of the NBA Award Achievement Contract

Ludlow Exchange · received by the CFTC 28 October 2026 · the filing (PDF)

What the wording addresses

• Payout Criterion / Expiration Value determination — every check present.
  “If the first official final result of <achievement> is”
• Cancellation Rule: Comprehensive Coverage.
  “resolved under the Fair Value Settlement Rule”
• Dead-Heat Rule — every check present.
  “each such participant is treated as satisfying the Payout Criterion”
• Withdrawal Rule: Comprehensive Coverage.
  “takes any other official action directly to be removed”
• Disqualification Rule: Conclusive Link, Comprehensive Coverage, Relevant Timeline.
  “disqualified from consideration for <achievement> before the Contract expires”
• Elimination Rule — every check present.
  “A participant is eliminated from contention when it is reported”
• Extraordinary Circumstances Rule: Comprehensive Coverage, Relevant Timeline.
  “the Exchange reserves the right, in its sole discretion”
• General Market Suspension Rule: Relevant Timeline.
  “pending clarification of an unusual or uncertain event”
• Fair Value Settlement Rule - Fair Value Price calculation — every check present.
  “the time-weighted average, over the Calculation Window, of a composite price”
• Settlement Finality Rule — every check present.
  “Any revision after Expiration will not be considered”

What the wording leaves open

• Core Principles Compliance Certification “Underlying is determined by objective and publicly verifiable criteria”
  • Independent Verification — Absent: No concrete evidence is named in the public text; the supporting 'detailed analysis' sits in Confidential Appendix B, which is not supplied.
  • Suitable Method — Absent: No procedure is described in the available text capable of establishing a manipulation-resistance claim.
  • Defined Benchmark — Absent: No threshold or test for 'readily susceptible to manipulation' is given in the public text.
  • Comprehensive Coverage — Absent: Scope of the manipulation analysis (which markets, which data) is not stated in the supplied text.
  • Relevant Timeline — Absent: No time period for the manipulation-susceptibility assessment is identified.
  • Relies on material referred to but not in the public filing.
  What would close it: Include or summarize the Confidential Appendix B analysis and its underlying evidentiary basis in the reviewable text.
• Cancellation Rule “resolved under the Fair Value Settlement Rule”
  • Independent Verification — Partial: No named source or document is specified for confirming cancellation; the ORC fallback uses 'market data, historical trades, and external sources' without specifying receivable items.
  • Suitable Method — Partial: Cancellation itself may be objectively confirmable, but the ORC 'fair allocation' determination is a discretionary judgment, not a defined measurement procedure.
  • Defined Benchmark — Absent: No defined threshold or methodology for 'fair allocation' by the ORC is given.
  • Relevant Timeline — Partial: Timing tied to 'before it concludes' but no explicit window for evidence-gathering is stated.
  What would close it: Specify named sources for confirming cancellation and a defined methodology/threshold for the ORC's fair-allocation determination.
• Withdrawal Rule “takes any other official action directly to be removed”
  • Independent Verification — Partial: No named source (e.g., Source Agency report) is specified for confirming withdrawal/forfeiture, unlike the Elimination Rule.
  • Suitable Method — Partial: 'Any other official action' is broad and undefined, so the procedure for confirming it is loose relative to the binary claim.
  • Defined Benchmark — Partial: ‘Official action directly to be removed’ gestures at a standard but is not tied to a defined document or announcement.
  • Conclusive Link — Partial: If such action is confirmed it would support a No settlement, but the undefined standard weakens the inference.
  • Relevant Timeline — Partial: No explicit window (e.g., before Expiration) is stated for when withdrawal must occur.
  What would close it: Name a specific reporting source and timing window for confirming withdrawal/forfeiture, as done for the Elimination Rule.
• Disqualification Rule “disqualified from consideration for <achievement> before the Contract expires”
  • Independent Verification — Partial: Unlike the Elimination Rule, no named reporting source (e.g., Source Agency) is specified for confirming disqualification.
  • Suitable Method — Partial: The procedure for confirming disqualification is unstated, leaving the determination's rigor unclear.
  • Defined Benchmark — Partial: ‘Disqualified from consideration’ is used without reference to a specific announcement or document.
  What would close it: Specify that disqualification must be as reported by the Source Agency, mirroring the Elimination Rule.
• Extraordinary Circumstances Rule “the Exchange reserves the right, in its sole discretion”
  • Independent Verification — Absent: Determination rests on the Exchange's 'sole discretion based upon information reasonably available,' not a named receivable evidentiary source.
  • Suitable Method — Absent: No defined procedure exists; discretion-based judgment cannot establish the claim at the asserted level of certainty.
  • Defined Benchmark — Partial: Illustrative examples (death, serious injury) are given but 'otherwise materially affects the Underlying' is open-ended and undefined.
  • Conclusive Link — Partial: Even if an example event occurs, whether it 'materially affects' the Underlying remains a discretionary judgment call.
  What would close it: Define 'materially affects the Underlying' with objective criteria or a named confirming source rather than sole Exchange discretion.
• General Market Suspension Rule “pending clarification of an unusual or uncertain event”
  • Independent Verification — Absent: No named evidence; the determination is the Exchange's own judgment of an 'unusual or uncertain event.'
  • Suitable Method — Absent: No procedure is specified to test or verify the 'unusual or uncertain' claim.
  • Defined Benchmark — Absent: No threshold or criteria define what counts as 'unusual or uncertain.'
  • Comprehensive Coverage — Partial: Applies to 'any Contract' without further defined population limits.
  What would close it: Name objective triggers or third-party confirmations for 'unusual or uncertain event' determinations.

Every provision read

Read 3 November 2026 with Warrant Check (instrument 1.0). Labels: Present, Partial, Absent describe whether each check is found in the wording as written. Not assessed: Conclusive Link cannot be judged where no Defined Benchmark is named; that follows from the missing benchmark and is not a separate gap.

← All filings in the monitor