The Kobe District court recently handed down a judgment ordering a company to disclose information relating to its MBO (excluding information which the exposure of which could potentially harm whistleblowers).
http://agora-web.jp/archives/1462216.html
Some are calling this a very significant judgment, though we will have to see how it plays out (including any appeals).
I remember seeing one of the directors of a company that did an MBO last year explaining that they simply felt that the company could be better run as a non-public company. I continue to find it unfathomable that a director can essentially say yeah, we could run the company better if it weren't for those shareholders without out it being a slam-dunk admission of a breach of the duty of care…