If the story is correct that the rest of the board were in favour of it, and he wasn't,then it does not look good. VV whatever you have heard from Derek needs to be weighed against the fact that the rest of the board disagreed. If this is not true and just scuttlebut then there is nothing for anyone to get their teeth into. A non story, total piffle. Hiwever, if he voted differently to the board that needs actial explaining. Either the board were wrong or he was. 167 people were made redundant, and Derek's word won't be feeding feeding them or paying paying their mortgage, some explanation of this whole event is due. If the story is false, fair enough. If the basic substance of a board disagreement on this issue is correct then both sides should be heard in full.
Given where we are,why did he vote against? What makes him think that the rest of the board is wrong? Or, possibly puting it another way, who are the other arseholes on the board who have so little knowledge that they voted to pursue this obvious nonsense that Derek has seen as a St Elmo's fire bid of no substance?
If the story itself is balls fair fair enough, but knowing that an abstention killed it, Derek's word is not good enough unless it is public and unfiltered. Either the rest of the board were wrong, in which case who appointed them, how could they all be so wrong, or he was wrong.