Please give me the correct answer:

Jacobs Engineering Group had its target price increasedby analysts at KeyCorp from $82.00 to $86.00 in a research noteissued to investors on Wednesday, Benzinga Ratings Tables reports.The firm currently has an "overweight" rating on the constructioncompany's stock. KeyCorp's price target indicates a potentialupside of 7.69% from the company's current price. Other researchanalysts have also issued research reports about the company. MKMPartners lifted their price target on Jacobs Engineering Group to$87.00 and gave the stock a "buy" rating in a report on Tuesday,February 26th. ValuEngine upgraded Jacobs Engineering Group from a"hold" rating to a "buy" rating in a report on Monday, February25th. Cowen set a $82.00 price objective on Jacobs EngineeringGroup and gave the stock a "buy" rating in a report on Wednesday,February 20th. Citigroup set a $83.00 price objective on JacobsEngineering Group and gave the stock a "buy" rating in a report onWednesday, February 20th. Finally, Robert W. Baird set a $83.00price objective on Jacobs Engineering Group and gave the stock a"buy" rating in a report on Wednesday, February 20th. Two equitiesresearch analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating andfifteen have issued a buy rating to the company's stock. JacobsEngineering Group has a consensus rating of "Buy" and a consensustarget price of $84.55.

The case above reports that two of the equities research analystshave rated the stock with a “hold” rating. If the two equitiesresearch analysts are right, what results must have found about thevalue of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock?

1. Two equities research analysts found that the current marketprice of common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is above thebook value of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock.

2. Two equities research analysts found that the current marketprice of common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is equal to theintrinsic value of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock.

3. Two equities research analysts found that the current book ofcommon stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is above the intrinsicvalue of Jacobs Engineering Group’s common stock.

4. Two equities research analysts found that the intrinsic valueof common stock for Jacobs Engineering Group is above to thecurrent common stock price of Jacobs Engineering Group.

5. none of the answers is correct.

Benchmark, the Silicon Valley venture firm and earlyinvestor in Uber, has sued former CEO TravisKalanick.

In a Delaware Chancery Court filing, originally identifiedby Axios’ Dan Primack, the suit alleges that Kalanick committedfraud, breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty. BothKalanick and Benchmark hold Uber board seats.

Accusing Kalanick of being “selfish” by packing Uber’sboard with “loyal allies,” Benchmark alleges that the ousted CEObroke the law by trying to pave the way.

The board of directors and corporate managers work together and attimes, because they know each other well, there could be anentrenchment among them. As the alleged claim is true CEO TravisKalanick committed fraud, breach of contract and breach offiduciary duty to benefit himself, what kind of problem in acorporation describes the situation the best?

1. managers benefiting themselves rather than the shareholdersof the company is called “fiduciary problem.”

2. managers benefiting the shareholders of the company ratherthan themselves is called “corporate governance.”

3. managers benefiting the shareholders of the company ratherthan themselves is called “agency problem.”

4. none of the answers is correct.

5. managers benefiting themselves rather than the shareholdersof the company is called “agency problem.”

Pomerantz LLP is investigating claims on behalf ofinvestors of EQT Corporation (“EQT” or the “Company”). Theinvestigation concerns whether EQT and certain of its officersand/or directors have engaged in securities fraud or other unlawfulbusiness practices.
On June 19, 2017, EQT announced entry into an agreement toacquire Rice Energy Inc. (“Rice”) for total consideration of $6.7billion (the “Acquisition”). EQT touted the purported benefits ofthe proposed merger, telling its shareholders that the Acquisitionwould result in $2.5 billion in synergies, including $100 millionin cost savings in 2018 alone. On July 3, 2017, activist investorJANA Partners LLC (“JANA”), in several letters citing detailedevidence, asserted that the Rice merger synergies were “grosslyexaggerated” and that according to JANA’s expert analysis, “itwould be impossible for EQT to support its claimed synergy drillingplan.” Nonetheless, EQT repeatedly denied JANA’s assertions andreassured investors of the merits of the Acquisition. EQT and Riceshareholders thereafter approved the Acquisition. After theAcquisition closed in November 2017, EQT continued to tout the“significant operational synergies” or the merger that wouldpurportedly allow EQT to become “one of the lowest-cost operatorsin the United States.” On March 15, 2018, just five months afterthe Acquisition closed, EQT announced the sudden and unexpectedresignation of Steven T. Schlotterbeck as the Company’s ChiefExecutive Officer. Then, on October 25, 2018, EQT reportedsurprisingly bad third-quarter financial results caused by asignificant increase in total costs, which were $586.2 millionhigher than in the same period of the prior year. Moreover, EQTdisclosed that its estimated capital expenditures for welldevelopment in 2018 would increase by $300 million, to $2.5billion, as a result of “inefficiencies from higher activitylevels, the learning curve on ultra-long horizontal wells, andservice cost increases.” As a result, EQT reduced its full-yearforecast for 2018. These disclosures were at odds with EQT’s priorrepresentations concerning the purported synergies of theAcquisition.
On this news, EQT’s stock price fell $2.79 per share, or12.65%, to close at $19.24 per share on October 25,2018.

Which one of the goals will be appropriate for Steven T.Schlotterbeck as the Company’s Chief Executive Officer tofollow?

1. Shareholders wealth maximization.

2. Short-term profit maximization.

3. Sales and net income maximization.

4. Free cash flow maximization.

5. none of the answers is correct.

When Ultra Petroleum Corp. emerges from bankruptcyprotection in the coming weeks, as expected, the natural gasproducer's chief executive is on track to be rewarded with roughly$35 million worth of its stock, more than 10 times his annualcompensation in recent years.

Michael Watford, the CEO, and other employees at theHouston company are sharing 7.5% of the Ultra's new shares, afairly typical cut awarded to managers of companies emerging frombankruptcy protection to incentivize them to stick around. Bankruptcompanies usually issue new stock when they emerge from bankruptcy,replacing their old shares.

What's unusual in Ultra's case is the size of the pie fromwhich that slice is coming: The company's postbankruptcy equityvalue has been set at about $4 billion, meaning that its employeesare due some $300 million of stock, 40% of it to be doled out theday its new shares are launched, according to court filings andpeople familiar with the matter. The rest would be distributed atthe discretion of its board.

While Ultra Petroleum Corp. emerges from bankruptcy protection,Michael Watford, the CEO of the company, will be rewarded withroughly $35 million worth of its stock. Do you think this isconsistent with the firm’s goal?

1. The amount of the award is outrageous, and it is inconsistentwith the sales maximization goal.

2. none of the answers is correct.
3. There's more to Uber IPO flop than meets the eye: It’s clear nowthat Uber Technologies Inc’s initial public offering will be leftwith a less than five-star review. The stock remains below its IPOprice, and many people have heaped fault on the bankers who toldexecutives that Uber could be worth $120 billion.

4. Even though the amount awarded is outrageous, theincentivizing top managers with bonuses is consistent with theshareholders wealth maximization goal.

5. Even though the amount awarded is outrages, the incentivizingtop managers with bonuses is consistent with the shareholders salesmaximization goal.

6. The amount of the award is outrageous, and it is inconsistentwith the shareholders wealth maximization goal.