Reason to trust
How Our News is Made
Strict editorial policy that focuses on accuracy, relevance, and impartiality
Ad discliamer
Morbi pretium leo et nisl aliquam mollis. Quisque arcu lorem, ultricies quis pellentesque nec, ullamcorper eu odio.
TL;DR: The American Securities Association is asking a federal court to consider retail-investor harm in the challenge to single-stock perpetuals. Its November 10 submission, publicised on November 12, supports interim relief. The CFTC has defended the products as a regulated domestic alternative to offshore trading.
The legal battle over US single-stock perpetuals is gaining another angle: what happens to ordinary investors while the court decides whether the products were properly authorised? The American Securities Association put that question at the centre of a submission supporting the Capital Markets Alliance’s challenge to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
ASA announced its intervention on November 12. The accompanying court-stamped documents show that its motion and proposed friend-of-the-court brief were filed on November 10, an important distinction between the announcement date and the legal event.
ASA focuses on harm while the case proceeds
In its filed motion and brief, ASA says it represents a perspective different from the exchange and trading firms arguing about competitive injury. It focuses on retail investors and the wider equity market.
The association contends that leverage, forced liquidation and trading during thinner sessions could expose customers to substantial losses and transmit stress into underlying shares. Those are arguments advanced by an interested participant, not findings that the predicted harm has occurred.
ASA is asking for a halt while the dispute proceeds. Its submission itself neither grants that relief nor settles the legal classification of perpetual contracts.
The CFTC makes the case for domestic access
The regulator’s position is set out in Chairman Michael Selig’s November 3 statement. The CFTC says the pathway involves designated contract markets that are also notice-registered with the SEC for security-futures products.
Selig argues that bringing perpetual contracts into regulated US markets gives participants a domestic route to instruments used for risk management and price discovery. He also describes cooperation between the CFTC and SEC as central to the framework.
That position and ASA’s objections address different sides of the same policy trade-off. Supporters emphasise regulated availability; opponents dispute whether the chosen legal category preserves the protections the law requires. Describing the debate simply as regulation versus no regulation misses that disagreement.
NewsBTC previously covered the crypto and trading firms supporting the CFTC. ASA’s intervention adds an opposing retail-investor argument to that wider dispute.
The earlier order explains why harm matters
In the November 3 temporary-restraining-order decision, Judge Valerie Caproni denied emergency relief because the plaintiff had not demonstrated the required imminent, irreparable harm. The judge nevertheless considered the plaintiff likely to succeed on its statutory-authority argument at that stage.
The result was therefore narrower than a final endorsement of the approvals. ASA’s emphasis on retail harm is relevant to the interim-relief question, but the court must determine what weight that submission deserves.
Contract design remains part of the dispute
An example appears in the SEC’s September notice of Nadex contract specifications: the proposed perpetual products have no fixed expiry, are cash-settled and do not convey ownership of the underlying security. That document describes a particular venue’s filing rather than every contract involved in the lawsuit.
NewsBTC’s coverage of Kalshi’s separate security-futures listing standards also shows why individual filings need to be read carefully. Similar product names do not make all terms or regulatory questions identical.
The next decisive development is judicial treatment of the requested relief. Another party’s argument can sharpen the dispute, but only the court’s orders establish what the litigation changes for the affected products. Any restrictions would depend on the terms and effective timing of a court order, which an advocacy announcement cannot establish.
written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
