who agreed to purchase the property “as is” and assumed the risk of properly determining the property’s value); Isaacs v. Bishop, 249 S.W.3d 100, 110 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2008, pet. denied) (suggesting the appellee was negligent for failing to read a promissory note, but still upholding rescission based on fraud by the appellant). Contrary to the Commission’s argument, the proportional responsibility of the parties to investigate does not negate a finding of misrepresentation. See Pleasant v. Bradford, 260 S.W.3d 546, 555 (Tex.App.-Austin 2008, pet. denied) (concluding that “[t]he opportunity to conduct an independent investigation of a representation, without more,” does not negate a finding of fraud); Barber v. Keeling, 204 S.W. 139, 140 (Tex.Civ.App.-San Antonio 1918, no writ) (<HOLDING>). Conclusion On the record before us, we
holding majority shareholder liable when he used his control of the board for the malicious purpose of  preventing dividends and otherwise lowering the value  of the stock of the minority shareholders holding that the director of a bank and friend of the appellee was liable for misrepresentations about the value of stock despite evidence tending to show that appellee could by an investigation have ascertained the falsity of the representations holding that if the market value of an asset can be ascertained the decree should account for the change in value between the date of the decree and the timely execution of the distribution plan in the decree the distribution based on value at the distribution date holding when defendant raised affirmative defense of total failure of consideration that even assuming the acquired stock became worthless the worthlessness of the stock did not constitute a failure of consideration when in exchange for note defendant received 2500 shares of stock   as well as all the rights privileges and benefits of a shareholder director and officer emphasis supplied punctuation omitted holding in action for breach of contract caused by wrongful foreclosure and sale of shares of stock plaintiff was entitled to recover the fair market value of the stock at the time of its sale