Mike,
It is not an issue of who discovered or didn’t discover the alleged wrong doing. Mr. Goodin had a fiduciary responsibility to MDMN and it happened during his watch. Whether he was at fault or not. I feel his being part of the investigation goes back to the legal term I mentioned previously “appearance of impropriety.” Even though he may be innocent, because it happened on his watch, an appearance exists he will act to cover his own backside instead of really determining the truth. IMO, this fact has already happened because MDMN in their announcement of the share issuance problems MDMN stated it happened without BOD knowledge. Well what are MDMN’s BOD responsibilities then, sitting back surfing the web, collecting shares? Doesn’t the basic fiduciary duty to MDMN require the BOD to review the shares issued periodically? How would the BOD know MDMN’s required SEC disclosures were accurate if they didn’t review? MDMN has already said they need to correct the SEC disclosures. Doesn’t this show on its face the BOD failed to properly manage MDMN to make sure the SEC disclosures were accurate? Again, appearance of impropriety. Not saying Mr. Goodin did act inappropriately or violated his fiduciary duties, but it doesn’t seem too legit does it? If he resigns, then MDMN has three BOD members who were not part of the past. Then I feel the final report on the share issuance problems will have more legitimacy.