ARTICLE
24 September 2025

U.S. Supreme Court To Consider Private Right Of Action Under The Investment Company Act Of 1940

FL
Foley & Lardner

Contributor

Foley & Lardner LLP looks beyond the law to focus on the constantly evolving demands facing our clients and their industries. With over 1,100 lawyers in 24 offices across the United States, Mexico, Europe and Asia, Foley approaches client service by first understanding our clients’ priorities, objectives and challenges. We work hard to understand our clients’ issues and forge long-term relationships with them to help achieve successful outcomes and solve their legal issues through practical business advice and cutting-edge legal insight. Our clients view us as trusted business advisors because we understand that great legal service is only valuable if it is relevant, practical and beneficial to their businesses.
On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. to resolve a circuit split over whether there is a private right of action for shareholders...
United States Corporate/Commercial Law
William McCaughey’s articles from Foley & Lardner are most popular:
  • within Corporate/Commercial Law topic(s)
  • with readers working within the Insurance industries
Foley & Lardner are most popular:
  • within Criminal Law, Government, Public Sector and Insurance topic(s)

On June 30, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd. to resolve a circuit split over whether there is a private right of action for shareholders under Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA). The ICA regulates mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, closed-end funds, and other registered investment companies. Section 47(b) of the ICA says a contract that violates the ICA "is unenforceable by either party." Congress empowered the SEC with enforcement of the ICA, with two narrow exceptions for private enforcement unrelated to Section 47(b). However, in 2019, the Second Circuit, in Oxford University Bank v. Lansuppe Feeder, LLC,1 recognized an implied private right of action under Section 47(b) for the first time. In contrast, the Third and Ninth Circuits previously rejected finding a private right of action under Section 47(b).

Since the Second Circuit's ruling, activist investors have brought suits to challenge closed-end funds' actions as violating other provisions of the ICA. Activist investors can deploy an arbitrage strategy where they invest in closed-end funds, gain control over the fund, and then use that control to initiate investment or structural actions that allow the activist investor to sell their shares at a higher price. Bringing an action under Section 47(b) provides activist investors with a valuable tool to deploy an arbitrage strategy and obtain short-term profits. Indeed, at issue in Saba was the use of Section 47(b) to challenge the funds' adoption of the Maryland Control Share Acquisition Act, which makes it more difficult for shareholders to buy a controlling stake of a fund.

On September 3, 2025, the United States and U.S. Chamber of Commerce weighed in and filed amicus briefs in support of the fund petitioners seeking to challenge the private right of action. The government agreed with the funds that no private right of action existed under Section 47(b). The Chamber of Commerce agreed and argued that recognizing a private right of action "would unleash crippling and unchecked private lawsuits aimed at enforcing the ICA's extensive requirements and seeking to rescind vital business contracts."

The outcome of the Supreme Court's decision will have a significant impact on closed-end funds. If the Supreme Court sides with the activist investors, funds may be flooded with private actions, even if the SEC previously took no issue with the alleged violation of the ICA. On the other hand, if the Supreme Court sides with the funds, it will provide funds with greater regulatory certainty by maintaining the SEC as the primary enforcer of the ICA, with two narrow private right exceptions.

The Supreme Court's decision in Saba is expected by June 2026.

Footnote

1 933 F.3d 99 (2d Cir. 2019).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More