Well, that resolves my only doubt, which I left unstated except in private. My doubt was this: "Why did the PR not contain a timestamp for the execution of the transfer?" The PR omitted any mention of the fact that the transfer had occurred. Instead, it employed only future tense verbs. So, I privately speculated that it was not a mistake, but rather a deliberate piece of cleverness.
BUT.... here is how Paul inadvertantly set this doubt aside: He said, and I quote: "All of the insiders, including myself, held restricted shares that could have been (until yesterday) sold under Rule 144. Due to the stock swap, there is no longer any question with respect to insider sales."
Voila... there you have it. I do not know why it took a parenthetical aside to place a timestamp on it, but he did exactly that by saying "(until yesterday)". Paul is obviously quite bright. Why it never occurred to him that part of the skeptical reaction was connected to the open-ended appearance of the insider swap, I can only speculate. Sometime extremely bright and honest people can't see the forest for the trees, but it is now plain as the nose on my face that the cancellation was done as of yesterday and it was not open-ended.
I hope Paul reads this comment and then goes back and rereads his PR. The reason for the doubt is built into the open ended nature of that PR and since it now appears that was accidental, then I am much more settled as regards the honesty of this management team. if they had PRed in an open ended fashion, hoping nobody would notice, then I trust Paul sees it would definately have built obstacles into future shareholder relations. I hope the lesson is that every step needs to have a timestamp, if it is possible. In this case, had it been simply stated that the insiders had the option until yesterday, rather than wording it like it was going to be done sometime in the future, a lot of the doubt would not have been there.
So, that is great news.
Thanks Paul & thanks Wing.
Imperial Whazoo
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
