I don't see anything wrong with it, since she gives a lot of money to charity.
The relationship between celebrities and the rest of society in South Korea, especially corporations, is one of vast power imbalance against the favor of the celebrities. They are well and truly objectified. Yuna has said in a recent interview that she was under immense pressure to compete and perform, sometimes against her will. She is not hyperbolizing. That there are people in the background with that much power over her also means they have the power to rob her. I have no doubt some of them did, and this settlement doesn't even begin to cover it.
Well I don't understand why the following is the first comment after the report about the settlement; seems to be biased towards a "big bad greedy YuNa".Maybe it is my ignorance in the difference between how things are done, I still don't understand why it's always "the big bad company".
0.0 because she needs more $$? wow... I need to find me a company to sue.
Didn't she breach contract with them when building her own company or some such thing?
...It's such a short blurb that I don't think either side of the story is really represented.
So on the one hand, YuNa just wants some "chump change" $600k, or else she should opt for a "long, drawn out proceeding"? It's already been over a year. I think YuNa has enough on her plate that she is satisfied with the in-court settlement and would like to move on. Not everyone shares your way of wanting to do things in such extreme manner, i.e. "going for blood."And whenever you read settlement it doesn't really mean that the company is admitting wrong doing, it's just the easy way out. If it was as bad as you say - then I'd be going for blood, not just a dollar sign. I'd want a long drawn out proceeding, not to get every dime I could, but to make a real point. That's what I mean by the lawsuit society. Is it an easy buck, or the principle of the thing?
Please enlighten us. YuNa went after endorsement money that was being withheld by her former agency. So in my case, it would be like $6000 being owed (still a lot, if you ask me) and asking for $6000.I have nothing against YuNa, I'm just bored with stories of "the management screwed me over, so I'll take their pennies and be okay with it." If you really want to see CHANGE you don't settle. When someone settles, to me, it just means they'll take what money they can and that's good enough. Maybe YuNa, again, didn't have as much control, or maybe she was tired with the situation.
No one's asking you to say "poor poor YuNa", but how about not pointing fingers and judging her on how you would do it (without knowing the details of the case) while facetiously mentioning that you should go out and find some company to sue? The implied meaning is incredibly insulting.I've never said YuNa can do no good, but I won't also sit here and say poor poor YuNa, glad she won. Call it jealousy, or callousness, or what not.
All very lawyer-ly. I wonder how much of the $800,000 went to the legal firm that represented Yu-na in the case.
that's another reason I don't like these lawsuits... it's not really to benefit anyone but the guys making the deals (in court or out), so really, why bother?
Oh lawdy, once again, some people insist on trotting their ignorance out and blasting something they don't know the least about. South Korea has a culture, system of law, system of corporation that is vastly skewed against individual performers. There are countless horror stories of artists there being exploited, abused, ripped off and worse. That Yuna managed to wring this tiny settlement from her former company very likely means they were doing something egregiously wrong.
The American idea of the super star as someone with his/her own agency (as in the power to determine one's own fate), while it isn't true in America either (just ask Prince or Toni Braxton), is ridiculously inapplicable to South Korea. A few years back, a popular violin prodigy was kidnapped, imprisoned, drugged and forced to perform without pay by his management company. He has since moved to a new management company, but none of his former abusers are in jail or facing any kind of consequence. In another recent case, an actress who was the spokesperson for a company was sued by that company because shots of her faced, bruised after getting hit by her husband, were leaked by the paparazzi from the hospital. The company claims she failed to uphold the adequate level of "dignity" stipulated in her contract. Later, the actress committed suicide. But the company pressed on with the case by trying to collect from the very young children the actress left behind. The case went all the way to South Korea's Supreme Court, where the company won. And here's another gut-wrenching story of how the Korean public (abetted by a cowardly media) turns on a music star, destroys his career, lobs endless death threats to him, his family, friends and defenders, all over a hoax.
The relationship between celebrities and the rest of society in South Korea, especially corporations, is one of vast power imbalance against the favor of the celebrities. They are well and truly objectified. Yuna has said in a recent interview that she was under immense pressure to compete and perform, sometimes against her will. She is not hyperbolizing. That there are people in the background with that much power over her also means they have the power to rob her. I have no doubt some of them did, and this settlement doesn't even begin to cover it.
Maybe it is my ignorance in the difference between how things are done, I still don't understand why it's always "the big bad company". Didn't she breach contract with them when building her own company or some such thing? And whenever you read settlement it doesn't really mean that the company is admitting wrong doing, it's just the easy way out. If it was as bad as you say - then I'd be going for blood, not just a dollar sign. I'd want a long drawn out proceeding, not to get every dime I could, but to make a real point. That's what I mean by the lawsuit society. Is it an easy buck, or the principle of the thing?
And I was under the impression than the government/skating federation pushed her to compete, not her management?
Correct except that it is IB not IMG.As I understand it the basis of the suit was something like this.
After Yuna Kim split with IMG, the agency continued to receive money from endorsement contracts that IMG had had negotiated on Kim’s behalf. The $800,000 is the part of that money that was due to Kim under the terms of the contract, the agency keeping the rest.
IMG agreed in court papers that they owed Kim the money. But they withheld payment, claiming that Kim’s new agency owed them money for endorsements that the new agency negotiated, but were in fact just extensions of the former endorsement contracts. This is the part that Kim and her lawyers disputed, claiming that the new contracts were in fact new.
Evidently Kim’s side had the stronger legal case. IMG agreed to pay the $800,000 that they owed (everyone agreed on this), and decided not to pursue their attempt to get a share of Kim’s new deals.
All very lawyer-ly. I wonder how much of the $800,000 went to the legal firm that represented Yu-na in the case.
^ Well, I just got a check in the mail for $18 in a class action suit that I didn't even know I was part of. Something about credit card companies improperly charging a fee for foreign purchases.
Stick it to the man!
It was a settlement, I don't see any part saying that's what she was owed, though. It's such a short blurb that I don't think either side of the story is really represented. considering her yearly worth is close to 10 million US dollars.... 640k is chump change. Like me going to court for someone who shorted me a 20.
You might feel differently if you felt that your agency had stolen 800 million won from you. I don't think you would just say, oh well, easy come easy go.
^ Well, I just got a check in the mail for $18 in a class action suit that I didn't even know I was part of. Something about credit card companies improperly charging a fee for foreign purchases.
Stick it to the man!
This is not a matter of need or about the size of the amount. It's about financial justice in a contractual society. She or her team felt it was her rightful money so she should have the control and decision what to do with it, not somebody else, who would be deemed a thief if they claimed ownership and rights to it. Evidently she and her team were quite right since they got the settlement, which is preferable to going through the whole judicial process. I don't envy anybody who has to go the lawsuit route to reclaim their money. Most often many people can't afford a lawsuit or the amount involved is not worth the trouble so they eat their losses. $700K is a lot of money, whatever her worth, in that it could do a lot according to her wishes that meet her principle and make her happier.
eta. Also, if she let it go, it might encourage others to think she's an easy mark who's too rich to bother with such an amount, which may be substantially lower than the original claim but is indeed sizable and desirable by most people. Celebrities are often thus targeted and they do often pay off the claimants to save stress.
Year ago I was billed for something I didn't owe. The company got more and more aggressive and eventually took me to Small Claims Court. I showed up and waited until it was my time. I got up and, with my hand on the door to the courtroom to push it open, someone from that company came up to me and informed me that they dropped the suit. They pushed till literally the last minute to see how far they could go to bully somebody into submission! I was lucky the provincial law made them go the Small Claims route which cost me time but not money. Other matters were not as simple for me.