Kim wins suit against former agency | Page 2 | Golden Skate

Kim wins suit against former agency

volk

Final Flight
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
I don't see anything wrong with it, since she gives a lot of money to charity.
 

Serious Business

Record Breaker
Joined
Jan 7, 2011
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.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
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?
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
You pretty much hit it on the nail, SB. YuNa forum members used to lament about how YuNa was essentially treated as a cash-cow to be milked for all she was worth by various companies. The details are foggy, but there was also one incident where, through no fault of her own, a 15 or 16-year old YuNa was forced to skate a small show for free to appease an audience who were disgruntled at some previous organized event. :disapp: The stories you've shared are worse and I hadn't heard them before, makes me really sad. Especially the one about the rapper - what is wrong with some of these Korean "netizens", as they like to call themselves?

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".
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".
0.0 because she needs more $$? wow... I need to find me a company to sue.

And then...
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.
...
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?
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."

My frustration isn't just at you but at other posts I've read when news of this lawsuit broke out and mud was flung at YuNa. I don't know what to think when many of those posters never really seemed interested in the fight for proper representation she had to endure over the years but wanted to jump straight to the money-hungry diva story.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
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.

I guess my main annoyance is that this would be news at all. :laugh: no matter who the subject is. One more lawsuit in the history of lawsuits, yipee.
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
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.
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.

What "change" should YuNa be going for rather than settling for the amount she is claiming has been withheld from her??? In your eyes she can't seem to do right; she's either just being greedy or settling for "pennies" and acting beneath some kind of principle...but maybe I will learn from your oh-so-wiser ways. Is it a jail term? Is it going into corporate law and wanting to change the Korean law system? Is it suing the bejeezus out of IB Sports and asking for 10x what you are owed for "pain and suffering"?

:confused:
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
the way the article is worded it sounds like much more was owed but both parties settled on the amount awarded.

My point on changing things is based on SB's post about how awful things are/were with this company. Why settle and not bring it to light?

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. I'd say the same thing of anyone who goes to bat and settles instead of trying to go for the full measure. Not suing for more (she's commended for that IMO) than owed, but settling for less? I get compromise is a good thing, but if this management is so harsh and horrible I'd be calling for change... and not in the $$ form.
 

prettykeys

Medalist
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
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.
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.

Yeah, I already called it jealousy, someone else called it ignorance.
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
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.
 

Tonichelle

Idita-Rock-n-Roll
Record Breaker
Joined
Jun 27, 2003
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?
 
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
^ 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! :cool:
 

jatale

On the Ice
Joined
Feb 24, 2011
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?

Unfortunately, without lawyers there would be no way to pursue wrongful business dealings. I'm sure that if you created a product and hired a firm to sell it for you and that firm pocketed money owed to you from sales of your product, that you would be hopping mad about it. You would have to pursue the matter in court and for that you would need a lawyer. So I don't get what you are complaining about except that lawyers make too much money (which might be true but that is another issue).
 
Last edited:

cosmos

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
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.

I want to point out that her suicide wasn't related to the suit. She suffered from serious depression. And, actually, the company won only partially at the Supreme Court, because they received only a quarter of money they claimed. The reason the company won (partially) was because the DIGNITY part was written in the contract. Anyway, she was one of the most popular actress of our generation and her death was really a tragedy.
 
Last edited:

cosmos

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
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?

No, her three year contract with the company IB ended but she refused to renew the contract which IB deadly wanted. IB admitted that they collected around 5 M dollars from YuNa in three years. I doubt YuNa felt that she received 5M $ worth service. While YuNa stayed in Canada, the company did practically nothng for her. It wasn't a surprise she didn't renew the contract.
 
Last edited:

cosmos

On the Ice
Joined
Oct 2, 2007
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.
Correct except that it is IB not IMG.

Obviously, the reason settlement is used is to reduce the legal cost. But, the legal cost in Korea is far cheaper than in US.
 

skateluvr

Record Breaker
Joined
Oct 23, 2011
^ 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! :cool:

yes, Occupy everything!
 

Sasha'sSpins

Medalist
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Country
United-States
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.

Perhaps she did it for the principle. Other up and coming clients of the agency may not make as much as Yuna-this might make them think twice about ripping any one off-if that is in fact what they did. It may also be a cautionery tale to any prospective clients. Yuna has a right as much as anyone else including those of us of less means to seek justice if she feels she was taken advantage of.

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.

ITA.

It doesn't make it okay to rip someone off just because they're successful and can 'afford' to lose thousands maybe millions from shady or shifty managers.

^ 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! :cool:

The same thing happened to me about 3 years ago! I did know about it because out of the blue I received a letter from some attorneys regarding a class action suit against a check cashing company I used to go to in when I lived in Miramar, FL. in the late '90's early 2000's.

I received my share-$50 bucks. Sweet. I think I splurged on dinner and a movie with it but I can't remember for sure. :biggrin:

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.

Well put.
 
Last edited:
Top