I entirely agree with your assessment, however I am of the opinion that the people really responsible for this were George's predecessors who misled investors badly about the business, its performance, its prospects and used their positions to line their own pockets whilst handing the value of the company to the toxic financiers, sucking in small investors through their PR hype, against a backdrop of round after round of pump 'n dump that IMHO now looks decidedly fishy.

First up was Norman "Ahab" Burton who destroyed the creative heart of the company and blew millions on his pet schemes like the Solstra "white whale" LMS, all of which went to dust - arrogant, smug, patronising, obsessive and IMHO the CEO from hell with a ego the size of the planet who gave me the impression that he was psychologically incapable of listening to or taking seriously any opinion at odds with his own.

Mats "pretty boy" Johannsson was the architect of the Home Computer Initiative disaster - a man who gives the impression that he would sell his grandmother and stab just about anyone in the back to gain an advantage. He led investors up the garden path, creating a huge turnover, but lost money like water until even Yorkville had had enough. Like a cookoo, he simply shoved anyone who was a threat or had real ability out of the nest. UK Government ministers pointed to his website as justification for ending HCI because he had turned it into an executive perk scheme - the man who killed the goose that laid the gold eggs.

Then there was the reign of some weird central European media guy, who appears to have bought companies for far more than they could possibly be worth, then closed them down in a matter of months, again whilst losing money like water. (See SKS Consulting's analysis of this in previous post - I bow to their superior knowledge.)

Given the credit crunch and level of debt, I don't think George had a hope in hell of changing anything. However, what he could do now is to decide to help investors nail the people responsible for this mess using the company's records, if there is evidence of wrongdoing - but given that he was brought in by Yorkville and that some mud just might possibly be headed their way, (I have no knowledge of any wrongdoing, I hasten to add), so I doubt that he will do anything.

I think it is interesting that SKS can baldly state the "problems" like they have in their case study and not receive any writs for libel from those involved, because if true, these allegations would be grounds for disbaring any directors in the UK or EU from holding directorships in the future.