SEC vs CFTC jurisdiction disputes
⚖️ SEC vs. CFTC: Jurisdictional Overview
SEC (Securities and Exchange Commission)
Established: 1934 (Securities Exchange Act)
Jurisdiction: Securities markets — stocks, bonds, mutual funds, investment advisors, broker-dealers.
Authority:
Regulates issuance and trading of securities
Oversees public companies and disclosure rules
Enforces laws against securities fraud
CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission)
Established: 1974 (Commodity Futures Trading Commission Act)
Jurisdiction: Commodities and derivatives — futures, options on commodities, swaps, and more recently digital assets.
Authority:
Regulates futures and swaps markets
Focuses on market integrity and anti-manipulation
Enforces anti-fraud provisions in commodities markets
🧩 Areas of Overlap (and Conflict)
Derivatives based on securities (e.g., security-based swaps)
Digital assets (e.g., cryptocurrencies)
Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) and structured products
Fraud enforcement over hybrid instruments
New technologies (DeFi, algorithmic trading)
Congress and the courts have had to define jurisdictional lines, particularly in ambiguous or evolving markets.
📚 Key Cases: SEC vs. CFTC Jurisdiction Disputes
Case 1: SEC v. Unifund SAL, 910 F.2d 1028 (2d Cir. 1990)
Facts:
The SEC pursued foreign investors for insider trading in U.S. securities markets. The CFTC had no involvement, but the court clarified the SEC’s jurisdiction over foreign actors.
Issue:
Does the SEC have jurisdiction over foreign transactions with a significant U.S. nexus?
Holding:
Yes — when conduct has a substantial effect on U.S. markets, the SEC has jurisdiction.
Significance:
While not directly about the CFTC, this case set extraterritorial jurisdiction principles later applied in CFTC cases as well, especially where both agencies target global actors.
Case 2: CFTC v. SEC (Shad-Johnson Accord), Legislative History
Background:
A regulatory turf war emerged in the 1970s–1980s over options on futures contracts and stock index futures.
Resolution:
The Shad-Johnson Accord (1982) — a legislative compromise between SEC Chair John Shad and CFTC Chair Philip Johnson.
Terms:
SEC gets jurisdiction over options on securities
CFTC gets jurisdiction over futures on commodities and indexes
No futures on individual securities (until 2000)
Significance:
This is the foundational legislative "settlement" that defined agency boundaries for decades — courts often interpret disputes based on this understanding.
Case 3: SEC v. Terraform Labs & Do Kwon (Ongoing, 2023–2024)
Facts:
Terraform Labs and its founder were sued by the SEC for allegedly offering unregistered securities via the Terra/LUNA crypto project.
CFTC Position:
In separate enforcement, CFTC indicated that UST and LUNA might be commodities, not securities.
Legal Dispute:
Are certain crypto tokens securities or commodities?
Developments:
Courts allowed the SEC case to proceed, rejecting the defense that the tokens were solely commodities under CFTC jurisdiction.
Significance:
Highlights the conflict in crypto classification.
Both agencies claim overlapping authority, leading to parallel or conflicting actions.
Pushes need for legislative clarity.
Case 4: CFTC v. My Big Coin Pay, Inc., 334 F. Supp. 3d 492 (D. Mass. 2018)
Facts:
CFTC brought a fraud action against My Big Coin, alleging it misrepresented its digital currency.
Defense Argument:
The product was not a "commodity," so CFTC lacked jurisdiction.
Holding:
Court ruled cryptocurrencies are commodities, even if not traded on a futures market.
Significance:
Gave CFTC broad enforcement authority over digital assets.
But SEC could also regulate such tokens if they're investment contracts, creating jurisdictional overlap.
Case 5: SEC v. W.J. Howey Co., 328 U.S. 293 (1946)
Facts:
The company sold orange grove interests and a service contract to non-farming investors.
Issue:
What counts as an "investment contract" (and therefore a security)?
Holding:
Introduced the Howey Test:
A transaction is a security if it involves:
An investment of money
In a common enterprise
With expectation of profits
From the efforts of others
Significance:
Core test used by the SEC to classify digital assets as securities.
Creates conflicts where the CFTC views the same asset as a commodity (e.g., Bitcoin, Ether).
Case 6: CFTC v. SEC (Security Futures Products), 2000–2002 rulemaking & litigation
Facts:
After the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000, security futures products (SFPs) were jointly regulated by both SEC and CFTC.
Jurisdictional Issues:
Exchanges must be registered with both agencies
Margin, reporting, and clearing rules differ
Result:
Created a dual-regulation regime
Led to reduced use of SFPs due to regulatory complexity
Significance:
Demonstrates the inefficiency of overlapping jurisdictions
Sparked calls for streamlining regulation of hybrid products
📊 Comparison of SEC vs. CFTC Approaches
| Topic | SEC | CFTC |
|---|---|---|
| Legal Basis | Securities Act of 1933, Exchange Act of 1934 | Commodity Exchange Act (1936) |
| Regulates | Stocks, bonds, ETFs, investment contracts | Futures, swaps, certain digital assets |
| Primary Concern | Investor protection | Market integrity and anti-manipulation |
| Digital Assets | Uses Howey Test to claim crypto is a security | Treats digital assets as commodities unless clearly securities |
| Enforcement Style | Civil suits, administrative penalties, settlements | Civil actions, administrative enforcement, whistleblower programs |
🧾 Summary Table of Cases
| Case | Court | Conflict | Holding | Jurisdiction Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unifund SAL (1990) | 2nd Cir. | SEC jurisdiction over foreign trades | SEC jurisdiction upheld | Extended SEC reach |
| Shad-Johnson Accord (1982) | Congress-led | Options & futures | Defined agency turf | CFTC over futures, SEC over options |
| SEC v. Terraform (2023) | S.D.N.Y. | Is LUNA/UST a security or commodity? | SEC case allowed | Jurisdiction overlaps with CFTC |
| CFTC v. My Big Coin (2018) | D. Mass. | Crypto as commodity | Crypto = commodity | CFTC jurisdiction affirmed |
| Howey (1946) | SCOTUS | Defining securities | Introduced Howey Test | Foundation for SEC crypto cases |
| Security Futures (2000–2002) | Regulatory/joint | Hybrid product regulation | Dual oversight created | Shared jurisdiction (inefficient) |
✅ Conclusion
The jurisdictional conflict between the SEC and CFTC continues to evolve, especially with the rise of digital assets, derivatives, and hybrid financial products. Courts have generally:
Uphold both agencies' authority in overlapping areas
Require clear statutory mandates or apply classic tests (like Howey)
Emphasize the need for agency coordination or legislative clarification
As of now, the SEC tends to dominate in enforcement, but the CFTC has won key definitions (e.g., treating digital assets as commodities).
RELATED Blog
0 comments