I've been wading through posts from the past couple of weeks, and I haven't seen anything too surprising so far. It's all old news. We knew McBride was making inflated claims last year. How else could anyone explain the repeatedly missed deadlines and promises? It was obvious that he wasn't qualified to run a publicly scrutinized company. Maybe it's because he's too naive and inexperienced, or maybe he's a scam, but either way, he didn't belong in the role he held.
That being said, he's no longer holding the same position. He was (poorly) acting as CEO, COO, and CFO, and IMO, isn't qualified for ANY of them, much less ALL of them. He didn't stand a chance, and we all see the result.
At a very minimum, the situation should be much better today. Regardless of how good the new corporate officers are, even if they're merely warm bodies with minimal experience, they bring three times the bandwidth to the table. If we assume they are more than just warm bodies, they should also add a degree of experience and expertise which wasn't here in the past. It's not reasonable for anyone to expect the new management team, the SEC, shareholders, or customers to simply ignore the events of the past. The new team is faced with a daunting task today. They have to disclose and clean up the past while designing and implementing a viable business plan for today and the future.
Personally, I continue to encourage and welcome any SEC or other "legal" investigation. If there are skelatons, let's disclose them, take any appropriate lashings, and move on. Company critics have many valid claims, but rarely do we see them bashing current events. The stuff we see today is old news. I'd say that's a good thing.
