Bitcoin SV (BSV) investors have filed an appeal with the UK Court of Appeal, seeking to revive their claim that Binance's 2019 delisting of BSV caused them to miss potential gains from what could have been significant growth in their holdings.
Key Developments in the Case
- July 2024 Ruling: The Competition Appeal Tribunal dismissed a core claim alleging that BSV's delisting created a "suppressed growth effect," preventing BSV from becoming a "top-tier" cryptocurrency.
- Financial Stakes: Had this claim succeeded, Binance could have faced over $13 billion in damages, calculated based on Bitcoin's July 2022 price when investors first filed complaints.
- Current Appeal: Investors argue the court should consider the "loss of opportunity" claim due to "permanent and ongoing value destruction."
Legal Arguments Presented
Investors' Position
John Wardell KC, representing BSV investors, stated:
"The damage persists to this day. Had the delisting not occurred, BSV could have become a first-tier currency like Bitcoin."
Key points raised:
- Market mitigation rules shouldn't apply as investors couldn't trade alternative cryptocurrencies to avoid losses
- No obligation exists to mitigate losses when assets are already severely impaired
Binance's Defense
Brian Kennelly KC of Blackstone Chambers countered:
"BSV could have been exchanged for Bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies. At all relevant times, BSV was an easily tradable asset."
Case Background
- Collective Action: The lawsuit against Binance is part of a broader group action involving Kraken, Shapeshift, and Bittylicious - all platforms that suspended BSV trading between April-June 2019.
- Representation: BSV Claims Ltd., a special purpose vehicle chaired by Lord Currie (former Ofcom and CMA head), filed the claims on behalf of an estimated 243,000 UK BSV holders from April 2019-July 2022.
Industry Perspectives
Ashley Fairbrother of Edmonds Marshall McMahon described the case as "highly novel" with an "extraordinary" backstory, referencing:
- The UK High Court's 2023 ruling that Craig Wright wasn't Satoshi Nakamoto
- Wright's alleged use of false claims to influence BSV investments
👉 Understanding cryptocurrency legal battles
Fairbrother noted practical challenges:
"While theoretically possible to sue exchanges like traditional banks, significant legal and practical hurdles exist. Many leading exchanges are adopting stronger compliance frameworks, making successful claims increasingly difficult."
FAQ Section
What's at stake in this lawsuit?
The appeal seeks to restore claims that could potentially result in $13+ billion damages against Binance for allegedly suppressing BSV's growth through delisting.
Why was the original claim dismissed?
The Tribunal rejected the "suppressed growth effect" argument, finding that most BSV holders could have mitigated losses by converting to other assets.
How does Craig Wright factor into this?
The case indirectly relates to Wright's disputed claims about Bitcoin's creation, with some arguing BSV's value was influenced by his alleged fraud.
👉 Cryptocurrency investment risks explained
What makes this case unique?
This represents the UK's first crypto-related competition collective action, with claimants alleging collusion among exchanges to delist BSV.
Conclusion
The outcome of this appeal could set important precedents for:
- Exchange liability in cryptocurrency delistings
- Quantifying damages in "loss of opportunity" claims
- Investor protections in volatile crypto markets
Legal experts remain divided on the case's prospects, with some questioning whether a favorable ruling might inadvertently benefit parties connected to Craig Wright's disputed claims.