Resolutions for the General Meeting of Shareholders
Annual (9th Annual General Meeting of Shareholders)(Shareholder Proposal): Election of 2 Outside Directors
(Shareholder Proposal): Appropriation of Surplus
(Shareholder Proposal): Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to Establish a Corporate Value Enhancement Committee
The proposing shareholder is Triple Four Investment Business Partnership. It proposed the election of 2 outside directors, an appropriation of surplus of ¥100 per share, and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to establish a Corporate Value Enhancement Committee. The Board of Directors opposed all of the proposals.
A shareholder proposal is a resolution submitted by a shareholder, rather than by the company.| Item | Details |
|---|---|
| Type of shareholders' meeting | Annual (9th Annual General Meeting of Shareholders) |
| Matters for resolution | Proposal No. 3 (Shareholder Proposal): Election of 2 Outside Directors, Proposal No. 4 (Shareholder Proposal): Appropriation of Surplus, Proposal No. 5 (Shareholder Proposal): Amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to Establish a Corporate Value Enhancement Committee |
| Shareholder Proposal | The proposing shareholder is Triple Four Investment Business Partnership. It proposed the election of 2 outside directors, an appropriation of surplus of ¥100 per share, and an amendment to the Articles of Incorporation to establish a Corporate Value Enhancement Committee. The Board of Directors opposed all of the proposals. |
| Director nominee | 2 (breakdown between new and outside: Not disclosed) |
Items this document does not state (2)
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 reasons given were doubts about the independence of the outside director candidates and duplication of their skills with those of the existing Board of Directors; the dividend proposal did not sufficiently consider growth investment, financial soundness and management stability; and the committee proposal could impede agile and flexible governance and unnecessarily constrain the role of the Board of Directors.