The problem with words is that half the time they get misinterpreted. Just because a company stays in business, doesn't mean that they execute certain projects. Did google fail because they didn't bring google glasses to the mass market?
So if AM stays in business, but doesn't produce THEIR ONLY enterprise as was expected, what would they in business for? Rape victim call centre? A better analogy would have been if Google wrecklessly, secretly and misleadingly lost all of their technology-related business completely, and focused strictly on gardening. That was a bullshit answer and everyone knows it, without mining hardware Bitquan is nothing but a shell. I doubt even the R&D is profitable if you don't produce chips yourselves.
Right now there seems to be some money stuck in accounts, only FC has access to.
You said it yourself. The name of the game is to get a net return on every BTC invested. That's what investors ultimately look for. FC was extremely aware of that point. BTC prices where still in the 370 USD range when sample chips got received. That's when the financing should have been secured (by funding the accounts). It didn't happen.
I don't know how to respond to that. FC is an adult and he was repeatedly asked to delegate and improve certain conditions. He didn't comply with the requests. The desolate state surrounding providing information to shareholders was no secret. What is more surprising in hindsight is that key people who worked with FC on a daily basis failed to see the signs, and if they were they failed in the same way. The Rockminer story is testament to that.
All of these answers pointing the finger at FC begs the question. Who is responsible (or more importantly liable) for FC's actions? The same entity that profited from his actions while he was on their team, the company. If the company was not aware of his fraudulent activity and deceipt, that is their responsibility, and liability should not fall on the shareholders. These were not market-related problems, and they were preventable.