[AndrewKemendo]

I don't think this is correct, especially when considering the rights that Board members Directors and Officers have.

They can go out and make deals, do press etc... all within their rights as board members - in fact that's what they are for.

Investments are passive only for non-accredited shareholders.

[braythwayt]

If you are telling me that someone is a Director or Officer, they are no longer "just investing," and therefore we needn't just shrug and say, "They made a bad investment, so what?"

Having made a bad investment, as a Director or Officer, they had a responsibility to blow the whistle on malpractices, enforce proper procedures, fire the CEO long before the CEO was in a position to be barred from the industry, &c. &c.

[AndrewKemendo]

we needn't just shrug and say, "They made a bad investment, so what?"

Well I haven't made a statement on that either way - but I wouldn't advocate for that.

It is however up to their own judgement how much to do in any case. They represent shareholders, so they do have fiduciary duty there to be sure (though I am unsure if that is true for the high profile members of the Theranos board as it seemed to be largely advisory).

The fact that Holmes has 50+% of the company makes the point in this case pretty much moot. Aside from leaving the board en masse and abandoning whatever shares they have, they really are pretty powerless.