This document has been translated from the Japanese original for reference purposes only. In the event of any discrepancy
between this translated document and the Japanese original, the original shall prevail. The Company assumes noresponsibility for this translation or for direct, indirect or any other forms of damages arising from the translation.

June 7, 2017
To whom it may concern:
Company Name:
Name of Representative:(Securities Code:Contact Information:

Kuroda Electric Co., Ltd.
Koichi Hosokawa, President
7517 First Section of the Tokyo Stock
Exchange
Operating Officer, Business Planning Office,Business Planning Division
Katsuhiro Sasano(+81)3-5764-5500

Background of how the Company’s Board of Directors formulated its opinions against Shareholder’s Proposal
Kuroda Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “the Company”) had received a shareholder’s proposal
from a large shareholder of the Company, Reno, Inc. (of which the head office is located in Shibuya-ku, Tokyo andPresident and Representative Director is Hironao Fukushima; hereinafter referred to as “the Requesting Shareholder”)
for the 82nd ordinary general meeting of shareholders scheduled to be held on June 29, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as“the General Meeting”), and the Company resolved upon objection to the proposal at the meeting of the Board of
Directors held on May 23, 2017.
Details of the reasons why the Board of Directors of the Company objected the proposal are stated in “Noticeof Opinions of the Company’s Board of Directors on Shareholder’s Proposal” dated May 29, 2017. The Company
made judgement that it is important to provide shareholders with information related to the details of events anddialogues between the Requesting Shareholder and the Company in connection with holding the General Meeting.
Therefore, the details shall be shown as follows:
The Company hereby sincerely asks shareholders to make considerable judgement on exercising voting rights
at the General Meeting upon understanding information stated below.
PARTICULARS
1.

Background of how the Shareholder’s Proposal formulated(1) About the Requesting Shareholder
The Requesting Shareholder is “Reno, Inc.” Reno, Inc. is a shareholder of the Company and submitted
Large-Volume Holdings Reports under five joint names as of March 29, 2017. According to such reports
in the past, the Requesting Shareholder belongs to the same group as “C&I Holdings Co., Ltd.” which
requested to convene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders of the Company in 2015. Although
the names of the joint holders have changed several times, it is apparent that the persons substantially1control the group are Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami residing in Republic of Singapore (who was rendered guilty
judgement in 2011 against violation of the Securities and Exchange Law committed by insider-trading oflisted shares (Note 1)) and Ms. Aya Nomura (formerly Ms. Aya Murakami) who is a relative in the first
degree of Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami. In fact, in the meeting held on April 21, 2017 upon a request of theRequesting Shareholder, Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami, claiming that he is a large shareholder of Office Support
Corporation which is one of the joint holders of the Requesting Shareholder (Note 2), also attended themeeting in addition to Mr. Hironao Fukushima who is a representative of Reno, Inc. and the President andRepresentative Executive Officer of the Company. In the meeting, Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami madestatements repeatedly as if he drafted the shareholder’s proposal and were a representative of theRequesting Shareholder, and such statements and actions of Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami practicallydemonstrated the circumstances where he substantially controls the group including the Requesting
Shareholder.
(Note 1) On June 6, 2011, a judgement of the Tokyo High Court finally and conclusively determined
upon dismissal of re-appeal by the Supreme Court ordering two year penal servitude, with three year
suspension of execution of penalties, with a fine of 3 million yen, and additional charge of approximately
1,149 million yen.
(Note 2) Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami is a relative of Ms. Aya Nomura (formerly Ms. Aya Murakami) who is a
representative director of “C&I Holdings Co., Ltd.” at the time when C&I Holdings Co., Ltd. requested toconvene an extraordinary general meeting of shareholders of the Company in 2015 and one of the joint
holders on a Large-Volume Holdings Report submitted by Reno, Inc. dated March 29, 2017. In addition,
he explained to the Company that he is a large shareholder of Office Support Corporation which jointly
holds shares of the Company.
In the light of the contents of the meeting on April 21, 2017 with Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami, theCompany believes, for its accountability to general minority shareholders and all other stakeholders, that itis necessary to clarify the actual state of the Requesting Shareholder and the joint holders.
Information stated in Appendix 1 is what the Company confirmed based on the Large-Volume
Holdings Reports and change-of-status reports filed by the Requesting Shareholder. In detail, we do notknow what Reno, Inc. is and what Office Support Corporation holding jointly shares of the Company is.
Furthermore, as we concern about the purpose of holding shares and the source of funds and the like of theindividual joint shareholder who quickly purchased shares of the Company by margin trading, werequested the representative of the Requesting Shareholder to provide the Company with information.
Such request includes the request for provision of information with respect to three juridical persons whichwere joint holders with the Requesting Shareholder in the past (indicating C&I Holdings Co., Ltd.,
Minami Aoyama Fudosan Co., Ltd. and City Index Maiko Co., Ltd.)(2) First Request from the Requesting Shareholder – Receipt of document entitled “Correspondence” dated
March 29, 2017
The Company has made efforts to disclose sufficient information to all shareholders including theRequesting Shareholder and strengthen IR activities to “facilitate constructive dialogues” as stated in thecorporate governance code on a regular basis so that the Company has tried to sufficiently communicate2with the Requesting Shareholder. When the Requesting Shareholder made questions on the contents of thequarterly report filed by the Company, the Company sincerely explained the business circumstances andthe like as well as the direction the Company pursues. The Company recognized the Requesting
Shareholder has understood the targeted direction and management policy through such “constructive
dialogues with shareholders”. However, the Company suddenly received the following requests in the
document entitled “Correspondence” dated March 29, 2017.
【Requested items stated in the document entitled “Correspondence” dated March 29, 2017】(ⅰ) In order for the Company to expand the sales revenue to levels comparable to overseas electronic
components trading companies, which are called Mega-Distributors, and to pursue growth throughthe use of economy of scale and management resources, if the Requesting Shareholder makes a
proposal of management integration (business merger) with a company expected to generate synergy
through the management integration (business merger), the Company should sincerely examine.
(ⅱ) For the purpose of executing management integration (business merger) steadily with a company
proposed by the Requesting Shareholder, the Requesting Shareholder has intention to recommend a
few candidates for Outside Directors and the Company should examine to add them as candidates for
Outside Directors as a form of Company’s proposal.
While the Company has intention to sincerely examine proposals made by shareholders, we believethat increasing sustainable corporate value facilitates the enhancement of common interest of allshareholders including large shareholders. Therefore, the Requesting Shareholder’s sudden and unilateralrequests are inharmonious with the Company. If the requests “electing candidates for Outside Directors
for the purpose of executing management integration (business merger) steadily” are “the Requesting
Shareholder’s own intention”, i.e., if the proposal were for the purpose of materializing the special
intention of the specific large shareholder, the acceptance thereof would provide the large shareholder
with arbitrary opportunity so that other general minority shareholders’ interests would be threatened to be
substantially damaged.
Therefore, the Company determined that we have to confirm the true intention of the Requesting
Shareholder first and foremost, and made responses on April 7, 2017 to the Requesting Shareholder
stating (ⅰ) the Company shall sincerely examine whether or not the Requesting Shareholder’s request
facilitates the enhancement of corporate value of the Company; and (ⅱ) the Company has made efforts tohave constructive dialogues with shareholders and investors to materialize sustainable development, andvarious opinions obtained through such dialogues shall be referred to for business management, and theCompany asks the true intention of the Requesting Shareholder.
(3) List of Candidates for Outside Directors – Receipt of document entitled “List of Candidates for Outside
Directors” dated April 11, 2017 and Thereafter
Thereafter, the Requesting Shareholder only submitted the document entitled “List of Candidates for
Outside Directors” (hereinafter, referred to as “the List”) dated April 11, 2017 not in the form ofexecution of shareholder’s proposal based on the Companies Act. The List states six individuals in total
and it included two individuals and three individuals shown in Appendix 2 hereto, other than Mr. Shin3

Yasunobe (hereinafter, referred to as “Mr. Yasunobe”), a candidate for Outside Director the Requesting
Shareholder proposed in the form of the shareholder’s proposal for the General Meeting .
It has been confirmed that two candidates for Outside Directors (Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami and Mr.
Hironao Fukushima) described on the List are identical to candidates for Outside Directors proposed by
C&I Holdings Co., Ltd.at the Extraordinary General Meeting of Shareholders of the Company on August21, 2015 which was held upon a request from C&I Holdings Co., Ltd. to convene the extraordinary
general meeting of shareholders (hereinafter referred to as “the 2015 Extraordinary General Meeting”).
At the 2015 Extraordinary General Meeting, the Board of Directors of the Company expressed
objection statement against the shareholder’s proposal to elect four Outside Directors including these two
individuals submitted by C&I Holdings Co., Ltd. for the reason that it might only represent the specificshareholder’s interest so that it might threaten to substantially damage long-term common interest ofshareholders of the Company and distort the appropriate corporate governance of the Company and thelike. At that time, the objection statement was well accepted by shareholders so as to negate theshareholder’s proposal to elect four Outside Directors including aforesaid two individuals.
It was not clear whether or not four Outside Directors other than Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami and Mr.
Hironao Fukushima on the List have submitted acceptance of assumption of offices. In addition, while “alawyer specialized in M&A” was also nominated, any specific name was disclosed and there was only astatement that “a lawyer specialized in M&A would be selected for the purpose of promoting the M&A
strategy hereafter”. From this standpoint, it was presumed that the Requesting Shareholder tentatively
intended to select “a person promoting the management integration (business merger)” in compliancewith the Requesting Shareholder’s intension. Furthermore, when Mr. Hironao Fukushima, arepresentative of the Requesting Shareholder, explained to the Company a purport of the List, he spoke inthe careless way so that it became questionable how seriously and sincerely the List has been prepared.
Given such circumstances, the Company became to believe the Requesting Shareholder’s proposing
stance of the List is substantially questionable.
Furthermore, for a while, the Requesting Shareholder strongly repeated statement that he would be
able to affect substantially the management system of the Company on the assumption that its
shareholding ratio has reached to a certain level. The Requesting Shareholder also continued demanding
to submit the candidates for Outside Directors described in the List as the Company’s proposal to theGeneral Meeting.
On the basis of the Requesting Shareholder’s stances, the Company confirmed it necessary to examine
the Requesting Shareholder’s requests in a specifically careful manner and repeated discussions inside,
because if the requests were accepted, it would not be harmonious with the customary idea of theCompany that sustainable increase of corporate value only facilitates enhancement of common interest of
all shareholders including large shareholders, and might generate a significant adverse effect on general
minority shareholders of the Company.
(4) Repeated Request for the Company’s proposal and Meeting on April 21, 2017 with Mr. Yoshiaki
Murakami
Thereafter, the Requesting Shareholder, almost every day and sometimes multiple times a day,inquired by e-mails and telephones the result and development of examination on whether or not the4Requesting Shareholder’s proposal on the candidates for Outside Directors converted to the Company’s
proposal for the General Meeting.
At the meeting on April 21, 2017 which Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami attended, Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami
stressed “the need for pushing ahead management integration (business merger)” to realize “the expansionof the sales revenue” or “the pursuit of economy of scale”, and made remarks repeatedly as if only the
Requesting Shareholder and the joint holders could make final decision on important matters and eventsof management judgement affecting the future direction of the Company. At the meeting, the Requesting
Shareholder and Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami again requested that “the Company should accept theRequesting Shareholder’s proposal and add such candidates for Outside Directors proposed by theCompany”. Furthermore, Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami kept speaking, and repeatedly interrupted theCompany’s explanations on the management policy for the future and responses to the Requesting
Shareholder, and sometimes showed the cohesive attitude against the management of the Company who
attended at the meeting.
The Company recognizes that such manner of contact and their stance of dialogue with the Company
were coercive in excess of normal dialogues and problematic from the viewpoint of standard dialogue
truly required in the capital market.
Furthermore, on April 28, 2017, a meeting was held between the Requesting Shareholder, Ms. Aya
Nomura (formerly Ms. Aya Murakami) jointly holding the Company’s share, and the Company. The
Requesting Shareholder again emphasized “ the need for pushing ahead management integration(business merger)” to realize “the expansion of the sales revenue” or “the pursuit of economy of scale”
The Company examined and considered various choices in response to changes in recent customers’
need and diversification as represented in the “New Medium-term Management Plan” announced on May
26, 2017; the Company believes it is prerequisite to increase Operating Profit by increasing Operating
Profit Margin focusing on the improvement of the existing business model and creation of new businessfor next three years. Therefore, it can be said that there is a significant difference in the attitude toward thebusiness between the Requesting Shareholder and the Company, and the Company made a careful
decision to such requests and has repeatedly explained the Requesting Shareholder that such requests arequite different from the direction the Company aims.
Upon understanding the current business environment and management duties clearly, the Company
demonstrated the future direction of the Company with the concrete size of business upon examination ofenhancement of corporate value. If Outside Directors entrusted by a large shareholder who intend topromote the completely different direction of the Company act beyond supervisory function, it might
result in not discharging the management policy and the conflict of interest to general minority
shareholders so that the Company’s sustainable enhancement of corporate value might be impaired.
Through meetings over several times, on May 2, 2017 the Requesting Shareholder finally submitted a“Shareholder’s Proposal”, and proposed Mr. Yasunobe as a candidate for Outside Director in the form ofshareholder’s proposal.
Nevertheless, the Requesting Shareholder, almost every day following the aforesaid date, asked theCompany to present a proposal to the General Meeting stating “Mr. Yasunobe should be a candidate for
Outside Director proposed by the Company”. The above request continued until the date on which theCompany determined objection to the shareholder’s proposal.

5(5) Mr. Yasunobe, Candidate for Outside Director proposed by the Requesting Shareholder
As stated above, the Company sincerely continued dialogues with the Requesting Shareholder prior to,
and after, the shareholder’s proposal based on the Companies Act. In line therefor, the Company’s
Nominating Committee meetings was held four times during the period from April 21, 2017 to May 23,
2017. The Board of Directors of the Company was held plural times and seriously discussed andexamined the necessity and appropriateness with respect to having Mr. Yasunobe to be a candidate for
Outside Director of the Company on the basis of discussions among the Nominating Committee meetings.
Upon such examinations and discussions, the Company reviewed the monitoring system by Outside
Directors of the Company and considered the necessity to increase the number of Outside Director. The
information relating to the carrier and business experience, etc. of Mr. Yasunobe was collected and his
intension was confirmed through a meeting with Mr. Yasunobe.
A part of items and events obtained and confirmed in the course of due diligence includes following
facts disclosed in the documents of WOODLAND Co. Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “WOODLAND”)
which was a listed company and of which Mr. Yasunobe assumed office as a Representative Director(ⅰ) As at March 31, 2006, so called “Murakami Fund” where Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami served as arepresentative was a large shareholder holding 33.99% of shares of WOODLAND of which
Mr. Yasunobe was the Representative Director since April 2003 (according to the Securities
Report for the 31st Fiscal Year of WOODLAND)(ⅱ) As at March 31, 2006, Mr. Yasunobe held 6.42% of shares and together with Murakami Fund,held more than 40% of shares of WOODLAND.
(ⅲ) During Mr. Yasunobe’s service as a Representative Director of WOODLAND, WOODLAND
acquired from another shareholder 28.30% of shares of Associant Technology Inc.
(hereinafter referred to as “Associant Technology”) (Note 3) of which 23.18% shares were
held by Murakami Fund, and had Associant Technology an affiliate company as at March
31, 2005.
(ⅳ) After approximately half a year on September 22, 2005, WOODLAND determined to acquire
100% of shares of Associant Technology by way of share exchange so that WOODLAND
executed a M&A transaction targeting Associant Technology which Murakami Fundinvested in. (As a result, shares of WOODLAND of which Representative Director was Mr.
Yasunobe were delivered to Murakami Fund for consideration of the M&A transaction.)(Note 3) Associant Technology was delisted due to accounting issue on January 2, 2005. It is
confirmed that Murakami Fund purchased a large number of shares, more than 23 %, of Associant
Technology in stock markets during a very short period (approximately one and a half month) justafter the publication of information relating the accounting issue of Associant Technology to the dateof delisting (reference to be made to a Large-Volume Holdings Report dated August 8, 2006 of
MAC Asset Management, its reporting obligation arose December 30, 2004).
The conditions of each of WOODLAND and Associant Technology before share exchange arereferred to the press release dated September 22, 2005 submitted by WOODLAND (“Notice of
100% owned subsidiary by way of share exchange”). On the basis of the press release, it was

6confirmed that Murakami Fund was a shareholder holding 17.50% of shares of WOODLAND ofwhich Mr. Yasunobe was Representative Director and 23.18% of shares of Associant Technology.
Furthermore, according to the Securities Report for the 31st Fiscal Year of WOODLAND, it was
confirmed that Murakami Fund held 33.99% of shares of WOODLAND of which Mr. Yasunobe was
Representative Director as at March 31, 2006.
From the aforementioned fact obtained and confirmed through the investigation of the Company, theCompany believes that Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami related to the Requesting Shareholder was deemed tohave certain influence on business execution by Mr. Yasunobe in the management of WOODLAND ofwhich Mr. Yasunobe was Representative Director. Furthermore, it is strongly assumed that Mr. Yasunobe
and Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami had very tight relationship in connection with the M&A transaction
involving the companies related to Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami such as the said buyout of Associant
Technology.
Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and causes, we can substantially presume thebackground and reasons why Mr. Yasunobe was designated a candidate for Outside Director by the
Requesting Shareholder; it is deemed that the Requesting Shareholder considered Mr. Yasunobe was an
appropriate person as he could actually represent the Requesting Shareholder’s interest as a candidate for
Outside Director for the purpose of executing management integration (business merger) steadily with acompany proposed by the Requesting Shareholder as proposed in the requesting document dated March
29, 2017 by the Requesting Shareholder.
2.

Judgement of the Board of Directors and the Nominating Committee of the Company and Evaluation of theRequesting Shareholder’s Proposal
In line with the above events and dialogues, the Company repeated discussions with respect toappropriateness on the Requesting Shareholder’s proposal at the Board of Directors and the Nominating
Committee and conducted a meeting with Mr. Yasunobe so that the Company sincerely continued
examinations of the details of the Requesting Shareholder’s proposal.
Upon taking into account of the examination results of the Nominating Committee, the Board of Directorsof the Company reached the conclusion that the Company objected to the shareholder’s proposal made by the
Requesting Shareholder for the reason that the additional election of Mr. Yasunobe nominated by the
Requesting Shareholder as a candidate for Outside Director of the Company will not bring merits to theshareholders of the Company as stated in the “Notice of Opinions of the Company’s Board of Directors on
Shareholder’s Proposal” dated May 29, 2017.
One of the reasons for objection lies in the Requesting Shareholder’s primary proposal, that is, “the needfor pushing ahead management integration (business merger)”. It will cause the possibility that situation wherean Outside Director is strongly affected by a specific shareholder (including shareholders who jointly holds theshare of the Company) would continue and thus it is determined the risk is extremely high where the interest ofgeneral minority shareholders cannot be properly secured while it is a fundamental essence of the corporate
governance.
If the request “electing a candidate for Outside Director for the purpose of executing management
integration (business merger) steadily” is “the Requesting Shareholder’s own intention”, i.e., if the proposal
were for the purpose of materializing the special intention of the specific large shareholder, the acceptance7

thereof would provide the Requesting Shareholder of which the leader is Mr. Yoshiaki Murakami and its groupwith arbitrary opportunity so that other general minority shareholders’ interests would be threatened to be
substantially damaged.
-END-

Appendix 1(Table 1) Summary of Your Group’s Members and Holding Ratios of Share Certificates, Etc., Stated on Large-Volume
Holdings Reports
Names of
Submitter andJoint Holders

Reno, Inc.

Aya Nomura
Fuminori
Nakashima
Toshihide Suzuki
Office Support
Corporation

Nature of Business(In cases of juridical persons)Representative

1. Holding, management, andinvestment of securities.
2. Consulting regarding corporate
management and finance.
3. Any business incidental to each of
the above items.
Individual
Individual

Hironao
Fukushima

Individual
1. Investment.
2. Investment, holding, rental,
management, and purchase and saleof real estate, etc.
3. Management consulting.
4. Any business incidental to each of
the above items.

Tatsuya Ikeda

Total

Number of
Share
Certificates,
Etc., Held
(Total number)
3,484,900

Holding
Ratio

3,750,000
3,562,400

9.51%
9.03%

100,000
2,946,100

0.25%
7.47%

13,843,400

35.09%

8.83%(Table 2) Breakdown of Your Group’s Recent Acquisition Funds Stated on Large-Volume Holdings Reports

Names of Submitterand Joint Holders
Reno, Inc.
Aya Nomura
Fuminori Nakashima
Toshihide Suzuki
Office Support
Corporation
Total

Number of Share
Certificates, Etc.,
Held(Total number)
3,484,900
3,750,000
3,562,400
100,000
2,946,100
13,843,400

Holding
Ratio

Own Funds(1,000 yen)

Borrowed
Funds(1,000 yen)

Other Funds(1,000 yen)

8.83%
9.51%
9.03%
0.25%
7.47%

8,214,266
61,76255,55206,601,559

0
6,514,025
0
0
0

0
0
8,074,223
189,425035.09%

14,933,139

6,514,025

8,263,648

8

(Table 3) Past Joint Holders and Holding Ratios (Maximum Values)
Names of
Submitter
and Joint
Holders
C&I
Holdings
Co., Ltd.

Yoshiaki
Murakami
MinamiAoyamaFudosanCo., Ltd.

Nature of Business(In cases of juridical persons)
1. Collection and provisionof information regarding
businesses, products, andtechnologies.
2. Publication of magazinesand other printed matter.
3. Planning, holding, andadministration ofworkshops and seminars.
4. Planning, holding, andadministration of
informal gatherings withdomestic and foreigncompanies, exhibitions,etc.
5. Agency recruitment andguidance of franchisees.
6. Management consulting.
7. Acquisition and holdingof securities.
8. Investment, holding,rental, management, andpurchase and sale of realestate, etc.
9. Money lending.
10. Any business incidental
to each of the above
items.

5.55%

Submission
Date of
Pertinent
Holdings
ReportMay 20, 2016

Holding
Ratio

Tatsuya Ikeda

Individual

3,673,600

9.31%

Nov. 16, 2015

1.

1,076,100

2.73%

Nov. 9, 2016

2.
3.
4.

City Index
Maiko Co.,
Ltd.

Representative

Number of
Share
Certificates,
Etc., Held
(Total number)
2,187,700

1.
2.

3.

Investment, holding,rental, management, andpurchase and sale of realestate, etc.
Investment.
Management consulting.
Any business incidental
to each of the above
items.
Investment.
Purchase and sale, rental,
exchange, brokerage,
management, and holdingof real estate.
Real estate consulting.

Tatsuya Ikeda

2,271,400
Tatsuya Ikeda

9

5.95%

Mar. 9, 2015

4. Investment, management,purchase and sale, andholding of real estate andsecurities, and customer
services concerning
financial asset
management.
5. Provision of real estate
information.
6. Video content planningand production.
7. Video content consulting.
8. Personnel management
regarding video content.
9. Any business incidental
to each of the above
items.
(Table 4) State of Large-Volume Holdings by Mr. Fuminori Nakashima since September 2016

Oct. 7, 2016
Nov. 9, 2016
Nov. 25, 2016
Dec. 9, 2016
Dec. 22, 2016

Number of Share
Certificates, Etc.,
Held(Total number)
1,119,000
1,521,700
1,946,200
2,351,300
925,100

Jan. 13, 2017
Feb. 3, 2017
Feb. 22, 2017
Mar. 7, 2017
Mar. 16, 2017
Mar. 29, 2017

1,347,500
1,765,700
2,167,800
2,606,400
3,085,800
3,562,400

Holdings Report
Submission Date

Holding Ratio
2.84%
3.86%
4.93%
5.96%
2.35%

Notes

Transferred to
Office Support
Corporation

3.42%
4.48%
5.50%
6.61%
7.82%
9.03%

(Table 5) Ms. Aya Nomura: Breakdown of Recent Acquisition Funds(Ratio)Own Funds (1,000 yen)
Borrowed Funds (1,000 yen)
Other Funds (1,000 yen)
Acquisition Funds Total(1,000 yen)

61,762
6,514,025
06,575,787

0.94%
99.06%

10

(Table 6) Mr. Fuminori Nakashima: Breakdown of Recent Acquisition Funds(Ratio)Own Funds (1,000 yen)
Borrowed Funds (1,000 yen)
Other Funds (1,000 yen)
Breakdown of the Above
Acquisition Funds Total(1,000 yen)

55,55208,074,223
Margin trading: Matsui Securities 6,926,458
Okasan Online Securities 1,147,764
8,129,775

0.68%
99.32%(Table 7) Mr. Toshihide Suzuki: Breakdown of Recent Acquisition Funds(Ratio)Own Funds (1,000 yen)
Borrowed Funds (1,000 yen)
Other Funds (1,000 yen)
Breakdown of the Above
Acquisition Funds Total(1,000 yen)

00
189,425
Margin trading: H.S. Securities 189,425
189,425

100%

Appendix 2(ⅰ) Yoshiaki Murakami
Born in 1959
1983 Joined the Ministry of International Trade and Industry(currently the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry)
1999 Established M&A Consulting(ⅱ) Hironao Fukushima
Born in 1959
1952 Joined ORIX Corporation
2008 Deputy Head, Risk Management Headquarters of ORIX Corporation2013 Joined Reno, Inc. (to present)(ⅲ) A lawyer specialized in M&A
A lawyer specialized in M&A would be selected for the purpose of promoting the M&A strategy hereafter.

11