Not sure this is at all relevant. My understanding is that Giga initially issued the bonds/contracts OFF of GLBSE - only moving to GLBSE some time later. He didn't require the information now requested initially - so GLBSE is, in that respect, totally a red herring.
This isn't something I was aware of. The original post on this thread was on April 7th, and the second post is on the same day and is talking about GLBSE, so I was under the strong impression that all of these contracts were originally sold through GLBSE, with GLBSE set up to process the dividend payments.
If instead it is the case that these contracts were originally issued by Giga directly, with Giga as the actual payment processor of the dividends, and Giga failed (as GLBSE later did) to request the right information, then I am more sympathetic to what you are saying -- at least insofar as it affects those people who bought bonds before dividend the payment processing was moved to GLBSE.
Well I could be wrong on it - but I had the impression that there was some issue with listing on GLBSE and at least some contracts were issued directly. Even after it was listed on GLBSE some contracts were entered into directly with other parties rather than through the market (e.g. the one for the MP pass-through).
It's still not particularly relevant anyway - Giga chose the payment processor and so had the responsibility to ensure they met whatever requirements HE had for them to be legal in his jurisdiction. If he's now saying he needs that information to take on the role of payment processor himself then he needs to be offering an equitable choice for those who don't want to meet the associated costs. Or if he's saying he's obliged to obtain that information (by law or regulation) to even recognise a contract with the other party then he needs to be cancelling and refunding on contracts where it isn't provided. If provision of the information is a pre-condition for the contract to be legally binding then in the absence of such information the contract has to be annulled and all payments already made in respect of it reversed.
Or do you seriously believe there's a case to be made that Giga wasn't the senior party in the contract?
EDIT: Just scanned first pages of thread. Seems like vast majority of first batch were sold by private arrangement rather then through the market. Those were done by transfer - where GLBSE were not an intermediary between two unknown parties and were just acting as record-keepers. Clearly Giga had the ability to request whatever information he needed from those purchasers - and ensure they met any limitations he faced on who he could enter an arrangement with. Plus any requirement (legal/regulatory) on him to obtain such information would also compel him to ensure that any third-party he chose to act on his behalf met the same requirements anyway - as irrespective of who processed payments his obligations were still to (and in respect of) the beneficiary owners of the contracts.