I don't know what law applies to Bitcoinica, but typically until there's a formal declaration of insolvency, companies are still obligated to pay their debts. Their continuing failure to return depositor's funds is a continuing breach of their obligations to their depositors. I cannot believe any lawyer would say, "continue to breach your fiduciary duties". In some jurisdictions it can be a criminal offense to fail to formally declare insolvency and to continue to breach obligations.
The problem is them giving any preferential treatment to unsecured creditors. Insolvent companies are generally wound up by third parties to ensure that all payments are made in accordance with the formula laid down by law, that assets are liquidated for the benefit of all creditors, and that transactions in the look-back period are reversed where appropriate.
While I suspect that some form of formal insolvency is now inevitable, I would expect both the limited and general partners to be taking legal advice on the most appropriate type of insolvency, and I would expect that advice to include "don't touch the assets for any reason" until the next legal step has been determined (for all we know, the initial steps towards insolvency may already have been taken - there's some paperwork involved before creditors are formally notified and asked to lodge claims). They should never have attempted a DIY claims process after the Rackspace compromise - at the very least, it should have been handled by their accountant - and they most definitely shouldn't attempt it now.
Still watching with interest. Not sure what you mean by "partnership agreement" as the NZ entity is simply a limited liability company with a single director/shareholder. The provisions of the Companies Act 1993 will apply with regard to duties of directors.
Bitcoinica LP is a limited partnership, with a general partner (Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD) and a limited partner (Tihan's fund plus a minority limited partner from what we can tell). The partnership agreement matters because it determines the date on which Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD became the general partner of Bitcoinica LP, assuming all liability. The issue isn't the general duties of the directors of Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD, it's whether Bitcionica Consultancy LTD was acting as the general partner of Bitcoinica LP when the events happened - if the partnership agreement had already been signed (and we've been told it had), then they're legally liable whether or not the formation of Bitcoinica LP itself was complete (ie, the director's consents had been signed and lodged).
The issue of whether the directors of Bitcoinica Consultancy LTD have acted in a manner which gives rise to personal liability is yet another matter.