FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶84

The House Committee, for its part, seemed to view the private right of action we acknowledged in TAMA as the bare minimum, not a dispensable option. Its Report noted that, although private suits “significantly assist the congressional goal of promoting fair corporate suffrage,” “in recent years, the Supreme Court [had] turned its focus toward a strict construction of statutory language and expressed intent.” H. R. Rep. No. 96–1341, at 28. It then cited TAMA as an example of that development—i.e., as illustrative of the Court’s refusal to “imply a private cause of action for damages” even on behalf of plaintiffs who “offered to show both that the law was violated and that they suffered monetary loss as a result.” H. R. Rep. No. 96–1341, at 28– 29, n. 6. The next sentence provided the Committee’s reaction: “The Committee wishes to make plain that it expects the courts to imply private…

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