The recent ruling by the UK Court of Appeals has dismissed a high-profile challenge brought by BSV Claims Ltd against Binance and other exchanges over the delisting of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) in 2019. BSV Claims, representing around 243,000 BSV holders, sought damages of up to £9 billion, alleging that coordinated delisting actions by exchanges violated competition law and significantly impacted the value of BSV.
A subgroup of approximately 75,000 investors, who held BSV continuously from April 2019 to July 2022, was specifically seeking damages for not only immediate losses but also for “foregone growth” based on the speculative belief that BSV could have rivaled Bitcoin (BTC) as a top-tier cryptocurrency.
The Court of Appeal upheld the decision made by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which limited the scope of recoverable damages. The court ruled that investors who were aware of the delistings had access to other tradable cryptocurrencies and should have mitigated their losses by selling their BSV holdings. It was emphasized that the claimants could not seek damages that far exceeded the value of the allegedly damaged assets, as BSV was not unique and comparable investments were readily available.
Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument put forth by BSV Claims that damages should include the “loss of a chance” for BSV to become a top-tier cryptocurrency. The court found this claim to be lacking legal merit and based on unfounded market speculation. The court deemed the representative’s damages theory, which relied on a 352x increase from BSV’s pre-delisting value, as implausible for legal redress.
An official order reflecting the appellate judgment will be finalized between the parties in the near future. The lawsuit is still ongoing for other investor subgroups, particularly those who sold BSV shortly after the delisting or lost access to the cryptocurrency on exchanges like Kraken and Binance.
Overall, the UK Court of Appeals’ decision has provided clarity on the market mitigation rule and dismissed speculative damages claims, setting a precedent for similar cases in the future. The ruling reaffirms the importance of legal thresholds and realistic foundations when seeking damages in cases involving cryptocurrency delistings.