On January 1, Lorain Corporation had 2,000 shares of $5 par common stock authorized and outstanding. These shares were originally issued at a price of $26 per share. In addition, 500 shares of $50 par preferred stock were outstanding. These were issued at a price of $75 per share. During the year, the following stock transactions occurred:1. March 3: Lorain reacquired 100 shares of its own common stock at a cost of $24 per share.2. April 27: It sold 25 shares of the common stock acquired on March 3 for $33 per share.3. July 10: It sold 25 shares of the common stock acquired on March 3 for $22 per share.4. October 12: It retired the remaining shares acquired on March 3.

An outside manufacturer has offered to produce 60,000 daks and ship them directly to andretti's customers. if andretti company accepts this offer, the facilities that it uses to produce daks would be idle; however, fixed manufacturing overhead costs would be reduced by 75%. because the outside manufacturer would pay for all shipping costs, the variable selling expenses would be only two-thirds of their present amount. what is andretti's avoidable cost per unit that it should compare to the price quoted by the outside manufacturer?

(a) what was the opportunity cost of non-gm food for many buyers before 2008? (b) why did they prefer the alternative? (c) what was the opportunity cost in 2008? (d) why did it change?

Cooper sues company a in state court in south carolina, where he lives, for negligence alleging personal injury and property damage of $100,000 after a truck driven by an employee of company a rear-ended his pickup truck. company a is incorporated in delaware, has its headquarters in new york, but does a substantial amount of business in south carolina. claiming diversity of citizenship, company a seeks removal to federal district court, but cooper opposes the motion. which of the following is true regarding whether the case may be properly removed to federal district court? the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and if company a's nerve center is in a state other than south carolina, then the case may be properly removed to federal court. the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements; and because company a is incorporated and has its headquarters in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court. because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is incorporated in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a's headquarters, nerve center, or principal place of business is located. because the amount in controversy satisfies diversity requirements and company a is headquartered in a state other than south carolina, the case may be properly removed to federal court regardless of where company a is incorporated and regardless of the location of its nerve center. because the amount in controversy fails to satisfy jurisdictional requirements, regardless of the location of company a, the case may not be removed to federal court.