Certainly a lot of stakeholders would like to receive their value from GOX in whatever asset that it was held. So if they had bitcoins in GOX, then they should get bitcoin back. If they held fiat in GOX, then they should get fiat back... and the ratio of how much they get back would depend upon the total solvency of GOX.
I don't think that any court would find that reasonable. Even if they viewed bitcoin as currency, rather than property, they would rather convert all assets to the national legal currency at current market rates, then pay the creditors in that currency according to the currency value of their claim. They would see it as unjustified complication to return debts in different currencies. (Just think of how bitcoin payments would be recorded in the liquidation proceedings.) If an euro is worth 300 yen now, why would a creditor be unhappy to get 300 yen instead of an euro? If a creditor is due 10'000$ for 100 kg of fish delivered to MtGOX, should the liquidator be obliged to give him back 20 kg of fish instead of 2000$?
But that comment is about another question, that makes a LOT of difference. Suppose that clients X and Y deposited 100 BTC each when the price was 10$, client Z deposited 100 BTC when the price was 1000$, and then client X (only) traded inside MtGOX until he had 300 BTC, and withdrew 100 BTC when the price was 1000$, leaving 200 BTC in the exchange. Under the "final MtGOX account balance" interpretation, with current price 500$, their claims would be
X = 200 BTC x 500 = 100'000 $
Y = 100 BTC x 500 = 50'000 $
Z = 100 BTC x 500 = 50'000 $
so X would get twice as much refund as Y or Z. On the other hand, under the US law interpretation as described in that post, their claims would be:
X = 100 BTC x 10, minus 100 BTC x 1000 = minus 99'000$ = lucky bastard, no claim.
Y = 100 BTC x 10 = 1000 $
Z = 100 BTC x 1000 = 100'000 $
so X would get nothing, and Z would get 100 times as much as Y.
So THAT is one big difference between the Sunlot plan and liquidation.
What I said is definitely as reasonable and possibly more reasonable than what you are describing.
The exchange kept operating. Accordingly, whatever balance was on the books at the time of the closing should be a relevant and important fact. As we know BTC prices have been highly volatile, which is another reason to reimburse in BTC, if that is what was held by the customer at the time of GOX's closing. I'm sure that these kinds of proposals can be made, and the court may be convinced that converting the assets may NOT bring the most equitable results - even though it may be more simple to calculate.
I agree with you that (and I made a similar point in an earlier post) there may be less latitude to formulate the calculation of value methodologies if the court decides that the outcome will remain a form of standard liquidation.
A liquidation would likely get them less than 20% of their holdings; however, a rehabilitation would have the potential of recovering a higher percentage, over time (even though possibly the initial payoff amount may be low with a rehab).
A liquidation would return to the clients some amount X that they can invest any way they like, including in MtGOX 2.0 if they want to. The Sunlot plan would return them less than X and force them to invest the remainder in MtGOX 2.0, with no option to get out. I still don't see how this can be better than that.
It is better whenever there is an outcome that is more agreeable to a larger number of people - standard utilitarian calculations, as you should understand such.
You seem to keep arguing for liquidation as if that brings the best value for everyone, yet you seem to be failing to account for the various arguments of the Gox customers. Yes, I realize that there are more than 100K GOX customers with various stakes; however, there needs to be some considerations on how to best make them whole and how they would like to proceed. If the previous customers would prefer to take their chances with a new GOX, then the court will need to consider that.
Poll
