A former Murakami-fund vehicle builds a stake and demands dividends and buybacks (2026)

Rebuilding governance, or returning capital — which comes first

The heart of this case is that a failure of governance was priced as a distortion in the shares, and that the distortion itself became the opening for an activist. The discovery of improper accounting and the designation as a security on alert are ordinarily the sort of thing that drives investors away. But a stock left cheap while the company could not present its results still held room to be revalued on a single change of capital policy, given the value of a stable core in industrial gas and the diversified businesses around it. That a former Murakami vehicle and Oasis each took more than five percent at almost the same time can be read as the paradox that the deeper a company is in crisis, the more exposed it is to the logic of capital.

For the new management under Chitose, brought in from outside, the order of the tasks is not simple. Lifting the security-on-alert designation makes rebuilding internal controls the first priority, while shareholders pressing for higher dividends, buybacks and even a take-private demand an answer on the use of capital at the same time. Adding to returns before the trust in governance is restored puts the funding and the discipline of the rebuild in question; postponing an answer risks intensified pressure through shareholder proposals and director elections. As of this writing the company has not shown its response, and the contest puts the question — still in motion — of how a company rebuilding from a scandal should face its shareholders.