Can I Recover More Than My Investment Losses?

Damages are typically measured by net “out-of-pocket losses,” i.e. what you put in or invested, less what you took out or withdrew, minus what is left over. Using this methodology, for example, an investor purchases or invests $100 in a ten year bond, which yield 10% annual interest. Each year for a period of ten years, the investor receives their $10 interest check. However, at the end of the tenth year, the investor wakes up to find that their $100 bond, which is supposed to be redeemed after ten years, is completely worthless.

Downward sloping chart over dollarsThe investor will believe that he or she suffered a $100 loss. Defense counsel will maintain, as may be appropriate, that the investor has no losses. The investor gave us $100, and we gave the investor the $100 back.

This concept of “netting” has been routinely rejected by the Courts. For example, in Kane v. Shearson, 916 F.2d 643, 646 (11th Cir. 1990), the Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s reversal of an arbitration decision that offset the claimants’ losses by his gains from the same stock. The Court concluded that “[t]here is no indication that other transactions are relevant to this calculation at all.” The Court further observed the perverse incentives of such a “netting” theory:

[T]here is no support to be found under federal or [sic] state law for the “netting” theory Shearson argues for here. . . . As the district judge noted, “If the . . . methodology espoused by [Shearson] were adopted, it could serve as a license for broker-dealers to defraud their customers with impunity up to the point where losses equaled prior gains. 916 F.2d at 643

Similarly, in Randall v. Loftsgarden, 106 S.Ct. 3143, 3153 (1986), the United States Supreme Court rejected a netting analysis based on the deterrent purpose of the securities laws: “This deterrent purpose is ill-served by a too rigid insistence on limiting plaintiffs to recovery of their ‘net economic loss.’” In Nesbit v. McNeil, 896 F.2d 380, 385, 386 (9th Cir. 1990), another suitability case, the Appeals Court affirmed the trial court’s rejection of the netting argument, stating that “there is no reason to find that [plaintiffs] should be denied a recovery because their portfolio increased in value, either because of or in spite of the activities of the defendants,” and that “gains in portfolio will not offset losses . . . .”A clerk counts US dollar bills at a bank

Again, in Davis v. Merrill Lynch, 906 F.2d 1206, 1218 (8th Cir. 1990), the federal appeals court, interpreting both state common law and federal statutory claims, rejected the netting argument:

We disagree with Merrill Lynch’s argument that no actual damages were sustained . . . . The implications of this argument are disturbing. If we were to adopt Merrill Lynch’s view, securities brokers would be free to churn their customers’ accounts with impunity so long as the net value of the account did not fall below the amount originally invested. 906 F.2d at 1218 (emphasis added); See also Levine v. Futransky, 636 F.Supp. 899, 900 (N.D. Ill. 1986)(the court similarly rejected a “netting” defense, stating that “this Court holds that plaintiffs suffered damages even though the investment portfolios incurred a net gain.”).

What if using the same hypothetical, interest rates were only 5% over this ten year period. But our investor received 10 percent interest. Did the investor also then lose $100, or was the investor compensated for taking the higher risk, including the risk that after 10 years, the particular bond may be worthless.

The Well Managed Portfolio Theory

The answer may be found through the application of the “well managed portfolio” theory, which applies, as the name suggests, to both bonds and stocks, or really any investment.

So, here, let us say there are two bonds and two investors. Investor A is sold a a safe, conservative bond which yields 5%, which has a low rate of default. Investor B, contrary to his stated intolerance for risk, is sold a very risky junk bond, or collateralized mortgage obligation that pay 10%, but has a very high rate of default. At the end of ten years, Investors A in the low risk bond in addition to getting a total of $50 in interest, gets back $100, for a total of $150. However, Investor B, the investor sold the high risk bonds, gets $100 in interest, but at the end of ten years discovers the risky bonds to be worthless.

investment stockbroker stock tradingAt the end of the day, Investor B has $50 less than Investor A. Accordingly in an action by the defrauded Investor B, who wanted the low risk bonds but of course was sold the high risk bonds, his damages are $50. Moreover, even if Investor B has no net “out of pocket damages,” over this same period, had Investor B’s $100 been appropriately invested, at 5%, he would have had an additional $50.

The same concept applies to stocks, or stocks and bonds, or to any portfolio. A portfolio that loses 40% or $40 when the stock market, as measured by the S&P 500, is down 20% can be said to have only lost $20, because had then been “appropriately” invested in the S&P 500, they would have lost $20 or 20% anyway.

The question always is what is “appropriately invested.” Do we measure losses against bond indices, if so which ones, stock indices, if so which ones, or a weighted index of stock and bonds. Is it appropriate to say to an investor that should have never been in the stock market, that had they been in the stock market, they would have lost X% anyway? Of course not.

However the concept is that investors are entitled to market adjusted or “well managed portfolio damages,” meaning that actual net “out-of-pocket damages” should be adjusted to reflect what the investor made, or arguably would have lost, had they been “appropriately” invested.

Courts agree. See e.g. Miley v. Oppenheimer & Company, 637 F.2d 318 (5th Cir., 1981); Dasler v. E.F. Hutton, 694 F. Supp. 624 (6th Cir. 1998); Medical Associates v. Advest, Inc., 1989 Lexis 11253 (W.D.N.Y. 1989); Hatrock v. Edward D. Jones & Co., 750 F.2d 767, 773-74 (9th Cir. 1984); In re. Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, Inc., 161 B.R. 902 (S.D.N.Y. 1993); Rolf v. Blyth Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 49 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039 (1978), modified, 637 F.2d 77 (2d Cir. 1980).

As the Court stated in Medical Associates stated: “The proper method of calculating damages is to take the initial value of plaintiff’s portfolio, adjust it by a percentage change in an appropriate index, during the relevant period, and subtract the value of the portfolio at the end of the period.” As such, “the market index is designed to separate the plaintiff’s losses that were due to the fraud from the losses that were due to general market conditions.”

For example, the court in Medical Associates stated: “The proper method of calculating damages is to take the initial value of plaintiff’s portfolio, adjust it by a percentage change in an appropriate index, during the relevant period, and subtract the value of the portfolio at the end of the period.” As such, “the market index is designed to separate the plaintiff’s losses that were due to the fraud from the losses that were due to general market conditions.”

Court buildingLikewise, the Hatrock court stated: “the investor may recover (1) excessive commissions charged by the broker, and (2) the decline in value of the investor’s portfolio resulting from the broker’s fraudulent transactions. The recoverable decline in portfolio value is the difference between what [the claimant] would have had if the account ha[d] been handled legitimately and what he in fact had at the time the violation ended” (internal citations omitted).

Similarly, in Levine v. E.F. Hutton &Co., 636 F. Supp. 899, 900 (N.D. Ill. 1986) allowed plaintiffs to recover “the difference between the losses incurred on the sale of the greater amount plaintiffs would have received had they not been defrauded and the more conservative securities had been bought and sold” (quoting Affiliated Ute Citizens v. United States, 406 US 128, 155 (1972) (holding that plaintiff should be awarded the difference between the “fair market value of all [he] received and the fair value of what he would have received had there been no fraudulent conduct”).

Similarly, in Rolf, the Second Circuit held that the following steps should be taken to compute damages: 1) compute the market value of the plaintiff’s portfolio when the fraud began; 2) adjust this amount by the average percentage increase or decrease of the value of the Dow Jones Industrial Average, the Standard & Poor’s Index, or any other well recognized index of value, or combination of indices, of the national securities markets during the period of the fraud; and 3) subtract from the resulting figure the market value of the portfolio when the fraud ended.

Guiliano Law Group

Our practice is limited to the representation of investors. We accept representation on a contingent fee basis, meaning there is no cost to you unless we make a recovery for you. There is never any charge for a consultation or an evaluation of your claim. For more information, contact us at (877) SEC-ATTY.

Martindale Award

avvo 10



FINRA Arbitration

The litigation of individual and group investor claims against securities broker-dealers and investment professionals adjuducated in arbitration before the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Defective Financial Products

Alternative Investments, Promissory Notes, Structured Products, High Yield Bond Funds, Non-Marketable Real Estate Investment Trusts, Inverse and Leveraged ETFs,  the Failure to Conduct Due Diligence.

Unsuitable Investments

Speculative or High Risk Investment Recommendations, Unsuitable Investment Strategies, Low Priced Securities, Customer Specific Unsuitability, Inappropriate Investment Recommendations.

Stockbroker Misconduct

Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Churing, Unauthorized Trading, Fraud, Stockbroker Theft, Ponzi Schemes, the Sale of Unapprovied investments.

"First Name I Would Mention"

I had questions and sought a consultation regarding what I believed to have been inappropriate treatment by my brokerage firm. He took the time to give me a clear understanding of what was involved and clearly described next steps to resolve the matter. He did this in a concise, complete and friendly manner. Although in the scheme of things my matter was small. From what I have seen, if I ever had need of a securities lawyer or was asked to refer one to a friend, Nicholas would undoubtedly be the first name I would mention.

Keith (Avvo)

I had a problem with a dishonorable Financial Adviser! So I contacted Mr. Guiliano to see what I could do. Nick said I can't very well charge you for something you can do on your own! Then proceeded to tell me what to do. Because of the short amount of time and my untrustworthy financial adviser's not crossing tee's and dotting I's my life's savings is in the process of being transferred into 3 separate accounts. One's that will work best for me. Instead of one account that kept my money out of my reach! You will have a hard time finding a more upstanding Attorney then Mr. Guiliano!

Walter (Avvo)
"Successful in Achieving Results"

I was the one who contacted Nick through his website as my ex-wife had little or no knowledge of investments, and depended completely on the advice of the investment firm. Without specifics I can say that Nick (and his wife) were not only successful in achieving results in the case, but in the process were all that one could expect (and more) as shown in my overall ratings above. I would highly recommend him.

Joe S. (Avvo)
Excellent Attorney!

Nick represented my wife and I in a recent lawsuit. He was the best attorney we have ever used! Communication was great, he kept us updated regularly, he explained everything in great detail, gave us all our options, and most importantly we always felt he represented our best interest throughout the entire process. We would highly recommend Nick!

Brian F. (Avvo)

"One In A Million"

Nicholas is extremely knowledgeable regarding many facets of the sometimes complicated securities business. This comes from his first hand experience in the business prior to his decision to practice law. Nick is also very dedicated to staying abreast of the ever changing environment that is so prevalent in the investment world. Combine that with his drive and determination to get things done and you have one in a million!!!

Anthony S. (Avvo)
"Excellent Expertise In Securities Fraud"
Nick handled a securities fraud case for me. He is an expert in this field. He is extremely responsive with all forms of communication. Very competent and professional.
"Very Good To Work With"

My case was taken on a contingency basis. Even though it lasted about two years, the Guiliano law firm kept in contact with me, continued to research the case and brought it to a successful conclusion. They were very supportive of me in my first such experience and were very good to work with.

"Somebody you want on your side"

Personable and professional, he is the one to go to when investors are defrauded by Brokerage houses and Investment banks. Somebody you want on your side when things go wrong. He takes personal interest in every case and tries his best. Although I could not recover all my losses due to Fed/SEC action which was beyond his control, I would give Mr. Guiliano full marks on every count. He even worked with my accountants to help me write off losses due to fraud.

Ashok N. (Avvo)
"We are so very grateful"

My husband and I were lucky to find Nick after losing a substantial amount of money due to poor investing from a prominent company. He made us feel at ease right away and was always accessible for questions and concerns. Nick and his team were wonderful with gathering up all the pertinent information needed for our case, constantly in contact with us, answering all of our questions, which helped to make the process a lot less stressful. We are so very grateful to have had The Guiliano Law Firm represent us and the fact that they did it on a contingency basis made it possible to follow through. If not for them, we would never have been able to pursue this, financially or emotionally.

Stacey B. (Avvo)
"Man Of Integrity"

Nick is an incredibly decent Atty. He's a man of integrity, fairness, and honesty. You could see that it's wasn't just me who noticed, it was opposing counsel, at the end of the Zoom! I'm completely impressed with Nick and will keep him in my prayers. Thanks again!

"Fights for his clients like a bull dog"

I contacted Nicholas Guiliano for my 90 year old mother, who lives in Oregon to assist her in recovering from an unscrupulous financial manager who talked her into investing in some very high risk and speculative securities to reap high commissions. Mr Guiliano worked very hard to recover what he could for my mother. He is the best and fights for his clients like a bull dog to uphold their rights and protect their interests. I highly recommend Mr Guiliano and his firm when it comes to securities issues.

"Finest Litigation Attorneys"

I have been a Corporate Counsel for over 30 years having worked with Banks and large public companies. Nick is one of the finest litigation attorneys in the country.

Anthony P. (Google Business)
"Best Of The Best"

I have employed Nick Guiliano personally and on behalf of my clients in the past. Nick is absolutely the best securities lawyer in Philly if not the country. The best of the Best!

"Awesome Results"

I would like to take this opportunity to express my sincere congratulations for your awesome results. I want to acknowledge my appreciation and respect for their splendid professionalism and knowledge you have shown in handling the laws (previous and present), for arbitration over fraud litigations.

"More than most lawyers"

Mr. Guiliano is highly accomplished securities lawyer. He helped us secure a wonderful result in case where my husband and I lost almost all our lifesavings. He is also high compassionate, and did more than most lawyers have ever done for us, as he seems that he cares.

Mary S. (Avvo)
"Incredibly Resourceful"

Nick was incredibly resourceful and professional. His understanding of securities and investment fraud is unparalleled. He is indeed connected with all the powers to be , and is able to provide intellectual and cogent insights. He is tenacious in fighting for his clients, and will never relent. I was able to follow his recommendations and am glad I did.

Mark C. (Avvo)
"Superb Representation"

Mr. Guiliano (Nicholas) represented my mother and I in an investment case where it appeared the agent was preying on elderly people and steering them to improper investments to reap commissions. Mr Guilano did an excellent job of preparing the case and representing us. Although the case settled out of court, it was the best outcome expected for several technical reasons out of his control. He always kept us informed and provided sound recommendations. I would not hesitate to recommend Mr. Guiliano for any investment related case.

Bob W. (Avvo)
"Recommend Him Strongly"

I used Mr. Guiliano for a investment fraud case and he did a very good job. I got a good deal of my money back that had been lost due to risky investments I was put into by a prominent company. It was not a really big case, yet Mr. Guiliano was interested and responsive and kept on top of things for me. I would recommend him strongly.

Anne H. (Avvo)
"His Ability And Advice Paid Off"

We called Mr. Guiliano after reading his article in Forbes magazine. Although we though the statue of limitations might have run out on our case, we were thrilled when he took our case. Against the odds, he was able to get a settlement for us. He kept us informed and advised us on the proper course of action. We always felt confident with his ability and advice and it paid off. Highly recommend.

Cris (Avvo)
"Ability To Think Outside The Box"

Nick Guiliano came highly recommended to me and I was very fortunate that he agreed to take my case. His knowledge of the law and his ability to think outside the box amazed me more and more as my case progressed. His aggressive style and total dedication to me and my case gave me the confidence that we were going to prevail and we did. He is one of the few Attorneys that does not finish his work at end of the day. He was always thinking of ways to use his expertise and knowledge on my behalf. On a personal note, he is a very down to earth guy who makes you very comfortable and at ease. He gave me the ability to sleep at night knowing that my case was in his hands. I will always recommend him without any reservations. In my book he is “the Best”

Jerry V. (Avvo)
"Successful in Winning"

Nicholas Guiliano was successful in winning a case against one of the firms where I had invested. I had a safe investment until a young eager stock broker took over my account and slowly kept putting my money in risky stocks, all while I was on disability. Nick was able to get me a portion of my money back within 2 months. He always was available to speak, and very courteous. I am so grateful to have found Nick. Thank you Nick!
Jill I. (Avvo)

"Absolutely Fantastic"

Nick represented me when a stock broker took advantage of the money I had in my portfolio. He did an unbelievable job because most people thought I did not have a leg to stand on. He really knows his field. I am really thankful that I met Nick because he did a phenomenal job. I would highly recommend him.

Theresa S.
"Dependable and Accessible"

Philadelphia has lived up to it's reputation as having the best attorneys in the Country. I had been told I had a problem of having a Hedge Fund investment. He went to a lot of time and trouble to not take my case. What I really appreciate is his work ethic. He was very kind to me not only with the generosity of his time, but with his words of support. No civilian, like myself, wants a lawsuit but if I ever needed one, it is Mr, Guiliano who I would call upon to represent me. He is a good man.

Kathleen (Avvo)


Fill out the form below to recieve a free and confidential intial consultation.