Epa argued that shell was an "arranger" subject to liability under cercla because it had arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances through its sale and delivery, even though it did not "intend" to dispose of a hazardous substance. does the epa have a valid argument? is mere knowledge that spills and leaks occurred sufficient grounds for concluding that shell "arranged for" the disposal of the chemical under cercla? [burlington northern & sante fe railway co. v. united

Required information lansing company’s 2017 income statement and selected balance sheet data (for current assets and current liabilities) at december 31, 2016 and 2017, follow. lansing company income statement for year ended december 31, 2017 sales revenue $130,200 expenses cost of goods sold 53,000 depreciation expense 17,500 salaries expense 29,000 rent expense 10,100 insurance expense 4,900 interest expense 4,700 utilities expense 3,900 net income $7,100 lansing company selected balance sheet accounts at december 31 2017 2016 accounts receivable $6,700 $8,000 inventory 3,080 2,090 accounts payable 5,500 6,800 salaries payable 1,100 810 utilities payable 440 270 prepaid insurance 370 500 prepaid rent 440 290 required: prepare the cash flows from operating activities section only of the company’s 2017 statement of cash flows using the indirect method. (amounts to be deducted should be indicated with a minus sign.)