EXO’s Baekhyun, Xiumin, And Chen Release New Statement With Rebuttal Of SM’s Claims


Following their preliminary statement asserting termination of their contracts with SM Leisure, EXO’s Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen have launched a brand new assertion through their authorized consultant that refutes SM Leisure’s statement from June 1.

That is lawyer Lee Jae Hak of the regulation agency LIN, representing EXO members Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen (Byun Baek Hyun, Kim Min Seok, Kim Jong Dae, hereafter “artists”). Under, I’ll share the artists’ place relating to the claims made by SM Leisure (hereafter “SM”) on June 1.

1. SM’s declare of an exterior affect’s intervention evades the essence which is the artists’ simply exercising of rights and is moreover false info merely aiming to mislead public opinion.

The artists really feel very distressed after seeing SM’s official assertion that retains speaking about an exterior third celebration. They really feel particularly distressed because it appears to obviously present the angle that SM views the artists with.

Is it a 3rd celebration affect once more?

Our artists are undoubtedly adults who can suppose for themselves and take accountability for their very own selections, and they’re people with impartial ideas and judgments. They’ve felt some doubts for a decade, and so they mustered up fearful and tough braveness with the thought that the questions they couldn’t dare deliver up as rookies ought to at the least be introduced up now.

Our artists requested and listened to many individuals round them about what is true and what they should do to seek out smart options. Of these individuals round them, there are household and acquaintances, seniors and juniors of the music trade, colleagues, and even employees who’ve labored along with the artists.

Of these people, there are those that shared issues, those that shared heat encouragement, and those that additionally expressed their help. In response, we should ask if all of those individuals are third celebration influences, malicious influences, dangerous influences.

Our artists are clearly human beings who could make selections for themselves and take motion for themselves.

The choice to seek out their rights akin to requesting settlement knowledge was made by themselves after lengthy deliberation and deep thought, and it’s undoubtedly not because of the intervention of an exterior affect.

Moreover, SM is claiming that our artists have signed or tried to signal twin contracts, however the three people Baekhyun, Chen, and Xiumin haven’t signed or tried to signal different unique contracts moreover their present unique contracts signed with SM. SM should chorus from making false claims.
SM stated they’d solely permit the “viewing” of settlement knowledge and never permit “provision” due to the priority that it might be shared with exterior events. Nonetheless, even when the artists are given the settlement knowledge and obtain session from not solely their authorized consultant but additionally accountants round them or anybody else, this is able to be simply exercising of the artists’ rights. Even of their unique contracts, there aren’t any rules that state that the artists can’t present the reviews offered to them with anybody else and must solely overview them alone. The contracts truly embrace a clause that the artists can overview the information offered to them by SM for 30 days and may make appeals when vital.

SM not even offering settlement knowledge, and their authorized consultant and different celebrities advising them in regards to the injustice of this example. This inevitably raises the query of who needs to be criticizing the wrongdoing of who on this state of affairs.

We want to state once more that the essence and reality of this case is that the artists and their authorized consultant have persistently requested the supply of settlement knowledge, however SM finally refused, which has led to contract termination.

2. In line with their unique contracts, their settlement reviews needs to be “offered,” so solely permitting them to be “seen” can’t be seen as the duty being fulfilled.

The premise of SM’s declare is that permitting the “viewing” of the settlement reviews is fulfilling SM’s obligation. Nonetheless, in accordance with their unique contracts, it’s contracted that their settlement reviews needs to be “offered.” Due to this fact, solely permitting the reviews to be “seen” can’t be seen as the duty being fulfilled.

Article 14 Paragraph 5 of the unique contracts signed between SM and the artists regulates, “Together with every settlement cost, A (SM) should present the settlement report back to B (artist). B can file appeals for 30 days for the reason that date that the settlement report is obtained for causes akin to if the deducted prices have been overcalculated or if B’s revenue has been undercalculated, and A should faithfully present the premise for settlement.” Due to this fact, the information have to be “offered” and never simply obtainable for “viewing,” and the 30-day enchantment interval can be measured from the day that the report is “obtained.” It’s not measured from the day that the report is “seen.”

As well as, SM and the artists signed a further “settlement” round 2014, and Article 4 regulates, “A offers the premise for settlement famous in Article 2 and Article 4 together with every cost (Paragraph 1),” and “In line with the unique contract, A should present an in depth settlement report as soon as yearly in June, and B can request a proof about this from A (Paragraph 2).” This additionally regulates that the detailed settlement reviews have to be “offered.”

In the case of the artists’ proper to know and safety of their property rights, there’s a main distinction between “offering” knowledge and permitting knowledge to be “seen” to the purpose that it’s tough to match them. Particularly as settlement reviews are knowledge inside SM-owned territory, we wish to ask in return if the accuracy of the information might be confirmed by merely telling the artists to return view them. Additionally, Article 14 Paragraph 5 of their unique contracts grants a 30-day overview interval from the day that the reviews are obtained, and the unique contracts state that the artists ought to overview the information sufficiently for 30 days and file appeals if vital.

It’s contracted that the settlement reviews might be reviewed totally for 30 days, however telling the artists to simply come and see them and go is merely constructing justification for SM’s declare, “Anyway we did present you the information, so haven’t we executed our obligation?” And since we had been in a position to speculate this type of intention from SM, we particularly couldn’t quit on being “offered” the reviews and compromise by agreeing with simply “viewing” them.

For causes like this, the Truthful Commerce Fee’s Customary Unique Contract Kind for Entertainers additionally states, “When requested by B, A ought to present B with the settlement report together with the cost,” regulating that it needs to be “offered.”

Basically, repeatedly mentioning the encroachment of confidential enterprise info and refusing to supply knowledge when artists ask to obtain reviews in regards to the outcomes of their actions doesn’t justify the act of breaching unique contracts.

3. The artists and their authorized consultant have persistently requested the supply of settlement reviews. The truth that SM finally refused [to do so] and led us to inform the termination of the unique contracts is the important thing level of this case.

As talked about earlier, beneath the premise that it’s enough to allow [the artists] to “view” the settlement knowledge, SM claims that the artists who had not raised any points with the information earlier than all of the sudden requested the supply of settlement knowledge and notified them in regards to the contract termination after appointing their new authorized representatives.

It’s the respectable proper of the artists to request settlement reviews in accordance with their unique contracts. And the artists took motion after the authorized consultant offered authorized session on their respectable rights. For SM to assert that “the artists all of the sudden began making claims as quickly as their authorized consultant modified” upon the artists’ motion isn’t any totally different from telling them to by no means train their respectable rights.

Above all, claiming that the artists are being swayed by somebody to demand the supply of settlement reviews is an act of ignoring the artists’ excessive degree of consciousness of rights and insights. Within the negotiation course of, we confirmed the artists’ excessive degree of consciousness of rights and insights on the belief of their proper to know.

And simply because the data of our requests by means of certifications of contents stay objectively, the artists and their authorized consultant persistently requested the “provision” of the settlement reviews from the start. Then, SM maintained their place that solely “viewing” the settlement knowledge needs to be sufficient. Nonetheless, as you noticed earlier, SM’s declare is just not consistent with the unique contracts which is why we couldn’t settle for [their claim], and for the reason that hole between the events’ positions couldn’t be lowered in the long run, the artists and their authorized consultant determined to terminate the unique contracts in accordance with the precedent.

To restate the precedent, an unique contract is predicated on a excessive diploma of belief. Thus, if the company doesn’t fulfill its obligation to supply settlement reviews, the artists’ rights to overview the settlement of income and file an objection towards the company are usually not correctly assured, leading to failure to supply settlement reviews to be a purpose for terminating the unique contract (confer with Seoul Excessive Courtroom order from 2019Na2034976 on January 31, 2020. Briefly, settlement reviews have to be “offered”).

That is [how the situation] progressed between SM and the artists associated to the settlement knowledge up to now. Nonetheless, claiming as if the artists or their authorized consultant modified their place repeatedly is much from the reality, and it’s an act of distorting and deceptive the important thing level of this incident.

4. The issue with the excessively long-term unique contract interval, which is unilaterally unfavorable to artists past the minimal cheap extent.

As already addressed within the first press launch, the artists beforehand signed unique contracts with SM for over 12 to 13 years. That is far past the seven-year contract interval decided by the Truthful Commerce Fee’s Customary Unique Contract Kind for Entertainers and is unilaterally unfavorable to the artists to the diploma that exceeds the minimal cheap extent.

SM is attempting to assert a contract interval of at the least 17 to 18 years to the artists, respectively, by having them signal the next unique contracts once more, as if the 12 to 13 years of contract interval is just not sufficient for them.

We want to level out once more that the act of signing a subsequent unique contract falls beneath Article 45, Paragraph 1 (6) of the Monopoly Regulation and Truthful Commerce Act, “the act of implementing the transactions by unduly profiting from his/her place.” In different phrases, we regard that forcing a long-term contract interval utilizing a subsequent unique contract falls individually beneath “Compelled Provision of Financial Advantages” or “Imposing Disadvantages” within the hooked up Desk 2 of the act’s decree.

With regard to this, SM argues that it’s unreasonable for the artists, who had an lawyer from a big regulation agency as their authorized consultant on the time of signing the next unique contracts, to all of the sudden begin claiming that the next unique contracts are unfair as quickly as their authorized consultant modified.

Nonetheless, claiming that there’s a downside with the act of claiming the objectively unfair contracts to be unjust as a result of they appointed a brand new authorized consultant is simply obscuring the essence of this concern.

In line with Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the next unique contract, “This contract is legitimate for five years from…Nonetheless, in case the minimal variety of albums stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 4 is just not launched throughout the similar interval, the contract interval might be routinely prolonged till the situation is fulfilled.” There’s not even a most restrict to the size of this routinely prolonged interval.

As such, the article stating that the contract interval might be routinely prolonged till [the artists fulfill the condition] to launch a sure variety of albums, with out even most restrict, is clearly a slave contract. The authorized consultant is stating that this falls beneath “the act of implementing the transactions by unduly profiting from his/her place,” and the artists are additionally in settlement.

Furthermore, it’s unjustifiable to strive binding the artists by signing subsequent unique contracts that state a long-term contract interval with no most restrict when a few yr nonetheless stays on the prevailing unique contracts. SM additionally didn’t pay the artists any down cost for the next unique contracts.

Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen are significantly contemplating submitting a grievance to the Truthful Commerce Fee relating to [SM’s] act of signing the prevailing unique contracts with such long-term contract intervals in addition to the unfair subsequent unique contracts.

5. Relating to future actions with EXO

Our artists are searching for methods to faithfully proceed EXO actions along with the opposite EXO members even when they terminate their unique contracts with SM. In actual fact, through the technique of negotiation with SM previous to this termination of their unique contracts, the artists preemptively proposed concepts to proceed EXO actions even when Baekhyun, Chen, and Xiumin go away SM.

Apart from the problem of resolving the authorized relationship with SM, the artists are sincerely and deeply grateful for the nice love and help that followers confirmed to EXO for a very long time. Regardless of how the authorized concern will get resolved sooner or later, they’ll proceed their actions as EXO diligently and whole-heartedly.

Source link


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here