Key Takeaways (Click to reveal)
– During the third hearing of ADOR’s ₩33.09 billion (approximately US$24 million) damages lawsuit against Danielle, her mother, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin, ADOR presented nearly two hours of arguments and evidence.
– ADOR alleged that Min Hee-jin planned NewJeans’ September 2024 livestream, encouraged the members to terminate their contracts, and remained involved in their legal strategy and independent activities afterward.
– The company presented audio recordings, internal conversations, emails, and contracts that it says support those allegations.
– ADOR argued that Min directed NJZ activities, including ComplexCon Hong Kong, music production, choreography, styling, merchandise, and Danielle’s Elle Singapore photoshoot.
– ADOR also questioned a US$500,000 ComplexCon consulting fee, arguing it exceeded the members’ US$350,000 performance fee and raising questions about its purpose.
– The company presented details of an alleged nine-month agreement with Chinese company AAO, claiming it conflicted with NewJeans’ exclusive contracts and contained provisions involving Min Hee-jin’s ADOR shares.
– ADOR argued Danielle independently breached her contract through activities including the alleged Emotional Oranges collaboration, commercial projects, and other entertainment work outside ADOR.
Danielle’s legal team denied those allegations, arguing no final projects were released, no payments were received, and many of the activities ADOR cited involved all of the NewJeans members—not Danielle alone.
– The defense also objected to ADOR reading portions of conversations and contracts aloud in court, arguing sensitive evidence should not be effectively disclosed to the media.
– Judge Nam In-soo questioned ADOR’s damages calculation, asking whether projections based on expected 2025 revenue were too speculative and whether an independent appraisal was even necessary.
– The judge also proposed several measures to speed up the proceedings, including using written witness testimony where possible and setting July 10 as the deadline for both sides to submit appraisal materials.
– The next hearing is scheduled for September 10, and the allegations presented by ADOR remain disputed by the defendants.
The third hearing in ADOR’s damages lawsuit against former NewJeans member Danielle, her mother, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin lasted for roughly two hours, with the company presenting one of its most detailed courtroom arguments to date.
While earlier reports summarized ADOR’s allegations, the hearing revealed additional details, including specific dates, alleged audio recordings, internal conversations, details about an agreement with a Chinese company, and several questions raised by the presiding judge regarding ADOR’s damages calculations.
Below is a breakdown of the major points discussed during the hearing.
ADOR: Min Hee-jin Planned NewJeans’ September 2024 Livestream
One of ADOR’s central allegations concerns NewJeans’ emergency livestream on September 11, 2024, during which the members demanded Min Hee-jin’s reinstatement as CEO and called for ADOR’s previous management structure to be restored.
According to ADOR, an audio recording dated September 2, 2024 shows Min encouraging the members to move forward with the broadcast.
The company claims Min told the members and their parents:
“We need to create evidence for a contract termination lawsuit.”
ADOR further alleged that Min originally intended to appear in the livestream herself but later concluded she needed to remain completely separate because of the legal risks surrounding allegations of tampering.
Roughly ten days later, the members proceeded with the livestream and publicly demanded Min’s return as CEO.
This allegation is significant because Min has consistently maintained throughout the dispute that she actually tried to discourage the members from holding the livestream.
ADOR: Min Directed NJZ’s Independent Activities
ADOR also argued that Min remained deeply involved in NewJeans’ activities after the members began promoting independently under the name NJZ.
According to the company, Min personally planned and directed numerous projects, including:
- NJZ profile photoshoots
- Music production
- The group’s appearance at ComplexCon Hong Kong
- Choreography
- Merchandise production
- Styling
If true, ADOR argues these activities demonstrate that Min continued directing the group’s independent promotions behind the scenes.
The allegation also contrasts with comments NewJeans made in several interviews during the dispute, where the members suggested they hoped to work with Min again if given the opportunity. ADOR, however, argues the relationship had never actually been interrupted because Min remained actively involved throughout the period.
ADOR: Audio Recording Shows Min Editing Legal Arguments
ADOR also presented an audio recording dated March 7, 2025, the day of the injunction hearing concerning NewJeans’ exclusive contracts.
According to the company, the recording captures Min instructing the NewJeans’ legal team to revise their court submissions by adding:
“Include that they mocked us through their words and actions.”
ADOR argues this referred to allegations later raised during the injunction proceedings involving the so-called “Ignore Hanni” incident.
That incident became one of the central arguments supporting NewJeans’ claim that ADOR had breached its duty to protect the members.
Hanni later testified before South Korea’s National Assembly about workplace bullying and described an incident in which she alleged a BELIFT LAB manager instructed ILLIT to ignore her.
However, ADOR argued that court findings reached during the injunction proceedings painted a different picture.
According to ADOR, after reviewing CCTV footage and KakaoTalk messages, the court concluded that the phrase “ignore her” first originated with Min Hee-jin rather than Hanni herself.
To be clear, this does not mean the court concluded Hanni fabricated the incident. Rather, according to ADOR’s presentation, the court found that the specific wording used in the legal filings originated with Min.
ADOR argues this demonstrates Min’s direct involvement in shaping the members’ legal strategy.
ADOR Questions ComplexCon Consulting Fees
ADOR also focused on the financial structure of NewJeans’ appearance at ComplexCon Hong Kong.
According to the company, the performance agreement provided:
- US$350,000 in performance fees for the members.
- US$500,000 in consulting fees.
ADOR questioned why the consulting fee exceeded the artists’ own compensation.
The company suggested that, when viewed alongside other evidence presented during the hearing, the consulting fee may have been intended for Min Hee-jin but was instead structured differently because of concerns about how such payments could affect future litigation.
That allegation remains disputed.
ADOR: Min Directed Staff to Keep Activities Secret
ADOR also introduced conversations dated February 2 and February 6, 2025, between Min and staff members.
According to the company, Min instructed staff to keep their work confidential until September because disclosure could affect the ongoing lawsuit.
ADOR argued these conversations suggest Min attempted to conceal her own involvement while allowing the public to believe the activities were independently organized by the members.
The company also alleged that Danielle’s Elle Singapore editorial photoshoot proceeded only after receiving Min’s approval.
According to ADOR, this demonstrates Min’s continued behind-the-scenes role in directing the members’ independent activities.
ADOR Raises Questions About Alleged Agreement With Chinese Company
One of the more unusual parts of ADOR’s presentation involved what it described as an exclusive agreement between NewJeans and a Chinese-backed company referred to in court as Company A (AAO).
According to ADOR, discussions about Company A began as early as September 2, 2024, and were initiated by Min Hee-jin before the members’ parents were even aware of them.
The company alleged that NewJeans entered into a nine-month exclusive agreement with AAO on September 25, 2025, approximately one month before the court issued its first-instance ruling in the main lawsuit over the validity of the members’ exclusive contracts.
According to ADOR, the agreement would automatically renew unless either party objected.
The company further argued that AAO was the same entity that had previously submitted a proposal to HYBE’s board offering to purchase ADOR.
According to ADOR, the agreement required NewJeans not only to report information related to the group’s entertainment activities but also information concerning ADOR’s business and management.
The company argued this created a dual-contract arrangement that conflicted with the members’ existing exclusive agreements with ADOR.
The Clause That Raised the Most Questions
ADOR also highlighted what it described as one of the agreement’s most unusual provisions.
According to the company, the contract allegedly required NewJeans to prevent the sale, lease, or transfer of Min Hee-jin’s shares in ADOR.
During the hearing, ADOR questioned why an agreement supposedly concerning NewJeans’ future entertainment activities would contain provisions relating to Min Hee-jin’s personal ownership interests in ADOR.
The company argued this suggested the agreement served purposes beyond simply managing the members’ careers.
One important point, however, is that the agreement itself has not been made public.
What is currently available are ADOR’s descriptions of the contract presented during the hearing.
Exactly how such a clause would operate remains unclear. NewJeans themselves do not own Min Hee-jin’s shares and therefore could not literally prevent her from selling or transferring them.
One possible interpretation is that the agreement required the members to take reasonable contractual steps to protect Min’s ownership interests—for example, by objecting to transactions, supporting Min in related litigation, or refusing to cooperate with actions that could facilitate a transfer.
That interpretation is based solely on ADOR’s description of the agreement. The precise contractual language has not been disclosed publicly.
ADOR: Other Members Cooperated, Danielle Did Not
ADOR also disclosed what it described as a new development involving the alleged AAO agreement.
According to the company, after several NewJeans members returned to ADOR, they acknowledged the alleged dual-contract issue and cooperated with the company in terminating the agreement.
ADOR argued that Danielle and her mother took a different approach.
According to the company, they continued concealing the existence of the agreement even after the other members had begun cooperating.
To support that claim, ADOR submitted conversations exchanged between the members’ parents.
According to ADOR, Danielle’s mother instructed the other parents that if ADOR asked about previously discussed matters, they should avoid answering directly and communicate only through their law firm.
ADOR argues these conversations show an effort to conceal information rather than resolve the alleged contractual issues.
ADOR: Danielle Continued Independent Activities
ADOR also argued that Danielle was the only member who independently carried out entertainment and commercial activities outside ADOR.
According to the company, Danielle pursued:
- A collaboration with the American duo Emotional Oranges
- Editorial work with Elle Singapore
- Commercial work involving Paris Capital
- An advertising campaign with luxury watchmaker Omega
ADOR argued that many of these activities occurred shortly after March 21, 2025, when the court granted its injunction ordering NewJeans to refrain from independent activities.
According to the company, that timing further damaged the relationship of trust between Danielle and ADOR.
Danielle: No Finished Projects, No Payment
Danielle’s legal team rejected ADOR’s characterization of those activities.
The defense argued that:
- No final works were released.
- No contracts were ultimately completed.
- Danielle never received payment.
Because of that, the defense argued no contractual violation had occurred.
This argument echoes a legal position that has appeared elsewhere in the broader dispute.
For context, the same judge—Judge Nam In-soo—previously ruled in Min Hee-jin’s favor in her put-option lawsuit against HYBE, finding that although Min took steps toward separating ADOR from HYBE, she never actually completed the takeover.
Danielle’s legal team appears to be making a similar distinction here: exploring opportunities, they argue, is different from completing unauthorized commercial activities.
ADOR disagreed.
The company argued:
“Regardless of whether compensation was received, these activities violated the fundamental purpose of the exclusive contract, which prohibits entertainment activities unrelated to the plaintiff.”
In other words, ADOR argued that the alleged breach occurred when Danielle engaged in outside entertainment activities—not when payment was received or projects were completed.
ADOR: Danielle Made No Effort to Correct the Alleged Breaches
ADOR also argued that Danielle failed to take steps to repair the relationship after the alleged violations.
According to the company, she instead denied wrongdoing and attempted to conceal the facts.
The company argued this prevented any meaningful restoration of trust and formed part of the basis for terminating her exclusive contract.
Danielle’s legal team sharply disputed that characterization.
The defense argued ADOR had singled Danielle out even though many of the activities the company cited involved all of the members.
According to Danielle’s attorney:
“These were not Danielle’s independent actions. They were actions involving all of the members. ADOR speaks as though Danielle alone committed major contractual violations, but many of the issues it raises apply equally to all of the NewJeans members.”
Danielle’s attorneys also argued that ADOR never gave her an opportunity to correct any alleged breaches.
According to the defense, ADOR sent a formal notice and then moved directly to terminate Danielle’s contract, suggesting the company had already decided from the outset that Danielle alone would be removed.
Danielle’s Lawyers Object to ADOR’s Court Presentation
Before addressing the substance of the case, Danielle’s legal team raised concerns about how ADOR presented its evidence in court.
The defense argued that although the court had agreed not to publicly display conversations, contracts, and other sensitive materials during the hearing, ADOR effectively disclosed their contents by reading lengthy portions aloud.
According to Danielle’s attorneys, this made it highly likely that the details would be reported in the media immediately after the hearing.
The defense requested that ADOR limit future references to only what was necessary for the judges to understand the case rather than quoting conversations and contracts directly.
Judge Nam In-soo agreed that restraint was appropriate.
He reminded ADOR’s legal team that its arguments should be directed toward the court—not the large number of reporters attending the hearing.
Before oral arguments began, the judge also cautioned ADOR against extensively quoting Telegram conversations, saying the presentation should remain focused on the core legal issues rather than becoming a public disclosure of the evidence.
Danielle Challenges ADOR’s Damages Calculation
The hearing also included a lengthy discussion about how ADOR calculated the damages it is seeking from Danielle.
The company is seeking ₩33.09 billion (approximately US$24 million) in damages after reducing its original claim of ₩43.1 billion (approximately US$31.5 million).
Judge Nam questioned whether ADOR’s damages model relied too heavily on assumptions rather than objective financial data.
According to the discussion in court, ADOR’s calculation appears to project the revenue Danielle would have generated through activities expected to take place in 2025.
The judge asked why the court would need to appoint an appraisal expert if ADOR already possessed its own accounting records.
He also questioned whether the projected revenue depended on several uncertain assumptions, including:
Whether Min Hee-jin would have remained involved with the group.
Whether all of the NewJeans members would have continued promoting together.
The judge suggested those assumptions could make the damages estimate speculative.
Defense: The Projections Depend on Too Many Unknowns
Danielle’s legal team argued that ADOR’s projected revenue depends on circumstances that simply cannot be known with certainty.
According to the defense, two assumptions drive the calculation:
- That Min Hee-jin would have continued working with the group.
- That all of the members would have remained active together throughout 2025.
Because neither assumption can be established as fact, the defense argued that any damages estimate built on those projections becomes highly uncertain.
The judge summarized the disagreement by observing that ADOR’s appraisal proposal assumes the company’s strong performance in 2023 would have continued through 2024 and 2025.
He questioned whether, under those circumstances, the company was essentially calculating its own damages rather than relying on an independent appraisal.
Danielle’s attorneys responded that if the calculation were truly as straightforward as ADOR suggested, there would be little need for an outside accounting appraisal at all.
Judge: Both Sides Raise Valid Points
Rather than siding with either party, Judge Nam acknowledged that both positions had merit.
He summarized the dispute as follows:
- ADOR believes damages should be calculated using the business outlook and revenue projections available in 2024, before the alleged contractual breaches affected the company.
- Danielle argues damages should instead be evaluated using information actually available in 2026, when the court can assess what actually happened rather than what might have happened.
The judge said it remains unclear whether the issue should ultimately be resolved through:
- an accounting expert,
- another specialized appraisal institution,
- or consultation with another outside expert familiar with this type of damages analysis.
He indicated that the court has not yet reached a decision on that issue.
Court Sets New Deadlines
The judge then turned to scheduling.
He asked ADOR how much time it would need to formally submit its request for an appraisal.
ADOR replied that it would normally request more than one month, and ideally two to three months.
The judge declined that request.
Instead, he ordered both sides to submit the relevant materials by July 10, with written opinion briefs to follow the following week.
Danielle’s legal team asked the court to shorten ADOR’s deadline to July 8, arguing that giving the plaintiff additional time would be unfair.
ADOR responded that two extra days would not provide enough time to prepare the filing.
The judge ultimately rejected both requests and required both parties to comply with the same July 10 deadline.
Judge Looks for Ways to Speed Up the Case
Throughout the hearing, Judge Nam repeatedly looked for ways to move the lawsuit forward more efficiently.
One issue he raised involved the structure of ADOR’s claims.
Because ADOR had grouped Danielle and her mother together in several parts of its presentation, the judge requested that the company separate its allegations against each defendant at the next hearing.
The court also discussed evidence involving overseas companies.
According to the discussion, ADOR argued that foreign corporations were unlikely to respond to requests seeking to verify documents or contracts.
Rather than speculate, the judge immediately proposed contacting the overseas company directly so that both parties could receive an official response.
The discussion also turned to another practical issue.
According to ADOR, if Danielle’s legal team specifically identifies which factual allegations it disputes, the company will respond only to those points rather than relitigating every issue.
ADOR argued that the proceedings have become unnecessarily lengthy because the defense broadly denies nearly all of the company’s claims.
Judge Suggests Written Testimony Instead of Live Witnesses
The judge also addressed witness testimony.
He asked ADOR whether the witnesses it planned to call were friendly witnesses—those expected to support its case—or hostile witnesses.
ADOR replied that they were friendly witnesses.
Judge Nam then questioned whether live testimony was even necessary.
If the witnesses were cooperative, he suggested, written statements might accomplish much of what live examination would provide.
The judge noted that the remaining issues in the lawsuit now concern primarily objective facts, while many of the proposed witness questions focused on subjective opinions.
For that reason, he suggested that witnesses first submit written testimony, with the next hearing reserved only for the core factual disputes that genuinely require live questioning.
The discussion also revealed that one witness had expressed concern that appearing publicly in court could expose their identity and lead to online harassment or cyberbullying.
Judge Nam indicated that relying on written testimony where appropriate could help protect witnesses while also making the proceedings more efficient.
What’s Next
The next hearing is currently scheduled for September 10.
By then, both sides are expected to have submitted their appraisal materials, written opinion briefs, and, potentially, written witness statements.
While the July 2 hearing focused primarily on ADOR’s presentation of its allegations, the court’s discussion also offered a preview of the legal questions that may ultimately shape the outcome of the case—including how damages should be calculated, what evidence will be admitted, and how efficiently the remaining proceedings can be completed.
This article is part of Asian Entertainment & Culture’s ongoing coverage of the legal dispute involving ADOR, HYBE, NewJeans, and former ADOR CEO Min Hee-jin. Explore our complete coverage below.
- HYBE requests assets of Min Hee-Jin and Danielle’s mother, Ms. Mo, to be seized.
- SECOND HEARING: ADOR vs Danielle, Ms. Mo (Danielle’s mother), and Min Hee-Jin.
- Danielle Marsh, Ex-NewJeans member, files a complaint at Korea’s Fair Trade Commission against HYBE.
- Prosecutors throws out all criminal complaints Min Hee-Jin filed against HYBE executives.
- THIRD HEARING PART 1: ADOR vs Danielle, Ms. Mo (Danielle’s mother), and Min Hee-Jin.
