The UK Court of Appeals affirmed that BSV holders should have mitigated their losses after the 2019 delisting, leading to the dismissal of £9 billion in damage claims.
The UK Court of Appeals dismissed a high-profile legal challenge brought by BSV Claims Ltd, which sought up to £9 billion in damages over the 2019 delisting of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
The UK Court of Appeals dismissed a high-profile legal challenge brought by BSV Claims Ltd, which sought up to £9 billion in damages over the 2019 delisting of Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV).
A subgroup of approximately 75,000 investors sought damages for both their initial losses and the ‘missed appreciation,’ based on the speculative assumption that BSV could have risen to the ranks of top cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin (BTC), had they held it continuously from April 2019 to July 2022.
Market Mitigation Rule Affirmed by Court in BSV Delisting Case
The Competition Appeal Tribunal did not strike out the lawsuit but had previously restricted the range of compensable damages.
The Court of Appeal upheld that position, ruling that individuals aware of the delistings had the opportunity to reduce their losses by liquidating their BSV holdings and reallocating to other tradable cryptocurrencies.
The court emphasized that the claimants could not seek compensation hundreds of times greater than the value of the assets they claimed the defendants had harmed. It also determined that BSV was not unique, as similar investment opportunities were readily available.
The judgment criticized the Tribunal for not issuing a clearly defined order, stating that greater procedural clarity could have prevented the need for an appeal.
However, the Court of Appeal decisively ruled that a trial was unnecessary to determine whether members of sub-class B had feasible alternatives, reaffirming the ‘market mitigation rule’ as the governing principle.
Court Rejects Speculative Damages in BSV Delisting Lawsuit
BSV Claims also argued that the damages should include the ‘loss of a chance’ for BSV to develop into a top-tier cryptocurrency.
The court also dismissed this claim, concluding that it failed to meet the required legal standards and amounted to unfounded market speculation.
The court found that the representative’s damages theory—based on the assumption that BSV could have matched Bitcoin’s rise—lacked both legal precedent and practical credibility.
The claim relied on a projected 352-fold increase from BSV’s value before its delisting, but the court deemed this projection implausible for awarding legal compensation.
The involved parties are expected to collaboratively finalize an official order reflecting the appellate judgment issued on May 21. The legal proceedings are still ongoing for other investor subgroups, especially those who either sold BSV shortly after the delisting or lost access to their holdings entirely on platforms such as Kraken and Binance.
