By Partially Dismissing Bitcoin SV (BSV) Investors' Class Action Lawsuit, the UK Court of Appeal Dampened the Hopes of Thousands of Holders

In an ecosystem where court decisions influence trajectories as much as technologies, a ruling issued this week has dampened the hopes of thousands of Bitcoin SV (BSV) investors.

An ecosystem where court decisions appear to factor into crypto trajectories as much as technologies, the UK Court of Appeal has partially dismissed a class action lawsuit against Binance and several other exchanges.

The ruling, issued on Tuesday, May 21, puts at least a temporary halt to a legal process that began five years ago with the aim of obtaining 8.9 billion pounds sterling (about 11.9 billion dollars) in compensation from Binance, Kraken, ShapeShift, and Bittylicious for the delisting of Bitcoin SV (BSV).

The plaintiffs, a group of BSV investors, were targeting the platforms for allegedly causing major financial damage by delisting the crypto in April 2019. Their claims, however, have been rejected by the Court of Appeal, which spotted several flaws in the legal arguments presented.

The essence of the decision lies in the fact that plaintiffs could not claim compensation based on a speculative projection of future Bitcoin SV performance. As the judges noted, legal tools are not meant to guarantee hypothetical profits in such an uncertain market.

The lower court had erred in including such a claim in its decision.

Another crucial point in the case concerned the legal notion of “loss of chance”, i.e., the theoretical possibility of benefiting from future gains. Thus, plaintiffs argued that by delisting BSV, platforms caused them to lose a financial opportunity.

This approach was “fundamentally flawed in principle”, stated the Court of Appeal, adding that “cryptos are, by nature, volatile investments”.

The Court also noted that even if some investors were not immediately aware of the BSV delisting, their legal recourse was strictly limited. At best, they could claim compensation equal to the value of their initial investment before delisting, plus direct and quantifiable losses, but certainly not hypothetical unrealized profits.

This distinction introduces potentially structuring case law. Jurisdictions could now consider that speculation on the future performance of a crypto asset does not constitute legally reparable harm.

This decision could have consequences far beyond the BSV case. By invalidating the speculative basis of the complaint, British justice reinforces the principle of individual investor responsibility when faced with factors amplifying falls in the case of crypto market volatility. It could also serve as a reference in other ongoing disputes, notably those opposing exchanges to users harmed by delistings or perceived manipulations.