SEOUL, SOUTH KOREA — New allegations emerged in court Thursday as ADOR and former NewJeans member Danielle clashed over the circumstances that led to the termination of her exclusive contract and a multi-million-dollar damages lawsuit.
During the second hearing in ADOR’s lawsuit seeking contractual penalties and damages, the agency accused former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin of actively encouraging NewJeans members to break their contracts and allegedly promising to help them avoid the financial consequences.
The hearing, held before the 31st Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court under Presiding Judge Nam In-soo, offered the clearest look yet at ADOR’s legal theory against Danielle, Min Hee-jin, and Danielle’s mother.
At the center of the dispute are allegations that Danielle and those around her continued pursuing entertainment activities outside ADOR despite court rulings affirming the validity of the company’s exclusive contracts with NewJeans.
ADOR Points to Telegram Messages After Injunction Loss
ADOR’s legal team began by referencing conversations allegedly exchanged on March 21, 2025, the same day NewJeans lost the first round of its injunction battle concerning the group’s exclusive contracts.
According to ADOR, Telegram messages exchanged later that evening discussed a planned collaboration between Danielle and American R&B-pop duo Emotional Oranges following ComplexCon Hong Kong.
The agency told the court that discussions included:
- A music video shoot scheduled for March 29 and 30 with a U.S.-based production team.
- A planned May 16 release date.
- A title track featuring Emotional Oranges.
- Approximately $175,000 in production and artist-related expenses that had allegedly already been committed.
ADOR argued that the discussions demonstrated that the parties had no intention of complying with the court’s injunction ruling.
“This shows they had absolutely no intention of accepting the court’s decision,” ADOR’s lawyers argued.
Update: Emotional Oranges, through their Instagram account, denied pursuing a collaboration with Danielle. They indicated they were producing a song for Danielle’s sister.
Allegations of Backdating Contracts and Redirecting Payments
ADOR further alleged that Danielle’s mother suggested backdating contract documents to a date before the injunction ruling.
The agency also claimed discussions took place about routing payments through a business registered under Danielle’s sister rather than directly to Danielle.
According to ADOR, those conversations reflected a deliberate effort to continue activities outside the scope of the exclusive contract despite the court order.
The company argued that it only learned about the alleged conduct later and ultimately concluded that the violations were serious enough to justify terminating Danielle’s contract altogether.
ADOR also claimed that the Emotional Oranges project was only one example among numerous alleged breaches.
The agency referenced an alleged Omega watch-brand arrangement and other business dealings but did not provide additional details during the hearing.
ADOR: Danielle Is Free to Work
One of the most contentious moments came when ADOR pushed back against Danielle’s repeated claims that the lawsuit effectively prevents her from working.
According to the agency, Danielle remains free to pursue entertainment activities.
“Danielle can freely continue her entertainment career,” ADOR’s legal team argued. “We have no reason to interfere. We do not understand why the defense continues to make that claim.”
ADOR stated that the lawsuit seeks contractual penalties arising from alleged violations of Danielle’s exclusive contract as well as damages related to reputational harm.
New Allegations Against Min Hee-jin
ADOR also renewed its accusations against former CEO Min Hee-jin.
The agency argued that Min violated her fiduciary obligations while serving as an internal director of ADOR and actively encouraged NewJeans members to terminate their contracts.
Referring to conversations allegedly dated October 20, 2024, ADOR claimed Min told parents of NewJeans members that she would create a plan allowing them to avoid financial liability.
According to ADOR, Min allegedly promised:
To “design” a path that would allow members to avoid contractual penalties and damages claims.
To prepare compensation funds if the members left HYBE.
ADOR argued that such conduct would constitute a breach of the duty of loyalty and duty of care required of company directors under Korean commercial law.
Danielle’s Mother Accused of Playing a Key Role
ADOR further alleged that Danielle’s mother played a significant role in coordinating communications between Min, the members, and their families.
The company described her as the parent who played the largest role in the alleged effort to terminate the contracts.
ADOR argued that the circumstances make it difficult to believe the members independently made all of the relevant decisions and instead suggested that Min actively guided the process.
As a result, ADOR is seeking damages from Danielle’s mother as an alleged participant in Min’s actions.
Danielle’s Defense: Members Believed Their Contracts Were Over
Danielle’s legal team rejected ADOR’s claims and argued that the former NewJeans members genuinely believed their contracts had been lawfully terminated because ADOR had failed to fulfill its obligation to protect the artists.
According to the defense, once the members notified ADOR that they were terminating their contracts, it was natural for them to begin planning activities outside the agency.
“They believed the contracts had been terminated,” Danielle’s attorney argued. “Although the court later ruled otherwise, the members genuinely believed that was the case.”
The defense emphasized that the Emotional Oranges discussions occurred within that context.
“Nothing Was Ever Produced”
Danielle’s lawyers also challenged ADOR’s portrayal of the Emotional Oranges collaboration.
According to the defense, no final product was ever created.
“There was never any actual result,” Danielle’s attorney told the court. “It was simply exploring a possibility.”
The defense argued that ADOR was exaggerating the significance of preliminary discussions that never materialized into a commercial release.
For context, the presiding judge, Nam In-soo, in this case is the same judge who ruled in Min Hee-jin’s favor in her put-option dispute against HYBE earlier this year. In that decision, the court found evidence that Min had explored ways to separate ADOR from HYBE and discussed plans that could have led to greater independence for the label. However, the court concluded that those efforts never resulted in an actual takeover of ADOR or a completed separation from HYBE. As a result, the judge ruled that HYBE had not established sufficient grounds to terminate Min’s shareholder agreement and deny her put-option rights.
Danielle Says She Is Being Singled Out
Danielle’s side further argued that many of the activities cited by ADOR involved other NewJeans members as well and should not be treated as uniquely attributable to her.
The defense noted that ComplexCon activities and many of the events referenced by ADOR involved multiple members.
“It is incorrect to claim that Danielle alone committed some independent violation that makes it impossible to continue the relationship with her,” her attorneys argued.
The Omega and ELLE Dispute
One of the more revealing exchanges centered on alleged advertising and promotional activities.
ADOR argued that the central issue was not necessarily whether money changed hands but whether Danielle engaged in entertainment activities without going through ADOR.
The agency questioned who negotiated and arranged the advertising opportunities.
Danielle’s lawyers responded that no contract had ever been signed with the Omega brand referenced by ADOR.
The defense also addressed an ELLE magazine photoshoot.
According to Danielle’s attorneys:
- The photoshoot had already been disclosed to the court.
- No commercial contract was signed.
- No payment was received.
- No financial benefit was obtained.
The lawyers argued that the photoshoot simply occurred and ended without any commercial arrangement.
ADOR responded that the amount of money involved was irrelevant.
“The issue is not how much was paid,” the agency argued. “The problem is that it was carried out while excluding ADOR.”
That exchange may ultimately become one of the most important legal questions in the case.
Danielle’s defense appears to argue that no breach occurred because no contracts were finalized and no money was earned.
ADOR, by contrast, appears to be arguing that the violation occurred the moment entertainment and business activities were pursued outside the company’s management authority while the exclusive contract remained in force.
A Lawsuit Worth Tens of Millions
Danielle’s legal team also rejected ADOR’s assertion that the lawsuit does not interfere with her career.
According to the defense, the amount being sought is so large that it effectively prevents other agencies from working with her.
“The claim amount is approaching 100 billion won,” Danielle’s attorney argued.
At current exchange rates, that figure would be roughly $72 million.
The defense argued that no management company would willingly sign an artist facing that level of legal exposure and accused ADOR of effectively using the lawsuit to block Danielle’s career.
Calling the situation irresponsible, the defense argued that telling Danielle she can simply work elsewhere while facing such claims ignores the reality of the entertainment business.
Background
The dispute traces back to April 2024, when HYBE launched an audit of ADOR and then-CEO Min Hee-jin, igniting one of the most consequential corporate battles in K-pop history.
NewJeans publicly supported Min throughout the conflict and repeatedly demanded that she remain responsible for both management and production at ADOR.
After those demands were rejected, the members notified ADOR in November 2024 that they were terminating their exclusive contracts.
ADOR subsequently filed suit seeking confirmation that the contracts remained valid.
In October 2025, the court ruled in ADOR’s favor, concluding that the contracts had never been lawfully terminated.
The members did not appeal that decision.
According to court records cited during Thursday’s hearing, Hyein and Haerin later returned to ADOR, while Minji, Hanni, and Danielle reportedly expressed a willingness to return through legal representatives.
ADOR ultimately informed Danielle that it could no longer continue its contractual relationship with her and filed the current lawsuit seeking contractual penalties and damages.
The agency recently reduced its claim amount from ₩43.1 billion (approximately $31 million) to ₩33.1 billion (approximately $24 million), though Danielle’s legal team argues her total financial exposure across all claims could approach ₩100 billion.
