英國上訴法官維持了法庭決定在Landmark BSV索賠有限公司訴Binance訴Binance和Kraken集體訴訟中提出關鍵的損害論點的決定

英國上訴法院已駁回了針對Binance的133億美元集體訴訟中的大多數

A UK appellate judge has upheld a tribunal’s decision to strike out a key damages argument in the landmark BSV Claims Ltd v. Binance and Kraken class action.

英國一名上訴法官維持了法庭決定在Landmark BSV索賠有限公司訴Binance和Kraken集體訴訟中提出關鍵損害論點的決定。

A lower tribunal had ruled that a claim for lost investment potential following the 2019 delisting of BSV from Binance and Kraken would not stand.

一個下級法庭裁定，在2019年將BSV從Binance和Kraken脫穎而出之後，對投資潛力損失的主張不會受到影響。

The case, launched in 2020, sought damages on behalf of BSV investors following the cryptocurrency’s delisting.

該案件於2020年啟動，在加密貨幣的推翻後代表BSV投資者尋求損害賠償。

The representative claim had relied in part on a “loss of chance” argument, asserting that BSV would have gained in value and possibly become a top-tier crypto asset if not for the delistings. The Tribunal and now the court rejected that argument.

代表性的主張部分依賴於“失去機會”的論點，並斷言BSV將獲得價值，如果不是出於優秀，可能會成為頂級加密資產。法庭和現在法院駁回了這一論點。

Holders could have sold

持有人可以賣掉

According to the ruling, BSV holders who were aware of the delistings (classified as “sub-class B”) had the opportunity to sell their holdings and mitigate their losses.

根據該裁決，意識到脫穎而出的BSV持有人（被歸類為“子類B”）有機會出售其持股並減輕損失。

As BSV was a tradeable asset with comparable alternatives like Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash, cited by the claimants themselves, the court found that continuing to hold BSV after the delisting was a voluntary investment decision, not a recoverable loss.

由於索賠人本身引用的BSV是可與比特幣和比特幣現金等可比替代品（例如比特幣現金）的可比替代品，因此法院裁定，在降級後繼續持有BSV是一項自願投資決定，而不是可追回的損失。

The court also held that the loss of chance doctrine, typically applicable when outcomes hinge on third-party decisions, didn’t fit the facts.

法院還認為，失去機會學說（通常是在第三方決定取決於結果時）不適合事實的。

It found the case revolved around direct causation: whether BSV would have increased in value but for the delisting. That, the judge said, is a matter to be determined on the balance of probabilities, not speculation.

它發現該案件圍繞直接因果關係旋轉：BSV是否會增加價值，而是出於偏見。法官說，這是要確定概率平衡而不是猜測的問題。

The judge also criticized the absence of a formal order by the Competition Appeal Tribunal, noting that such an order would have clarified the scope of the claim, especially with an appeal pending.

法官還批評了競爭對手上訴法庭沒有正式命令，並指出這樣的命令將闡明索賠的範圍，尤其是在上訴待定的情況下。