Your criticism is precise and correct.
I also advocated, at that time in transition, that CLYW should have a single director for some period of time, to ensure there would be no potential for any confusion in responsibility. The subsequent decisions and the direction that was taken could not be a problem derived from a muddle, given that singular responsibility.
I will agree with you, too, that the result that was delivered for shareholders from that arrangement was vastly less than what was promised. In fact, I would go some bit farther than that in characterizing it. I will agree with you, perhaps, about the likely impact in that context of the holding of the Delaware court, and its meaning in terms of liability.
I'm still not confused about whose responsibility that is.