Quoted from Manimal:
As hard a pill as it might be to swallow, we the buyers really have no say in Andrew's company, and we have no right to demand or dictate anything. Yes, we all sent in money that he is either holding or has spent, but that still does not give us any rights other than the rights of any consumer with any other company, and that is to either keep our money into the game or to file for a refund. Even if you do not get your refund and you have to fight for it, you still have NO rights to information or to how the company is run unless dictated by a court of law. We don't do it in any other industry, and I can't for the life of me figure out why folks think pinball is different. For some reason, we all automatically think we are all major stockholders because we put in a deposit. Andrew has a company, and he advertised a product. We all sent money for that product (knowing the risk), and we should be receiving a product for that money. If you are mad at the lack of communication, lack of production, or all of the "lies", then file for a refund and go through the proper channels. If you are staying in the game, then you have no choice but to go along for the ride. All of the second-guessing and demands do nothing but stir up a bunch of crap. It changes nothing, and Andrew still does what he thinks is correct. I am as frustrated as everyone here, but we do not run this company, and we are all jumping to stupid conclusions. The Porsche story is a prime example.....I am glad Andrew put it to rest, but because someone mentioned something, it became a fact and sent folks into orbit. Again, I am not suggesting we should not protect ourselves and our investment......but that DOES NOT mean we get to tell Andrew or anyone else what to do. Put yourself in his shoes....with the shitshow this has become, would any of you respond if you were him? Really?
From a legal perspective, a "buyer" who has not yet received either a game or a refund is a creditor.
In the UK, when a company is solvent, there is no reason for directors to consider the interests of creditors. However, when a company is insolvent, the directors must consider creditors in priority to shareholders (West Mercia Safetywear Ltd [in Liquidation] v Dodd  BCLC 250). It is the period in between solvency and insolvency which causes most difficulties - i.e., the "zone of insolvency", aka the "twilight zone".
Source: Director's Duties in the "Zone of Insolvency", Simon Baskerville and Inga West, Ashurst LLP, 6th edition of The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Corporate Governance 2013; published by Global Legal Group Ltd, London (www.iclg.co.uk).