⚠️ Posting this Dispatch hearing report for the new details. As always with Dispatch, remember it's a tabloid outlet whose coverage on this dispute has often been more critical toward NewJeans/MHJ.

1️⃣ How ADOR Restructured the Damages (New Breakdown)

▫️Original penalty against Danielle: reduced from \~₩30B (\~$21.9M) to ₩19B (\~$13.9M)

▫️Added ₩10B (\~$7.3M) for lost earnings (operating profit ADOR would have earned if NewJeans had fulfilled contracts)

▫️Added ₩1B (\~$730k) for defamation

▫️Plus existing ₩3.1B (\~$2.3M) for cancelled advertising contracts

▫️Total: ₩33.1B (\~$24.2M)

🔸️Important context: Lost earnings were previously claimed only from MHJ and Danielle's mother - now Danielle is included as a joint debtor.

🔸️How ADOR calculated lost earnings: "The difference between the expected earnings and actual earnings that would have been earned through one year of normal activity."

🔸️Danielle's counter: "It is unfair to calculate based on the premise of NewJeans' full group activities. It must be based on Danielle's personal income. Expected earnings excluding MHJ's producing are impossible to predict."

2️⃣ EO (Emotional Oranges) Collaboration Dispute

▫️ADOR's claim: Danielle attempted to proceed with the collaboration even after the injunction was dismissed. $175,000 (\~250M KRW) had already been invested in production and artist costs. Danielle's mother participated in discussions such as "retroactively applying the contract signing date to before the injunction decision" and "paying the funds through Danielle's older sister's business account." ADOR argued this proved she had "absolutely no intention of accepting the injunction."

▫️Danielle's defense: "It was merely 'exploring possibilities' without any tangible results. At the time, the main lawsuit (contract termination) was in progress. Danielle believed the contract termination was justified. That is why he naturally sought to pursue independent activities."

3️⃣ Independent Activities (Omega, Elle Singapore)

▫️ADOR's claim: Contracts and activities conducted without authorization while excluding ADOR constitute a breach. Example: the pictorial for the March 2025 issue of 'Elle Singapore' shot under Danielle's name. "Who signed that contract? Neither ADOR was informed nor were any ADOR staff members brought to the set."

▫️Danielle's defense: "It is true that a photo shoot was done and published under Danielle's name. However, I do not know who the contractor was. I understand that Danielle did not receive any payment whatsoever for the photo shoot."

🔸️Judge's intervention: "Does it make sense that filming took place but no one signed a contract? If ADOR didn't do it, wouldn't someone who went to the filming location have signed one?"

The defendant's attorney consistently replied: "I don't know."

4️⃣ Entertainment Activities Contradiction

▫️ADOR's position: "There is no reason to block Danielle's entertainment activities themselves. However, penalties for breach of contract, lost earnings due to the suspension of activities, and damages for defamation of reputation will be claimed separately."

▫️Danielle's counter: "The penalty for breach of contract amounts to nearly 100 billion won (\~$73M) and the damages continue to increase. Telling them to 'work freely' is an irresponsible remark. There is no management company that would allow an entertainer to continue working while facing a lawsuit of this magnitude."

▫️ADOR's rebuttal (key quote): "Even the court says it is unfair; does it become legitimate just because you believe it yourself?"

5️⃣ MHJ's Alleged Role

▫️ADOR's claim: Violated duty of loyalty as internal director. Telegram messages show MHJ telling parents: "I will design it so that you do not suffer any financial disadvantages, such as penalties for breach of contract or damages," and "If you leave HYBE, I will take responsibility for compensation in lieu of litigation costs."

▫️MHJ's defense: "The termination of the exclusive contract was a voluntary decision made by the adult members. The members first proposed the YouTube live broadcast, and MHJ dissuaded them. Only after the members made their decision did we discuss ways to minimize damage. Actions such as sending a certified letter and demanding rectification were also initiated by the members and their families, not MHJ. In conclusion, MHJ's actions were the 'fulfillment of her duty of loyalty to the company and NewJeans,' not 'coercing the termination.'"

6️⃣ Danielle's Mother's Role

▫️ADOR's claim: "As an accomplice who aided and abetted MHJ's illegal activities, she played the most active role among the members' parents. She was also deeply involved in Danielle's solo activities."

▫️Danielle's defense: "She holds no position regarding Danielle's business profits. She merely supported her as a 'mother.' The parents' decision to terminate the exclusive contract with NewJeans was made jointly by both parents. It is unfair to hold only Danielle's mother responsible."

7️⃣ Witness Issue

▫️ADOR plans to call one of Danielle's relatives as a witness to prove how much the parents were influenced by MHJ.

▫️Danielle's side: "We cannot accept a request for a witness whose name has not even been revealed."

▫️ADOR: "It is difficult to disclose the identity. I will explain in writing."

8️⃣ Trial Pace Dispute

▫️Danielle's side: "Isn't ADOR delaying the submission of its plan to prove evidence and even requesting fact-finding inquiries from overseas brands an attempt to stall the trial?"

▫️ADOR: "It is merely necessary to verify the contracting parties, and compared to other trials, it is actually proceeding unusually quickly."

9️⃣ Next Hearing

July 2 (3:10 PM KST)

📍Final note: The Dispatch article highlights a key philosophical clash: ADOR argues that belief alone does not make a contract termination legitimate, while Danielle's side insists they acted in good faith based on legal advice. The judge's pointed question about who signed the Elle contract suggests skepticism toward the defense's "I don't know" answers.

Stay strong, Danielle. 💛 

📎 Source:

https://m.entertain.naver.com/home/article/433/0000128304

[260612] Dispatch Summary: ✨️New Details✨️ from June 11 Hearing - ADOR vs. NewJeans Danielle, her mother and MHJ