Creditors that lent funds to sham companies often pursue claims against financial institutions that banked the schemers on aiding-and-abetting theories. A recent decision by the U. District Court for the District of Minnesota provides important guidance on this question.
Ritchie v. June 30, untangles who has standing to bring claims against a third party alleged to have aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme. Running this puzzle produces solutions containing all possible combinations given the clues we have so far. Note how the houses now have additional information that was not directly specified in the clues, For example, one possible solution is where the Dane lives in the Yellow house, even though this was not explicitly mentioned in any of the clues.
Here are the first 3 possibilities:. In the relation above, we had to use conj to group the two goals inside the Racket let statement, conj means that both goals must hold. While it is possible to mix Racket and miniKanren , it is not always obvious how to do so without understanding the inner workings of miniKanren.
This approach avoids the pitfalls of mixing Racket and miniKanren code:. We could just use one assumption, but we can also represent this ambiguity as different possibilities, expressed as the disj statement, which means that either of the goals must hold. To check that the previous relation works as expected, here is what the solutions look if we leave just this relation in the puzzle: there are two possibilities, one that the Norvegian is in the first house from the left and the second one that the Norvegian is in the first house from the right:.
Adding these two clues to the puzzle reduces the number of possibilities to solutions, since there are now less possibilities to satisfy all of the clues given so far. Updating the puzzle with the new relation produces results, further constraining the number of possibilities.
The puzzle would have only one solution if we assume that the Norwegian lives in the first house on the left. Neither solution has anything to say about a fish, since the fish does not appear anywhere in the clues. Note that this relation takes two arguments both the street and a nationality, which can be used as an output argument to determine the owner.
Running the query produces two answers, since there are two solutions, but both answers are the same: the German owns the fish, since the solution does not change even with the ambiguity of clue 9. The who-owns-the-fish? This is easy to see if we extract both the fish owner and the final puzzle solution, the German now has an assigned pet. For example, asking if the Norvegian owns the fish produces zero results, since the Norvegian does not own the fish:. To find out if there really is a fish, one option is to just get the solution out of miniKanren and use Racket code to search for the fish, which will be nowhere to be found.
The who-really-owns-this-pet? BoCo arrives and sends the twins about their business. Gordon expresses gratitude to BoCo, not knowing that the twins were only teasing.
Shining Time Station Wiki Explore. Our friends. King Ginny Johnson Midge Smoot. The stars. Your Shining Time. Policies and Staff. Rules Wiki Staff. As part of this process, these court-appointed parties step into the shoes of the company and may bring any litigation that the company itself could have brought.
This process creates a thorny question: who may seek recovery from a third party alleged to have been involved in the fraud? Creditors that lent funds to sham companies often pursue claims against financial institutions that banked the schemers on aiding-and-abetting theories.
A recent decision by the U. District Court for the District of Minnesota provides important guidance on this question. Ritchie v. June 30, untangles who has standing to bring claims against a third party alleged to have aided and abetted a Ponzi scheme. Ritchie thus serves as a touchstone in disputes over standing in Ponzi litigation.
0コメント