Following their preliminary statement asserting termination of their contracts with SM Entertainment, EXO’s Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen have launched a brand new assertion through their authorized consultant that refutes SM Entertainment’s statement from June 1.
This 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”). Below, I’ll share the artists’ place relating to the claims made by SM Entertainment (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 data 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 get together. They really feel particularly distressed because it appears to obviously present the angle that SM views the artists with.
Is it a 3rd get together affect once more?
Our artists are undoubtedly adults who can assume for themselves and take duty for their very own selections, and they’re people with impartial ideas and judgments. They have 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 no less than be introduced up now.
Our artists requested and listened to many individuals round them about what is correct and what they should do to seek out clever options. Of these individuals round them, there are household and acquaintances, seniors and juniors of the music industry, colleagues, and even workers who’ve labored along with the artists.
Of these people, there are those that shared considerations, those that shared heat encouragement, and those that additionally expressed their help. In response, we should ask if all of those persons are third get together influences, malicious influences, dangerous influences.
Our artists are clearly human beings who could make selections for themselves and take motion for themselves.
The determination to seek out their rights reminiscent of requesting settlement knowledge was made by themselves after lengthy deliberation and deep thought, and it’s undoubtedly not as a result of intervention of an exterior affect.
Additionally, 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 apart from their present unique contracts signed with SM. SM should chorus from making false claims.
SM stated they might solely enable the “viewing” of settlement knowledge and never enable “provision” due to the priority that it could be shared with exterior events. However, 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 may be simply exercising of the artists’ rights. Even of their unique contracts, there aren’t any rules that state that the artists can not present the experiences supplied to them with anybody else and must solely overview them alone. The contracts truly embrace a clause that the artists can overview the information supplied to them by SM for 30 days and may make appeals when obligatory.
SM not even offering settlement knowledge, and their authorized consultant and different celebrities advising them concerning the injustice of this example. This inevitably raises the query of who ought 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. According to their unique contracts, their settlement experiences ought to be “supplied,” so solely permitting them to be “considered” can’t be seen as the duty being fulfilled.
The premise of SM’s declare is that permitting the “viewing” of the settlement experiences is fulfilling SM’s obligation. However, in line with their unique contracts, it’s contracted that their settlement experiences ought to be “supplied.” Therefore, solely permitting the experiences to be “considered” can’t be seen as the duty being fulfilled.
Article 14 Paragraph 5 of the unique contracts signed between SM and the artists regulates, “Along 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 reminiscent of if the deducted prices have been overcalculated or if B’s earnings has been undercalculated, and A should faithfully present the premise for settlement.” Therefore, the information should be “supplied” and never simply out there for “viewing,” and the 30-day enchantment interval can be measured from the day that the report is “obtained.” It is just not measured from the day that the report is “considered.”
In addition, SM and the artists signed a further “settlement” round 2014, and Article 4 regulates, “A supplies the premise for settlement famous in Article 2 and Article 4 together with every cost (Paragraph 1),” and “According to the unique contract, A should present an in depth settlement report as soon as yearly in June, and B can request an evidence about this from A (Paragraph 2).” This additionally regulates that the detailed settlement experiences should be “supplied.”
When it involves the artists’ proper to know and safety of their property rights, there’s a main distinction between “offering” knowledge and permitting knowledge to be “considered” to the purpose that it’s tough to match them. Especially as settlement experiences are knowledge inside SM-owned territory, we need to ask in return if the accuracy of the information will be confirmed by merely telling the artists to return view them. Also, Article 14 Paragraph 5 of their unique contracts grants a 30-day overview interval from the day that the experiences are obtained, and the unique contracts state that the artists ought to overview the information sufficiently for 30 days and file appeals if obligatory.
It is contracted that the settlement experiences will be reviewed completely 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 finished our responsibility?” And as a result of we had been capable of speculate this sort of intention from SM, we particularly couldn’t hand over on being “supplied” the experiences and compromise by agreeing with simply “viewing” them.
For causes like this, the Fair Trade Commission’s Standard Exclusive Contract Form for Entertainers additionally states, “When requested by B, A ought to present B with the settlement report together with the cost,” regulating that it ought to be “supplied.”
Fundamentally, constantly citing the encroachment of confidential enterprise data and refusing to supply knowledge when artists ask to obtain experiences concerning 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 experiences. The proven fact 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 adequate 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 concerning the contract termination after appointing their new authorized representatives.
It is the reliable proper of the artists to request settlement experiences in line with their unique contracts. And the artists took motion after the authorized consultant supplied authorized session on their reliable 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 completely different from telling them to by no means train their reliable rights.
Above all, claiming that the artists are being swayed by somebody to demand the supply of settlement experiences is an act of ignoring the artists’ excessive degree of consciousness of rights and insights. In the negotiation course of, we confirmed the artists’ excessive degree of consciousness of rights and insights on the conclusion of their proper to know.
And simply because the data of our requests by certifications of contents stay objectively, the artists and their authorized consultant persistently requested the “provision” of the settlement experiences from the start. Then, SM maintained their place that solely “viewing” the settlement knowledge ought to be sufficient. However, 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 ultimately, the artists and their authorized consultant determined to terminate the unique contracts in line with the precedent.
To restate the precedent, an unique contract relies on a excessive diploma of belief. Thus, if the company doesn’t fulfill its obligation to supply settlement experiences, the artists’ rights to overview the settlement of earnings and file an objection in opposition to the company usually are not correctly assured, leading to failure to supply settlement experiences to be a purpose for terminating the unique contract (consult with Seoul High Court order from 2019Na2034976 on January 31, 2020. In brief, settlement experiences should be “supplied”).
This is [how the situation] progressed between SM and the artists associated to the settlement knowledge to date. However, claiming as if the artists or their authorized consultant modified their place time and again is way from the reality, and it’s an act of distorting and deceptive the important thing level of this incident.
4. The drawback 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. This is way past the seven-year contract interval decided by the Fair Trade Commission’s Standard Exclusive Contract Form 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 no less than 17 to 18 years to the artists, respectively, by having them signal the following 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 Fair Trade Act, “the act of implementing the transactions by unduly benefiting 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 Economic Benefits” or “Imposing Disadvantages” within the connected Table 2 of the act’s decree.
With regard to this, SM argues that it’s unreasonable for the artists, who had an legal professional from a big regulation agency as their authorized consultant on the time of signing the following unique contracts, to all of the sudden begin claiming that the following unique contracts are unfair as quickly as their authorized consultant modified.
However, claiming that there’s a drawback 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 problem.
According to Article 5, Paragraph 1 of the following unique contract, “This contract is legitimate for five years from…However, in case the minimal variety of albums stipulated in Article 4, Paragraph 4 is just not launched throughout the similar interval, the contract interval shall be routinely prolonged till the situation is fulfilled.” There is just not even a most restrict to the size of this routinely prolonged interval.
As such, the article stating that the contract interval shall 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 benefiting from his/her place,” and the artists are additionally in settlement.
Moreover, 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 present unique contracts. SM additionally didn’t pay the artists any down cost for the following unique contracts.
Baekhyun, Xiumin, and Chen are significantly contemplating submitting a grievance to the Fair Trade Commission relating to [SM’s] act of signing the present unique contracts with such long-term contract intervals in addition to the unfair subsequent unique contracts.
5. Regarding future actions with EXO
Our artists are looking for methods to faithfully proceed EXO actions along with the opposite EXO members even when they terminate their unique contracts with SM. In truth, in the course of 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 depart SM.
Aside from the problem of resolving the authorized relationship with SM, the artists are sincerely and deeply grateful for the good love and help that followers confirmed to EXO for a protracted time. No matter how the authorized problem will get resolved sooner or later, they’ll proceed their actions as EXO diligently and whole-heartedly.
Content Source: www.soompi.com