If the CEO is silent it would seem that this CEO doesn't like being held accountable for his actions and statements. Perhaps he feels that because he is the CEO he can say whatever he wants even if shareholders get hurt in the process. It's one thing to expect someone by the end of Oct. and miss it by a few days but that was in Oct. and this is January and not a word why the deal didn't happen. It's OK to let shareholders to expect an RS about Dec. 24 and now in January there is no RS yet and no explanation? Holding a CEO accountable for his comments and actions is something that is done by all good investors. Or at least they should be. It's investors money he is playing with. If an investors had a financial institution deceive and make false statements like this CEO does they would find another financial institution in a heartbeat. I sure would. Why would anyone expect less from a CEO?