FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶28
Saba puts most of its chips on TAMA, which holds that Section 215 of a different statute—the Investment Advisers Act (IAA)—creates an implied right of action. 444 U. S., at 18. Section 215 provides that contracts whose formation or performance violates the IAA “shall be void.” 15 U. S. C. §80b–15(b). TAMA reasons that “[b]y declaring certain contracts void, §215 by its terms necessarily contemplates that the issue of voidness under its criteria may be litigated somewhere.” 444 U. S., at 18. According to TAMA, someone “with the power to void a contract ordinarily may resort to a court to have the contract rescinded and to obtain restitution of consideration paid.” Ibid.; see id., at 19 (Congress’s use of “void” indicates that “customary legal incidents of voidness would follow, including the availability of a suit”). Thus, TAMA holds that Section 215 of the IAA contains an implied…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.