If you boast of taking legal action against former executives, perhaps you should first explain it to the shareholders.
The world's first "union fee-free union" does not exist to fight with companies.
People who are reluctant to speak up in the company,Create a place where you can say to the manager, "Isn't that strange?" without having to pay money.
That's all there is to it.
This time, we are asking that question of Last Mile Corporation.
The company is currently a listed company on the Tokyo Stock Exchange Growth Market with the stock code 9252, and Watanabe Makoto serves as Chairman and CEO.
That's why I want to ask.
Before talking about what the former officer “masterminded” within the company, shouldn’t we talk about what the company knew about the former officer, what experiences he had, and how it explained that to the market?
What the executives are afraid of is not the "legal action" itself.
Reports have been received that the union has received statements from current executives stating that Watanabe allegedly "instigated" legal action against former officers.
Of course, it is not a problem in itself for companies and managers to take legal action to protect legitimate rights.
The problem doesn't end there.
From those senior officials who heard that story,
"After I retire, won't I be treated the same way?"
"The legal measures are not a remedy for a right; they sound like a show of force."
"The atmosphere at work feels more like a anti-social organization than a company, and it's scary."
There are concerns of this nature.
This is not a story that concludes that Watanabe "threatened" someone.
Rather, it's the opposite.
It is a labor issue regarding how executives on the management level actually receive the words of the top management, and how the working environment is currently.
The Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare is urging business owners to establish consultation systems, verify facts, take appropriate measures, and prevent recurrence of inappropriate behavior that harms the employment environment due to dominant relationships. Unfair treatment based on cooperation in consultation or fact verification is also prohibited.
This is not a story that ends with "It was a joke," or "It's a problem with how you received it."
If a current executive feels fear and is calling for improvement, the company should first verify the facts.
And then a bigger problem arose.
According to information received from senior officials, Watanabe is said to have explained to the former official that he is aware of the details of the tax evasion case and the prosecution case related to the acts of that former official while in office.
Moreover, they are claiming to have information regarding not one but two incidents.
The conversation suddenly changes here.
The union is in no position to determine that the former officer committed a crime.
The Union does not intend to prejudge the facts that the court has not determined to be a crime.
It is also interesting to see how they are making their statements using the unreleased indictment.
However,
"The Representative Director has detailed knowledge of the criminal cases related to the actions of the former officer during his tenure."
If that’s the case, it becomes a question of accountability for the company itself.
Furthermore, it has been reported that the company itself and Mr. Watanabe personally underwent forced investigations leading to that incident.
If this is true, an extremely simple question arises.
When did the company find out?
When did the board of directors find out?
When did the Audit and Supervisory Committee learn about this?
Did you tell the accounting auditor?
And when and by whom did they decide whether to make timely disclosure to the Tokyo Stock Exchange? And on what basis?
"If you undergo an investigation, you will definitely be informed." That's why you can't take it lightly.
I want to write exactly here.
Just because a publicly listed company is subject to investigations or tax audits, that does not mean that everything is automatically disclosed in a timely manner.
But that doesn't end the conversation.
The Tokyo Stock Exchange, in addition to the individually listed disclosure items for listed companies, also
"Any matters concerning the management, operations, or assets of the company, or any listed securities that significantly affect the investment decision of investors."
If this occurs, we demand that it be disclosed immediately.
It is the so-called "basket clause".
Moreover, the Tokyo Stock Exchange explicitly states that even when individual items meet the minor criteria or do not qualify as individual items in the first place, it must consider whether to disclose the information if its impact on investment decisions is significant.
Furthermore, the crucial fact of occurrence is not the date of a formal board meeting resolution, but the prompt disclosure from the moment the company becomes aware of the fact. The Tokyo Stock Exchange requires the immediate disclosure of important company information.
In other words, the question is:
It's not just the four characters of "forced investigation."
Is it the conduct of a former officer during their term of office?
Did the company itself become the subject of the investigation?
Was it related to the company's transactions, accounting, taxes, fund transfers, and internal control?
Did the directors of that time recognize this?
Does the current CEO have information that enables them to understand the specific details of the criminal case?
Were they in fact information that had a significant impact on investor decisions overall?
This needs to be explained here.
There are also disclosure issues regarding "legal action" against former executives.
What is also interesting is the part where Watanabe took legal action against former executives.
Here again, the system is surprisingly clear.
If the company itself files a lawsuit as the plaintiff, that alone does not automatically qualify as an individual disclosure item for “filing a lawsuit.”
However, the Tokyo Stock Exchange explicitly states that even in that case, it will consider whether to disclose “other important decision-making facts” – that is, the basket clause.
Even in cases where individual officers become parties to the lawsuit, the system is designed to consider whether to disclose the individual facts as “other important relevant facts,” rather than as separate legal issues.
Therefore, you cannot escape with the line "The company is the plaintiff, so there is no need to disclose information."
What is the purpose of the legal action?
Was it spent by the company?
Was it using the company's human resources?
Is it a problem with the company's operations during the former officer's tenure?
Is it related to criminal cases or mandatory investigations?
Is it for the purpose of recovering damages for the company?
It depends on the content.
Also, let's organize the "report to the Financial Services Agency" properly.
The Financial Services Agency is the same.
This is not a system where if there is a criminal case, you just call the Financial Services Agency and report everything.
Listed companies are subject to statutory disclosure requirements such as securities reports under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, half-yearly reports, interim reports, and internal control reports.
Article 24-5, paragraph 4 of the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act establishes a system for submitting an interim report without delay in the event of certain significant events determined by a Cabinet Order.
For example, regarding certain types of lawsuits against a listed company, Article 19 of the Cabinet Office Ordinance on Disclosure of Corporate Information sets specific filing standards.
Therefore, what really needs to be confirmed in this case is:
It's not a simple two-choice question of "whether you reported it to the Financial Services Agency or not."
Shouldn't that fact have been reflected in the securities report, etc.?
Did it not fall under the grounds for submitting a temporary report?
Did it not affect the internal control evaluation?
Were there any important information in the disclosure documents that have already been submitted that needed to be corrected?
Only after verifying that thoroughly can we say that "there were no problems with the statutory disclosure requirements."
If the Makizuka memo, which swept the nation and was spread by the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutor's Office, Fukuoka High Court, and the Kumamoto National Tax Agency, really documents "fraud," the story would become even more complicated.
And there's one more thing I need to confirm.
It is a document known among those involved as the "Maruyama Tsukomoto Memo."
If this document, in addition to the former officer in question, also described the transactions, fund transfers, and actions of various officers and other related parties of the company as “irregular,” the company must thoroughly investigate the matter.
What matters is not whether the person who wrote the note was correct.
If you were wrong, you should investigate it and point it out.
If some of it was correct, then it would be enough to check how much was correct.
The most difficult to explain is:
They use the Maizukata memo and information on criminal cases only when pursuing former executives; when it comes to matters related to their own company or the current management team, they do not explain anything to the market.
That is the situation.
What is required of publicly listed companies is not changing the criteria for investigation depending on the individual.
The same fact is to apply the same standard to it.
Only seven things I want to hear at the last mile
What the union is demanding is not the arrest of someone or the downfall of someone.
It is an explanation.
- Did Mr. Watanabe make a comment to senior executives that the former officer “initiated legal action on his own?”
- Mr. Watanabe, when and in what capacity did you become aware of the two criminal cases and charges involving that former officer?
- Is there any evidence that the company itself conducted the national tax and other mandatory investigations that led to this incident?
- If the act in question was one taken during the final year of the former officer’s tenure, when did the board of directors, audit committee, and accounting auditor become aware of it?
- When and by whom did you determine whether to disclose “other important events” as required by the TSE listing regulations in a timely manner?
- Have you considered the impact on statutory disclosures under the Financial Instruments and Exchange Act, the securities report, the internal control report, and other disclosures?
- If there were any allegations of misconduct involving other executives or company dealings mentioned in the Maizukuzuka memo, will the investigation be conducted against all related parties, not just the former executives?
Is this a company that is after former executives? Or is this a company that can be investigated by us as well?
Corporate compliance is not something that can be proven to be tough on the enemy.
This will be proven by being able to apply the same standards to ourselves.
Legal action will be taken against the former officer.
It's quite a lot.
If there is any wrongdoing, we will investigate it.
Of course it is.
However, if they have a thorough understanding of the criminal case to the point of speaking about it in front of an active executive, the person they will explain to next is not a former officer.
They are shareholders, the market, and the employees who are currently working there.
Is the information that the company Last One Mile itself was subject to a forced investigation true?
How are the actions of former officers during their tenure related to subsequent criminal cases?
Were there any suspicions of wrongdoing regarding other officers or related parties?
Why did they decide that timely disclosure was not required?
At least from the company’s public IR information as confirmed by the union as of September 24, 2026, we have not been able to confirm any disclosure that directly answers these questions. The company’s IR website does list news and IR information for 2026, but we were unable to find any public announcements directly explaining the matter.
So, you just need to answer the question.
I would like to hear the story of "being set up," rather than the story of "being revealed."
If it's a publicly listed company, that company is much stronger.
What the Tokyo Stock Exchange is looking for is not loud in-house statements.
It is the prompt, accurate, and fair disclosure of information about facts that have a significant impact on investors' decisions.
The world's first union fee-free union will be watching to see whether some explanation, investigation, or necessary disclosure is made by the company within a few days.
And if nothing is announced, the next question becomes even simpler.
It wasn't that they "didn't disclose it,"
"Who decided that disclosure is not necessary?"
Let's check that out.