Do you realize that you are aggravating his position? If he did not trust Nefario from the beginning, then he voluntarily put at risk his investors' funds from day 1.
He didn't do that, his investors did. If GLBSE had run off with their money, would you have argued that's somehow his fault?
Giga actually has no other option -- he never extended any trust to Nefaro/GLBSE nor did he ever agree to extend any.
False. No other issuers asked for all the crap he is asking up to now (even if many would find profitable to steal their investors' assets in this way).
That's kind of a circular argument. If this is his mess to clean up, then he extended trust. And if he extended trust, it's his mess to clean up.
In retrospect, we all should have thought of it, but I don't think anyone considered a sudden, complete GLBSE shutdown likely. So I don't think you can argue trust was extended on that basis. If someone gives you free concert tickets and while you're gone they have a friend rob your home, you trusted them to know when you would be away from home in a sense. But you didn't really decide to trust them if you never seriously considered the possibility that the concert tickets were a trick to rob your home.
The contract doesn't obligate him to accept these costs and risks.
Which contract? The one he deleted like a weasel just before requiring for lots of para-legal crap? And which risks? To actually pay back his investors? You call that a risk?
Any contract so far as I know. I don't know of any asset listed on GLBSE that obligated the issuer to cover the costs and risks associated with preserving asset ownership across a sudden GLBSE failure. As for the risks, there are many. The specifics depend on the contract. The most common risk is the risk of paying false claims. And the costs are obvious -- figuring out which claims are legitimate is not free. No asset issuer, to my knowledge, ever agreed to bear those costs or arranged a way to pass them on to the asset holders.