[ad_1]
As of June 14th, the agency representing CBX, INB100, revealed that “SM has initiated a lawsuit against our company on June 12th,” indicating that SM is opting for a legal route. They disclosed, “We made a proactive offer at the press conference to settle the use of SM’s intellectual property, such as songs, by paying an amount other than 10% of the sales, but SM did not entertain this proposition. Instead, they chose to respond to our settlement offer by taking immediate legal steps without prior communication.”
CBX’s representatives are resolute, stating, “Since SM initiated the lawsuit, we plan to reveal all previous discussions we’ve had since last year and tackle this head-on.” They further noted, “We will use the legal process to secure the financial statements and payment data mandated by our contract and the law, to claim what is rightfully ours. Moreover, a report will be lodged with the Fair Trade Commission to seek a fair judgment on the exclusive contract’s inequity.”
The agency also expressed, “We are extremely regretful for causing worry and disappointment due to the continual recurrence of these issues. Our goal is to keep public statements to a minimum and resolve this dispute promptly.”
Previously, on June 10th, CBX accused SM of unfair conduct during an emergency press conference. They argued that “SM had committed to reducing the album distribution fees to 5.5% for INB100 but reneged on the agreement and has since been insisting on taking 10% of earnings from individual ventures such as albums, concerts, and endorsements.”
In retort, SM pronounced, “The binding contract with CBX is effective. We sanctioned their individual activities through separate business entities and CBX willingly agreed to the terms, which encompasses a 10% payment on personal corporation activities.” SM also highlighted their stance by stating, “The core of these incidents is the improper persuasion (tampering) of our talents by MC Mong and Chairman Cha Ga-won. CBX’s repeated challenges to invalidate the contractual agreement for self-interest are intolerable. We will counteract through judicious and orderly legal avenues, and ensure CBX faces repercussions in the judicial system.”
In a counterstatement, CBX demanded that SM “elucidate the grounds of their tampering claims.” They stated their intention to “vigorously counter SM’s tampering accusations by assuming all possible legal avenues against defamation and for disseminating misinformation”.
[ad_2]
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
What is the main issue between CBX and SM?
The main issue concerns the payment settlement for the use of SM’s assets and intellectual property, where CBX has proposed an alternative to the 10% of sales revenue but SM opted for legal action instead of accepting the settlement plan.
Has CBX responded to SM’s legal action?
Yes, CBX has announced they will actively engage with the lawsuit, disclose negotiations, and seek to claim their rights through legal channels. They’re also planning to file a report with the Fair Trade …
Content truncated due to instruction to keep language unchanged.
