Despite Sherrie's initial reluctance, Josh ultimately prevailed on her to expand Fins regionally to Charlotte and Atlanta, but they agreed not to accept any outside equity investment. Instead, they have financed their expansion through a combination of personal investments, revenues from the Chapel Hill facility, and bank loans. Thus, Josh and Sherrie remain the only shareholders in Fins.At the beginning of the third year of operation, Fins owns three facilities that appear on their balance sheet with a total valuation of $2.6 million. The properties are subject to mortgages of approximately $2.4 million. The Company has $100,000 in cash in a bank account, $40,000 in accounts receivable, and $60,000 in equipment, as well as $250,000 in accounts payable and $100,000 of loans from a line of credit from SunTrust Bank.Josh and Sherrie are discussing the possibility of issuing dividends. Each of them has taken a modest salary from Fins, but they would both like to reap some larger rewards from their hard work, and they are considering a dividend of $100,000 ($60,000 for Josh, reflecting his 60% ownership interest, and $40,000 for Sherrie, reflecting her 40% ownership interest). Josh and Sherrie fully expect Fins to continue to pay its debts as they come due after the distribution of this dividend.Questions Presented:(1) Would Josh and Sherrie be limited in the amount of dividends they can pay, even if they are the only shareholders?(2) Should they be limited? Are there ways around these limits?(3) There is a large ongoing conversation regarding executive compensation whether it be disproportionate compensation as compared to lower-level employees, ill-timed or abusive bonuses and other benefits, etc. Do some research (a) case law and (b) otherwise and share the justification of and your ethical stance on such items. (4) Where do relevant stakeholders play into the conversation of executive compensation? Do some research to uncover some success stories of just compensation for stakeholders and executives.