"if this were just an contractual case where interference with corporate operations was the ONLY issue, then there would be no need for the change in venue"
As it seems it IS that in current venue, perhaps the right way to ask the question, is: What does that look like in terms of what the view of the issues WAS from the original jurisdiction when it was last there... and does moving from current venue back to the original jurisdiction alter the FACT of what the issues are in the current venue... to either have it not be the focus in prior venue, or to have the focus in prior venue be changed in a way that incorporates it, to have it apply a superior modern perspective to historical events, as a result of new information that has been developed in the interim, while the prior judgment (or the agreement to obviate it, with the 2008 Agreement) seems not to have resolved the questions ?
It looks to me like one or the other... either Daic doesn't like the FACT of what the focus has become in the current venue, so he is shopping for venue to try to enable shifting the focus in a different venue, or else it is the growing awareness of the unresolved issues remnant in the prior decision... that as a fixed element unable to be addressed in the current venue, generates a set of risks that need to be revisited in order to have a chance to change the prior history, in a way that might obviate those risks that were items of awareness that generated their interest in entering into the 2008 Agreement, instead of simply following through on the original judgment.
I think it is a mistake to see those prior risks... as "merely" those postured by the element of chance inherent in having the bill of review succeed in altering the result in "the deal"...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
