gsk litigation

It's obvious from multiple posts that several stockholders have written off the current CEO over the litigation with GSK.

I'm struggling to see why given the following:

1. The litigation was commenced by the previous CEO

2. The previous CEO decided to leave prior to the success or otherwise of the proceedings

3. The current CEO inherited the case with:

- costs to date of $20m
- no resolution apparent within the immediate future
- the prospect of a similar amount being required to progress to a definitive stage
- no guarantee that proceedings would be successful

Put yourself in that situation and it was no surprise to me to see what eventuated.

I can understand why several posters are quite disappointed given the projections (from previous management) of what a successful litigation might deliver.

However, the hysteria displayed, in my opinion, is mis-directed.