What are the factors used to determine whether a plaintiff has been defrauded out of their retirement savings?

Foreseeability of harm: As to the second factor, the foreseeability of harm to plaintiffs (Biakanja v. Irving, supra, 49 Cal.2d at p. 650), the trial court concluded that it was foreseeable that plaintiffs would suffer losses in retirement income and savings "directly from the trusting relationship SMMS created between program participants and these unscrupulous, bad apple advisors approved by SMMS." The court stressed that "SMMS knew it was likely that program participants would become long-term clients of its licensees" because "SMMS designed its programs specifically to achieve that result and encouraged its licensees to 'operate and present the seminars as written and recommended.' " (Italics omitted.) Among the evidence relied upon by the trial court was marketing material stating it was more effective to present "educational seminars" instead of "sales presentation[s]," because "[b]y providing . . . seminar attendees with the education they need, you earn their trust."