I dont understand common enthusiasm for a halt here - while it may serve to redress problems to benefit longs in the short term i would think it would only undermine confidence in this stock in the long term, raising further questions and considerably magnifying scrutiny during the halt. longs and shorts alike would be sweating bullets wondering whats actually going on behind the curtain and the the sense that one has no control over their own capital would prevail and undermine faith and interest by that fact alone - ie. 'they got my 'f'n money!'.
i have never held a stake in a company where trading was halted so I am just speculating here, but i certainly wouldnt if i had the sense that my capital investment would be rendered illiquid without warning or consent. if i was looking for a lasting long-term commitment with limited recourse id buy a bond.
the idea of supporting a halt seems very self-serving and does not honor the greater share-holder in many respects. furthermore, i think it fundamentally would broadcast weakness and a lack of confidence in the resilience of the company by its management as it is a panicked response.