u/LuckyEggplant4095

HYBE/ADOR spreading information only they could know to the media finally came in handy today! Because it made me understand the current claim of a supposed "dual contract".

First of all: it was never a contract to begin with. ADOR themselves use the term "전속협약" (exclusive agreement), and NOT "전속계약" (exclusive contract), so they acknowledge it is the legally looser concept of an agreement, but still choose to call it dual contract. Convenient! Does signing this agreement breach the exclusive contract? Let's see...

At this stage I don't think there is a point in denying the existence of this exclusive agreement with AAO, but I do think it would be relevant down the line to explain the purpose of this agreement. Right now I am 90 % certain that it is a conditional agreement.

What do we know about this agreement so far?

• It lasted 9 months, signed in Sept. 2025.
• A clause stating that "AAO was to receive all information relating to NewJeans' activities and ADOR's business operations".
• One unusual provision in that agreement "prohibits the sale, lease, exchange, or transfer of Min Hee-jin's shares in ADOR."

ADOR themselves said "This was not an agreement entered into by Min Hee-jin herself." So, how could AAO even put a clause related to MHJ's shares in ADOR there? Well, in the hypothetical scenario that AAO becomes the majority shareholder, like they proposed to HYBE in Oct. 2025.

Article from February 2026.

>Bonnie Chan Woo is a leading figure in China's popular culture industry. As the CEO of Complex China, he organized the Hong Kong concert. It later emerged that, in October of last year, Bonnie also sent HYBE a proposal to acquire ADOR.
Bonnie is said to have expressed his intention to purchase 80% of ADOR's shares for ₩400 billion. In return, he reportedly attached the condition that 100% of the rights relating to the artists' contracts and overall operations be transferred.
"We held discussions with NewJeans' representatives. They told us that even if they lost the lawsuit over the alleged breach of contract, they had no intention of returning. If we acquire the shares, they plan to immediately resume creative activities, including music production and performances." (Bonnie)

This statement could confirm some kind of conditional agreement with NewJeans: If we acquire the shares, they plan to immediately resume creative activities, including music production and performances. And it seems AAO promised to NewJeans that if the proposal was accepted by HYBE, they would not sell MHJ's shares. This also removes the idea that it is some kind espionage, as AAO would be the hypothetical majority shareholder who receives information on their new subsidiary ADOR.

"If X happens, then Y will occur" is very different to stating "We declare AAO has now exclusive authority to manage NewJeans entertainment activities" (which ADOR has not said in court either about this agreement!) though, so we will see how the court will perceive that. Ironically, it is a bit of a throwback to the shareholders agreement lawsuit ("assuming HYBE's consent...") :)

If NewJeans signed the agreement stating that they would resume activities in the scenario HYBE accepted the proposal and AAO became the majority stakeholder, these two clauses would make sense. Because otherwise AAO has no relation/control of MHJ's shares in ADOR if MHJ did not enter the agreement, AAO can however if they are the majority shareholder (like they proposed). That's how the clauses make most sense to me. I am open to other theories, but I can't see any other context where these clauses make sense. The condition for the clauses to apply would be HYBE accepting the sale of ADOR to AAO, basically.

Is NewJeans signing such an agreement violating the exclusive contract?

Well, the contracting party would have not changed if this agreement were to have materialized, NewJeans would remain under ADOR, just that ADOR would be under a new ownership that HYBE would have consented to. This is the essence of this agreement. And if HYBE does not agree to the proposal, nothing happens, the agreement fizzled out in June, either way HYBE did not accept this proposal.

Edit: No matter how much I think about it - it is SO dumb to insinuate this is a agreement similar to the exclusive contract because if what ADOR says is true then it would mean 1. NJ signs a contract with AAO to become the new exclusive management agency 2. NewJeans has to report the business activities of ADOR to AAO, therefore acknowledging the contract with ADOR. <-- This makes zero sense and would be illegal, the contract could not come into effect as it infringes on another contract. Yet, ADOR is arguing the contract was still in effect until this year. It is definitely not what ADOR makes it be. And I am 100 % certain now, that this agreement is tied to AAO's proposal to HYBE of becoming ADOR's majority shareholder and not the new management agency, like I explained above, and nothing more.

Sorry, it got long. Maybe it clears up some things, though!