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

Parks corporation is considering an investment proposal in which a working capital investment of $10,000 would be required. the investment would provide cash inflows of $2,000 per year for six years. the working capital would be released for use elsewhere when the project is completed. if the company's discount rate is 10%, the investment's net present value is closest to (ignore income taxes) ?

Uknow what i love about i ask a dumb question it is immediately answered but when i ask a real question it take like an hour to get answered

Fortress international, a large conglomerate, procures a few component parts from external suppliers and also manufactures some of the key raw materials in its own subsidiaries. aside from this, the company does not solely depend on outside distributors to reach its customers. in fact, it has its own retail stores to distribute its products. in this scenario, which of the following alternatives to vertical integration is fortress international applying? a. concentric integration b. taper integration c. horizontal integration d. conglomerate integration