They may have agreed in principle to subscribe to the Rights offering, but in these kind of dealings, these agreements are not binding. A binding agreement specifies rights and obligations by the consenting parties and there are consequences if the terms are violated; I don't see anything of that sort in that specifiic reference, do you? This, on the other hand, could be a marketing ploy by the issuers to promote the Rights offering, to induce everybody, that is, to join the Great Pary set up by the mastermind Bates. Come on guys, get serious.