2026-06-11 14:11:13 / 路透社
2026年6月11日，美国最高法院在美国华盛顿举行听证会前资料图。路透社/肯·塞德诺 购买授权许可，将在新标签页打开
华盛顿6月11日路透电 — 美国最高法院周四在一桩案件中支持了隶属于贝莱德（BLK.N，将在新标签页打开）及其他资产管理公司的一批投资基金，使其得以抗辩私人原告依据一项关键联邦证券法提起的特定诉讼。
最高法院以6票赞成、3票反对的表决结果做出此项裁决，其保守派多数派起到了决定性作用，推翻了下级法院的判决。此前下级法院允许对冲基金萨巴资本主控基金依据《1940年投资公司法》提起诉讼，要求宣布限制维权股东投票权的基金章程无效。
通过路透社商业新闻简报，每日突发商业新闻摘要将直接发送至您的收件箱。点击此处订阅。
撰写该裁决意见的保守派大法官艾米·科尼·巴雷特写道，《1940年投资公司法》（简称ICA）并未授权私人当事人提起诉讼，以撤销章程或其他合同条款。
巴雷特写道：“总而言之，《1940年投资公司法》的文本或结构中，没有任何内容表明国会授权私人当事人强制执行该法案中几乎每一项条款。”她的意见获得了另外五名保守派大法官的联署。
法院的三名自由派大法官持不同意见。
唐纳德·特朗普政府曾为贝莱德、FS信贷机遇基金（FSCO.N，将在新标签页打开）以及本案涉及的其他基金背书，其中包括亚当斯多元化股权基金（ADX.N，将在新标签页打开）、亚当斯自然资源基金（PEO.N，将在新标签页打开）和罗伊斯全球信托基金（RGT.N，将在新标签页打开）。
本案涉及的投资基金为所谓的“封闭式基金”，这类基金发行固定数量的股份，其交易价格通常低于其基础资产的价值。这些依照马里兰州法律组建的基金，通过了限制大股东投票权的章程条款。
萨巴资本是由维权投资者博亚兹·魏斯坦管理的对冲基金，持有上述投资基金的股份，该基金对11家此类基金提起了法律诉讼。
萨巴资本声称，存在争议的章程条款违反了《1940年投资公司法》中要求每一股享有平等投票权的条款。该基金还主张，该法律允许私人当事人——而非仅美国证券交易委员会——提起诉讼，要求宣布违反《1940年投资公司法》的公司章程或其他合同条款无效。
纽约一名联邦法官支持萨巴资本的主张，在2024年做出裁决，称所谓的“控股权章程”违反了《1940年投资公司法》，必须予以废除。总部位于纽约的美国第二巡回上诉法院维持了该法官的裁决。
这促使部分基金向最高法院提起上诉，辩称《1940年投资公司法》并未为这类诉讼规定所谓的“私人诉权”。
约翰·克鲁泽尔报道；威尔·邓汉姆编辑
US Supreme Court rules against private suits brought under key securities law
2026-06-11 14:11:13 / Reuters
The Supreme Court of the United States, ahead of hearings to take place, in Washington, D.C., U.S. June 11, 2026. REUTERS/Ken Cedeno Purchase Licensing Rights, opens new tab
WASHINGTON, June 11 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court sided on Thursday with a group of investment funds affiliated with BlackRock
(BLK.N), opens new tab
and other asset managers in their bid to fend off certain lawsuits brought by private plaintiffs under a key federal securities law.
The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision fueled by its conservative majority, reversed a lower court’s ruling that let hedge fund Saba Capital Master Fund sue under the Investment Company Act of 1940 to void fund bylaws restricting the voting power of activist shareholders.
Get a daily digest of breaking business news straight to your inbox with the Reuters Business newsletter. Sign up here.
Conservative Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who authored the ruling, wrote that the Investment Company Act, or ICA, does not authorize private parties to bring suits seeking the rescission of bylaws or other contractual terms.
“In sum, nothing in the text or structure of the ICA indicates that Congress authorized private parties to enforce virtually every provision in the statute,” wrote Barrett, whose opinion was joined by her five fellow conservatives.
The court’s three liberal justices dissented.
President Donald Trump’s administration backed BlackRock, FS Credit Opportunities
(FSCO.N), opens new tab
and other funds involved in the case, including Adams Diversified Equity Fund
(ADX.N), opens new tab
, Adams Natural Resources Fund
(PEO.N), opens new tab
and Royce Global Trust
(RGT.N), opens new tab
.
The investment funds at issue are so-called “closed-end funds,” which issue a fixed number of shares and frequently trade for less than the value of their underlying holdings. The funds, which are organized under Maryland law, adopted bylaw provisions that restrict the voting power of large shareholders.
Saba, a hedge fund managed by activist investor Boaz Weinstein that owns shares in the investment funds, brought legal challenges against 11 such funds.
It alleged that the disputed bylaw provisions violated part of the Investment Company Act requiring that each share carry equal voting power. It also argued that the law allows private parties – not just the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission – to bring suits seeking to void corporate bylaws or other contractual terms that violate the Investment Company Act.
A federal judge in New York sided with Saba, ruling in 2024 that the so-called “control share bylaws” violated the Investment Company Act and must be removed. The New York-based 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the judge’s ruling.
This prompted some of the funds to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that the Investment Company Act does not contain a so-called “private right of action” for such suits.
Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham
发表回复