World418-Tk-03

Task prompt

What the agent was asked to do

BlueLNG sued Nakamura in the Southern District of New York based on the shipbuilding contract. Given that Nakamura has no office in the district, can BlueLNG seek Rule B attachment of a US$ wire transfer sent from Nakamura to Obun Corporation with Head Office in Manhattan and attachment of 15,000 Maersk shares owned by Nakamura held by Cantor Fitzgerald's office on Wall Street? Please answer me with a reply here.

Grading rubric

Criteria and grader verdict (showcase run)

1. States that BlueLNG cannot obtain Rule B attachments for the wire transfer

   Pass

   Evidence: The response states, “For the stated shipbuilding-contract suit: **No Rule B attachment—neither the Obun wire nor the Maersk shares**” and specifically, “**US$ wire from Nakamura to Obun Corp.: likely no.**” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states BlueLNG cannot obtain Rule B attachment for the wire transfer. Pass; the response clearly says no attachment is available for the wire under the stated claim, and also no even assuming a separate maritime claim for an EFT/payment to Obun.

2. States that BlueLNG cannot obtain Rule B attachments for the shares in the Southern District of New York

   Pass

   Evidence: The response’s bottom line says, “For the stated shipbuilding-contract suit: **No Rule B attachment—neither the Obun wire nor the Maersk shares—because the underlying claim is likely non-maritime.**” Assessment: The criterion asks whether it states BlueLNG cannot obtain Rule B attachments for the shares in the Southern District of New York. Pass; although it adds a hypothetical that shares might be attachable if there were a separate maritime claim, for the actual shipbuilding-contract suit it clearly states the Maersk shares cannot be attached under Rule B.