Min Hee-jin's side "Dismissal of Doror's CEO, Illegal Decision Newzins Production Deceit the Popular" (Full Story)
Aug 28, 2024
|
Min Hee-jin's legal representative, Sejong Law Firm, emphasized on the 28th that `This decision to dismiss is an illegal decision that directly contradicts the decision to ban shareholder contracts and exercise of voting rights.'
Adore held a board meeting on the 27th and appointed Kim Joo-young, the inside director of Adore, as the new CEO" he said. In other words, Min Hee-jin, the existing representative, will step down from the representative position, and Kim Joo-young will step up to the new head position. However, former CEO Min, who resigned from his position as CEO, will maintain his position as an in-house director and will also take charge of producing Newzins.
In this regard, Min Hee-jin dismissed CEO Min Hee-jin at the board meeting held at 1 p.m. on August 27. This decision to dismiss is an illegal decision that directly contradicts the decision to ban shareholder contracts and the exercise of voting rights."
"Hive insists on terminating the inter-shareholder contract, but this has no basis, and CEO Min Hee-jin has admitted to terminating the inter-shareholder contract. Therefore, I clearly state that this decision to dismiss is a clear violation of the shareholder agreement and a disregard for the court's decision."
Regarding the fact that former CEO Min is stepping down as CEO, but maintains his position as an in-house director and continues to take charge of producing Newgene's, he stressed that it is based on data distributed by the Board of Directors, which is clearly false.
Then "CEO Min Hee-jin was dismissed against his will, not retired. And the board of directors only unilaterally notified that they would be in charge of producing.
He also said, `It is deceiving the public to play the media as if CEO Min Hee-jin said he would step down as CEO by his own will and only take charge of production.'
There are procedural problems with the board's decision as well"There was an amendment to the articles of incorporation to change the notification period for the convocation of the board of directors to one day at the extraordinary general shareholders' meeting resolved by the board of directors. It is strongly suspected that this is a preliminary measure not to allow time to respond with the dismissal of the CEO in mind."
Earlier, Hive attempted to change management due to former CEO Min's attempt to take over management rights, but the court cited the former CEO's request for an injunction to ban the exercise of voting rights.
Min Hee-jin's side said "The court's decision revealed that CEO Min Hee-jin did not have the reason for the violation claimed by Hive. Nevertheless, the board of directors, which is composed of a large number of Hive-appointed directors, decided to dismiss the CEO, and even distorted the fact that it misled the public as if it were not dismissed.'
Then "Once again, the decision to dismiss the CEO is a violation of the contract between shareholders and an illegal decision that ignores the court's decision."
the sea that reemphasized ".
Next, Min Hee-jin's position full text
Hello, this is the Markol Consulting Group, which is in charge of media communication with Sejong Corporation, a law firm that represents CEO Min Hee-jin.
The Board of Directors dismissed CEO Min Hee-jin at the board meeting held at 1 p.m. on August 27.
This decision to dismiss is an illegal decision that directly contradicts the decision to ban shareholder contracts and voting rights.
The inter-shareholder contract stipulates that "Hive shall take necessary measures, such as exercising its voting rights to allow Min Hee-jin to maintain the position of CEO and executive director of Adore for five years or having the director nominated by Hybe exercise his voting rights at Adore's board of directors."
On May 31, Hive tried to hold an extraordinary shareholders' meeting on the 'Min Hee-jin CEO and inside director agenda', but the court decided on a provisional injunction that Hive could not exercise voting rights in favor of the agenda.
This was because CEO Min Hee-jin had no reason to dismiss the director or resign.
Hive claims the termination of the inter-shareholder contract, but this has no basis, and CEO Min Hee-jin has not admitted the termination of the inter-shareholder contract.
Therefore, let me be clear that this decision to dismiss is a clear violation of the shareholder agreement and a disregard for the court's decision.
Currently, in the media, Min Hee-jin, former CEO, will step down from his position as CEO, but will maintain his position as an inside director. He will also continue to work on producing Newzins.' is being reported.
This is based on data distributed by the Board of Directors, which is a clear lie. CEO Min Hee-jin was dismissed against his will, not resigned.
And the Audor board only unilaterally notified them that it would be in charge of production.
It is deceiving the public to play the media as if CEO Min Hee-jin said he would step down from the CEO by his own will and only take charge of production.
This board decision is also procedurally problematic. According to the Adore Articles of Incorporation, the board of directors was supposed to convene by notifying each director a week in advance.
However, there was an amendment to the articles of incorporation to change the notification period for the convocation of the board of directors to one day at the extraordinary shareholders' meeting resolved by the Board of Directors.
I strongly suspect that this is a proactive measure not to allow time to respond with the dismissal of the CEO in mind.
In fact, the chairman of the Board of Directors, Kim Joo-young, notified the agenda only on August 24th (Saturday).
The court's decision revealed that CEO Min Hee-jin did not have the reason for the violation claimed by Hive.
Nevertheless, the board of directors, which is composed of a large number of directors appointed by Hive, decided to dismiss the CEO, and even distorted the fact that it misled the public as if it were not dismissed.
Once again, the decision to dismiss the CEO is a violation of the contract between shareholders and an illegal decision that ignores the court's decision.
rightlight@sportschosun.com
