company response just out , not good, page-9

Worthind, I'm not saying there was more info. I'm saying they need to explicitly state what (if any additional info they had). They need to do this in the context of the share sale by the CEO. Points of interest are:

1. it would seem unusual on the face of it if there was no communication between the company and the CHMP to resolve these issues. Obviously, the issues were not resolved as the news was ultimately bad, yet I can't recall any communication of this to shareholders.

2. The elephant in the room is Robertson selling 2 days before PXS was notified. Why wait until then to sell. If for no other reason that PR purposes, if he always planned to sell shares to service the tax bill, why not do it earlier so there was no bad look of potential conflict. If he hadn't planned to sell, why then did he suddenly change his mind.

Those two points are obviously relevant to each other. It is such a coincidence and such a windfall to the CEO, it needs to be fully addressed. it is not good enough to say there is no evidence of any wrongdoing. There needs to be evidence of right-doing! he may be squeaky clean, but clamming up about it and stopping analysts asking questions about in the company presentation after the announcement isn't making me feel confident about tranparancy on this.