Comments by "" (@bqanto) on "Newjeans responds to ADOR’s injunction, seeks new group name" video.

@NURREDIN This is not a clause that can be put in an artist's contract regarding another person (the CEO), it is a clause for investment contracts. It concerns the shareholders, not the artists.
3
This clause has never existed in the history of humanity.
1
@NURREDIN I graduated in law in Italy in 1993, but I got married and didn't work. I had never heard of that clause. Today contracts are standardized globally, so it is not excluded that this clause also exists in Italy. MHJ's lawyers never mentioned that clause in either the May or August injunction request, so it is not present in MHJ's contract. But the main and decisive argument, against the possibility that the clause was included in the contracts with the artists, is that the girls would have simply asked for the termination of the contracts in court, appealing to MHJ's absence. It seems that no one realizes that, if the girls did not turn to a court, it is because they have nothing in hand.
1
@NURREDIN I don't care if you believe me or not, and regarding your other post, I already said that the clearest proof that this clause was not included in the artists' contracts is that the artists did not invoke it in court, did not sue the company, did not talk about it in press conferences or in the live streaming. Simply because the clause is not there, otherwise Ador would have done anything to keep MHJ nor nor would it have asked a court to declare the validity of the contract. Furthermore, MHJ's lawyers would have referred to the clause, in the NJ's contracts, already in MHJ's May injunction against Hybe, as a more than valid reason not to get rid of MHJ, since it would have meant the loss of NJ and a substantial damage to Ador. But keep hoping.
1