What changed in this filing

/stocks — the workspaceLOADING

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

2022-08-09 compared with 2022-05-06 · 43 added, 37 removed, 31 unchanged (72% of the section changed)

1 unchanged sentence

January 14, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Ho (“Plaintiff” or “Ho”) filed a Civil Complaint for Damages and Restitution

(“Complaint”) against Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc.

(the “Company”) and 10 Doe Defendants.

(“Complaint”) against the Company and 10 Doe Defendants.

The Complaint alleges

12 unchanged sentences

the action remains pending.

Marathon filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication of all causes of action.

The Company filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication of all causes of action.

On February 11, 2022,

4 unchanged sentences

The Court discussed the various theories of damages maintained by the parties.

In its ruling on the summary judgment motion

and at the pre-trial conference on February 24, 2022, the Court noted that a jury is more likely to accept $150,000 as an appropriate

damages amount if liability is found, as opposed to the various theories espoused by Ho that result in multi-million dollar recoveries.

Due to outstanding issues of fact and law, it is impossible to predict the outcome at this time;

however, after consulting legal counsel,

the Company is confident that it will prevail in this litigation, since it did not have a contract with Mr.

Ho and he did not disclose

any commercially-sensitive information under any mutual nondisclosure agreement that was used to structure any joint venture with energy

Trial is set to begin on May 26, 2022.

October 6, 2020, the Company entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties to design and build a data center for up to

100-megawatts in Hardin, MT.

In its ruling on the summary judgment motion and

at the pre-trial conference on February 24, 2022, the Court noted that a jury is more likely to accept $150,000 as an appropriate damages

amount if liability is found, as opposed to the various theories espoused by Ho that result in multi-million dollar recoveries.

outstanding issues of fact and law, it is impossible to predict the outcome at this time;

however, after consulting legal counsel, the

Company is confident that it will prevail in this litigation, since it did not have a contract with Mr.

Ho and he did not disclose any

commercially-sensitive information under any mutual nondisclosure agreement that was used to structure any joint venture with energy

Trial has been postponed to February 2023.

October 6, 2020, the Company entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties to design and build a data center for up to 100-megawatts

in Hardin, MT.

In conjunction therewith, the Company filed a Current Report on Form 8-K on October 13, 2020.

discloses that, pursuant to a Data Facility Services Agreement, the Company issued 6,000,000 shares of restricted Common Stock, in

transactions exempt from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

During the quarter ended

September 30, 2021, the Company and certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents and communications concerning

the Hardin, Montana data center facility described in our Form 8-K dated October 13, 2020.

We understand that the SEC may be

investigating whether or not there may have been any violations of the federal securities law.

We are cooperating with the

The 8-K discloses that,

pursuant to a Data Facility Services Agreement, the Company issued 6,000,000 shares of restricted Common Stock, in transactions exempt

from registration under Section 4(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.

During the quarter ended September 30, 2021, the Company

and certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana data center

facility described in our Form 8-K dated October 13, 2020.

We understand that the SEC may be investigating whether or not there may have

been any violations of the federal securities law.

We are cooperating with the SEC.

Class Action Complaint

December 17, 2021, a putative class action complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against

the Company and present and former senior management.

The Complaint alleges securities fraud related to the disclosure of an SEC

investigation previously made by the Company on November 15, 2021.

Plaintiff Tad Schlatre served the Complaint on the Company

on March 1, 2022.

The complaint alleges securities fraud related to the disclosure of an SEC investigation

previously made by the Company on November 15, 2021.

Plaintiff Tad Schlatre served the complaint on the Company on March 1, 2022.

alleged shareholders have moved for appointment as lead plaintiff.

Those motions remain pending before the Court.

February 18, 2022, a shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against

1 unchanged sentence

The complaint is based on allegations substantially

similar to the allegations in the December 2021 putative securities class action complaint, related to the Company’s disclosure

of an SEC investigation previously made by the Company on November 15, 2021.

similar to the allegations in the December 2021 putative class action complaint, related to the Company’s disclosure of an SEC

investigation previously made by the Company on November 15, 2021.

On March 4, 2022, the complaint was served on the Company.

On April 4, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint.

On May 5, 2022, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed

in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against current and former members of the Company’s board of directors

and senior management.

The complaint is based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the February 18, 2022

derivative complaint.

In the opinion of management, after consulting

legal counsel, the ultimate disposition of these five matters will not have a material adverse effect on the Company and its related

entities combined financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

4, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss the complaint.

May 5, 2022, a second shareholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, against

current and former members of the Company’s board of directors and senior management.

The second shareholder derivative complaint

is based on allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the February 18, 2022 derivative complaint.

On May 11, 2022, the

defendants moved to dismiss the second shareholder derivative complaint.

June 1, 2022, the Court entered an order consolidating the two derivative actions.

A June 13, 2022 scheduling order provides for

plaintiffs to file a consolidated complaint and for renewed motions to dismiss the consolidated shareholder derivative complaint.

consolidated complaint has not yet been filed.

the opinion of management, after consulting legal counsel, the ultimate disposition of these five matters will not have a material adverse

effect on the Company and its related entities combined financial position, results of operations, or liquidity.

than as disclosed herein, we know of no other material, active or pending legal proceedings against us, nor are we involved as a plaintiff

1 unchanged sentence

Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.

What changed 10-Q

Item 1. Legal Proceedings