FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶54

With respect to the “shall be void” language in Section 215, the TAMA Court concluded that the text of the statute was clear. See 444 U. S., at 18–19. First, we explained, the “language of ” Section 215, along with that of a related provision that “broadly proscribe[d] fraudulent practices by investment advisers,” ran “to [the] benefit [of] the clients of investment advisers, and . . . the parties to advisory contracts.” Id., at 16–17. Second, “[b]y declaring certain contracts void, §215 by its terms necessarily contemplate[d] that the issue of voidness under its criteria may be litigated somewhere.” Id., at 18. To be sure, Section 215 voidness might be “raised defensively.” Ibid. “But the legal consequences of voidness are typically not so limited.” Ibid. As the Court had recognized in Mills, and as federal and state courts have acknowledged for years, “[a] person with the power to…

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.