The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major victory for investment firms and a significant setback for activist hedge funds this week, ruling that shareholders cannot use a key provision of federal law to launch private lawsuits seeking to unwind investment contracts.

In a 6-3 decision, the Court ruled that Section 47(b) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 does not create an implied private right of action allowing shareholders to sue for rescission of contracts they claim violate the law.

The ruling in *FS Credit Opportunities Corp. v. Saba Capital Master Fund, Ltd.* overturns a previous decision from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that had opened the door for activist investors to challenge corporate actions through private litigation.

The case centered on efforts by Saba Capital, a well-known activist hedge fund, to challenge actions taken by several closed-end investment funds. The dispute arose after certain funds adopted protections designed to prevent activist investors from gaining outsized control over fund operations and forcing changes that management argued were not in the best interests of long-term shareholders.

Writing for the majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett delivered a forceful defense of the principle that Congress—not courts—determines who has the authority to enforce federal statutes.

“Congress, not the Judiciary, decides who may enforce the law,” Barrett wrote.

“The Investment Company Act designates the Securities and Exchange Commission as its primary enforcer and expressly permits shareholders and issuers of securities to enforce two of its provisions,” she continued.

“We must decide whether another provision of the Act impliedly empowers private parties to sue for rescission of any contract that allegedly violates the Act. The answer is no,” Barrett added.

Joining Barrett in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

The dispute originated when Saba Capital challenged decisions by several investment funds, including entities affiliated with FS Credit Opportunities and BlackRock. The funds had adopted provisions under Maryland’s Control Share Acquisition Act, which restricts voting power for large shareholders who acquire significant ownership stakes.

Supporters of such measures argue they help protect funds from hostile takeovers and activist campaigns designed to generate short-term profits at the expense of long-term investors.

Saba argued that the voting restrictions violated Section 18(i) of the Investment Company Act and sought rescission under Section 47(b). Lower courts had sided with the hedge fund based on prior precedent in the Second Circuit.

The Supreme Court, however, rejected that interpretation.

Barrett emphasized that Section 47(b) discusses remedies available once parties are already properly before a court, rather than creating a new legal right for private individuals to initiate lawsuits.

“Section 47(b)’s wording thus presupposes that parties are already before the court and directs the court’s use of its remedial authority. It says not a word about individual rights,” Barrett explained.

The decision reflects the Roberts Court’s broader commitment to textualism—a judicial philosophy that focuses on the actual language enacted by Congress rather than allowing courts to create new legal rights not expressly provided by lawmakers.

The ruling also reinforces the Securities and Exchange Commission’s role as the primary enforcement authority under the Investment Company Act.

“Private litigants sometimes sue to enforce statutes that lack comparable language,” Barrett noted while rejecting the notion that courts should infer additional causes of action where Congress did not explicitly provide them.

The implications of the decision extend far beyond this particular dispute. Legal experts say the ruling will affect a wide range of investment vehicles, including closed-end funds, mutual funds, business development companies, and other investment structures that collectively manage trillions of dollars in assets.

Supporters argue the decision will provide greater stability for investors by preventing activist hedge funds from using federal courts to pressure companies into restructurings, liquidations, board shakeups, or other actions designed to boost short-term returns.

Industry groups quickly welcomed the outcome. The Investment Company Institute praised the decision, arguing that it preserves the Investment Company Act’s carefully designed regulatory framework and prevents an explosion of private lawsuits that could create uncertainty throughout the industry.

Attorneys representing the funds described the ruling as a major victory for the registered investment fund industry and one that removes a powerful legal weapon previously available to activist investors.

For millions of Americans who invest through retirement accounts, pension funds, and diversified investment portfolios, supporters say the decision promotes predictability and long-term stability by allowing professional regulators—not private litigants—to serve as the primary enforcers of federal investment laws.

The ruling also continues a broader trend at the Supreme Court of limiting judicially created causes of action and reinforcing the principle that Congress must clearly authorize private lawsuits if it intends for them to exist.

For businesses, investment managers, and market participants, the decision provides additional clarity regarding who can enforce federal securities laws and further underscores the Court’s view that policy decisions belong to lawmakers, not judges.

President Donald Trump arrived in France on Monday for the annual G7 summit after an eventful weekend that showcased both his political influence at home and his administration’s growing diplomatic ambitions abroad.

The president’s trip comes just one day after thousands gathered on the White House South Lawn for UFC Freedom 250, a high-profile event celebrating America’s upcoming 250th anniversary and Trump’s 80th birthday. It also comes as the administration moves forward with what officials describe as a potentially historic agreement aimed at ending tensions with Iran and preventing the regime from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Senior administration officials confirmed Monday that a memorandum of understanding between the United States and Iran was electronically signed Sunday by both President Trump and Vice President JD Vance. Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf signed on behalf of Tehran.

Officials described the memorandum as a framework agreement that establishes the foundation for broader negotiations in the coming weeks. The full text is expected to be released publicly within days.

Administration officials emphasized that the agreement represents the beginning of a larger diplomatic process rather than a final resolution.

“This is the first step,” one senior official told reporters, noting that more detailed technical negotiations are scheduled to begin later this week.

Vice President Vance is expected to take a leading role in those discussions, reflecting the administration’s confidence in his growing influence on foreign policy matters.

The next major milestone is expected Friday in Geneva, Switzerland, where Vance and presidential adviser Jared Kushner are scheduled to represent the United States during a formal signing ceremony.

Trump indicated Monday that he may not attend the event personally due to his ongoing schedule and international commitments.

Speaking before meetings with world leaders at the G7 summit, Trump expressed confidence that the agreement could usher in greater stability throughout the Middle East.

“I think a lot of great things are going to happen in the Middle East right now,” Trump said.

“And very importantly, the oil is plummeting down and the stock market is shooting up like a rocket today.”

The president also pointed to renewed activity through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most strategically important shipping corridors and a key artery for global energy markets.

A major point of discussion surrounding the agreement has centered on whether Iran will receive immediate sanctions relief or access to frozen financial assets.

Administration officials sought to reassure critics that any economic benefits would be strictly tied to Iranian compliance with the agreement.

“We are prepared to release frozen funds, and we are prepared to release sanctions,” one official said.

“And we’ll do some small gestures of that in the beginning, if they make some small gestures to us that show that they’re willing to meet their commitments as well.”

Vice President Vance reinforced that message during a television interview Monday morning.

“We’ll be releasing the text this week, and what everybody will see is that Iran doesn’t get a dime of money unless they perform their obligations,” Vance said.

“The money that we’re talking about is fundamentally sanctions relief.”

Vance also rejected claims that the administration was preparing to hand Iran a massive financial windfall or provide unrestricted access to international funding.

“If the Iranians are willing to give a long-term commitment, along with proper verification, to giving up that nuclear weapon, we’re willing to welcome them into the world economy, to lift some sanctions, and to turn over a new leaf in that relationship,” Vance said.

Administration officials likewise dismissed speculation that Gulf nations could quietly funnel money to Iran outside the framework of the agreement.

One senior official described such claims as “not just unlikely, but preposterous.”

Officials also clarified that the agreement does not require Israel to withdraw from Lebanon or limit its ability to defend itself against attacks from Iranian-backed terrorist groups.

“The deal is a ceasefire, and it will not be a one-way ceasefire,” one official said.

“If Iran is not able to control Hezbollah, and if they attack Israeli positions or Israeli towns, Israel will have the right to defend themselves and respond.”

Despite ongoing challenges throughout the region, administration officials expressed optimism that the framework could serve as the foundation for a broader realignment in the Middle East.

“We can find a way to create a new framework for the region based on modern times, modern aspirations,” one official said.

The diplomatic breakthrough comes as Trump enters the G7 summit from a position of renewed political strength. The president spent the weekend hosting UFC Freedom 250, which drew approximately 4,300 attendees to the White House grounds, including more than 1,200 active-duty military personnel.

The unprecedented event combined patriotism, entertainment, and celebration of America’s approaching 250th anniversary while further highlighting Trump’s unique ability to blend politics and popular culture in a way few modern presidents have attempted.

Now, as he meets with world leaders in France, Trump is seeking to build on that momentum by pursuing what his administration hopes will become one of the most significant foreign policy achievements of his second term.

If successful, the agreement could not only reduce tensions with Iran but also reshape economic and security dynamics across the Middle East for years to come.

MSNBC personality Stephanie Ruhle became emotional during her final broadcast of *The 11th Hour*, signing off from the late-night program as the struggling network continues a broader programming shakeup amid declining ratings and changing viewer habits.

Ruhle, who has hosted the show for several years, is leaving the 11 p.m. time slot to anchor a new weekday morning program titled *Money, Power, Politics with Stephanie Ruhle*. The move comes as MSNBC executives continue reshuffling key parts of the network’s lineup in an effort to strengthen viewership and redefine its programming strategy.

Beginning Monday, veteran MSNBC anchor Ali Velshi will take over hosting duties for *The 11th Hour*.

During her farewell monologue, Ruhle appeared visibly emotional as she reflected on her time with the program, the staff behind the scenes, and the audience that tuned in each night.

“All right, it is time,” she said.

“Now. I’m going to have to take a deep breath for my MVP. And my MVP is all things ‘The 11th Hour.’ This show. Our team. And especially you, our audience,” she began.

Ruhle thanked viewers for making the show part of their nightly routines and emphasized the connection she felt with the audience throughout her tenure.

“You don’t have this program on in the background,” she said.

“Instead, you are choosing to invite us into your home every night — sometimes giving me the privilege of being the last voice you hear before you go to sleep,” she said.

“And I take that privilege seriously. So to you, I say thank you,” she continued.

Following the remarks, MSNBC aired a video montage highlighting memorable moments from Ruhle’s years behind the desk. The retrospective featured clips from major political events, election coverage, economic reporting, and breaking news stories that defined her run as host.

After the montage concluded, Ruhle shifted her focus to Velshi, the journalist who will now inherit one of the network’s most recognizable time slots.

She spoke warmly about their long professional relationship and praised his abilities as a broadcaster.

“And I’m grateful to be leaving you all in such capable hands,” Ruhle said.

“My good friend and colleague of many years, my partner in crime, Ali Velshi, will be taking over the ‘11th Hour’ anchor chair on Monday.”

Ruhle continued by outlining why she believes Velshi is the right person to lead the program moving forward.

“Ali is smart. He’s insightful. And most importantly, he cares,” she said. “He’s committed to the facts and never stops believing in the promise of this country.”

The outgoing host also shared a personal reflection about the support Velshi has provided her over the years.

“So many times Ali has been my rock,” she said. “And now he can be yours, too.”

She concluded her farewell message with a final note to her successor.

“Ali — I can’t wait to see what you do with the place.”

The departure marks a significant change for MSNBC’s late-night lineup as the network attempts to navigate an increasingly competitive cable news landscape. While MSNBC remains a major player in liberal political media, the network has faced ongoing challenges as audiences continue migrating toward streaming platforms, podcasts, and alternative digital news sources.

Ruhle’s move back to a daytime role also represents something of a return to her roots. Before entering television journalism, she spent years working in the financial sector and built much of her media career around business and economic reporting. Her new program is expected to focus heavily on those topics while also incorporating political coverage.

Meanwhile, Velshi brings decades of experience in broadcast journalism to the position. A familiar face to MSNBC viewers, he has served as both a weekend host and frequent fill-in anchor across the network’s schedule.

Despite leaving the late-night desk, Ruhle made clear that she views the transition as a new beginning rather than a farewell to her audience. By the end of the broadcast, she had thanked viewers, celebrated her colleagues, and officially passed the torch to Velshi.

Her emotional signoff closed a notable chapter for *The 11th Hour* and marked the beginning of MSNBC’s latest programming era as the network continues searching for ways to reconnect with viewers in an increasingly fragmented media environment.