英国上诉法官维持了法庭决定在Landmark BSV索赔有限公司诉Binance诉Binance和Kraken集体诉讼中提出关键的损害论点的决定

英国上诉法院已驳回了针对Binance的133亿美元集体诉讼中的大多数

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.

英国一名上诉法官维持了法庭决定在Landmark BSV索赔有限公司诉Binance和Kraken集体诉讼中提出关键损害论点的决定。

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.

一个下级法庭裁定，在2019年将BSV从Binance和Kraken脱颖而出之后，对投资潜力损失的主张不会受到影响。

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

该案件于2020年启动，在加密货币的推翻后代表BSV投资者寻求损害赔偿。

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.

代表性的主张部分依赖于“失去机会”的论点，并断言BSV将获得价值，如果不是出于优秀，可能会成为顶级加密资产。法庭和现在法院驳回了这一论点。

Holders could have sold

持有人可以卖掉

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.

根据该裁决，意识到脱颖而出的BSV持有人（被归类为“子类B”）有机会出售其持股并减轻损失。

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.

由于索赔人本身引用的BSV是可与比特币和比特币现金等可比替代品（例如比特币现金）的可比替代品，因此法院裁定，在降级后继续持有BSV是一项自愿投资决定，而不是可追回的损失。

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

法院还认为，失去机会学说（通常是在第三方决定取决于结果时）不适合事实的。

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.

它发现该案件围绕直接因果关系旋转：BSV是否会增加价值，而是出于偏见。法官说，这是要确定概率平衡而不是猜测的问题。

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.

法官还批评了竞争对手上诉法庭没有正式命令，并指出这样的命令将阐明索赔的范围，尤其是在上诉待定的情况下。