Nidec: shareholder claims, regulatory inquiries and concluded disputes

analysisNidec announced that an individual shareholder filed Kyoto District Court case 2026 (wa) No. 1749 on 9 September 2026 against former directors Shigenobu Nagamori and Hiroshi Kobe. The claimant seeks ¥28,730,558,300 plus late charges for the company, alleging specified 2022–2023 buybacks and a December 2022 dividend exceeded distributable amounts. The amount is the claimant’s demand, not a damages award. The retained company notice establishes the proceeding and allegation; it supplies no judgment on liability. Nidec said it did not expect this action against former directors personally to affect its business performance and would consider its response in light of the responsibility committee’s work. ¹

analysisVerybest Law Offices announced a separate Tokyo District Court action on 9 September 2026 for 28 shareholders seeking ¥66,150,966 from Nidec for alleged share-price losses associated with accounting problems. The firm represents the shareholders, not Nidec. Its notice explicitly distinguishes this securities claim for investors’ own losses from a derivative suit for the company. It is a party’s filing announcement, not a judgment or independent assessment of the claimed loss. ²

analysisJuly and August 2026 reporting described a further demand that Nidec pursue nine current or former officers for at least ¥5 billion, naming Nagamori, Kobe, Kishida, Katayama, Yoshimoto and Seki among the targets. A demand that the company sue, and a stated plan for a later derivative suit if it refuses, do not establish that such a suit was filed. This demand is not silently identified with either of the two September actions. ^{3 4}

analysisNidec established an Executive Responsibility Investigation Committee on 13 March 2026 to examine possible legal responsibility of directors, auditors and executive officers serving from FY2020 through the first quarter of FY2025. The September annual filing says that work continued. The company said it would decide on damages claims or other legal measures after the committee’s recommendations. Establishing the committee does not establish a final legal finding against every person within its remit. ^{5 1}

analysisRetained May and June 2026 press accounts, citing sources, report a Securities and Exchange Surveillance Commission inquiry and a document-production order concerning possible false annual-report disclosures. The accounts discuss a possible recommendation for an administrative monetary penalty; one says a criminal referral could be considered if the conduct were judged serious. No issued financial penalty or filed criminal charge is established by these reports. This is separate from the Tokyo Stock Exchange’s actual listing-agreement penalty. ^{6 7 8}

analysisA 17 February 2026 Rosen Law Firm notice announced investigation of potential Nidec securities claims and preparation of a prospective class action. This is a lawyer’s solicitation and statement of intention. It does not prove a US class action was filed, a class certified, or liability determined. ⁹

analysisIn USITC investigation 337-TA-1073, Intellectual Ventures II accused Nidec Corporation and Nidec Automotive Motor Americas, among other respondents, of patent-related violations. The Nidec respondents were terminated from the investigation in 2018. The Commission ended the remaining investigation in July 2019 with no Section 337 violation because the complainant failed the domestic-industry requirement. The Commission expressly took no position on the other reviewed issues. This procedural history is not a blanket merits finding that every accused product was non-infringing, and the later decision concerned respondents remaining after Nidec’s departure. It is unrelated to the accounting investigation. ¹⁰

analysisNidec’s FY2022 annual report says it sold Secop to the ESSVP IV buyer group on 9 September 2019 as a condition of the Embraco acquisition. A sale-price dispute led to German arbitration in January 2021 and settlement in March 2023, ending that arbitration. The company had lost effective control on 12 April 2019 before the later share transfer. Settlement terms are not supplied here; some sale costs were still expected. The disclosure does not connect this commercial dispute with the later accounting misconduct. ¹¹