Resolutions for the General Meeting of Shareholders
Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders (session number: Not disclosed)Removal of Director Sanada Naoyuki (左奈田 直幸)
Removal of Director Matsuba Kiyoshi (松場 清志)
Removal of Director Sakaguchi Takehiro (坂口 岳洋)
Removal of Director Wada Hiroshi (和田 洋)
Removal of Director Tsukamoto Isao (塚本 勲)
Removal of Director Hattori Chikako (服部 千賀子)
Removal of Director Nakaoka Kazuki (仲岡 一紀)
Election of 7 directors
Shareholder Proposal
Shareholder proposals relating to the extraordinary general meeting convened by Maetoshimori (前俊守). Proposals 1 through 7 concerned the dismissal of directors, while Proposal 8 concerned the election of 7 new directors. The Board of Directors believes that the resolutions were unlawful.
A shareholder proposal is a resolution submitted by a shareholder, rather than by the company.| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Type of shareholders' meeting | Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders (session number: Not disclosed) |
| Date and time | 12 May 2026 (start time: Not disclosed) |
| Matters for resolution | Proposal No. 1: Removal of Director Sanada Naoyuki (左奈田 直幸), Proposal No. 2: Removal of Director Matsuba Kiyoshi (松場 清志), Proposal No. 3: Removal of Director Sakaguchi Takehiro (坂口 岳洋), Proposal No. 4: Removal of Director Wada Hiroshi (和田 洋), Proposal No. 5: Removal of Director Tsukamoto Isao (塚本 勲), Proposal No. 6: Removal of Director Hattori Chikako (服部 千賀子), Proposal No. 7: Removal of Director Nakaoka Kazuki (仲岡 一紀), Proposal No. 8: Election of 7 directors |
| Shareholder Proposal | Shareholder proposals relating to the extraordinary general meeting convened by Maetoshimori (前俊守). Proposals 1 through 7 concerned the dismissal of directors, while Proposal 8 concerned the election of 7 new directors. The Board of Directors believes that the resolutions were unlawful. |
| Director nominee | 7, of whom 7 are new; number of outside directors: Not disclosed |
Items this document does not state (1)
These are items the company does not state in this document. We do not leave them blank, nor fill them in from other sources or by inference.
The reasons the company gives
The company's own explanation, not something inferred from the numbers.The Company believes that Proposals 1 through 7 did not meet the quorum requirement, while Proposal 8 exceeds the number of directors stipulated in the Articles of Incorporation. Accordingly, it believes that all of the proposals violate applicable laws and regulations or the Articles of Incorporation and are therefore nonexistent or invalid.