A Cincinnati referee ordered the former Croger Executive Director Rodhu McMulan to explain – in writing – why he unexpectedly resigned in March, forcing him to face what his lawyers call him “completely inappropriate” and “disturbing” issues in a jewelry.
McMulen, who has led the Cincinnati -based giant for more than a decade, resigned after, which Croer described as an investigation into his “personal behavior”. As part of his departure, McMulen confiscated all his uninvited capital and bonuses – a total of $ 11 million, according to SEC.
This decision raised eyebrows for Eric Chaffi, a professor of corporate law at Case Western Reserve University. “Usually the CEO has a decline protection if they leave,” he said FortuneS “The fact that he is ready to give up on it can give some idea that what is happening here is something he did not want to reveal himself.”
Croger did not offer a further explanation at the time, causing speculation in business circles. However, the mystery is already again in the spotlight due to an unrelated case, filed against a cross -country jewel by the singer’s jewelry and one of her business partners, over the Croger Annual Festival. The plaintiffs claim that they have played a key role in launching the festival and are looking for damage due to suspected contractual disputes.
Their lawyers claim that McMulunn’s questioning about his resignation may be relevant to his credibility as a witness to the process and can shed light on “supposedly corrupt corporate culture in Croger.”
McMulunn’s legal team was fighting the request, but earlier this month, the judge of the Hamilton County General Court of County Christian Jenkins ordered him to submit a written explanation until August 8, including the names of the participants. Whether the public ever sees that this document is still uncertain. If Jenkins decides that the information is appropriate, it can be stored under print. If it is not considered appropriate, it will not be entered into the record at all.
As he fits in with the exit of CEO is “somewhat invasive”, Chaaffe noted that the court could find this justified, especially after the Croex himself had resigned with the “business ethics”.
In court disputes, he explained: “If the other party offers a witness, you want to try this individual’s confidence … to find out if they are ethical.”
This test for importance weighs strongly against another legal principle: the risk of unjust embarrassment of a witness. But Chaffe noted that in the US there is a “strong preference that the public has access to court proceedings – not just to be a nose, but because transparency makes a more just legal system.”