It may be that in fact gigavps should pay the notarization costs of legitimate claimants. It may be that the cost burden imposed on claimants is in fact so small as to be properly disregarded. My construction of the events was that gigavps sunk whatever dollar amount into BTC R&D in the shape of retaining counsel, for the first time ever having a set of questions answered by counsel etc. This is beneficial for BTC. In this context the users were expected to contribute a small fraction per capita, which they chaff at doing because in spite of the questions being important and the research valuable they can't manage to care about anything outside themselves - they have no practice doing business and no understanding of the costs of doing business (hence my comments about consumers). The case of Bitcoinica is rather similar.
The economic problem is that these costs are per-claimant, not per bond. In some cases, these costs exceed the amount gigavps owes the bondholder. From a legal point of view, this is obviously irrelevant, I just want to point out that this whole mess needs to be replaced by a proper decentralised system based on cryptography. This case only proves the problems of barriers to entry and other types of transaction costs the legal system places on conducting business. There is nothing inherent in these costs, it's all just crap that for one reason or another accumulated over centuries.