Kroger’s CEO mysteriously resigned. An unrelated trial involving a jewel could reveal why

McMullen, who directed the giant of the Cincinnati -based grocery store for more than a decade, resigned following what Kroger described as an investigation into his “personal conduct”. As part of his departure, McMullen has lost all of his unknown funds and bonuses – a total of $ 11 million, according to a dryer in the SEC.

This decision raised the eyebrows for Eric Chaffee, professor of corporate law at the Western Reserve University. “Usually a CEO has protection against drops if they leave,” he said Fortune. “The fact that he was ready to abandon this can give an overview that what happened here was something he didn’t want to reveal.”

Kroger did not offer any other explanation at the time, causing speculation in business circles. However, the mystery is now back under the spotlight due to an unrelated trial deposited against Kroger by the singer-songwriter Jewel, and one of his business partners, on the annual wellness festival of Kroger. The complainants claim to have played a key role in the launch of the festival and request damages on alleged contractual disputes.

Their lawyers argue that questioning McMullen on the reasons for his resignation could be relevant for his credibility as a first instance witness and could shed light on “corporate culture allegedly corrupt in Kroger”.

McMullen’s legal team fought the request, but earlier this month, the common court judge of Hamilton, Christian Jenkins, ordered him to submit a written explanation by August 8, including the names of the people involved. If the public sees this document is still uncertain. If Jenkins decides that the information is relevant, it could be maintained under the seal. If it is not deemed relevant, it will not be registered in the file at all.

Although the release of a CEO is “somewhat invasive”, Chaffee noted that the court could find this justified, especially since Kroger himself has linked to “business ethics”.

In dispute, he explained: “If the other party offers a witness, you want to test the credibility of this individual … to determine if he behaves ethically.”

This relevance test weighs heavily on another legal principle: the risk of unjustly embarrassing a witness. But Chaffee noted that in the United States, there is a “strong preference that the public has access to legal proceedings – not only to be damn, but because transparency constitutes a fairer legal system.”

This principle can prevail. However, for Kroger, keeping the reason why the private sector could protect its brand and extinguish prosecution or a regulatory examination of shareholders.

“There is a cloud that remains by its departure,” said Chaffee, “but companies sometimes decide that it is better than the damage that could come from disclosure.”

McMullen probably has his own reasons to remain silent, added Chaffee.

“It could be something embarrassing for him personally, for a family member, or something that could have future repercussions for his career,” he said. “If you are CEO and there are reports that you have done something you shouldn’t have, getting another leading job can become very, very difficult.”

Although Chaffee does not expect the case to define a legal precedent – “it is probably more factually interesting than legally interesting” – he said that the issues are always high.

The complainants’ strategy, he noted, is a current but effective tactic of pressure: “The search for information that can potentially be damaging to Kroger … can encourage them to settle this case.”