They are under the same company, they are all not because client's fault, and they are same bitcoin liabilities to the company. I think in any lawland this different treatment should not prevail
Technically, I believe you are correct if the company was to go into bankruptcy. But they are not declaring bankruptcy at this point - they are simply defaulting on a portion of their larger liabilities. If someone with a large balance on instawallet was to take them to court over whatever remainder of their balance was not repaid, and if the company was unable to pay up on the full amount owed, they could be forced into bankruptcy. The preference to repay some creditors at a different rate than other creditors at the point they realized insolvency would then be reviewed, and criminal (I think) charges could be filed by, say, the local district attorney.
A whole bunch of if's in that. It is yet to be seen how much of a haircut the larger account balance holders will be forced to take. If it's only 5%, because most of their coins were in cold storage, then maybe no one will bother to sue them.
