Opinion ID: 405111
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cole's cross-appeal

Text: 44 Cole has raised two issues in his cross-appeal. First, he contends that the district court was in error when it concluded that PPG was entitled to judgment in the amount of $10,000.00 on its counterclaim. Second, Cole contends that the district court erred in failing to find that PPG committed securities fraud in the transactions entitling him to rescission. 45 With regard to the judgment on the counterclaim, Cole asserts that he was required to execute the personal guaranty on Car Color's open account purchases because of his purchase of the Car Color stock. According to this argument, because the stock sale was illegal, it must follow that there was no consideration to Cole for his personal guaranty, and the guaranty is therefore unenforceable. 46 This argument overlooks the recital in the guaranty that it was given (i)n consideration of the sale and/or delivery by PPG ... of certain products manufactured and/or distributed by PPG to Car Color.... In addition, there is evidence in the record that substantial open account purchases were, in fact, made by Car Color after Cole had purchased its stock. We find that there was adequate consideration to support the guaranty, and that it is therefore enforceable. 47 With regard to Cole's contention that the district court erred in failing to find securities fraud on PPG's part, it is sufficient to note that Cole was found to have been the moving party when he exercised the option, and that he did so against the advice of his accountant and even certain of PPG's employees. These findings are not clearly erroneous. Cole has thus failed to demonstrate that he purchased the securities by means of any material misstatements on PPG's part. See Ark.Stat.Ann. § 67-1256(i). 11 48 The judgment of the district court is affirmed.