With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". agreement. This is simply incorrect. As we explained above, Invsco itself did not need to receive a direct benefit for its written guaranty to be enforceable. Lauer, 1 Ill. App. 3d at 521, 274 N.E.2d at 869-70. Rather, to be enforceable, there had to be some exchange of new consideration between the parties that modified the terms of the original loan agreement to make the guaranty enforceable. Finn v. Heritage Bank & Trust Co., 178 Ill. App. 3d 609, 611-12, 533 N.E.2d 539, 542 (1989). Because forbearance is valid consideration, Tower’s forbearance from exercising its right to take legal action against Consultants constitutes adequate consideration to support Invsco’s guaranty of Consultants’ preexisting debt. See, e.g., F.H. Prince, 275 Ill. App. 3d at 799, 656 N.E.2d at 148 (<HOLDING>); Finn, 178 Ill. App. 3d at 612, 533 N.E.2d at

A: holding that plaintiffs forbearance from suit against subsidiary was sufficient consideration to support defendants guaranty of defendants subsidiarys preexisting debt
B: holding that because evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962c convictions and jury could infer from evidence that defendants each manifested an agreement to participate in enterprises affairs evidence was sufficient to support defendants  1962d convictions for rico conspiracy
C: holding that satisfaction of preexisting debt of corporate affiliate was sufficient to support jury finding of fair consideration for the transfer of valid security interest
D: recognizing debt cancellation as consideration
A.