FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶57

Notably, all nine Justices agreed with the part of TAMA that held a private right of action for rescission was implicit in Section 215. Four Justices disagreed with a later part of the opinion, which held that a different section of the IAA did not imply a “private right of action for a monetary award.” Id., at 20 (emphasis added); see id., at 29–33 (White, J., dissenting). In reaching that conclusion, the majority observed that Congress had chosen to “expressly authoriz[e] private suits for damages in prescribed circumstances” in “each of the securities laws that preceded the [IAA],” including the ICA. Id., at 20 (emphasis added). “ `Obviously, then, when Congress wished to provide a private damages remedy, it knew how to do so and did so expressly.' ” Id., at 21 (quoting Touche Ross, 442 U. S., at 572). The fact that it did not make any such express statement in the IAA, we held,…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.