Key facts
- Coinbase, Kalshi, Payward, DRW Holdings, Jump Trading and Paradigm Operations backed the CFTC.
- The companies argue a fixed expiration date is not required for a contract to be a security future.
- The CMAA argues the contracts should be security-based swaps overseen by the SEC.
- Judge Valerie Caproni found the CFTC likely exceeded its statutory authority but denied a restraining order.
Coinbase, Kalshi and four other companies asked a federal court on Monday, November 9, 2026, to accept a brief backing the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission in a lawsuit over perpetual futures tied to individual US stocks, according to a report by CoinDesk.
The group, which also includes Kraken parent Payward, trading companies DRW Holdings and Jump Trading, and crypto investment company Paradigm Operations, argues that stock perpetual futures fall under existing US futures laws. The proposed amicus brief was shared by Coinbase legal representative Molly Abraham, CoinDesk reported.
The case follows the CFTC's November 3, 2026 announcement that single-stock perpetual futures could begin trading on US-regulated exchanges for the first time. The Capital Markets Alliance Association, a newly formed trade and advocacy group whose members the report says include Cboe and Citadel Securities, sued the CFTC the following week, arguing the agency lacked authority to allow the contracts.
Stock perpetuals let traders speculate on the price moves of individual stocks without owning the shares. Unlike traditional futures, they have no fixed expiration date. The CMAA argues that because the contracts lack a fixed expiration, they should be regulated as security-based swaps, a derivative linked to stocks or other securities primarily overseen by the Securities and Exchange Commission and subject to tighter restrictions on retail trading.
The six companies backing the CFTC disagree, arguing that a fixed expiration date is not required for a contract to qualify as a security future, which falls under joint CFTC and SEC oversight.
US District Judge Valerie Caproni said the CMAA was likely to succeed in its claim that the CFTC exceeded its statutory authority by allowing the contracts to trade as security futures. She found the contracts appeared to qualify as swaps rather than security futures, casting doubt on the agency's legal interpretation, but denied the CMAA's request for a temporary restraining order, finding the group had not shown imminent, irreparable harm. The denial left the CFTC's trading approvals in place while the lawsuit proceeds.