EXO-CBX’s management company, INB100, issued a formal pronouncement on June 10th, highlighting their disapproval of SM Entertainment’s persistent tampering allegations. They proclaim, “Chairman Cha Ga-won and CEO Shin Dong-hyun are profoundly dismayed by SM’s repeated tampering assertions and are calling upon SM to reveal what constitutes tampering in their eyes. They also intend to challenge SM vehemently, considering all legal avenues for slander and the dissemination of misinformation.”
SM Entertainment had earlier dismissed the points made at INB100’s press briefing that day and reiterated suspicions of tampering. In response, INB100 retorted, “Every attempt by SM to deviate from the pivotal issue through avoidance and trivial responses cannot be seen as anything but nonsensical and trivial.”
INB100 stands firm, stating that, “CBX members have renounced their down payments for exclusive contracts and opted to continue their collective endeavors with EXO under the SM name. However, they conduct their own individual projects separately. Thus, they established a separate entity and sought a distribution partner for their music releases. Initially, SM had proposed a sales commission of 10% while reducing Kakao’s distribution fee to 5.5%, terms that CBX agreed upon. We find it disconcerting that SM has retreated from their own propositions.”
Furthermore, INB100 demands, “We seize the moment provided by today’s press conference to reiterate our request for SM to clearly define their tampering criteria and substantiate their accusations thereof. Is consulting with colleagues and seniors over personal decisions now tantamount to tampering? Baekhyun sought a variety of opinions when planning his own company, and upon inception, it operated as a sole proprietorship. Given these circumstances, SM’s tampering allegations are not feasible.”
They underscore, “SM should cease warping the truth of the matter and must disclose the underlying data regarding settlements, as this is an elementary entitlement of any artist. Before levying tampering charges, SM ought to introspect on their internal practices to ascertain whether they have engaged in standard contractual obligations, including the signing of agreements, issuance of expenditures, and transparency of settlements. Should SM continue to eschew sharing of settlement details, we are prepared to petition the courts for an injunction mandating disclosure.”
FAQ Section
- What is the dispute between EXO-CBX and SM Entertainment about?
- The dispute involves SM Entertainment’s accusations of tampering against EXO-CBX and their demands for standards of tampering to be disclosed.
- What was INB100’s response to the claims made by SM Entertainment?
- INB100 has countered the claims, demanding that SM Entertainment disclose their standards for tampering and provide evidence, as well as questioning SM’s retraction from previously agreed terms for distribution fees.
- How has EXO-CBX decided to handle their exclusive contract agreement with SM Entertainment?
- The group has chosen to forfeit their exclusive contract down payment to continue group activities under SM, while managing individual efforts independently.
- What are INB100’s demands from SM Entertainment in light of these accusations?
- INB100 is demanding that SM Entertainment disclose settlement data, reconsider their standard contract execution and settlement disclosure practices, and cease making unfounded tampering accusations.
