Quote from: mem on August 08, 2012, 08:10:29 AM

Quote from: wheeler on August 08, 2012, 06:56:14 AM

I'm sure appropriate lawyers have already answered this, but would the Californian courts hold any jurisdiction over a UK incorporated company (and/or directors) and the NZ main entity? What action could this court realistically impose on the company?

Its AU/NZ, our governments bend over goatse style for America.
Now if only we were talking about downloaded mp3s or movies - FBI with NZ police would have already raided these guys.

None of "these guys" are in NZ - there's literally nothing for the NZ police to raid. Nor will any US legal action have any material effect on the liquidation of an NZ company. This is all about being able to pursue remedies which may allow them to recover amounts above and beyond those which they might receive in any pro-rata distribution of Bitcoinica funds (whether informally through the previous refund process or through liquidation). Their complaint specifically states that they never agreed to a pro-rata refund. (They were somewhat willing to accept a pro-rata refund under the proposed settlement agreement if certain conditions were met, but the agreement was never ratified by Bitcoinica LP so there was no agreement to accept less than 100%).

Ironically, it's possible that the NZ liquidator will find that the actions of those involved in Bitcoinica LP give rise to personal liability - which would bolster the US case.

The complaint has not been filed as a "complex case" under California Rules, which means that they're not seeking to raise difficult/novel issues such as the nature of Bitcoin and whether or not it has value.