lesn: There is a clear misunderstanding of the Delaware statute. As I first pointed out, if a company voluntarily dissolves a corporation, they have three years to revoke the dissolution. However, during that period, the company is fully dissolved. It does not exist. Keyon does not exist.
Now let's take the macro perspective that VOLUNTARILY destroying a company is good for shareholders. The current argument is that Soon-Shiong VOLUNTARILY;
-Shut down all Keyon operations;
-Removed all executives;
-Removed the Board of Directors;
-Sold his interest at 30 cents on a dollar;
-Terminated all common shares in 2011;
-Dissolved Keyon;
-Let KEYO stopped trading.
While no one has bothered to pull the Certificate of Dissolution, let's assume that everything Soon-Shiong did was both voluntary and for a smart reason. How exactly is this a good thing that Soon-Shiong totally and completely ended any possibility that KEYO could trade again? Why would he not keep KEYO trading if he need a publicly traded company for this mythical RTM? Why terminate the shares? Why dissolve the very company he is supposed to need? Why sell his interest?
For everyone holding KEYO shares, the VOLUNTARY actions by Soon-Shiong is a total loss of capital. In 99.9% of investors' estimation, this is a very bad thing.
The "facts" supporting a RTM are all unrelated to Keyon. You have your Pancake Plan. You have the Forbes Plan. However, there are no facts directly associated with Keyon that remotely suggest a RTM or that KEYO is not completely dead.
However, sticking to the last possible hope of a voluntary dissolution ignores the other deep problems with this scheme.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
