This is the point I am offering - as this 'Woodland' who appears to be of much comment does not appear to have been a director then Stoddard and the rest of the Directors are the ones ultimately legally responsible and as such should be pursued - whatever this 'Woodland' did (wrong!) he was acting under the legal responsibilities and auspices of the EAAC board/directors and as such they are responsible - the Directors of EAAC past and present are clearly detailed in the Moore Stephens document
If you believe that this is a case of a company being 'Phoenix'd' i.e. driven down and then reborn under a new corporate identity then you should complain to the DTI formally, I would suggest under the auspices of yr legal representation and/or BALPA (or alternative Union) - DTI take a very dim view of this and in my experience always investigate on the strength of a substantive and accurate complaint.