FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶77

The majority also points to the ICA’s two express private rights of action, which, it says, show that Congress “ ‘knew how to’” provide a private remedy expressly and chose not to do so in Section 47(b). See ante, at 7 (quoting Touche Ross, 442 U. S., at 572). But the express-authorization language upon which the majority hangs this hat concerns private actions principally or exclusively for damages, not rescission. See 15 U. S. C. §§80a–35(b), 80a–29(h). And we know from TAMA that those two types of relief are not the same. So, one could just as easily infer that, when Congress wanted money damages to flow to private parties in this context, it thought it was necessary to say so. Indeed, in TAMA, we cited the two express provisions as a point against finding an implied private right of action for damages, but did not invoke them at all in our discussion of whether the IAA created an…

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