Go subscribe to my YT channel for a Florida_kik is the name

The following selected circumstances relate to pending lawsuits for erismus, inc. erismus’s fiscal year ends on december 31. financial statements are issued in march 2019. erismus prepares its financial statements according to u.s. gaap. required: indicate the amount erismus would record as an asset, liability, or not accrued in the following circumstances. 1. erismus is defending against a lawsuit. erismus's management believes the company has a slightly worse than 50/50 chance of eventually prevailing in court, and that if it loses, the judgment will be $1,000,000. 2. erismus is defending against a lawsuit. erismus's management believes it is probable that the company will lose in court. if it loses, management believes that damages could fall anywhere in the range of $2,000,000 to $4,000,000, with any damage in that range equally likely. 3. erismus is defending against a lawsuit. erismus's management believes it is probable that the company will lose in court. if it loses, management believes that damages will eventually be $5,000,000, with a present value of $3,500,000. 4. erismus is a plaintiff in a lawsuit. erismus's management believes it is probable that the company eventually will prevail in court, and that if it prevails, the judgment will be $1,000,000. 5. erismus is a plaintiff in a lawsuit. erismus’s management believes it is virtually certain that the company eventually will prevail in court, and that if it prevails, the judgment will be $500,000.

You operate a small advertising agency. you employ two secretaries, a graphic designer, three sales representatives, and an office coordinator. 1. what types of things would you consider when determining how to compensate each position? describe two (2) considerations. 2. what type of compensation plan would you use for each position?

David paid $975,000 for two beachfront lots in coastal south carolina, with the intention of building residential homes on each. two years later, the south carolina legislature passed the beachfront management act, barring any further development of the coast, including david's lots. when david files a complaint to seek compensation for his property, south carolina refuses, pointing to a passage in david's own complaint that states "the beachfront management act [was] properly and validly designed to south carolina's " is south carolina required to compensate david under the takings clause?