On June 18, 2026, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (“CFTC”) issued a joint request for public comment regarding potential updates to the definitions of “swap” and “security-based swap,” along with other interpretive issues arising under Title VII of the Dodd-Frank Act. The agencies seek feedback on whether existing definitions finalized in 2012 (referred to as the product definitions) and jurisdictional boundaries still appropriately reflect modern market structures, emerging financial products, and evolving trading practices. The initiative is intended to provide greater regulatory certainty while reducing ambiguity in areas in which SEC and CFTC oversight overlaps.
While this request for comment (RFC) comes largely on the heels of discussions relating to event contracts, it is quite broad. In relation to event contracts, the SEC and CFTC ask for comment as to whether additional clarity is required when an event “directly affects” the financial statements, financial condition or financial obligations of an issuer and is therefore a security-based swap that is subject to the SEC’s jurisdiction. The agencies also ask whether there are instances in which an event contract referencing one or more securities should be considered a “put, call, straddle, option, or privilege” on securities instead of a swap or security-based swap.
The RFC asks a number of questions concerning other products that have been the subject of recent commentary and controversy, including cash-settled perpetual contracts, including perpetual futures. For example, the release seeks comments as to whether a cash-settled perpetual contract referencing an equity security could be treated as a security future rather than a security-based swap.
Finally, and of interest to readers of this blog, the RFC asks whether clarity is needed to distinguish traditional debt securities that have always been excluded from the definition of swap and security-based swap, such as notes or bonds or debentures, the performance of which is based on a reference asset, so structured products. The RFC asks for input on how to treat innovative or structured products that may blur the lines between swaps and security-based swaps, including whether factors such as issuance under a Trust Indenture Act‑qualified indenture or the existence of a lender‑borrower relationship should be dispositive of their characterization as debt securities. This is concerning.
Read the official press release here. Comments are due on or before August 24, 2026.