FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶31
Saba tries to use the amendment to its advantage: It argues that Congress simply made the right of action TAMA recognizes “explicit” by inserting the term “rescission.” Brief for Respondents 33–34. In other words, the edit was clarifying rather than substantive. But changed language typically indicates changed meaning. A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 256 (2012). And the changes here are significant. Most importantly, Congress deleted the “shall be void” language on which TAMA’s reasoning turns and shifted the focus to regulating a court’s remedial authority. 94 Stat. 2277. Congress made these changes despite retaining the phrase “shall be void” in the immediately preceding provision, Section 47(a). Likewise, it did not remove the “shall be void” language in the IAA, even though it made other changes to that statute. Id., at 2289–2291. So what Saba…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.