FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶37
The classic criticism of using legislative history is that it is “the equivalent of entering a crowded cocktail party and looking over the heads of the guests for one’s friends.” Ibid. True to form, the dissent navigates around unwelcome guests. The most relevant portions of the Reports are those addressing Section 47(b)—which is, after all, the provision we are interpreting. But the dissent ignores these sections altogether, presumably because they undercut its argument. In its discussion of Section 47(b), the House Report nowhere mentions a private right of action. Instead, it states that the 1980 amendment “embodies a general revision . . . and is designed to provide clearer statutory guidance in interpreting that equitable rescission remedy.” H. R. Rep. No. 96–1341, p. 27 (1980) (H. R. Rep.) (emphasis added). The Senate Report contains the same language. S. Rep. No. 96–958, p. 10…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.