The supreme court ruled on united states v. o'hagan, a case on insider trading. in the case o'hagan, a lawyer in a firm representing the target of a tender offer, traded in the stock of the company (using the insider information) for personal profit. the court's ruled that this was a breach of a fiduciary duty to the source of the information, which is best characterized as: a. ethical relativism —changes their rule according to the circumstance. b. social contract— investors to expect an even playing field. c. utilitarian— maximize pleasure for the most people. d. ethical egoist—maximizes self-interest.

Suppose you win a small lottery and have the choice of two ways to be paid: you can accept the money in a lump sum or in a series of payments over time. if you pick the lump sum, you get $2,950 today. if you pick payments over time, you get three payments: $1,000 today, $1,000 1 year from today, and $1,000 2 years from today. 1) at an interest rate of 6% per year, the winner would be better off accepting the (lump sum / payments over time), since it has the greater present value. 2) at an interest rate of 9% per year, the winner would be better off accepting the (lump sum / payments over time), since it has the greater present value. 3) years after you win the lottery, a friend in another country calls to ask your advice. by wild coincidence, she has just won another lottery with the same payout schemes. she must make a quick decision about whether to collect her money under the lump sum or the payments over time. what is the best advice to give your friend? a) the lump sum is always better. b) the payments over time are always better. c) it will depend on the interest rate; advise her to get a calculator. d) none of these answers is good advice.