Thanks, TM. I'm sure you're right that it's expecting too much for them to really come out and tell us all the details; and you're certainly right on about Scott being a lawyer and unlikely to make any statement that was factually untrue. I'm sure we can rely on the exact veracity of any official remarks. That said, you could drive a truck through what was not said. The company is not under investigation -- but is any person? The company received no prior warning - but did any person know what was coming? If so, how? and on and on. We won't be told. I would expect we're safe from any further wrong-doing if indeed there was any; They wouldn't dare make any misstep now. But the perceptions, the unanswered doubts remain and how will that affect other companies who might do business with them? A lot of things that could conceivably just be unlucky coincidences, even if technically legal, still look strange in aggregate.

Honestly, I don't see any good way they could clear it all up short of outing some one who was responsible for whatever happened, and they may or may not even know that. I wouldn't want to be in Sterling's shoes; I think it's going to be a tough ride.