UK Court Rejects £8.9 Billion BSV Claim Against Binance
The UK Court of Appeal has made a notable ruling, partially dismissing a class action lawsuit filed by Bitcoin SV (BSV) investors seeking more than £8.9 billion ($11.9 billion) in damages against major cryptocurrency exchanges, including Binance, Kraken, and ShapeShift. The case revolved around the 2019 delisting of BSV, but the court found that the damages sought were speculative and did not warrant compensation.
Court Rejects Investors’ “Lost Opportunity” Argument
According to a Cointelegraph report, the Court of Appeal found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they missed out on reasonable growth opportunities as a result of BSV’s delisting. Sir Geoffrey Vos, Master of the Rolls, argued that investors “have a duty to mitigate their losses” and cannot claim compensation for losses they “could reasonably have avoided.”
The court also noted that BSV is not a unique asset, and that investors can move to other reasonable alternatives. Arguments based on the assumption that BSV could become a leading coin like Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash were considered speculative and without solid legal merit.
Background to the case and the 2019 delisting
The controversy began in 2019 when several major exchanges simultaneously delisted BSV due to a controversy involving Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto – the founder of Bitcoin. According to Forbes and CoinDesk, Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) threatened to delist the cryptocurrency if Wright continued to take legal action against his critics.
After the delisting, BSV’s trading volume and liquidity plummeted. CoinGecko notes that BSV is now only traded on a few smaller exchanges such as HTX and OKX, instead of the major exchanges as before.
Wider legal implications for the crypto market
The ruling is seen as a significant legal milestone in the UK. Research by law firm Lewis Silkin notes that there are up to 35 crypto litigation cases pending in the UK High Court by 2025, with an average settlement time of 271 days.
The court showed a reluctance to award compensation for speculative losses, especially in the area of digital assets – which are considered “volatile investments”. This is an indication that UK courts are applying traditional property law principles in the nascent crypto legal landscape.
Impact on Exchange Operations
According to an analysis by Fenwick & West LLP, this decision may give exchanges more confidence in enforcing delisting decisions, reducing the risk of lawsuits for speculative losses. However, individual investors may seek other forms of litigation, especially when law enforcement appears less involved.
Delisting cryptocurrencies remains controversial. On the one hand, it protects users from high-risk or shady projects. On the other hand, mass delistings can be seen as market manipulation if not for a transparent reason.
Market Reaction and Future of BSV
BSV continues to trade, but the lack of support from major exchanges has made it illiquid and less visible. Some BSV supporters argue that reducing speculation is a necessary shift to focus on developing real-world utility.
However, market access restrictions remain a major barrier, making it difficult for BSV to compete with rivals in the global crypto ecosystem.
Global Perspectives and the Legal Future of Cryptocurrency
The ruling comes amid strong global legal and regulatory trends. According to Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, 2025 is a key milestone for the formation of a crypto legal framework, with governments gradually unifying their approaches to trading, investor protection, and accountability.
Under the second Trump administration, crypto support policies are expanding, in contrast to stricter controls in Europe and parts of Asia.
Conclusion
The ruling from the UK Court of Appeal not only marks a legal defeat for BSV investors, but also sets an important precedent for the crypto industry. It reflects the court’s view of personal liability in investing, and emphasizes that the cryptocurrency market is not outside the traditional legal framework.
As regulatory clarity becomes clearer, cryptocurrency-related litigation is expected to more accurately reflect the real complexities and risks of the sector – rather than relying solely on optimistic growth assumptions.