Answer:
Part - (a)
Since A constructively holds stock through her son and a prohibited interest within the 10 years of divestment, she will not receive a favorable treatment.
Part - (b)
The sale may qualify for redemption if A decides to become a creditor within a 10 years period. Creditors do not hold prohibited interest in corporations, typically because they hold no voting rights.
Part - (c)
The act of replacing, or office held by a family member, does not constitute a prohibited interest. Therefore: the sale should qualify.
Part - (d)
Accepting the stocks as gift would trigger a prohibited interest. The size of the gift and her son's shares and will nullify the 10 year rule.
Answer:
The total assets must change by B) $5,000 decrease
Explanation:
hi, remember that:
If liabilities decrease by $15,000 and equity increases by $10,000...
Therefore, to balance this equation, we have to substract -$5,000 from the assets, therefore, the assets decrease by 5,000, which is B)
Best of luck.
B. To focus on a global market.
Answer:
This was an actual court case that ended in the Court of Appeals of the First District of California. Initially a lower court had ruled against the Sharabianlous and set extremely high compensations for damages to Berenstein. I do not understand why the court did it since it was proven that the land was contaminated and couldn't be sold under unless cleaned.
Finally, the court of appeals ruled in favor of the Sharabianlous, not because they thought they were right, but due to errors in the original trial.
The big issue in this case was that the contract signed by the Sharabianlous wasn't clear enough about what would happen if the land was not suitable for sale and they also failed to seek a lawyer when the contamination issues became obvious. If you read the case, even the real estate broker acted against the Sharabianlous when the property was appraised since he didn't tell the appraiser about the contamination issues.
The final ruling was made in 2010, 8 years after the parties engaged in the transaction, which gives us an idea of how complicated things can get when legal procedures are not followed, even though the outcome should be obvious.
If I was part of a jury and the case was about property that couldn't be sold due to contamination, I would probably vote in favor of the buyer, not the seller. It's common sense, but sometimes it you do not follow the appropriate legal path, common sense makes no sense at all.
