Six Firms Side With CFTC as Stock Perpetual Futures Face Court Test

By Coinvote

Published November 10, 2026 - 19:23 UTC | 4 mins read

Six Firms Side With CFTC as Stock Perpetual Futures Face Court Test

Six companies, including Coinbase and Kalshi, petitioned a federal court to consider their defense of the CFTC's decision on perpetual futures tied to single US stocks. The dispute will decide who regulates these non-expiring contracts and whether retail traders can access them.

Six companies ask to defend the CFTC's stock perps approval

On Monday, six companies led by Coinbase and Kalshi requested the court's leave to submit a brief in support of the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), Cointelegraph reported. The lawsuit concerns whether US exchanges may list perpetual futures tied to individual stocks. An amicus brief comes from outside parties that want to give the court their view of a case.

According to Cointelegraph, the group also includes Payward, the parent company of Kraken, trading firms DRW Holdings and Jump Trading, and Paradigm Operations. The Block reported that the crypto firms sought the court's permission to submit a brief defending the agency's authority over these products. CoinDesk also named the Kraken parent in its headline.

How single-stock perpetuals ended up in court

Cointelegraph reported that on Nov. 3 the CFTC announced that stock perps, meaning perpetual futures on single stocks, were cleared to begin trading at American regulated venues, a first for such products. These contracts allow traders to take a position on the price moves of a single company's stock with no ownership of the underlying shares. They differ from conventional futures in that no set expiry date applies to them.

The Capital Markets Alliance Association (CMAA) sued the CFTC last week. Cointelegraph described the CMAA as a newly formed trade and advocacy group for traditional market participants, with members that include Cboe and Citadel Securities. Its suit challenges the agency's authority to let the contracts trade.

The legal fight turns on one missing expiry date

The CMAA argues that a contract with no fixed expiration should be treated as a security-based swap. Cointelegraph explained that such swaps are mainly overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and face tighter limits on retail trading. CoinDesk summarized the same position, saying the group believes the products fall under the SEC's jurisdiction.

The six companies reject that reading. They argue that a contract does not need a fixed expiration date to qualify as a security future, a category under joint CFTC and SEC oversight. The Defiant said the proposed brief supports that joint oversight.

CMAA position: no expiry means security-based swap, with the SEC as the main regulator.
Brief signers' position: expiry is not required for a security future.
Practical stakes: whether retail traders can access contracts that track single stocks without expiring.

What the judge has said so far

Following the CMAA's complaint, US District Judge Valerie Caproni said the group was likely to succeed in arguing that the CFTC exceeded its statutory authority, according to Cointelegraph. In her assessment, the contracts looked more like swaps than like security futures. That finding casts doubt on the agency's legal interpretation.

She nonetheless denied the CMAA's request for a temporary restraining order. In her view, the group had not shown imminent, irreparable harm. As a result, the CFTC's trading approvals remain in place while the case continues.

Where the outlets' accounts line up

Cointelegraph supplies the fullest account, including the ruling, the list of signers and the CMAA's membership. The other three outlets are consistent with it on the core point. The Block and CoinDesk describe backing for the CFTC, and The Defiant counts the firms as Coinbase plus five others, which matches the six in Cointelegraph's report.

The timing also fits. Cointelegraph said the CMAA is scheduled to file its reply on Tuesday, answering the CFTC's filing that opposes a preliminary injunction. The Defiant points to a November 10 reply deadline, which is the same day. Headlines name different firms, with The Block listing Payward and CoinDesk mentioning the Kraken parent, but these appear to be shortened versions of the same group.

Why the outcome matters to exchanges and traders

The case is about more than one product. If the court ultimately treats stock perps as swaps, the SEC's rules and the tighter retail limits that come with them would become central. If the CFTC's view holds, venues could offer the contracts under the security-futures framework that the agency relied on.

The ruling so far leaves an uneven picture. Approvals stay in place, but the judge has signalled doubts about their legal basis. Exchanges and traders can check the status of the CMAA's injunction request and any ruling on the amicus motion, because those filings will show how the court is weighing the dispute.

Open questions to watch

The first question is whether the court grants the request to file the amicus brief and how much weight it gives the argument that an expiry date is not required. The second is whether the CMAA's reply on Tuesday leads to a preliminary injunction, which would go further than the restraining order the judge declined to issue.

A third question is how the SEC responds, given that both sides rely on arguments about its role. None of the outlets reports an agency position on that point, so it remains unknown.

FAQ

Who is backing the CFTC in the stock perps lawsuit?

Coinbase, Kalshi, Kraken parent Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading and Paradigm Operations asked to file an amicus brief, according to Cointelegraph. In their view, existing US futures law already covers stock perpetual futures.

Are stock perpetual futures currently allowed to trade in the US?

On Nov. 3 the CFTC announced that these contracts were cleared to begin trading at American regulated venues, a first for such products. A judge said the CMAA is likely to succeed on its authority claim but denied a temporary restraining order, so the approvals remain in place while the lawsuit proceeds.

Why does the lack of an expiration date matter?

The CMAA argues that contracts without a fixed expiry should be regulated as security-based swaps, which are mainly overseen by the SEC and face tighter retail limits. The firms backing the CFTC say an expiry date is not required for a security future.