Asian Junkie Asian pop. Without discretion.
A couple days ago it was revealed that Lai Kuan Lin was filing for termination of his contract with Cube Entertainment, which didn’t take long after the end of his stint in WANNA ONE.
What exactly it was about was a mystery at the time, so people could only speculate, but Lai Kuan Lin’s side revealed recently that it’s an issue similar to that of Kang Daniel, as he says Cube sold his contract to a third-party in the form of a Chinese company.
In the opening paragraph, Chaeum Attorneys At Law reveal that they decided to release a statement to correct the false information written in Cube Entertainment’s press release, which states that there are no grounds for contract termination. Lai Kuanlin sent a certification of contents for the termination of his exclusive contract with Cube Entertainment on July 18 and filed for an injunction to suspend his contract with the agency at the Seoul Central District Court on July 22. The statement continues, “Lai Kuanlin entered into an exclusive contract with Cube on July 25, 2017, and a few months later, in January 2018, [Cube] sold Lai Kuanlin’s exclusive management rights within China to a TAJOY Entertainment, a third party, receiving a sum that was many times larger than the down payment they gave Lai Kuanlin. Lai Kuanlin and his parents were not informed of this, and they had not agreed to this sort of contract.” Lai Kuanlin found out about the contract in April 2019, and on June 21, he sent his first certification of contents requesting that the breach of contract be rectified. “However, Cube did not make the requested changes, stating that there was no breach of contract, and they ignored our request for a discussion. They damaged Lai Kuanlin’s [public] image by only revealing part of the facts through the press without explaining the issue to [Lai Kuanlin] himself,” Lai Kuanlin’s legal representatives state. They conclude the statement saying that Lai Kuanlin will do his best to carry out his activities that were scheduled before they filed the injunction.
Cube then issued a rebuttal to this, denying that they did anything in violation of the contract.
First of all, as the agency of Lai Kuanlin, we sent a request to the law firm claiming to be Lai Kuanlin’s legal representatives for evidence of their qualification of representation, but we have not yet received a response. However, there are points in the statement released by Lai Kuanlin’s law firm that are different from the truth, so we would like to reveal the facts below. There are no grounds for termination according to our contract with Lai Kuanlin. While carrying out Lai Kuanlin’s management duties, we explained and received approval before carrying out any scheduled activities or signing contracts. We received Lai Kuanlin’s approval to sign a contract with a Korean third-party company for the selection of a management company in China that was necessary for Lai Kuanlin’s advancement into China. This third-party company signed a contract with the Chinese company that is in charge of Lai Kuanlin’s Chinese management, and he is promoting in China [through this company].
We provided our full support for Lai Kuanlin with our know-how, network, and an exclusive support team since he was a trainee until he got to this point through his appearance on “Produce 101 [Season 2],” Wanna One activities, and his appearance in Chinese dramas and variety shows recently via the third-party company. We also thoroughly carried out the payment distribution accordingly. However, as Lai Kuanlin quickly achieves success in China, there is an influential party that is trying to incite Lai Kuanlin and his family to exclude our company and the Korean third-party in order to have sole power of the results of Lai Kuanlin’s success. Lai Kuanlin is still a minor who is 17 years old (by international reckoning). With concern for the future of our artist Lai Kuanlin, Cube Entertainment has requested a meeting with Lai Kuanlin and his parents. We hope we can have honest conversations to resolve this matter peacefully.
This is almost identical to the Kang Daniel case so far even to the detail that Cube says that somebody behind the scenes is trying to influence Lai Kuan Lin into doing this.
Lai Kuan Lin’s team then issued a reply to Cube, essentially accusing them of trying to wage a war in the media with false information and rebutting the points they made.
“Chaeum Attorneys At Law was given all rights by Lai Kunalin himself to act as his legal representative in all matters including filing requests and submitting evidence. Cube Entertainment’s request for evidence of qualification of representation is nothing but an act of muddying the waters in this issue. We did not respond to Cube Entertainment’s request because we see no reason to unilaterally listen to every demand the agency sends when we are filing to terminate the contract after requests to rectify ad negotiate on the contract violations were denied. The request to terminate the contract includes a warrant of attorney signed by Lai Kuanlin himself, and Cube Entertainment will be able to see it for themselves once it is sent to them, so we ask them to refrain from malicious statements that are removed from the core of this issue.
Lai Kuanlin has never personally seen the contract that Cube Entertainment drafted to sell his management rights to a third party, and so we requested that we be sent the contract in question. However, the response we received from Cube Entertainment was that they believe they are not obligated to provide it to us and if we wish to see it, we must go to them to see it. Even if we are to set aside the uncooperative attitude they are showing to a legitimate request, if Cube Entertainment’s stance that Lai Kuanlin and his father both affixed their seals on the contract was true, then there would be no rational reason to deny our request. Not only this, but Cube Entertainment did not properly address in their statement our claim that there exists documents with Lai Kuanlin’s seal that he did not affix himself. If Cube Entertainment’s stance that, “We received Lai Kuanlin’s approval to sign a contract with a Korean third-party company for the selection of a management company in China” is true, then we ask that they prove it in the legal process. Also, we question the motive behind Cube Entertainment claiming that there exists a party seeking to have sole control over Lai Kuanlin’s success by influencing him and his family. This is basically claiming that Lai Kunalin and his family have filed to terminate the contract based on the temptation of economic profit, and this is not something that is said out of concern for Lai Kuanlin’s future, it can be seen as prompting malicious comments that defame Lai Kuanlin and his family. If Cube Entertainment truly wishes to resolve this situation amicably, we sincerely request that they stop these unilateral and malicious claims. As we stated previously, Lai Kuanlin tried to resolve this situation through amicable negotiations from the start, but Cube Entertainment denied all of his requests, unfortunately leading to this request to terminate his contract. If Cube Entertainment can show that they are willing to sincerely participate in conversations regarding this issue, Lai Kuanlin will speak extensively with his father and us, his legal representatives, before deciding whether he will engage in talks.
As with Kang Daniel’s case at the start, it’s hard to judge this much without knowledge of what the contracts looked like and who signed what, as they are both claiming completely different things.
That said, there seems to be a very real trend at the root of this, which is outside companies essentially attempting to buy artists as investments through their original companies. From what I can gather, this would essentially make the original companies a middle-man of sorts, and could make all sorts of mess. Something to monitor.
