DEBT, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
|3 Months Ended|
Mar. 31, 2022
|Debt Commitments And Contingencies|
|DEBT, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES||
NOTE 5 - DEBT, COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES
On October 1, 2021, the Company entered into a Revolving Credit and Security Agreement (the “Agreement”) with Silvergate Bank pursuant to which Silvergate has agreed to loan the Company up to $100 million on a revolving basis. At March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021 there were no amounts outstanding under this facility.
On November 18, 2021, the Company issued $650 million principal amount of its 1.00% Convertible Senior Notes due 2026 (the “Notes”). The Notes were issued pursuant to, and are governed by, an indenture dated as of November 18, 2021, between the Company and U.S. Bank National Association, as trustee. Pursuant to the purchase agreement between the Company and the initial purchasers of the Notes, the Company also granted the initial purchasers an option to purchase up to an additional $97,500,000 principal amount of Notes. This option was exercised and an additional $97,500,000 principal amount of Notes were issued on November 23, 2021.
As of March 31, 2022 and December 31, 2021, notes outstanding, net of unamortized discounts of approximately $18.1 million and $19.1 million, respectively, were $729.4 million and $728.4 million, respectively.
In February 2016, the FASB issued ASU No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842), and has since issued amendments thereto, related to the accounting for leases (collectively referred to as “ASC 842”). ASC 842 establishes a right-of-use, or ROU, model that requires a lessee to record a ROU asset and a lease liability on the balance sheet for all leases with terms longer than 12 months. Leases will be classified as either finance or operating, with classification affecting the pattern of expense recognition in the income statement. Effective January 1, 2019, the Company adopted ASU 842. The Company determines if an arrangement contains a lease at inception based on whether or not the Company has the right to control the asset during the contract period and other facts and circumstances.
The Company leases office space in the United States under operating lease agreements. Office space is the Company’s only material underlying asset class under operating lease agreements. The Company has no material finance leases.
Effective June 1, 2018, the Company rented its corporate office at 1180 North Town Center Drive, Suite 100, Las Vegas, Nevada 89144, on a month to month basis.
Effective February 14, 2022, the Company rented an office located at Tower 101, 101 NE Third Avenue, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 33301, for a term of 63 months.
Effective March 1, 2022, the Company rented an office located at 300 Spectrum Center Drive, Irvine CA, 92618, for a term of 24 months.
As of March 31, 2022, the Company’s right-of-use (“ROU”) assets and total lease liabilities were $1.3 million and $1.3 million, respectively for leases in the United States. As of December 31, 2021, the Company’s ROU assets and total lease liabilities were . The Company has made payments and amortized the right-of-use assets totalling $16,704 and $26,132, respectively, for the three month period ending March 31, 2022.
MARATHON DIGITAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
Operation lease costs are recorded on a straight-line basis within operating expenses. The Company’s total lease expense is comprised of the following:
SCHEDULE OF COMPONENTS OF LEASE COST
Additional information regarding the Company’s leasing activities as a lessee is as follow:
SUMMARY OF MINIMUM LEASE PAYMENTS
As of March 31, 2022, contractual minimum lease payments are as follows for the next five years.
SCHEDULE OF CONTRACTUAL MINIMUM LEASE
On 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. The Complaint alleges six causes of action against the Company, (1) Breach of Written Contract; (2) Breach of Implied Contract; (3) Quasi-Contract; (4) Services Rendered; (5) Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Relations; and (6) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations, which is the one plead against “all Defendants” and is most likely to involve later named defendants. The claims arise from the same set of facts, Ho alleges that the Company profited from commercially-sensitive information he shared with the Company and then it refused to compensate him for his role in securing the acquisition of a supplier of energy for the Company. On February 22, 2021, the Company responded to Mr. Ho’s Complaint with a general denial and the assertion of applicable affirmative defenses. Then, on February 25, 2021, the Company removed the action to the United States District Court in the Central District of California, where the action remains pending. Marathon filed a motion for summary judgment/adjudication of all causes of action. On February 11, 2022, the Court granted the motion and dismissed Ho’s 2nd, 5th and 6th causes of action. Discovery is closed. The Court held a pre-trial conference on February 24, 2022, where it vacated the March 3, 2022 trial date and ordered the parties to meet and confer on a new trial date. 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 providers. Trial is set to begin on May 26, 2022.
On 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. The 8-K discloses that, pursuant to a Data Facility Services Agreement, the Company issued 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.
On 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.
On February 18, 2022, a 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 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. 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.