TIMBERS, Circuit Judge:
Of the several questions presented under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, those under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 appear to be of first impression at the appellate level*
• The appeal is from a judgment entered in the Southern District of New York, Robert L. Carter, District Judge, 392 F.Supp. 740, dismissing the complaint, on cross-motions for summary judgment, in an action to recover damages for alleged violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b) (1970), and of Rule 10b-5 thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5 (1976); and alleged violations of Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6 (1970), and of Rule 206(4)-l thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4) (1976).
The essential questions presented and our rulings thereon are as follows:
(1) Whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5.
We hold it does not.
(2) Whether defendants who are general partners of the investment partnership are investment advisers within the meaning of Section 202(a)(ll) of the Advisers Act.
We hold they are.
(3) Whether there is an implied private right of action for damages under the Advisers Act.
We hold there is.
(4) Whether the complaint alleges compensable damages under the Advisers Act.
We hold it does.
(5) Whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted under Section 206 of the Advisers Act and Rule 206(4)-l.
We hold it does.
We affirm the dismissal of the Exchange Act claim; but as to the dismissal of the Advisers Act claim, we reverse and remand for trial.
I. FACTS
The following summary of the essential facts is believed necessary to an understanding of our rulings on the questions presented.1 The facts are not in dispute.
Plaintiffs Robert Abrahamson and Marjorie Abrahamson, husband and wife, were limited partners of defendant Fleschner Becker Associates (FBA), an investment partnership, from its inception on July 1, 1965 until they withdrew on September 30, 1970.
Defendants Malcolm K. Fleschner (Fleschner) and William J. Becker (Becker) are [866] general partners of FBA. Fleschner was its founder and has been a general partner since its inception. Becker became a general partner on April 1, 1966. Defendant Harold B. Ehrlich (Ehrlich) was a general partner from October 1, 1968 through September 30,1969. Defendant Harry Goodkin & Company (Goodkin) is a firm of certified public accountants which audited FBA’s books and certified FBA’s financial reports for the fiscal years 1966, 1967 and 1968.
In late 1964 and in 1965 plaintiffs had several conversations with Fleschner who expressed his intention of forming an investment partnership. He told plaintiffs that the partnership would have a conservative investment policy. Plaintiffs expressed their concern for financial security and conservatism in their investments.
By a partnership agreement dated July 1, 1965, FBA began as a small partnership. The original partners consisted of one general partner (Fleschner) and eight limited partners (plaintiffs, four members of Fleschner’s family and two others). Plaintiffs’ initial contribution was $150,000.
FBA grew rapidly. By April 1, 1966 it had two general partners and thirty-five limited partners; and by October 1, 1968 it had three general partners and sixty-six limited partners. Each partner had an account which represented the appreciated value of his contributions to the pooled funds, less withdrawals and certain fees. By October 1, 1968 FBA’s assets were approximately $60 million.
For managing the partnership investments, the general partners received substantial fees. They were paid 20% of FBA’s net profits and net capital gains for each fiscal year. In addition, the partnership agreement of October 1, 1968 provided for an annual salary of $25,000 for each general partner who managed the partnership’s investments.
The limited partners did not participate in managing the partnership’s investments. A limited partner could withdraw all or part of the balance in his capital account at the end of any fiscal year (September 30), provided that he gave the required advance notice. Prior to October 1, 1968, 30 days notice was required; thereafter, 60 days notice was required. There were similar notice requirements for withdrawal from membership in the partnership.
With the increase in the number of limited partners and the concomitant increase in the size of the firm’s assets, certain changes were made in the structure of the partnership. The original July 1, 1965 partnership agreement was superseded by a new agreement dated April 1, 1966 which in turn was superseded by the October 1, 1968 agreement. The principal change effected by the 1966 agreement was the addition of Becker as a general and managing partner and the inclusion of additional limited partners. The 1968 agreement, in addition to authorizing salaries of $25,000 per year for those general partners who managed the partnership’s investments, included Ehrlich as a general partner; added a large number of limited partners; expanded and detailed the stated purposes of the partnership; and made a number of other changes referred to below.
During the period plaintiffs were limited partners of FBA the general partners mailed monthly reports to all of the firm’s limited partners. These reports were concise, two paragraph statements which set forth the percentage increase or decrease in the value of the firm’s investments for the year to date and compared this performance with Standard & Poors 500 Stock Average.
The reports also included statements of the firm’s investment policy. Between November 1967 and April 1968 the reports repeatedly represented that FBA was maintaining a “low risk stance” and .“a most conservative posture.”2
In addition to the monthly reports, during 1967 and 1968 Goodkin mailed to the [867] limited partners certified year end financial reports. These financial reports included balance sheets which showed the total of FBA’s investments in securities. The balance sheets of September 30, 1967 and September 30, 1968 did not disclose that the firm was investing in unregistered securities.3 Investments in such securities were included in the aggregate of all portfolio investments. The value of FBA’s total investments in securities was denominated as the “market value” of the securities.
Despite the representations in the monthly reports that FBA’s investments were most conservative and of low risk, between September 1967 and September 1968 the firm increased its investments in unregistered securities from approximately 15% to approximately 72% of its portfolio. Between September 1968 and September 1969 the firm’s investments in unregistered securities fluctuated from about 72% to 88% of its portfolio.4 During this latter period the monthly reports continued not to disclose the firm’s sizable investments in unregistered securities.
In either December 1969 or January 1970 plaintiffs received the financial report for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1969. This report was not prepared by Goodkin, but by another accounting firm. A footnote to this report disclosed that approximately 77% ($30,411,868) of FBA’s total investments in securities ($39,355,310) consisted of unregistered securities. The firm’s total assets as of September 30, 1969 were $51,747,995.
Plaintiffs first learned of FBA’s substantial investments in unregistered securities from the September 30, 1969 report. Having received this report in December 1969 or January 1970, it was too late for them to withdraw from the firm, in accordance with the partnership agreement, at the end of the fiscal year which ended September 30, 1969. Plaintiffs did withdraw at the end of the following fiscal year, on September 30, 1970. This was the earliest they could withdraw their investments or as partners under the terms of the partnership agreement.
During the five year period they were limited partners, both plaintiffs received substantial net profits.5 Robert Abraham-son realized a net profit of $156,097; Marjorie Abrahamson a net profit of $133,081.35.
Both plaintiffs claim that as of late 1968 their investments were worth considerably more than indicated by the firm’s financial reports, and that the firm incurred substantial losses on its investments in unregistered securities. Without apportioning between losses sustained from investments in unregistered securities and other losses,6 Robert Abrahamson claims that between September 30, 1968 and the date of his withdrawal his capital account sustained losses totalling $454,979. Marjorie Abrahamson claims total losses of $799,821 during this period.
Plaintiffs commenced the instant action in the Southern District of New York on January 25, 1971. Jurisdiction was invoked under Section 27 of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (1970), and Section 214 of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-14 (1970). The complaint embodies the claims stated above and summarized in our prior opinion. 537 F.2d 27.
[868] Both sides having moved for summary judgment, Judge Carter on March 4, 1975 filed an opinion, 392 F.Supp. 740, granting defendants’ motions and denying plaintiffs’ motion. Without reaching the merits of plaintiffs’ claims under either the Exchange Act or the Advisers Act, the judge held that, since plaintiffs had realized a net profit on their overall five-year investments in FBA, they had failed to prove damages compensable under the federal securities laws. From the judgment entered March 27, 1975 dismissing the complaint, the instant appeal has been taken.
II. EXCHANGE ACT CLAIM
We need not tarry with plaintiffs’ claim under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5 for we find that each of the arguments urged by plaintiffs in support of that claim is without merit.
First, in an effort to meet the requirement of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 that they must allege a fraud “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security,” 7 plaintiffs argue that their interest in FBA was a “security” and that the modifications of the partnership agreement in 1968 constituted an exchange of one security for another.8 In support of this theory, plaintiffs rely on cases which have held that significant modifications in the rights of security holders may constitute a “sale” of one security and “purchase” of another under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, Ingenito v. Bermec Corp., 376 F.Supp. 1154, 1179-82 (S.D.N.Y.1974); or a “sale” or “issue” of a security under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, SEC v. Associated Gas & Elec. Co., 24 F.Supp. 899 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 99 F.2d 795 (2 Cir. 1938); or an “issue” of stock under the Interstate Commerce Act, United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford R. Co., 276 F.2d 525 (2 Cir. 1959), cert. denied, 362 U.S. 961 (1960). We do not believe that this line of cases supports plaintiffs’ claim in the instant case. Before changes in the rights of a security holder can qualify as the “purchase” of a new security under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, there must be such significant change in the nature of the investment or in the investment risks as to amount to a new investment. We hold that the modifications effected by the adoption of a new partnership agreement on September 30, 1968 did not constitute the “purchase” and “sale” of new securities.
Second, plaintiffs argue that they are entitled to recover under Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 because they were fraudulently induced not to sell their partnership interests. They say that they would have withdrawn from the firm in 1968 if defendants had not misrepresented the true nature of the firm’s investments at that time. The short answer to this branch of plaintiffs’ argument is that the requirement of fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of a security is not satisfied by an allegation that plaintiffs were induced fraudulently not to sell their securities. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 737-38 (1975).
We affirm the dismissal of plaintiffs’ Exchange Act claim.9
[869] III. ADVISERS ACT CLAIM
We come next to what we consider to be the chief question presented on this appeal — whether the complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted under Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (the Act)10 and Rule 206(4)-l thereunder.11
The subordinate questions which we must consider in connection with this claim are (1) whether any of the defendant general partners are “investment advisers” within the meaning of Section 202(a)(ll) of the Act,12 (2) whether there is an implied private right of action for damages under the Act; and (3) whether plaintiffs have alleged compensable damages under the Act.
For the reasons below, we answer each of these questions in the affirmative. Accordingly, we reverse the dismissal of the Advisers Act claim and remand the case for trial on that claim.13
(1) “Investment Advisers” Under Section 202(a)(ll)
Turning first to the threshold question whether any of the general partner defendants are “investment advisers” with[870] in the meaning of Section 202(a)(ll), we hold that they are.
It is clear from the record that the general partners received substantial compensation for managing the limited partners’ investments. Each of the three partnership agreements in effect between 1965 and 1970 provided that the general partners would be paid for their services 20% of the firm’s net profits and net capital gains for each fiscal year. In addition, the partnership agreement of October 1,1968 authorized an annual salary of $25,000 for each general partner who managed investments.
Since the general partners received compensation for their investment services, the only remaining inquiry under the statute is whether they were “engage[d] in the business of advising others” with respect to investments. On two independent grounds, we believe they were.
First, the monthly reports which contained the alleged fraudulent representations were reports which provided investment advice to the limited partners. The general partners’ compensation depended in part upon the firm’s net profits and capital gains. These in turn were affected by the size of the total funds under their control. The monthly reports were an integral part of the general partners’ business of managing the limited partners’ funds. In deciding whether or not to withdraw their funds from the pool, the limited partners necessarily relied heavily on the reports they received from the general partners.
Second, wholly aside from the monthly reports, we believe that the general partners as persons who managed the funds of others for compensation are “investment advisers” within the meaning of the statute. This is borne out by the plain language of Section 202(a)(ll) and its related provisions, by evidence of legislative intent and by the broad remedial purposes of the Act.
The Investment Companies Act of 1940 and the companion Investment Advisers Act (Title II of the same enactment) were among statutes designed to eliminate certain abuses in the securities industry which were found to have contributed to the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression of the 1930s. SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180, 186 (1963). The 1940 legislation was based upon exhaustive studies by the SEC which culminated in a number of extensive reports on investment trusts, investment companies and investment advisers. The Investment Companies Act and the Advisers Act were intended to cover important areas of the securities industry which had not been covered by the earlier statutes. The Investment Companies Act is concerned with investment companies and other persons, including certain investment advisers, who deal with investment companies. The Advisers Act covers all investment advisers.
As stated in Section 201 of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-l (1970), that Act was based upon the findings and recommendations set forth in an SEC Report on investment counsel and advisory services. Securities and Exchange Commission, Investment Counsel, Investment Management, Investment Supervisory and Investment Advisory Services, H.R.Doc. No. 477, 76th Cong., 2d Sess., 1 (1939) (hereinafter “SEC Report”). The SEC Report referred to two types of investment advisers: (1) those with management powers over their clients’ funds and the power to make purchases and sales for their clients (“discretionary”), and (2) those who merely made recommendations to their clients (“advisory”). SEC Report at 13. It noted the conspicuous need for regulation of individuals “who may solicit the funds of the public to be controlled, managed, and supervised . . . .” (emphasis added) SEC Report at 28. The report made it clear that its findings and recommendations were intended to cover persons who made purchases and sales of securities with their clients’ funds.
The House and Senate Committee reports also make clear the intent of Congress. The Report of the Senate Committee on Banking and Currency which accompanied the bill to the Senate floor stated:
[871] “The report of the Commission to the Congress and the record before the committee is clear that the solution of the problems and abuses of investment advisory services — individuals and companies which either handle pools of liquid funds of the public or give advice with respect to security transactions — cannot be effected without Federal legislation.
* sf: 5}:
Virtually no limitations or restrictions exist with respect to the honesty and integrity of persons who may solicit funds to be controlled, managed, and supervised.” (emphasis added) S.Rep. No. 1775, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 21 (1940).14
Similarly, the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce noted in its report the need to regulate firms which “managed, supervised, and gave investment advice” with respect to clients’ funds. H.R. Rep. No. 2639, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., 27 (1940).15
In short, as for legislative intent, we believe that the SEC Report, together with the House and Senate Reports, make it clear that Congress intended to reach persons who receive compensation for investing funds of their clients.
Moreover the plain language of Section 202(a)(ll) and related provisions of the Act bear out this legislative intent. Section 202(a)(ll) includes any person who “advises” others with respect to investments. Section 203(c)(1)(D), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-3(c)(l)(D) (1970), requires the investment adviser to disclose the nature and scope of his “authority . . . with respect to clients’ funds and accounts” in his registration statement. And Section 205, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-5 (1970), establishes certain standards for investment advisers with respect to “investment advisory contracts” which include contracts “to act as an investment adviser or to manage any investment or trading account . . . .” These provisions reflect the fact that many investment advisers “advise” their customers by exercising control over what purchases and sales are made with their clients’ funds.
We hold that the defendant general partners of FBA are investment advisers within the meaning of Section 202(a)(ll) of the Act.16
[872] (2) Prívate Right of Action Under Section 206
As with other provisions of the federal securities laws under which the courts have found implied private rights of action, Section 206 of the Advisers Act does not expressly authorize private actions. We therefore must decide whether a private right of action is to be implied under that section. For the reasons below, we hold that it is.17
The Supreme Court has recognized in a variety of contexts that private rights of action may be implied in favor of the intended beneficiaries of a statute where necessary to implement the statute’s underlying purposes. Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 404 U.S. 6, 13 n.9 (1971); J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 (1964); Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, 323 U.S. 210 (1944); Texas & Pacific R.R. v. Rigsby, 241 U.S. 33 (1916). Cf. Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971); Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946).
There are compelling reasons why the courts have been particularly willing to recognize private rights of action under the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws. Those provisions are designed to protect specific classes of injured parties. Moreover the SEC — the agency charged with administration and enforcement of the federal securities laws — does not have sufficient resources alone to enforce the many provisions of the statutes. Absent judicial recognition of private rights of action, the federal securities laws most assuredly would fail to provide the effective regulation over the securities industry which Congress intended. In finding an implied right of action under Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act, the Supreme Court held in J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra, 377 U.S. at 432, that “Private enforcement . . . provides a necessary supplement to Commission action”, and went on to state:
“[I]t is the duty of the courts to be alert to provide such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose.” Id. at 433.
Applying these principles, the courts of appeals consistently have recognized an implied right of action under the Investment Companies Act — the companion [873] to the Advisers Act. Moses v. Burgin, 445 F.2d 369 (1 Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 994 (1971); Herpich v. Wallace, 430 F.2d 792, 815 (5 Cir. 1970); Esplin v. Hirschi, 402 F.2d 94, 103 (10 Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 928 (1969); Taussig v. Wellington Fund, Inc., 313 F.2d 472, 476 (3 Cir.), cert. denied, 374 U.S. 806 (1963); Brown v. Bullock, 194 F.Supp. 207 (S.D.N.Y.), aff’d, 294 F.2d 415, 420-21 (2 Cir. 1961) (en banc). It is well settled that implied rights of action exist under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Rule 10b-5, which contain substantially the same language as Section 206 of the Advisers Act. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 730 (1975); Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., supra, 404 U.S. at 13 n.9; Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., 188 F.2d 783, 787 (2 Cir. 1951); Kardon v. National Gypsum Co., 69 F.Supp. 512 (E.D.Pa.1946). Judicially implied rights of action also have been found under Section 14(a) of the 1934 Act, J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra, and under the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, Goldstein v. Groesbeck, 142 F.2d 422 (2 Cir.), cert. denied, 323 U.S. 737 (1944).
Against this background, we turn to the question whether a private right of action should be implied under Section 206 of the Advisers Act.
In Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78 (1975), the Supreme Court suggested that the following factors be considered in determining “whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one”:
“First, is the plaintiff ‘one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted’ . . . —that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? . . . Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? . . . And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?” (emphasis in original)
We believe that each of these factors point unmistakably toward recognition of an implied right of action under Section 206 of the Advisers Act. See Piper v. Chris Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U.S. 1, 37-45 (1977).
The purpose of the Advisers Act was “to protect the public and investors against malpractice by persons paid for advising others about securities.”18 The Act was designed for the “especial” benefit of persons relying upon their investment advisers for advice. SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U.S. 180,186-91 (1963).
Congress enacted the Advisers Act, as it had earlier securities legislation, mindful of the need for federal regulation of the securities industry. As the Senate Committee Report emphasized:
“The nature of the functions of investment advisers, their increasing widespread activities, their potential influence on security markets and the dangerous potentialities of stock market tipsters imposing upon unsophisticated investors, convinces the committee that protection of investors requires the regulation of investment advisers on a national scale.
The report of the Commission to the Congress and the record before the committee is clear that the solution of the problems and abuses of investment advisory services . . . cannot be effected without Federal legislation." (emphasis added) S.Rep. No. 1775, 76th Cong., 3d Sess. 21 (1940).
[874] We are not aware of any statement indicating that Congress considered the problem of private actions under the Advisers Act at the time of its enactment. Nor is there any indication that the SEC considered this matter when it adopted Rule 206(4)-l. Absent specific statements of legislative intent, we must examine the legislative purposes underlying the Act.
As stated above, the courts consistently have recognized that the Commission’s resources are inadequate to the task of policing alone the federal securities laws. In enacting the 1940 legislation, Congress intended to provide effective federal regulation of an important segment of the securities industry. Failure to recognize a private right of action under the Advisers Act would effectively frustrate that purpose. We hesitate to reach such a result absent clear evidence from the Act’s legislative history that private actions were not intended.
Turning to related provisions of the Advisers Act, Section 215(b), 15 U.S.C. § 80b-15(b) (1970), provides that any contract in violation of the Act shall be void. As the courts have held in construing nearly identical provisions of the other securities acts, the language of Section 215(b) strongly suggests that a private remedy should be implied and that such a remedy would be consistent with the other provisions of the Act. Fischman v. Raytheon Mfg. Co., supra, 188 F.2d at 787 n.4; Kardon v. National Gypsum, Co., supra, 69 F.Supp. at 514; see Slavin v. Germantown Fire Ins. Co., 174 F.2d 799, 815 (3 Cir. 1949).
In arguing that a private right of action should not be recognized under the Advisers Act, appellees point to the difference between the language found in the jurisdictional provision of the Advisers Act and similar provisions of other securities acts.19 Section 214 of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-14 (1970) in relevant part provides:
“The district courts of the United States . . . shall have jurisdiction of violations of this subchapter or the rules, regulations, or orders thereunder, and, concurrently with State and Territorial courts, of all suits in equity to enjoin any violation of this subchapter or the rules, regulations or orders thereunder.”
By contrast, Section 22 of the 1933 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77v (1970), Section 27 of the 1934 Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78aa (1970), and Section 44 of the Investment Companies Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80-a-43 (1970), provide that the district courts shall have jurisdiction of “all suits in equity and actions at law brought to enforce any liability or duty created by” those Acts.
Appellees argue that the omission of any reference to “actions at law” in Section 214 manifests a legislative intent to preclude private rights of action under the Advisers Act. We disagree. In our view, the reason for this omission is that each of the other Acts whose jurisdictional provisions refer to “actions at law” contains one or more sections expressly granting injured parties a private right of action for damages.20 [875] There is no provision in the Advisers Act which expressly provides for private actions; since it is a less complex statute, containing no express grants of right of action to private parties, a reference to “actions at law” would be superfluous.
There is not a shred of evidence in the legislative history of the Advisers Act to support the assertion that Congress intentionally omitted the reference to “actions at law” in order to preclude private actions by investors. Section 214, like the jurisdictional provisions of the other securities acts, was drawn to provide jurisdiction over actions expressly authorized by the statute. Far from indicating that Congress ever considered the matter of private actions in drafting Section 214, the only legislative history indicates that Congress attached no great importance to its omission. In their only references to Section 214, both the Senate and House Reports stated that the enforcement provisions of the Advisers Act were “generally comparable” to those of the Investment Companies Act, whose jurisdictional provision contains the “actions at law” language. S.Rep. No. 1775, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., at 23 (1940); H.R.Rep. No. 2639, 76th Cong., 3d Sess., at 30 (1940).21
In dealing with private rights of action under other securities acts, courts have referred to the “actions at law” language under the jurisdictional provisions to indicate the overall structure of those acts. But the “actions at law” language has never been relied upon as evidence that Congress explicitly considered the matter of private damage actions under the particular substantive provision in question. Had Congress provided explicitly for private damage actions it would be unnecessary to consider whether the remedy should be judicially implied. Indeed, under the anti-fraud provisions of other securities acts courts have recognized the absence of any legislative intent either to create or to deny private rights of action for damages. Here, as under the other statutes, it is clear that Congress simply did not consider the matter.22
The Supreme Court, in considering a different issue under the Advisers Act in SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., supra, 375 U.S. at 195, emphasized that the Act should “be construed like other securities legislation ‘enacted for the purpose of avoiding frauds,’ not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate its remedial purposes.” (footnote omitted). We find that particularly cogent here where we are asked to determine whether there should be a private right of action to recover damages for what may be clear violations of the Act. Moreover, mindful of the Supreme Court’s admonition in J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, supra, [876] 377 U.S. at 433, we believe that we should provide “such remedies as are necessary to make effective the congressional purpose”, rather than adopt a construction that would effectively defeat the purpose of providing federal regulation over an important segment of the securities industry.
We hold that there is an implied private right of action under Section 206 of the Advisers Act.23
[877] (3) Compensable Damages Under the Advisers Act
Appellees contend that plaintiffs have not alleged compensable damages under the Advisers Act. They argue that plaintiffs themselves were neither purchasers nor sellers of securities and that their claims are speculative because they are based upon the assertion that plaintiffs would have withdrawn from FBA earlier had they been told the truth about the partnership’s investments. We disagree.
At the outset, we find no basis for appellees’ assumption that plaintiffs’ only alternative, had they learned the truth earlier about FBA’s high percentage of investments in unregistered securities, was to withdraw their funds. Plaintiffs might have tried to persuade the general partners to conform the firm’s investments to the conservative policy they had represented. Failing that, plaintiffs might have mobilized the other limited partners to exert pressure on the general partners.
We find appellees’ reliance upon Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra, on this aspect of the instant case to be misplaced.
The Blue Chip decision was based on the express language of Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 requiring a fraud “in connection with the purchase or sale oí any security.”24 Neither Section 206 oí the Advisers Act nor Rule 206(4)-l contains any such requirement. While the Court stated in Blue Chip that the purchaser-seller limitation under Section 10(b) protected against vexatious and speculative claims, it did not say or suggest that any claim would be too speculative for recovery under the other securities acts unless the plaintiff was a purchaser or seller. Indeed the Court acknowledged that provisions of the other securities acts afford rights of action to persons who are not purchasers or sellers. 421 U.S. at 733-34.
Acceptance of appellees’ contention, moreover, would lead to a construction of the Advisers Act clearly inconsistent with the intent of Congress. As indicated above, Congress intended to protect investors against frauds committed by investment advisers who managed their clients’ funds, as well as frauds committed by advisers who did not make purchases and sales for their clients. If the claims of a client whose adviser managed his funds were to be held to be too speculative simply because the client failed to allege that he would have taken some remedial action if he had known the truth, a large segment of those investors whom Congress meant to protect would be excluded from the Act’s coverage. To accept appellees’ contention would lead to the incongruous result that an investor’s claims would be speculative even if the adviser had made fraudulent statements to conceal the fact that he was stealing his client’s funds.
We believe that the differences in the language and purposes of Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act and Section 206 of the Advisers Act distinguish the instant case from Blue Chip. We also note that the policy considerations expressed in Blue Chip lend no support to appellees’ arguments.25 [878] Under Section 206, the plaintiff class is limited to the investment adviser’s own clients. Since the investment adviser is compensated for his services, both client and adviser understand that the client will rely upon the adviser’s judgment and advice. To characterize the client’s reliance as speculative is to ignore the essence of the relationship. See Galfand v. Chestnutt Corp., 545 F.2d 807 (2 Cir. 1976). Plaintiffs here allege fraudulent representations relating to specific purchases and sales of unregistered securities, thus providing a definable measure of damages. And a defrauded client may be deprived of numerous means of controlling his adviser’s conduct and the management of his investments, only one of which is the remedy of withdrawing his funds altogether. We believe that the limited uncertainties involved in a case such as this are not sufficient to bar recovery on an otherwise valid claim; and they are adequately offset by requiring proof that the misrepresentations were material and proof of reliance.26
We hold that plaintiffs have alleged damages compensable under Section 206 of the Advisers Act.27
IV. MEASURE OF DAMAGES ON REMAND
In view of our remand for trial on the Advisers Act claim, we believe that the district court is entitled to some guidance on the proper measure of damages.
We do not agree with the district court’s holding, 392 F.Supp. 740, that, since plaintiffs realized a net profit on their overall limited partnership investment, they failed to prove damages compensable under the federal securities laws.
This is not to say, however, that a plaintiff may recover for losses, but ignore his profits, where both result from a single wrong. In determining on remand whether plaintiffs have sustained any damages from the alleged fraudulent investments, the district court should determine, first, at what point defendants’ representations became fraudulent due to the increasing proportion of portfolio investments in unregistered securities. The court then should compute the total net losses on all holdings of unregistered securities due to changes in price after that date. Finally, the court should determine what proportion of FBA’s holdings was inconsistent with representations [879] that the partnership was in a “most conservative posture” and the other representations made to the limited partners. The proper measure of damages then would be that part of net losses incurred on unregistered securities after the point when the defendants’ representations became fraudulent which stems from the portion of those investments inconsistent with defendants’ representations28
We of course do not intimate any views as to whether plaintiffs in fact have sustained any damage and, if so, how much. All we hold is that they are entitled to their day in court and an opportunity to prove, if they can, their claim under the Advisers Act.
Affirmed as to the dismissal of the Securities Exchange Act claim; as to the dismissal of the Investment Advisers Act claim, reversed and remanded for trial.
Whether Goodkin is liable for aiding and abetting the investment advisers is one of the issues to be determined at trial pursuant to our remand.
As to whether FBA itself is a proper defendant with respect to the Advisers Act claim, for aught that appears in the record before us, we have serious doubts. The general partners as individuals, not FBA as an entity, were the investment advisers. If upon remand, and after a hearing, the district court finds no more than the record now discloses with respect to the liability of FBA itself under the Advisers Act claim, it should dismiss as against the firm.
In the two district court cases in this Circuit in which the issue has been considered, the court has held that an implied right of action exists under the Advisers Act. Jones v. Equitable Life Assurance Society, 409 F.Supp. 370 (S.D.N.Y.1975); Bolger v. Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath, 381 F.Supp. 260 (S.D.N.Y.1975). Accord, Angelakis v. Churchill Management Corp., CCH Fed.Sec.L.Rep. 11 95,285 (N.D.Cal.1975). Contra, Gammage v. Roberts, Scott & Co., CCH Fed.Sec.L.Rep. 11 94,761 (S.D.Cal.1974); Greenspan v. Eugene Campos Del Toro, 73-638-Civ. (S.D.Fla. May 17, 1974).
The commentators who have reviewed these decisions agree that a private right of action should be implied under the Advisers Act. Note, Private Causes of Action Under Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act, 74 Mich.L. Rev. 308 (1975); Lybecker, Advisers Act Developments, 8 Review of Securities Regulations 927, 934 (April 23, 1975); Note, Bolger v. Laventhol, Krekstein, Horwath & Horwath: Private Rights of Action Under the Investment Advisers Act, 48 Temple L.Q. 433 (1975).
First, the basic premise of the dissent is the assumption that the Advisers Act was intended to provide “a compulsory census of investment advisers, and not ... a pervasive regulatory scheme.” (emphasis added) Post, 879, 883. A careful reading of the Advisers Act shows that, as enacted, it requires far more than a census. As the last of the series of federal securities laws enacted between 1933 and 1940, it is an integral part of a comprehensive regulatory scheme intended by Congress to eliminate certain abuses in the securities industry. The Supreme Court in SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., supra, in referring to a fundamental purpose of the Advisers Act and its relationship to the other federal securities regulatory acts, stated:
“The Investment Advisers Act of 1940 was the last in a series of Acts designed to eliminate certain abuses in the securities industry, abuses which were found to have contributed to the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression of the 1930’s. It was preceded by the Securities Act of 1933, the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, the Trust Indenture Act of 1939, and the Investment Company Act of 1940. A fundamental purpose, common to these statutes, was to substitute a philosophy of full disclosure for the philosophy of caveat emptor and thus to achieve a high standard of business ethics in the securities industry. As we recently said in a related context, ‘It requires but little appreciation ... of what happened in this country during the 1920’s and 1930’s to realize how essential it is that the highest ethical standards prevail’ in every facet of the securities industry. Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U.S. 341, 366.”’ (footnotes omitted) 375 U.S. at 186-87.
Second, while we do not claim the expertise of our dissenting colleague concerning hedge funds, post, 879, & n. 1, 884, we do suggest that much of the speculation of the dissent with respect to the investment policy of the general partners as managers of the fund (e. g. whether the partnership “was going to operate in the most speculative of investment activities”, post, 884) and the intentions of plaintiffs in becoming limited partners, might better await the trial on the merits to which we have held plaintiffs are entitled. For after all, the posture of the case as it came to us from the district court was the dismissal of the complaint on the ground that plaintiffs realized a net profit on their overall limited partnership investments and therefore failed to prove damages compensable under the federal securities laws. 392 F.Supp. 740. While this holding of the district court is rejected, all we hold with respect to plaintiffs’ Advisers Act claim is that they are entitled to their day in court and an opportunity to prove their claim. Post, 879. At that time, when the credibility of witnesses can properly be determined, many of the speculative factual issues suggested by the dissent appropriately can be resolved.
Finally, and perhaps of chief significance, the dissent does not dispute the eloquent absence of evidence that Congress ever considered allowing damages, as distinguished from injunctive relief, under the Advisers Act. The question of damages was not considered because the matter of a private right of action was not considered. The dissent’s massive reliance upon the omission of the “actions at law” language in the Advisers Act and its inclusion in the jurisdictional provisions of other statutes, we think is misplaced. Judicially implied private rights of action have been recognized under various sections of the securities laws even though those sections, unlike other sections of the same statutes, contain no explicit provision for private actions. Here likewise there is no evidence that the omission was meant to exclude private actions. In this respect the present case is plainly different in a significant legal respect from National R. R. Passenger Corp. v. National Ass’n of R. R. Passengers, 414 U.S. 453 (1974), relied upon by the dissent, where “the legislative history of the Amtrack Act provide[d] a clear and convincing expression of Congress’ intent to preclude anyone except the Attorney General and in certain situations an employee or his duly authorized representative from maintaining an action under the Act against petitioners” (414 U.S. at 465 (Justice Brennan concurring)), and transportation policies not pertinent here militated in favor of such a limitation. No such history or policies are to be found here.