The Seoul Central District Court has ruled in favor of Min Hee Jin concerning HYBE’s voting rights regarding her dismissal. On May 30, the court granted Min Hee Jin’s request for an injunction that prohibits HYBE from exercising its voting rights to remove her from her ADOR CEO position.
Min Hee Jin To Continue ADOR CEO Position
The court’s decision was based on the lack of substantial evidence provided by HYBE to support the reasons for Min Hee Jin’s dismissal or resignation. The court remarked, “The reasons for Min Hee Jin’s dismissal or resignation claimed by HYBE have not been sufficiently substantiated,” further noting, “While Min Hee Jin’s actions may be considered betrayal to HYBE, it is difficult to say that they constitute actions of breach of trust in regards to ADOR.”
The court has accepted Min Heejin’s injunction to stop HYBE from exercising it’s voting rights to dismiss her, set compensation of 20 billion won if HYBE violates and fires Min Hee jin.
— “Based on the claims and materials presented to date, there is no reason for the dismissal… pic.twitter.com/C8911cmrdv
— Kpop Charts (@kchartsmaster) May 30, 2024
This legal battle began on May 7, when Min Hee Jin filed for an injunction to prevent HYBE from using its voting rights to dismiss her at the ADOR extraordinary meeting of shareholders scheduled for May 31. With the court’s acceptance of this request, HYBE is now barred from voting on her dismissal during the upcoming meeting, ensuring that Min Hee Jin will remain in her role as the CEO of ADOR.
Min Hee Jin vs HYBE
Had the court denied the injunction, Min Hee Jin’s dismissal would have been almost certain, given that HYBE holds a significant 80 percent of ADOR’s shares. The court’s ruling is thus a significant victory for Min Hee Jin, allowing her to continue her leadership of ADOR without the immediate threat of removal.
This ruling also highlights the complexities and legal intricacies involved in corporate governance within the entertainment industry. Min Hee Jin’s continued role as CEO suggests her importance and influence in the direction and operations of ADOR. It also underscores the court’s stance that sufficient evidence and just cause are paramount when attempting to remove an executive from their position, even in cases where a majority shareholder seeks such action.
For now, Min Hee Jin can continue her work with ADOR, while HYBE must reassess its approach if it intends to challenge her position further. This decision not only preserves the stability within ADOR but also reinforces the need for concrete justification in corporate governance disputes.
