FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. · ¶87

Unable to explain this compelling evidence of Congress’s intent, the majority pivots to arguing that I “ignor[e]” “[t]he most relevant portions” of the legislative history. Ante, at 12. (I welcome the majority’s close reading of the Reports.) According to the majority, the only parts of the Reports that matter are the ones specifically dedicated to Section 47(b). Id., at 12. Those sections say that the new Section 47(b) “is designed to provide clearer statutory guidance in interpreting [the] equitable rescission remedy.” H. R. Rep. No. 96– 1341, at 27; see S. Rep. No. 96–958, at 10. In the majority’s view, this section—which “nowhere mentions a private right of action”—instead “confirm[s] the obvious point that rescission is a remedy.” Ante, at 12 (emphasis added). But the majority does not, and cannot, explain why the fact that the Report references a “remedy” matters in the context of…

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