As of today (October 26, 2026): 988 questions answered, 0 unanswered
In this article, we will focus on three of the main questions from the articles published over these seven days, along with the questions that remain unanswered.
There are 988 public questions unanswered by Last Mile Inc. (90 articles). The oldest question is dated May 12, 2026, with a lag of 167 days. In the past seven days, we have published 40 new questions (3 articles).
Questions published during these 7 days
Previously, the personal injury treatment was handled by a private firm; the reason is pending investigation. Is a “third-party attorney” a hiding place for accountability?
To be released on October 21, 2026 (Read the article）
Key questions (as written in the original article)
- Why did you specify the conditions for sick leave and natural retirement before further confirming the individual?
- We request a substantiated response prepared or confirmed by the responsible attorney.
- When the sick leave was applied, what was confirmed in the applicant’s declaration and what was not confirmed by the union? Why was the current classification applied without conducting additional confirmation with the applicant?
- In the situation where the cause of the employment-related issue has not been determined, how did you consider the relationship between Article 19 and Articles 75, 76, and 84 of the Labor Standards Act, the conditions regarding natural retirement, safety measures under the Labor Contract Act, the principle of good faith, and the prohibition of abuse of rights?
- Is the response of not showing the person in charge of the investigation or the schedule while understanding the mental and physical situation of the person seeking advice appropriate as an appropriate response to harassment consultations?
There are a total of 15 questions in this article.
When will Mr. Watanabe explain the issues of document referral, fictitious sales, and concealment of occupational injuries?
Is Watanabe Seiki’s disclosure standard sharp when it moves outside the company, and disappears when it moves toward his own company?
To be released on October 19, 2026 (Read the article）
The union asked the Last Mile team of Watanabe Makoto, Matsunaga Koji, and the Board of Directors and Audit Committee for answers regarding the investigation process and disclosure decisions regarding management matters. Specifically, they asked about the progress of the document referral to prosecution and the dismissal of charges, the allegations of fictitious sales during the listing application period, the national tax inspection, the harassment complaints and the handling of occupational injuries, when and from what documents they obtained the information, what they investigated, how they determined the impact on the company and whether to disclose it. In the case of fictitious sales, they asked about the target, period, amount, the existence of the services provided, the persons responsible for directing, approving, and reflecting the documents into the records, and the decision on whether to disclose or not. In the case of fundraising, they asked about the solicitation, personnel, and the use of expenses, the investigation of compliance with the regulations, and the evaluation of the conflict of interest. Furthermore, they asked for the reporting and consultation to the audit firm and the Tokyo Stock Exchange, and for the presentation of the reasons for non-disclosure decisions, and if necessary, the establishment of an independent third-party committee.
Key questions (as written in the original article)
Mr. Watanabe Makoto, Mr. Matsunaga Hiroshi, the Board of Directors, and the Audit and Supervisory Committee to answer public questions
The Last Mile Labor Union requests answers to the following questions in order to clarify the path from the acquisition of important information about management to the decision to present it to the market.
- Regarding the filing of documents for prosecution and the subsequent dismissal of the charges, the fictitious sales during the listing application period, tax inspection, and reporting of harassment and occupational injury claims, the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee explained when and what documents they obtained for each matter. Please provide a timeline from the initial acquisition of information to the investigation and decision on disclosure.
- Regarding the alleged sales transactions, have you verified the company, period, amount, the actual existence of the services, instructions and approvals, and the inclusion in the submission documents? Who determines the impact on past financial information and the disclosure documents, and whether corrections are required?
- Regarding Watanabe et al.’s fundraising and management issues, did you examine the solicitation of employees and business partners, the company’s reputation, personnel, secretarial functions, and the use of expenses? Based on the progress leading to the dismissal of the case, how did you evaluate the company’s conflict of interest management and damage prevention?
- Have you checked the information regarding the national tax inspection and the Maibetsu Memo against your company's contract and accounting documents? How do you assess the impact on business, finance, and audit regarding guidance to executives, compensation to experts, and business dealings with the company?
- Regarding the reporting to Mr. Ito and Mr. Iijima and the handling of workers’ compensation claims, are you conducting an independent investigation from those subject to reporting? Does the Audit and Supervisory Committee have an understanding of those who decided on partial disability leave and natural retirement conditions, the grounds for their decision, and the impact on disputes, costs, and continued employment?
There are a total of 13 questions in this article.
Sanction for "natural retirement" when employees say they want to continue working; demand reinstatement of leave compensation and withdrawal of company-determined retirement conditions.
To be released on October 19, 2026 (Read the article）
Key questions (as written in the original article)
The union requests at least the following actions, based on the fact that this matter is related to business operations:
- In addition to notifying them of "no pay," please answer their questions regarding obligations such as paid leave compensation and ensure that they fulfill those obligations.
- For periods of time when an employee is unable to work due to illness and does not receive wages as a result, please verify the actual attendance and wage status and identify the days that are eligible for leave compensation. In particular, for the three days of waiting period that are not eligible for leave compensation under the Workmen’s Compensation Insurance, please have the company pay the employee an amount equivalent to 60% of the average wage. On that day, please specify the basis for calculating the average wage, the amount, the amount already paid, and the estimated date of payment.
- For the days after the fourth day of the suspension of work, please organize the relationship with the Workmen's Compensation Insurance benefits and promptly provide the necessary documents, application guidance, and proof of employer certification. If there is any part of the Labor Standards Act Article 84 that exempts the company from liability for compensation, please specifically indicate the benefits covered, the period, and the scope of exemption.
- Regarding the necessary medical treatment or the payment of medical expenses under Article 75 of the Labor Standards Act, please explain the company’s policy in light of the relationship with the workers’ compensation insurance benefits. Do not use the submission of the health insurance injury and illness benefit form as an answer to the issue of disaster compensation that the company should bear.
- Please retract or amend the notification of "natural retirement" to the person who requested to continue employment.
There are a total of 12 questions in this article.
Questions that remain unanswered (re-post)
Allegations of an arrest story fabricated by defendant Kazuki Nakano and Mr. Watanabe Makoto
To be released on July 17, 2026 (re-broadcast).Read the article）
Key questions (as written in the original article)
Questions for Makoto Watanabe and Last One Mile Inc.
- Did Mr. Watanabe or any officers or employees of Last One Mile assist defendant Nakano in departing for Cambodia, securing a place to stay in Japan, transportation, communications, funds, devices, or contacting legal counsel?
- Did Mr. Watanabe meet or communicate with Defendant Nakano after the latter's return to Japan? Please clarify the date and time, location, attendees, and agenda.
- Did Mr. Watanabe receive investigative information regarding the Kumamoto Regional Taxation Bureau, the Kagoshima District Public Prosecutors Office, and the Fukuoka High Public Prosecutors Office from Defendant Nakano or Mr. Satoshi Saito?
- Was there no intention to divert public attention away from overseas incidents and funding issues disadvantageous to Last One Mile Inc. or Mr. Watanabe by exploiting the arrest of Defendant Nakano and the press release?
- As a listed company, will you conduct an independent third-party investigation into your relationship with Defendant Nakano, the overseas damages surrounding him, and your contact with investigative agencies?
There are a total of 16 questions in this article.
The question that has been asked the longest without a response
Of the questions for which no answers or explanations have been published, there are five old articles that have not been published yet.
- Date: May 12, 2026 / [Last One Mile Labor Union] In response to requests from Director Miwa Ito and Director Kohei Ichikawa
- Date: June 14, 2026 / [Last Mile Labor Union] Official Notification Destination for Collective Bargaining
- Date of issue: June 25, 2026 / [Last One Mile Labor Union] Regarding the coercive control intervention by Representative Director Makoto Watanabe
- Date: June 27, 2026 / [Last One Mile Labor Union] Stock-Related Doubts Regarding Makoto Watanabe, Satoshi Saito, and Kakuya Nakano, and Listed Companies' Accountability
- Dated July 1, 2026 / [Last One Mile Labor Union] What does the president think about the suspected violation of the lock-up agreement by certified public accountant Satoshi Saito and the integrity of the listing process?
Last Mile Inc. has not responded to 988 public questions. When the company’s explanation is available, we will clarify its content and timing in the next article.