Bitcoin SV (BSV) Investors' Class Action Lawsuit Against Binance Dismissed

The Court of Appeal in the UK dismissed most of the $13.3 billion class action filed by Bitcoin SV (BSV) investors against Binance.

The Court of Appeal in the UK has dismissed most of a $13.3 billion class action suit filed by Bitcoin SV (BSV) investors against Binance. The lawsuit, which was filed by BSV Claims Limited, claimed that Binance and other major exchanges engaged in an illegal agreement to delisted BSV from their exchanges in 2019.

According to the lawsuit, the move to delist BSV was part of a broader conspiracy to enrich themselves at the expense of BSV investors, who were deprived of the opportunity to see BSV’s potential growth and market value be realized. However, in its May 21 ruling, the court sided with Binance, stating that the damages claimed by BSV investors were speculative and not supported by legal principles.

The panel of judges, led by Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, found that the so-called “foregone growth effect” theory, which suggests that BSV would have reached price levels comparable to Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash, could not stand. The ruling also noted that investing in BSV as a tradable asset allowed investors to mitigate their losses after it was removed from exchanges.

The prosecuting team showed that BSV investors viewed Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash as alternatives, further weakening the claim that BSV was irreplaceable or unique.

Sir Geoffrey Vos wrote, “They cannot recover losses that they could reasonably have mitigated. The law required the claimants to take reasonable steps to reduce their losses when the asset remained tradeable on other platforms.”

The court’s approval of the “market mitigation rule” makes investors responsible for acting prudently in the open market. If you had BSV at its delisting, designated as “sub-class B”, the judgment meant you had to sell or swap it for other cryptocurrencies to avoid further losses.

The ruling also stated that damages should be assessed shortly after the delisting to measure the BSV value at the time. This aligns with the ruling on the class action claims against food manufacturers over the "generation factor" in a 2021 case.

The appeal discussed the “loss of a chance” argument, where some claimed they would have potential gains if BSV hadn't been delisted. The judges deemed this opinion incorrect, highlighting that cryptocurrencies' volatility and the uncertainty of future market movements made such damages impossible to quantify.

The court added that the damages should be based on facts instead of speculative scenarios. This aligns with a 2006 case concerning a missed airline flight, where the court emphasized the need for damages to be based on real events and not unquantifiable possibilities.

Consequently, the court limited the lawsuit’s scope and eliminated most of the class action’s demands for financial loss. This decision lessens the legal burden on Binance and other exchanges, such as Kraken and ShapeShift, which faced similar claims.

However, smaller claims from investors who couldn't access their BSV after its delisting or who sold their holdings despite suffering a loss can still be pursued. These claims, brought by members of "sub-class A" and "sub-class C", respectively, will proceed.

The court stressed that any compensation awarded in these cases would be limited to the actual value lost, not speculative future gains. This aligns with a 2013 case concerning a deceased partner's pension rights, where the court ruled that damages should be based on the value of the asset at the time of loss.

The BSV Investors lawsuit is among several high-profile cases facing Binance in global jurisdictions. In a separate legal matter, Binance recently filed a motion to dismiss a $1.76 billion lawsuit from the FTX estate, arguing that internal fraud at FTX caused its collapse.

This decision by the Court of Appeal has significant implications for the cryptocurrency industry and could influence pending class action suits against major exchanges.

As the court states, investors must actively manage their holdings, especially when assets remain tradeable. It also clarifies that the courts are not prepared to pay damages based on speculative price projections or uncertain future events.