Unlike others I've no "insider" information, and nor am I an expert.
Perhaps I'm missing something, but I struggle to believe that TWDC would now consider closing DLP.
My reasoning is fairly simple (for me). 6 months ago (or so) TWDC could have easily play games with DLP with the consideration of aiming to have it winded down. It is after all the biggest shareholder, and I would assume a fairly big creditor (ignoring the debt payment - I just mean money owed for licensing etc).
In doing this TWDC, whilst damaging its reputation, could have fairly happy said that it had done everything that it could (was willing) within the structure of the French organisation to save/help it. As I say it would have taken the damage to it's reputation on the chin and a small financial loss (in comparison).
However now TWDC would lose it's €1.8 Billion "investment" (the money it paid to the banks) plus any other money that it was hope to "claim" from DLP (licensing, royalties etc) and damage it's reputation. I don't see why it would have paid off the banks if it felt that closing DLP was a potential option. After all TWDC has the best insight into the "business" behind DLP - it wouldn't have blinding provided the billions - and additionally its going to have to answer to it's own shareholders if that money was to go down the drain.
Whilst there are obvious assets at DLP, the majority TWDC wouldn't want to see fall into anyone else hands. It's really a TWDC asset strip and flatten the land if you were going to close DLP in order to make money from what was left - ie land..
Even with a asset strip - there is only so much that TWDC could really use at other parks.
Given this I think, on the basis that this "hold" is correct that:
a) TWDC wants time to review the operation of the park and how best to address the issues and any expansion - rather than the current DLP way of having to address one area at a time.
or
b) Bob Iger and his team are looking to ensure that DLP becomes his successors problem.
As I say, I'm no expert - I'm sure others will be able to pick this apart to address why this is wrong (that's not a complaint).
Iain