XYZ Corporation uses a process costing system to collect costs related to the production of its cola. The cola is first processed in a Mixing Department and is then transferred out and finished up in the Bottling Department. The finished cases of cola are then transferred to Finished Goods Inventory. The following information relates to the company's two departments for the month of January: Cases of cola in WIP, January 1: Mixing = 10,000; Bottling = 3,000
Cases of cola completed/transferred out during January: Mixing = 77,000; Bottling = ?
Cases of cola in WIP, January 31: Mixing = 4,000; Bottling = 8,000

Required:
How many cases of cola were completed and transferred to Finished Goods Inventory during January:

a. 66,000
b. 71,000
c. 72,000
d. 74,000

Eagle sporting goods reported the following data at july ​31, 2016​, with amounts adapted in​ thousands: ​(click the icon to view the income​ statement.) ​(click the icon to view the statement of retained​ earnings.) ​(click the icon to view the balance​ sheet.) 1. compute eagle​'s net working capital. 2. compute eagle​'s current ratio. round to two decimal places. 3. compute eagle​'s debt ratio. round to two decimal places. do these values and ratios look​ strong, weak or​ middle-of-the-road? 1. compute eagle​'s net working capital. total current assets - total current liabilities = net working capital 99400 - 30000 = 69400 2. compute eagle​'s current ratio. ​(round answer to two decimal​ places.) total current assets / total current liabilities = current ratio 99400 / 30000 = 3.31 3. compute eagle​'s debt ratio. ​(round answer to two decimal​ places.) total liabilities / total assets = debt ratio 65000 / 130000 = 0.50 do these ratio values and ratios look​ strong, weak or​ middle-of-the-road? net working capital is ▾ . this means ▾ current assets exceed current liabilities current liabilities exceed current assets and is a ▾ negative positive sign. eagle​'s current ratio is considered ▾ middle-of-the-road. strong. weak. eagle​'s debt ratio is considered ▾ middle-of-the-road. strong. weak. choose from any list or enter any number in the input fields and then continue to the next question.

In december of 2004, the company you own entered into a 20-year contract with a grain supplier for daily deliveries of grain to its hot dog bun manufacturing facility. the contract called for "10,000 pounds of grain" to be delivered to the facility at the price of $100,000 per day. until february 2017, the supplier provided processed grain which could easily be used in your manufacturing process. however, no longer wanting to absorb the cost of having the grain processed, the supplier began delivering whole grain. the supplier is arguing that the contract does not specify the type of grain that would be supplied and that it has not breached the contract. your company is arguing that the supplier has an onsite processing plant and processed grain was implicit to the terms of the contract. over the remaining term of the contract, reshipping and having the grain processed would cost your company approximately $10,000,000, opposed to a cost of around $1,000,000 to the supplier. after speaking with in-house counsel, it was estimated that litigation would cost the company several million dollars and last for years. weighing the costs of litigation, along with possible ambiguity in the contract, what are three options you could take to resolve the dispute? which would be the best option for your business and why?

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.