Quote from: rjk on August 14, 2012, 04:00:20 PM

Even if he doesn't have any such authority (and I'm not convinced that he doesn't), what are you going to do about it? Call the cops?

New Zealand insolvency law is quite clear on the issue of creditors acting to secure assets. Not only can they do so, but a creditor who acts to secure assets for the benefit of all creditors becomes a preferential creditor and is entitled to have both their costs in securing the assets and the whole of their claim given preference over other creditors. So Wendon as a creditor most certainly had the legal right to retain Patrick to help with the securing of assets. Tihan has also stated that Wendon will be making its own entitlement under receivership available to other creditors in liquidation.

Quite separately, Wendon as the limited partner of Bitcoinica LP is legally allowed to participate in a limited range of "safe harbour" management activities - one of those activities relates to dissolving the partnership. Given the circumstances under which the partnership broke down, not only is it unlikely that it would be found Wendon acted improperly in attempting to secure the assets of Bitcoinica LP, it's likely it would be found that they had a positive obligation to do so.

People are understandably cynical, but neither Tihan nor Patrick Murck is in a position where false statements regarding Bitcoinica assets will be without consequence. It is absolutely in their best legal interests that this whole clusterfuck proceed to receivership and liquidation as soon as possible. The moment a liquidator is appointed, they assume total control over all assets - that the assets remain frozen on MtGox until that happens is the best option for users and Bitcoinica principals alike.

If it helps, a liquidator is required to establish the cause of business failure and whether or not any of the principals have acted in a manner which gives rise to personal liability. If the actions of the principals rise to the level of criminal behaviour, the liquidator is obligated to report that to the appropriate authority (usually the Serious Fraud Unit, who'll then decide on the most appropriate form of criminal investigation). Any creditor claiming in liquidation can raise concerns with the liquidator and provide additional information to the liquidator. An initial report is sent to all creditors by the liquidator early in the liquidation process, so there's definitely an opportunity for creditors to have input if they believe the liquidator has been misled or is ignoring important issues. It's even possible to apply to a court to have the appointed liquidator replaced if creditors are unhappy with the liquidator's performance.

There's a hell of a shit-storm developing in the Bitcoin conference thread at the moment.