an amount greater than $70,000, the full rescissory recovery to which the plaintiffs would be entitled ($1,062,796, representing the capital invested by the partners plus interest). Accordingly, the plaintiffs have, in effect, already recovered the fees paid to the CPA, and we need not decide if those fees would otherwise qualify as consequential damages. Ill Because the partnerships have already recovered all the “actual damages” to which the partners may be entitled under section 28(a), they are not entitled to any additional recovery. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order that the plaintiffs “take nothing” from Terner. AFFIRMED. 1 .The case has already spawned a number of interlocutory rulings by this court. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183 (9th Cir.1987) (<HOLDING>); DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 846 F.2d 526
holding that district court abused its discretion by denying plaintiffs motion to file fourth amended complaint holding that appellate court should overturn a district courts denial of a motion to amend a complaint only if the district court has abused its discretion holding that there is no indication that the district court abused its discretion in denying the discoverysanction motion holding that district court had not abused its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion to amend complaint holding that bia abused its discretion in denying motion to reopen