If they had this kind of information (and if anyone would, wouldn't it be them?) and they didn't express it by now, this only further shows their poor decision making process in the past. They still have a chance to turn this around, but I think it would show a poor choice of judgement.
With the NDAs on negotitations still seemingly in effect, I would imagine the stated reason or details over the closing wouldnt come to public light until sometime, if at all, after all the NDAs expire. If negotitation details cant even be mentioned even for those that fell through or no longer even relevant I can only imagine there is some sort of NDA on any details about the closing as those details may actually affect negotiations (or maybe not). In many companies it is standard procedure to not release any information about a product that have an NDA on it whether it cover negotitations, demantling it, new owners, or even trying to decide what to do with it, to prevent something accidentially getting out or the seemingly non-relevant announcements giving away details that fall under the NDA or is the reason for th eNDA i nthe first place. Until the NDAs go away I think it's unrealistic to expect anything said about the decision even if they wanted to until after those NDAs expire. They may not say nothing at all, but just in case that is also their policy, I would give them a chance after details can freely flow if ever.
I wouldnt be surprised if there are some insiders right now that are itching to release all the details, whether it's because they think their uppers are idiots for not doing so or because they liked COX too and value the customers and want to clear stuff up, but may not feel their job, career, reputation is worth doing so.
More details would be nice and probably would clear up a lot of stuff but according to many of the insiders there is a lot of legal stuff that prevent the free flow of that type of information and that may or may not apply here, even if it's a nuke way of handling. The government takes this approach all the time even for stuff that is not officially clssified in itself but information released can confirm existance or raise questions about something existing that they do not yet wish to be let out that exists. Or on a day to day basis, I cant say I seen this particular person at a particular clinic because it can lead to questions and insinuations about information that is HIPAA protected about that person's records even though I never seen or even have access to their records and merely saying you saw someone is protected information in itself. Do people still do it? yes. If it gets tracked back to them and it has many times before, they have a bunch of explaining to do and loss of job for ever in the government sector.