I'm sure the facts in the article are accurate, but the headline leaves a very misleading impression. Or I suppose it depends on the definition of "involved".
What it says is that he expressed reesrvations on the investment, and the vote supported it, so it went ahead. (No direct word on how he voted; the article slyly implies that he voted in its favour, but I doubt it).
Then, when a report circulated in the company on the investment's status, he wrote comments in the margins asking pointed questions about the situation. They were the kind of things I would write if I was looking at something I had not viewed for a long time, and was trying to size up its present potential.
Now, if you would call that a significant involvement, contrary to what Simon claimed, I would respectfully tell you you are wrong. It is indictive of someone who has gone on to newer and better things, leaving the company to its professional managers. (This is routine; it's simply how venture capital works). What we see are the comments of someone who is juggling dozens of balls in the air and only has an hour or so for this one.
So either the LA Times writer is incredibly unsophisticated in business, or he simply wanted to write a hatchet job on Simon. If he did, he did an exceptionally poor job -- except in that headline, which I expect in a Gray Davis campaign ad very soon.
D
Excellent analysis.
Actually he was just doing what his managers told him to do!