the shareholders' agreement is indeed false; in order to terminate the put option, termination is required on both sides. Hybe personally terminated it, without MHJ's participation. But the problem is that he does not have the right to do so, only the court can terminate the put option, and he sent the court only approval, while terminating it himself. Well, of course, if the court rejects it, then what? It turns out that HYBE violated not only the shareholders agreement, but also the court order to fire MHJ.
