Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 04, 2012, 10:36:52 PM

Quote from: repentance on September 04, 2012, 10:27:37 PM

Quote from: iCEBREAKER on September 04, 2012, 10:15:22 PM

Au contraire, US law is perfectly clear on the matter:

Quote

No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_tSates_Constitution

US insolvency requirements are "due process of law". It's up to those who don't believe that US insolvency law should be applied in this case to petition the court with on point arguments and case law supporting that assertion - the cost of defending against any such actions will come out of the bankrupt estate. Unless USD holders can establish that they're secured or preferential creditors as defined by US insolvency law, there are no legal grounds on which they can be paid in full in preference to other unsecured creditors without the agreement of those other creditors.

Please show me where BitFloor has filed for bankruptcy, and then you might have a point. Otherwise your post is non sequitur.

The laws apply from the moment the insolvency occurs (or can be anticipated) whether or not bankruptcy has been filed - that's why payments made prior to the filing of bankruptcy can be clawed back and why making preferential payments within a class of creditors is an offence in and of itself.

The possibility of trading out in some way exists here and Bitfloor is legally obliged to consider all options which would maximise the return to its creditors (including selling the business in part or in whole), but it cannot legally give preference to any unsecured creditors while it's insolvent (which it is at this point in time).