Is he legally liable as the CEO? Yes. But if we're going to be arguing from the point-of-view of who we desire to be POTUS, then we should probably clearly distinguish between what is lawful and what is right.
We don't have enough evidence to back up the claim that Romney actually presided over any of the Bain meetings that involved questionable restructuring and financial engineering decisions. Nevertheless, some feel that, as CEO, the onus falls on him to ensure a more responsible and ethical company. That's a complicated one - the nature of Wall Street's culture extends far and beyond one CEO. It's unreasonable to expect Romney to be that one person just as it's unreasonable for us to expect that the President can stop his staff from conducting backroom deals to maintain his agenda. Washington has a culture, and it isn't clean.
Not that two wrongs make a right, but when the wrong can't be righted by a single person, you shouldn't hold it against him.
Employees working in organizations within fastly changing environments have an individual responsibility, and the head of the company can only do so much in ensuring ethical decisions are made.
I don't think Romney is a saint, just as I don't think the POTUS can be one, given the types of decisions that ultimately reach him. If anything, we know that heads of organizations sometimes turn a blind eye towards certain achievements. If we can agree that that is the case, then the Bain kerfluffle is nothing out of the ordinary.
