My mainline guess is that information about bad behaviour by Sam was disclosed to them by various individuals, and they owe a duty of confidence to those individuals (where revealing the information might identify the individuals, who might thereby become subject to some form of retaliation).
(“Legal reasons” also gets some of my probability mass.)
My mainline guess is that information about bad behaviour by Sam was disclosed to them by various individuals, and they owe a duty of confidence to those individuals (where revealing the information might identify the individuals, who might thereby become subject to some form of retaliation).
(“Legal reasons” also gets some of my probability mass.)
I think this sounds reasonable, but if this is true, why wouldn’t they just say this?