Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis

How later courts described this case

• holding that there is no private right of action under Section 206, noting that “[Section] § 206 simply proscribes certain conduct, and does not in terms create or alter any civil liabilities. If monetary liability to a private plaintiff is to be found, it must be read into the Act. Yet it is an elemental canon of statutory construction that where a statute expressly provides a particular remedy or remedies, a court must be chary of reading others into it.”
• holding that “[w]hile some opinions of the Court have placed considerable emphasis upon the desirability of implying private rights of action in order to provide remedies thought to effectuate the purposes of a given statute, [] what must ultimately be determined is whether Congress intended to create the private remedy.”
• finding it significant that, “[u]nder each of the securities laws that preceded the Act here in question, and under the Investment Company Act of 1940 which was enacted as companion legislation, Congress expressly authorized private suits for damages in prescribed circumstances”
• holding that Congress intended that "customary legal incidents" of contract voidness, including a private right to sue for rescission, an injunction, or restitution, would follow from its statutory declaration that certain contracts "shall be void"

Written by the judges who cited it.