I get the confusion, but litigation privilege actually covers materials prepped for possible litigation, not just communications. So option A is closest since it's about client-lawyer stuff, though it's super similar to attorney-client privilege. Not totally sure here, but leaning A based on what I've seen.
C or B? But I think B is right since the Howey Test says the profits have to come mainly from others' efforts, not just from your own management. The other options are all required for an investment contract. Not 100% sure but that's how I remember it from the official materials. Agree?
Honestly, I'd go with C here since Smith accessed Green's private info, and public disclosure of private facts covers exposing someone's data. The question doesn't say Smith showed the info to others, but just accessing it could be enough for a claim under C in some interpretations. Pretty sure B is what ACFE wants, but C is tempting if you miss that "disclosure" piece.
Not seeing it for C, option A is more accurate here. In inquisitorial jurisdictions, the court is generally the one appointing key expert witnesses, not the parties. It's easy to mix up with adversarial systems where parties select their own experts-classic trap on these questions. Pretty confident that's what they're going for.
Is it always true that in inquisitorial systems, only the court can pick the expert? I thought sometimes the parties could bring their own as well. Not clear if the question means only one approach or both are possible.
Is there any situation where "duty of employee trust" is a formal legal term? I mostly see "duty of loyalty" in exam prep books for this context, but open to hearing if anyone's seen it used differently.