so why all of the independent directors go?

I thought this discussion needed a new thread as the old title didn't reflect where the conversation has gone.

NB,

I think your point about the mass resignations is a valid one.

If we assume that RB is now backtracking and let's assume there was no testicular involvement suggested by RB, which still remains unclear, then for all 3 independent directors to resign en masse is extremely disconcerting, particularly in light of the serious governance issues at NuSep and the shuffling of positions and creation of new boards and paid positions while Rome burns ($6m a year loss for 2 years running and the share price lost 99.7% in just 5 years).

So why did they resign en masse?

And then we had a former director who has not been paid and hinted at technical insolvency, something that is criminal if the company continued to trade.

Now some posters/shareholders will see all of this as good. The professional investor? They won't touch this thing with a 40 foot pole. And why would they when any independent oversight is crushed while shareholders pay and pay to a small few who gerrymander their positions, at our expense?