{"id":1372,"date":"2026-09-27T06:33:27","date_gmt":"2026-09-26T21:33:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/?p=1372"},"modified":"2026-09-25T06:43:59","modified_gmt":"2026-09-24T21:43:59","slug":"%e3%80%90%e3%83%a9%e3%82%b9%e3%83%88%e3%83%af%e3%83%b3%e3%83%9e%e3%82%a4%e3%83%ab%e5%8a%b4%e5%83%8d%e7%b5%84%e5%90%88%e3%80%91%e3%82%aa%e3%83%aa%e3%83%b3%e3%83%91%e3%82%b9%e3%81%af%e9%81%8e%e5%8e%bb","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/archives\/1372","title":{"rendered":"[Last-mile Workers Union] Olympus has corrected past documents. Did Mr. Watanabe check its own listed documents?"},"content":{"rendered":"

If an ex-officer claims to have been involved in a significant problem during their tenure, the investigation should not be limited to the person\u2019s current position. It is also necessary to verify the consistency between the company\u2019s operations at the time the person was involved and the explanation the company provided to the market.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From the senior executives of Last One Mile, it has been reported that Mr. Watanabe has given a detailed explanation regarding the criminal charges against former officers and their suitability as officers, as well as issues related to documents. If you are strict with other people's documents, I would like you to apply the same scrutiny to your own documents. The mere fact of stepping down does not excuse this review.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What Olympus did was a response that goes back to its past explanations.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

OlympusOfficial report on restoring confidence in 2012<\/a>The report records the progress made in addressing the issue of deferring the recognition of losses, including the investigation by a third-party committee, the correction of the securities report of December 14, 2011, and the investigation of the responsibilities of directors and audit & supervisory board members.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The key point of comparison is not the type or amount of fraud. The point is that when new facts become known about past transactions, the company itself conducts an audit of its past explanations and verifies any necessary corrections and accountability. Simply stating that \u201cthe problem was with the person in charge at the time\u201d does not ensure the accuracy of the documents currently available to investors.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The significance that Watanabe mentions should be reflected in the company's scope of verification.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to information from management, Watanabe is explaining the actions of former executives while in office and the information contained in the indictment by linking them together. What the company should first confirm are the actions, timing, positions, and grounds for which it is necessary to provide such explanation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If that action relates to the company\u2019s transactions or listing practices, it is necessary to examine how the company understood the situation at the time and what it explained to the reviewing parties and investors. Please let the company itself sort out whether this is simply a matter of a personal name appearing in the documents or a concrete fact that affects the company\u2019s accounting or supervisory system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Furthermore, legal issues such as board members\u2019 disqualification, the issue of externality and independence, and the evaluation of managerial competence all require specific clarification of the underlying reasons. Simply listing the major terms does not provide an explanation for why a particular company document should be corrected.<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/svg>\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t[Last-Mile Labor Union] If you are talking about \"tax evasion and fraud cases during tenure,\" when will you disclose them?<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\n

What was explained at the listing review is not just a matter for former officers alone.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The union is also raising questions regarding Watanabe\u2019s actual duties and the explanation given during the listing review. It is reported that when asked about his treatment as an outside director, he instructed Koki Ichikawa and Ryoichi Saito to explain that he had been an ad-hoc director from the beginning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In this regard, too, what is needed is not simply comparing the statements of the relevant parties; rather, it is necessary to compare the then-selected documents, the authority to perform duties, the actual instructions for operations, and the responses to the review. If we are to question the accuracy of the former officer\u2019s explanation, the same verification is required for the explanation involving Mr. Watanabe himself.<\/p>\n\n\n

\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/svg>\t\t\t\t<\/span>\n\t\t\t\t[Last Mile Labor Union] Questioning Makoto Watanabe's Outside Directorship: \"Claim he was a part-time worker and keep lying\"<\/span>\n\t\t\t<\/a>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\n\n

In the verification, please separate the facts that you already knew at the time from the information obtained later. If you knew it at the time, the explanation at the time will be questioned; if you learned it later, the current review will be questioned. In either case, the question remains as to what the current management has confirmed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Open questions to the Board of Directors and the Audit and Supervisory Committee<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
    \n
  1. Regarding the actions of the former officer that Watanabe has raised as a problem, did you identify which duties, transactions, or submission documents of the company are related to them?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Of the documents such as the application for listing, responses to the review, securities report, and internal control report, which documents did you examine and on what basis did you determine whether corrections or additional explanations were necessary?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Are you also confirming the details of Watanabe\u2019s own job situation and his explanation of the listing review in the same survey? If he is not included in the sample, what is the reason?<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Do you have people who create and approve the explanations at that time, as well as those who verify them from an independent standpoint? Can you show the explanations to the accounting auditor and the Tokyo Stock Exchange?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    The union requests the verification and correction of each document.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
      \n
    1. For each fact that you wish to address, organize the relevant company documents, the content of the documents, and the original materials supporting the facts, and then verify the consistency between the facts and the explanations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Please establish a system where the Audit and Supervisory Committee can independently make decisions, without making the individuals involved in the past explanations the sole responsible party for verifying those explanations.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. If corrections or additional explanations are needed, proceed in accordance with the appropriate procedures; if deemed unnecessary, please explain the scope of the verification and the basis for the decision.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      Even if you update your personnel records, the previous explanation will not be updated.<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

      What can be seen from Olympus\u2019 response is that to address past management issues, the current company needs to review its own documents. Even in the final mile, I would like to see the former officer\u2019s name mentioned, as well as an indication of which explanations were reviewed by the company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Anyone involved in preparing for an IPO or company documentation should keep a record of the history of draft, revision, and approval of documents they have in their possession in a lawful manner. Before criticizing someone else\u2019s documents, why not take a look at your own submitted documents? Even if someone\u2019s name is removed from the personnel roster, that person\u2019s involvement in the explanation process does not mean the entire document is wiped clean.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      Last Mile Labor Union Home Page<\/span><\/a><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

      \u5143\u5f79\u54e1\u304c\u5728\u4efb\u4e2d\u306b\u91cd\u5927\u306a\u554f\u984c\u3078\u95a2\u4e0e\u3057\u3066\u3044\u305f\u3068\u4e3b\u5f35\u3059\u308b\u306e\u3067\u3042\u308c\u3070\u3001\u8abf\u3079\u308b\u5bfe\u8c61\u306f\u3001\u305d\u306e\u4eba\u7269\u306e\u73fe\u5728\u306e\u80a9\u66f8\u3060\u3051\u3067\u306f\u3042\u308a\u307e […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"swell_btn_cv_data":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1372","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-lastonemileunion"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1372","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1372"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1372\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1384,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1372\/revisions\/1384"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1372"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1372"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/minnanounion.info\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1372"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}