On May 11, the SEC Staff issued a statement to investors, encouraging them to be cautious of mutual funds that invest in Bitcoin futures. The Staff also took the opportunity to note that the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis will closely monitor registered funds’ use of Bitcoin futures. The Staff noted the factors it would be considering: the liquidity and depth of the Bitcoin futures market and whether it is appropriately supporting mutual fund investments given regulatory requirements related to liquidity; the ability of mutual funds to liquidate their positions; mutual fund valuation of holdings; liquidity classification by mutual funds of Bitcoin futures during normal and reasonably foreseeable stressed positions; the potential for fraud and manipulation in the underlying Bitcoin markets; whether the Bitcoin futures market could accommodate ETFs. In what would seem a statement that might apply to any investment type, the staff took the opportunity to state that “IM staff believes at this time that investment in the Bitcoin futures market should be pursued only by mutual funds with appropriate strategies that support this type of investment and full disclosure of material risks.” The staff went on to encourage potential closed end fund registrants that contemplate investing in Bitcoin futures to contact the staff before filing to discuss their intentions.
Disclaimer
This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.
Author(s)
Related Insights
21 March 2025
IP Litigation Current
Federal Circuit Opens the Door to Additional Domestic Industry Investment: “Ordinary Importer” No Longer
In its recent decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, the Federal Circuit opened the door for patent owners to include expanded categories of domestic investment to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B).
21 March 2025
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
Federal Court Rejects FCA’s “65%-100%” Language as Insufficient to Constitute the Necessary Quantity Term in a Requirements Contract—A Win for Suppliers
A recent federal court decision marks an important win for automotive suppliers in the ongoing debate over what constitutes a valid requirements contract under Michigan law following the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision in MSSN, Inc. v. Airboss Flexible Products Co. (2023).
21 March 2025
Foley Ignite
A Delay in Exit Plans
There was much hope going into 2025 that we would see a rebound in the IPO market after a bit of a drought over the past few years. We left the uncertainty of the election behind us, and good news on the inflation and interest rate fronts were fueling a sense of hope that 2025 was going to be a great year for the IPO market.