Opinion Summary: Abouammo v. United States | Trial on Home Turf Not Government's Pick

FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. | Case No. 24-345 | Docket Link: Here | Argued: 12/10/2025 | Decided: 06/11/2026

Overview: The Investment Company Act case addresses whether Section 47(b) grants private parties the right to sue for contract rescission, testing the limits of implied private rights of action against a comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme.

Question Presented: Whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for contract rescission.

Posture: District Court granted Saba summary judgment; Second Circuit summarily affirmed; Supreme Court reversed.

Main Arguments:

• Petitioner (the Funds):
• (1) Section 47(b) directs courts on remedy application, not individuals on rights to sue — it lacks rights-creating language aimed at a particular class under Sandoval;
• (2) The ICA's comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme and two express private rights of action elsewhere in the statute foreclose implied private enforcement;
• (3) Congress's 1980 deletion of "shall be void" — the precise textual basis TAMA relied on — signals changed meaning and eliminates the implied right.
• Respondent (Saba):
• (1) Congress inserted "rescission" and "any party" into Section 47(b) in 1980, language presupposing an affirmative private right for both contract parties;
• (2) TAMA's unanimous rescission holding survives the 1980 amendments, which refined rather than eliminated the private right;
• (3) House and Senate Committee Reports expressly called for courts to imply private rights of action under the amended ICA.

Holding: Section 47(b) of the ICA does not impliedly empower private parties to sue for rescission of contracts that allegedly violate the Act.

Voting Breakdown: 6-3. Justice Barrett wrote the majority opinion joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Jackson filed a dissenting opinion joined by Justice Sotomayor, with Justice Kagan joining Parts I and II. Reversed and remanded.

Opinion: Here

Majority Reasoning:

• (1) Section 47(b)'s "a court may not deny rescission" language directs courts on remedy — it lacks rights-creating language aimed at a particular class of persons under Sandoval;
• (2) The ICA's comprehensive SEC enforcement scheme and two express private rights of action elsewhere in the statute foreclose implied private enforcement;
• (3) Congress's 1980 deletion of "shall be void" — the TAMA linchpin — signals changed meaning and removes the textual foundation for a private right.

Separate Opinions:

• Justice Kagan (dissenting alone): Agrees with Jackson's text-and-structure analysis that Section 47(b) supports a private right; declines to rely on legislative history, finding the provision not sufficiently ambiguous to require resort to committee reports.
• Justice Jackson (dissenting, joined by Justice Sotomayor; Justice Kagan joins Parts I and II): Congress inserted "rescission" and "any party" into the 1980 amendments to preserve TAMA's rescission right; post-performance context makes affirmative suit the only practical remedy; Committee Reports expressly called for continued implied rights under the amended ICA.

Implications:

• (1) Activist investors lose the federal right to challenge closed-end fund governance under Section 47(b); the SEC remains the exclusive enforcer;
• (2) Closed-end funds gain protection from private ICA rescission suits; state control-share adoption receives implicit judicial validation;
• (3) The Court extends textualist limits on implied private rights of action, tightening Sandoval's framework further into securities law.

The Fine Print:

• Section 47(b)(2), 15 U.S.C. §80a-46(b)(2): "a court may not deny rescission at the instance of any party unless such court finds that under the circumstances the denial of rescission would produce a more equitable result than its grant and would not be inconsistent with the purposes of this subchapter."
• Section 18(i), 15 U.S.C. §80a-18(i): "every share of stock hereafter issued by a registered management company . . . shall be a voting stock and have equal voting rights with every other outstanding voting stock."

Primary Cases:

• Alexander v. Sandoval (2001): Courts infer implied private rights of action only where a statute uses rights-creating language aimed at a particular class of persons; language directing courts or agencies falls short.
• Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis (1979): The Investment Advisers Act's "shall be void" language created an implied private right of action for rescission; all nine justices agreed on that point.

Oral Advocates:

• Petitioner (Abouammo): Tobias Loss-Eaton of Sidley Austin
• Respondent (United States): Anthony A. Yang, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice.