Francisco inc. acquired 100 percent of the voting shares of beltran company on january 1, 2017. in exchange, francisco paid $815,000 in cash and issued 115,000 shares of its own $1 par value common stock. on this date, francisco’s stock had a fair value of $12 per share. the combination is a statutory merger with beltran subsequently dissolved as a legal corporation. beltran’s assets and liabilities are assigned to a new reporting unit. the following reports the fair values for the beltran reporting unit for january 1, 2017, and december 31, 2018, along with their respective book values on december 31, 2018.reporting unit fair values 1/1/17 fair values12/31/18 book values12/31/18cash $125,500 $79,500 $79,500 receivables 308,750 348,000 348,000 inventory 264,250 310,000 302,900 patents 623,500 740,000 593,500 customer relationships 674,750 636,000 595,750 equipment (net) 394,500 290,000 282,550 goodwill ? ? 580,000 accounts payable (172,500 ) (260,000 ) (260,000 )long-term liabilities (510,500 ) (412,000 ) (412,000 )a. prepare fransicso's journal entry to record the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed in the beltran merger o 1/1/17.cash receivables inventory patents customer relationships equipment goodwill accounts payable long term liabilities cash common stock apic

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.