Vlada - One reason I would guess is that there is a requirement that a company remain solvent while pursuing arbitration. I don't recall which clause it is but some months back I was able to pull confirmation of this requirement out of RM (very difficult). If they file bacnkruptcy they are pretty much stating they are insolvent and would therefore not be able to pursue the claim.
This filing yesterday seems like a protection so they can GET solvent and thus remain in the game. I woud imagine Fung and lawyers looked into whether this would affect the arbitration. Since the initial hearing is set for two years from now (initial hearing) I would suspect that this was done to allow them to complete what they need to do to get solvent and not waste the tribunals time if they can't.
I would not call this filing positive, and I don't think the judge is going to consider shareholder value beyond it's use by Fung as the reason he did not close the PP. The protection is given to allow a company to retructure and pay it's creditors, not to increase share value. If that happens as a bi-product of paying creditors, then there is some hope, but I don't think it will be anything like some are expecting.
Thanks to those who posted what they could about the PP. Everyone should remember that anyone who was involved in the PP would be prohibited from disclosing the failure of it closing so the fact that those who were trying to particpate became silent is understandable
Happy Holidays to everyone.
