It is also possible, even likely, that if there is litigation in the works that all three companies concerned have been instructed, by their lawyers or the court, to remain silent on the matter until the issue is resolved to prevent biasing the case before it is heard in court. Silence then becomes not a matter of rudeness nor of prudence but the requirements of the case.
Please remember, that while the subscribers are out the amount of their subscriptions the companies that have not yet recieved funds are out the total cost of all those subscriptions. Yes, sending out one or two subscriptions is an option, sending out several thousand, without surety of recompense is not an option, especially if any of the companies are publically held and must rationalize the expenditure to stockholders.
Settling issues between companies situated in countries with differing laws is an arduous task, I suspect that the case (if there is in fact one, a reasonable premise) is likely to drag on for years, especially if any one of the three concerned parties, four if you include the subscribers, wishes to slow the process down for any reason. (Like, say, already having spent the funds acquired.)
Both the U.K. and the U.S. can blame the privacy laws or their lack for the current situation and both would be in the right.
At this stage it may be better for Paizo to set up a new subscription system from the ground up, accepting new subsciptions but not remitting the lost funds to the subscribers until after whatever litigation determines.
The Auld Grump, hoping to be proved wrong in the course of events.
