The biggest danger here is that ADOR could potentially make Dani financially responsible for losses involving the entire group, even though she’s the only NewJeans member they’re suing. This is why the concept of non-genuine joint and several liability is so concerning… If ADOR calculates its damages based on NewJeans’ lost revenue as a five-member group, it could argue that Dani’s alleged actions contributed to those losses. I think ADOR might push to hold her responsible for the entire overlapping amount, not just one-fifth of it. But that doesn’t automatically mean ADOR can do this. They still have to prove that Dani is legally responsible for the damages they’re claiming. The other concern is how ADOR calculates those damages. Are they looking at losses caused specifically by Dani’s alleged actions, or are they including projected revenue from group activities that never happened? The court needs to distinguish between what NewJeans could have earned as a group, what Dani allegedly caused, and what losses can actually be computed and proven. It is also important to note that the judge said that the court needed to distinguish the Min Hee-jin effect. The judge also questioned whether an accountant's appraisal, using a limited comparison sample, could adequately establish relevant loss. It was also mentioned that some requested materials concerning planned group activities had not been fully supplied to the appraiser at that point. Another scary thing is that if ADOR succeeds in establishing a broad theory of liability, they could potentially use that reasoning in future disputes involving the other members. Take note of that. If ADOR gets their way, they could easily come after the other members too. That wouldn’t automatically make the other four liable, but it could give ADOR an argument to use against them later. There’s also the practical side of things. A lawsuit of this scale can make companies and potential collaborators hesitant to work with Dani, even before the case is decided. So the damage isn’t just about the money she might eventually have to pay. It could also affect her career and future opportunities. The real question is this… if ADOR’s claimed losses involve all five members, why is Dani the only member being sued?? ADOR may argue that Dani’s alleged conduct was different from the others’. But they still need to prove that those differences justify the damages they’re claiming. Non-genuine joint and several liability isn’t a free pass to make Dani pay for everything that happened to NewJeans. They can’t simply take a group-wide loss, attach it to one member, and expect the court to accept it without establishing the legal basis. That’s why the damages calculation and the question of individual responsibility are so important. We need to see exactly what losses ADOR is claiming, how they calculated them, and why they believe Dani should be held responsible. Because at the end of the day, a massive damages claim is not proof that the defendant actually owes that amount. The evidence and the law still have to support it.