[R]egarding this case, our standpoint is based on the statement that we will promote our business activities in good faith, by conducting business activities in a transparent and fair way, adhering to laws and regulations and respecting social norms in all countries and regions, provided in the 2 of CSR Basic Philosophy, and that we are conscious of the social responsibility of corporation and act with due diligence to achieve the promoting cooperation with stakeholders and endeavoring to actively endorse a positive dialogue with them, provided in the 7 Consideration of stakeholders of “Mizuno Corporation Ethical Standards”... Based on the above policy, in 2012 responding to the request by CCC et al. in the letter of August 25, 2012 (“CCC12-1”), we have sent an inquiry by the system of open letter, which we cc to the party in case we make official inquiries to the other party from a transparency point of view, to grasp the reality... AD ST [adidas] states that “Panarub’s position was that the strike was not lawful, and on this basis workers were treated as having resigned when they did not return to work within the time specified by the law” and that “hence Panarub’s initial offer of payment to the workers matched those amounts for a worker resignation, not for a situation of dismissal, or severance, or any subsequent claims for other material impacts”... [W]e at Mizuno fully agree with AD ST’s conclusion...