Judgment in litigation concerning outsourcing fees and related matters with SRA
First written in FY2017-Q2. 3 of 8 entries say "Restated". Latest entry: FY2019-Q3.
The whole theme swung hardest in 2024: 3 of 25 companies on the "Worse" side.
45 other companies' latest entry also says "Restated".
- FY2019-Q3RestatedAnnual report
「SRA had filed a petition for acceptance of a final appeal against this judgment, but on 3 July 2018 the Supreme Court decided not to accept the case as a final appeal. As a result, the appellate judgment handed down by the Tokyo High Court on 13 December 2017 became final and binding.」
It was reconfirmed that the Supreme Court had decided not to accept the case as a final appeal and that the Tokyo High Court's appellate judgment had become final and binding. - FY2019-Q1AchievedAnnual report
「SRA had filed a petition for acceptance of a final appeal against this judgment, but on 3 July 2018 the Supreme Court decided not to accept the case as a final appeal. As a result, the appellate judgment handed down by the Tokyo High Court on 13 December 2017 became final and binding.」
The Supreme Court decided not to accept the case as a final appeal, and the Tokyo High Court's appellate judgment became final and binding. - FY2018-Q3Petition for acceptance of final appeal following appellate judgmentAnnual report
「SRA challenged the judgment and filed an appeal on 8 November 2016 on the grounds that the court had erred in its findings of fact. The company filed an appeal on 11 November 2016 concerning the portions of the judgment that partially upheld SRA's claims and partially dismissed the company's claims. On 13 December 2017, however, the Tokyo High Court handed down a judgment largely upholding the company's claims, substantially in line with the first-instance judgment. The company has been notified that SRA filed a petition for acceptance of a final appeal against this judgment. Even if the Supreme Court accepts the case, the company will continue to respond so that its claims are upheld, as in the appellate judgment.」
The Tokyo High Court handed down a judgment largely upholding the company's claims, substantially in line with the first-instance judgment. Meanwhile, the company received notice that SRA had filed a petition for acceptance of a final appeal, marking a new development in the dispute. - FY2018-Q2RestatedAnnual report
「SRA challenged the judgment and filed an appeal on 8 November 2016 on the grounds that the court had erred in its findings of fact. On 11 November 2016, the company filed an appeal concerning the portions of the judgment that partially upheld SRA's claims and partially dismissed the company's claims, and the matter remains pending.」
It was reconfirmed that the litigation with SRA remains pending after both parties filed appeals. - FY2018-Q1RestatedAnnual report
「SRA challenged the judgment and filed an appeal on 8 November 2016 on the grounds that the court had erred in its findings of fact. On 11 November 2016, the company filed an appeal concerning the portions of the judgment that partially upheld SRA's claims and partially dismissed the company's claims, and the matter remains pending.」
It was reconfirmed that the litigation with SRA remains pending after both parties filed appeals. - FY2017Recognition of Litigation-Related ExpensesAnnual report
「Litigation-related expenses 51」
Expenses of ¥51 million believed to be related to the litigation with SRA were recorded as an extraordinary loss, but the full-year report contains no new explanation of the status of the dispute following the appeals. - FY2017-Q3Dispute continues following appeals by both partiesAnnual report
「SRA challenged the judgment and filed an appeal on 8 November 2016 on the grounds that the court had erred in its findings of fact. The company filed an appeal on 11 November 2016 concerning the portions of the judgment that partially upheld SRA's claims and partially dismissed the company's claims.」
In the litigation with SRA, both SRA and the company filed appeals after the judgment previously described, and the dispute remains ongoing. - FY2017-Q2First statedAnnual report
「On 31 October 2016, the Tokyo District Court handed down a judgment largely upholding the company's claims. On 1 November 2016, the Tokyo District Court also issued an order for civil rehabilitation of the counterparty.」
The company disclosed that the Tokyo District Court largely upheld its claims in the litigation with SRA concerning unpaid outsourcing fees and related matters, and that a civil rehabilitation order had been issued for the counterparty.