the granting of complete relief in the determination of a counterclaim or cross-claim.” O.C.G.A. § 9-11-13(h). Hen-shell argues that he is entitled to invoke res judicata as an indispensable party because: (1) the Akins’ civil conspiracy claim was a compulsory counterclaim in the prior action between PEC and PAFEC; (2) as an alleged co-conspirator, Henshell became an indispensable party to the adjudication of the civil conspiracy claim; (3) once Hen-shell became an indispensable party, PEC was required to assert its fiduciary duty claims against him as compulsory counterclaims against an adverse party; and (4) PEC’s failure to implead Henshell and assert the fiduciary duty claims in the prior action bars the Akins from now asserting these causes of action. See Usher, 278 S.E.2d at 73 (<HOLDING>). In light of our determination that the Akins'
holding that once a defendant becomes associated with a conspiracy he is responsible for all of the acts of the conspiracy even those which occurred before or after his association with the conspiracy holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action holding that res judicata barred conspiracy claim against defendant even though defendant had not been a party to the prior action because the civil conspiracy claim should have been adjudicated in a prior action and defendant as an alleged participant in the conspiracy would have been indispensable party to that adjudication holding that the doctrine of res judicata is applicable to defenses that could have been raised in a prior action holding that prior adjudication barred a claim that arose out of the same transactions and that could have been raised in prior suit