The board clearly feel that Mr Kantor has mislead them. In view...

The board clearly feel that Mr Kantor has mislead them. In view of what they have disclosed in the NOM, surely the competency of the board should be called into question? In that:

they didn't do sufficient due diligence to ensure that a dispute between Kantor and his business partners relating to the IP had been resolved (they knew that there was a dispute, according to today's ann.), and;

unbelievably, after he had been terminated, they didn't prevent him from transferring some of the IT systems (whatever that means - he changed some passwords?) into his own name. Why wasn't he escorted from the office and all access to the systems changed by the company? Or was IOT really a one man company, which I had always doubted very much?

IP and IT systems is all this company has. Or had. It looks like the board have allowed Kantor to disenfranchise them of some of both.

Surely in the interests of full disclosure the Board should confirm whether or not the IP under dispute is relevant to ROAM-e? And whether Kantor's actions with the IT systems have affected the progress of ROAM-e?