Circle wins arbitration over Heka Funds’ suspended USDC account amid Tether links
Court filings reveal Circle froze a fund’s USDC minting after Tether’s $800m stake, citing suspected market manipulation.
Circle has prevailed in an arbitration dispute over its decision to suspend Heka Funds’ ability to mint and redeem USDC, according to filings made public in a Boston federal court. The records set out, for the first time in detail, why the stablecoin issuer cut off the arbitrage fund’s account over suspected market manipulation linked to rival stablecoin issuer Tether.
According to the court documents, Circle acted after learning that Tether had invested $800 million in Heka Funds, an arbitrage-focused vehicle. The scale of that investment, and concerns over how it might be used, prompted Circle to freeze the fund’s direct minting and redemption privileges pending review.
Arbitration outcome favours Circle
Heka Funds contested the suspension through arbitration, but the proceedings have concluded in Circle’s favour, court records confirm. The filings, unsealed in Boston federal court, offer a rare public window into the internal risk controls that major stablecoin issuers apply to institutional clients with privileged access to primary issuance and redemption.
Direct minting and redemption accounts are typically reserved for large, vetted counterparties who can create or destroy USDC at par value, bypassing secondary markets. Suspending such access is a significant step, effectively cutting a client off from one of the core privileges of institutional stablecoin membership.
Why the Tether link matters
The revelation that Tether held an $800 million stake in a fund that also held USDC minting rights raises questions about the interconnectedness of major stablecoin issuers’ counterparties, and the potential for cross-issuer positions to be used in ways that distort market pricing or liquidity signals between competing dollar-pegged tokens.
Circle’s decision to suspend the account, and its success in defending that decision through arbitration, suggests issuers are prepared to act unilaterally against suspected manipulation even where it involves indirect exposure to a competitor. For European regulators implementing MiCA’s stablecoin provisions, the case underlines the practical difficulty of policing counterparty risk once large pools of capital move fluidly between issuers via intermediary funds.
Wider implications for stablecoin oversight
Neither Circle nor Tether has issued detailed public comment on the specifics beyond what is contained in the unsealed filings. The case nonetheless arrives as regulators on both sides of the Atlantic scrutinise the governance and risk-management frameworks that stablecoin issuers apply to large institutional clients.
For UK and European institutions increasingly reliant on USDC and USDT for settlement and treasury operations, the episode is a reminder that primary issuance relationships carry counterparty risk that extends beyond the balance sheet of the immediate client, reaching into the ownership structures behind arbitrage vehicles that straddle competing stablecoin ecosystems.
Read more: Reed Smith launches automated MiCA compliance tool as EU grandfathering window closes
