October Term 2025 · Docket 24-345
Does Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act create a private right to sue?
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. says the statute's text does not clearly authorize investors to sue over fee arrangements. Saba Capital Master Fund says the statute's own words support such a suit. The Supreme Court must decide how to read Section 47(b).
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Dvoretzky, for FS Credit Opportunities Corp. , argued Congress would have needed to speak clearly and unambiguously to imply a private right of action in Section 47(b). He said the statute's text does not meet that bar.
Mr. Schulman, for Saba Capital Master Fund, argued most statutes fail the stringent test for implying a private right of action. He said Section 47(b)'s text does not unambiguously create new rights or focus unmistakably on individual plaintiffs.
Mr. Clement, for Saba Capital Master Fund, argued this is not primarily an implied cause of action case. He said Section 47(b) contains express text of about 150 words, and the question is the best reading of that text.
Mr. Dvoretzky argued the statute would be a roundabout way to write a cause of action. He said Congress could easily have specified who can sue, for what remedy, and against whom.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-55 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 43-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 55-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 55-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 29-55 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 29-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 41-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 55-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 55-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The dispute centers on whether Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 allows private parties to sue. FS Credit Opportunities Corp. argues Congress would have needed to speak clearly to create this right and did not. Saba Capital Master Fund argues the statute's text itself supports the claim.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 29-55 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 29-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 55-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 55-23
How the case got here
A lower court ruled in favor of Saba Capital Master Fund. FS Credit Opportunities Corp. asked the Supreme Court to review the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-25 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 82, lines 41-51 — Transcript, file page 82, lines 41-51
What each side wants
FS Credit Opportunities Corp. argues Section 47(b) does not meet the high bar for an implied private right of action. It says Congress did not clearly specify who may sue, for what remedy, or against whom.
Saba Capital Master Fund argues the statute's text contains express language supporting a private right to sue. It says the question is the best reading of the statutory text.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 29-55 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 29-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 55-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 55-23
What each side says
Justice Sotomayor questioned whether the statute's text and structure show Congress intended to create a private right of action.
Justice Barrett questioned whether the proposed reading would be an innovation not expressly adopted in the Court's implied cause of action cases. She also questioned whether the clear statement rule requires a clear statement in all cases. She noted the Court has recognized an implied cause of action for rescission but not damages under a related statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 29-55 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 29-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 55-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 55-23
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas asked the FS side to respond to Saba Capital Master Fund's reading of Transamerica.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 19-25 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 19-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-55 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 19-31 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 19-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 43-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 33-49 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 33-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-15 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 17-21 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 17-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 14, lines 43-13 — Transcript, file page 14, lines 43-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 15, lines 55-29 — Transcript, file page 15, lines 55-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 17, lines 29-35 — Transcript, file page 17, lines 29-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 23-31 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 23-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 13-31 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 13-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 37-39 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 37-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-33 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 51-55 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 51-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 73, lines 43-7 — Transcript, file page 73, lines 43-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 25-31 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 25-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 19-21 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 19-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 79, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 79, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 31-9
Why it matters
The ruling could shape how investors challenge fee arrangements under the Investment Company Act. It may also clarify when courts infer a right to sue from a federal statute.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 29-55 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 29-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 55-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 55-23
What the Court decided
Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act does not imply that private parties can sue to cancel, meaning legally undo, contracts that violate that law. The provision instead only guides what courts must do when such requests already come before them.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded, reversing the Second Circuit's judgment that had affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 3, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 3, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 29-55 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 29-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 55-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 55-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 37, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 37, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 27-21 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 27-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 56, lines 29-55 — Transcript, file page 56, lines 29-55
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 33-53 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 33-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 92, lines 55-23 — Transcript, file page 92, lines 55-23
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.