@neil this is interesting and to me it brings up longstanding issues with how computers have been (mis)treated by law for generations, and around the world.

The case sounds like it's based on the idea that the company had Bitcoin stolen through a hack and rightly owns those Bitcoin, but the reality is that the system worked exactly as intended, with the Bitcoin being transferred to a new owner, even if as a result of a mistake on the part of the company.

IF ANYTHING the developers would have a fiduciary obligation NOT to work with the company as it no longer owns the Bitcoin.

But yep, under common legal practice this goes the other way, but that reflects that law has gotten computer stuff so wrong for so long.