I agree and it may be just my own spite but their explaination could be the reason why there isnt much reaction.
The word "termination" is nice to see but some details would be nice
People who dont know the history only know that months of due diligence was why they terminated him.
That doesnt make any sense of people were not here for the rip off.
Why did they need DD on the CEO? What did they find?
They should have laid him out and flayed him. We terminatedthe ceo because of misappropriation of company funds etc would let people know that the con man is gone and they wont tolerate scamming.
But as long as he is gone thats good enough for me.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
