HYBE and SM Leisure have launched consecutive statements to refute the opposite relating to the present scenario involving the 2 firms.
Following SM CEO Lee Sung Su’s first video on February 16, HYBE launched an announcement with the next details:
1. Former chief producer Lee Soo Man can work overseas for his private producing enterprise duties unrelated to SM Leisure, and it doesn’t imply that he’ll return to SM Leisure after three years.
2. We’ve not heard about CT Planning Restricted which former chief producer Lee Soo Man is alleged to be concerned with, and relating to the data of its relation to SM Leisure, we are going to terminate this in keeping with the share buy settlement (SPA).
3. We won’t get entangled if the non-public actions promoted by former chief producer Lee Soo Man haven’t any connection to SM Leisure, and we now have not obtained any particulars on the ESG actions promoted by former chief producer Lee Soo Man.
In response, SM Leisure revealed the next assertion on February 17:
As CTP (CT Planning Restricted), the worldwide model of Like Planning, signed a contract straight with abroad labels, not SM, to cover its true goal, this isn’t a problem that may be resolved by HYBE terminating the contract since CTP has no enterprise relationship with SM. Within the video uploaded by CEO Lee Sung Su, it was additionally talked about that the matter in query was a direct contract between former chief producer Lee Soo Man and abroad labels, not a contract between CTP and SM.
Thus, HYBE’s stance is distorting the elemental drawback of CTP, which is the suspicion of offshore tax evasion.
If HYBE was conscious of CTP, the worldwide model of Like Planning, when signing the inventory gross sales contract, then meaning [HYBE] participated or turned a blind eye to former chief producer Lee Soo Man’s alleged tax evasion, and if [HYBE] signed the contract with out realizing concerning the situation, it signifies that they’re acknowledging that they have been deceived by former chief producer Lee Soo Man. Therefore, this could imply that HYBE’s administration would wish to elucidate to varied shareholders and associated businesses as to why an M&A that prices greater than 1 trillion received (roughly $768.4 million) was carried out with out as soon as exercising due diligence.
As well as, within the official assertion that HYBE printed when asserting that they signed a SPA contract with former chief producer Lee Soo Man, the assertion stated, “Chairman Bang Si Hyuk expressed deep settlement with the Humanity and Sustainability marketing campaign Lee Soo Man introduced earlier this 12 months and informed Lee Soo Man of his need to participate in utilizing the affect of sustainable K-pop collectively,” and “Chairman Bang Si Hyuk said that HYBE absolutely agreed with the strategic route such because the implementation of metaverse, institution of a multi-label system, and marketing campaign to save lots of the Earth.” We imagine it’s laborious to imagine that Chairman Bang Si Hyuk himself has not been knowledgeable of the main points of the marketing campaign that he claimed he “deeply agreed with.”
HYBE then responded once more with this assertion later within the day on February 17:
Hi there, that is HYBE.
We’re revealing HYBE’s assertion as follows relating to the assertion of refutation launched by SM Leisure (hereafter SM) right this moment.
Within the press launch we distributed on February 16 relating to the suspicions about CT Planning talked about by SM Leisure CEO Lee Sung Su, we stated:
When finishing a SPA with Lee Soo Man, we weren’t informed of Lee Soo Man’s possession of the corporate CTP or of the contract between CTP and SM. Additionally, in case of a enterprise relationship that we’re not conscious of, it was included within the contract that Lee Soo Man would resolve any enterprise relationship that’s found.
If CTP and SM are usually not straight contracted as stated in SM’s refutation, it’s much more pure that we’re not conscious of this. Nevertheless, in keeping with our contract with Lee Soo Man, it’s already mutually agreed upon that no income can be obtained relating to SM artists already contracted with CTP even when not direct contracts with SM. As well as, we are going to handle clear contracts by our board of administrators to ensure that no issues to come up sooner or later, so the issue raised by SM is meaningless. We’re at present placing in effort to unravel SM’s points and haven’t any purpose to distort something, and there’s no purpose for suspicions to be introduced up relating to our efforts.
Nevertheless, if SM thinks that the contract with CTP can’t be resolved by our SPA with Lee Soo Man, we need to ask what SM’s stance is on this moreover exposing this contract.
Particularly as this kind of contract doesn’t have a lot visibility exterior of the leisure company, the leisure company’s administration should handle these contracts transparently and pretty for the corporate and artists. There have to be board members who authorized this contract when it was being accomplished, and irrespective of which board members authorized them, we hope that the present board members have taken ample motion about this contract.
The issues that SM is exposing and elevating suspicions about are all revealing issues with SM’s company governance, and sadly, all of those issues occurred internally at SM. We really resolved SM’s structural issues one after the other with a optimistic viewpoint concerning the firm, and we are going to proceed to place in effort to resolve them.
Nevertheless, SM should present effort to resolve the precise inner issues to ensure that these modifications to create outcomes. We don’t suppose it’s the proper strategy to lift suspicions towards the most important shareholder that’s fixing SM’s issues.
We request that SM’s administrators evaluate if there are any features of what they’re exposing to the general public that they should take duty for due to their approval and put in effort to enhance the company governance with a purpose to reassure SM’s followers, workers, artists, and stockholders.
Supply (1) (2) (3)
How does this text make you’re feeling?