An April report by an independent panel revealed that the automaker’s internal controls had been a shambles for years. It said that the company’s chief executive, Hiroto Saikawa — who is also named in the suit — had signed off on documents that may have been related to the underreporting of Mr. Ghosn’s compensation. It also found multiple misrepresentations to shareholders, falsified documents and rubber-stamp board meetings that averaged just 20 minutes in length .

That accounting will most likely complicate the company’s defense, according to Adam Pritchard, a professor who teaches corporate law at the University of Michigan.

One of the biggest hurdles for winning securities litigation in the United States is proving that the company knowingly violated the law, he said. In American courts, he added, a knowing violation by a director is treated as a knowing violation by the company itself.

The challenge for Nissan is how to blame Mr. Ghosn for its problems while absolving the company’s current executives of responsibility. In a court filing, Nissan argued that the independent report demonstrated that Mr. Saikawa was not aware of the “well-concealed fraud” perpetrated by Mr. Ghosn.

“It’s very unusual for companies to say that they’re being run by a criminal. Even if they think he’s a bad guy,” Mr. Pritchard said. “It’s like they’re asking for the judgment to be enforced in the U.S.”

In the American system, cooperation with the authorities normally results in a carefully crafted deal between the company and prosecutors that ends in deferred prosecution or the defendant’s pleading to lesser charges.