FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶38
While ignoring these sections, the dissent takes creative license with others. It confidently assures the reader that there is “legislative history containing an explicit statement from Congress imploring ‘courts to imply private rights of action under’ the amended Section 47(b).” Post, at 13. There is no such statement. The paragraph that the dissent cites in the Senate Report, post, at 6, 12, 13, speaks of implying causes of action in the “federal securities laws” generally, not the ICA specifically. S. Rep., at 14. The cited House Report pages, post, at 6, 12, 13, are similar. H. R. Rep., at 28–29. In fairness to the dissent, these paragraphs reference the ICA in passing—but not Section 47(b). The Senate Report says that courts should imply causes of action “to the same extent that such causes of action are implied under the Investment Company Act.” S. Rep., at 14. And the House…Read in context ›
slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.