and there is no way to know if it was a client acct(s) or company holdings that got sold. Client acct(s) would have nothing to do with Paradigm's fines or expenses.

My guess would be,

a: not happy the way EFL managed their own financing

b: not happy with the Q report.

c: something on the horizon we're not considering.

IMO "b:" would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater as their reaffirmation of $15 rev for 2014 would indicate good things in the 2nd half. Stick around

"a:" would appear to be chilish and potentially shooting themselves in the foot.

"c:" is always a possibility although they didn't seem to budge or waffle on the guidance confirmation. If they were behind or unable to hit the target timelines, one would "expect" a change in language.