Protocols & Policy · Derivatives litigation
A trade group that Cboe says includes Cboe, Citadel Securities and Healthy Markets Association asked a federal court in New York to set aside the CFTC's approvals of no-expiry futures on single stocks.
A trade group whose members include an exchange operator and a market maker went to federal court on Nov. 3 to stop U.S. platforms from listing a new kind of stock derivative: futures on single stocks that never expire. Capital Markets Alliance Association, whose members include Cboe Global Markets, Citadel Securities and Healthy Markets Association according to Cboe, sued the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Chairman Michael S. Selig in the Southern District of New York, case No. 1:26-cv-09608 [1][2][3].
A perpetual future is a futures contract with no expiry date. The complaint calls them "perpetual" single-stock derivatives that "effectively allow investors to indefinitely speculate on the price movements of individual stocks such as Apple or Microsoft, without owning any shares" [1]. What follows are allegations in a complaint; the court has not ruled.
The suit targets what the complaint calls "the Stock Perpetual Approvals," applications "filed by three CFTC-regulated platforms: KalshiEX LLC (Kalshi), Coinbase Derivatives LLC (Coinbase), and Bitnomial Exchange LLC (Bitnomial)" [1]. The complaint says the review period for the "September 18, 2026 applications" closed Nov. 2 and the applications "are now deemed approved under CFTC regulation." Under CFTC rules, absent a notice of non-approval, applications are deemed approved when the review period closes, the complaint says [1].
That matches the CFTC's own account. Selig said on Nov. 3 that the contracts "can begin trading for the first time on CFTC-registered exchanges" [4]. Le Coin covered that statement earlier Nov. 3.
The group's core claim is about who regulates the products. The CFTC, it alleges, "embraced the applicants' classification of these products as 'security futures,' rather than security-based swaps," and did so "without any reasoned order explaining its actions" [1]. Security-based swaps fall under the Securities and Exchange Commission. The complaint brings two counts under the Administrative Procedure Act, the law governing how federal agencies act: one that the approvals were "arbitrary and capricious," and one that they were "contrary to law and in excess of statutory authority" [1].
| Date | Event | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Sept. 18, 2026 | Applications filed to list the contracts, per the complaint | [1] |
| Nov. 2, 2026 | Review period closes; applications "deemed approved," per the complaint | [1] |
| Nov. 3, 2026 | Selig says the contracts can begin trading (Release No. 9319-26) | [4] |
| Nov. 3, 2026 | Complaint filed, No. 1:26-cv-09608 (S.D.N.Y.) | [1][2] |
| Relief sought | "Vacate and set aside the Stock Perpetual Approvals" | [1] |
| Relief sought | Declare the contracts "security-based swaps" | [1] |
| Relief sought | "a temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief," and a stay of the approvals | [1] |
Table: Le Coin. Sources: complaint and docket, No. 1:26-cv-09608 (S.D.N.Y.); CFTC Release No. 9319-26.
Cboe framed its role as one of principle. "If this were simply a commercial issue, Cboe could bring these products to market on CFTC regulated trading and clearing platforms that it operates," the company said [3]. Chief Executive Craig Donohue said "the CFTC's actions threaten to erode the regulatory framework that has protected investors and governed U.S. securities markets for more than nine decades" [3].
The plaintiffs run businesses in the products these contracts could compete with. The complaint describes members that "operate equity and options exchanges" and "make markets" [1], and Cboe's statement anticipates the point by saying it welcomes "new entrants and innovation" [3].
The fight is over a label. Selig's statement calls the contracts security futures; the complaint calls them security-based swaps. Which word holds decides which agency writes the rules. The complaint asks the court to set the approvals aside, declare the contracts security-based swaps and, through a temporary restraining order and injunctions, bar the CFTC from giving the approvals effect.
Holding the Corner.
Not financial advice.