Quarterly report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d)


6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  





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. The monthly rent is $1,997. A security deposit of $3,815 has been paid.


The Company also assumed a lease in connection with the mining operations in Quebec, Canada. Operating leases are included in operating lease right-of-use assets, operating lease liabilities, and noncurrent operating lease liabilities on the balance sheets. On March 7, 2021, the Company entered into a termination agreement with the 9349-0001 Quebec Inc., to agree to terminate the outstanding lease. As of that date, the Company was fully released and discharged from any and all obligations under the Lease Agreement. Due to the lease termination, the Company incurred a loss on cancellation in an amount of approximately $81,000.


Operation lease costs are recorded on a straight-line basis within operating expenses. The Company’s total lease expense is comprised of the following:






Additional information regarding the Company’s leasing activities as a lessee is as follow:


    June 30, 2021     June 30, 2020  
    For the Three Months Ended  
    June 30, 2021     June 30, 2020  
Operating leases                
Operating lease cost   $ -     $ 26,333  
Operating lease expense     -       26,333  
Short-term lease rent expense     5,126       6,072  
Total rent expense   $ 5,126     $ 32,405  


    June 30, 2021     June 30, 2020  
    For the Six Months Ended  
    June 30, 2021     June 30, 2020  
Operating leases                
Operating lease cost   $ 97,407     $ 53,122  
Operating lease expense     97,407       53,122  
Short-term lease rent expense     14,289       12,064  
Total rent expense   $ 111,696     $ 65,186  



    For the Six Months Ended  
    June 30, 2021     June 30, 2020  
Operating cash flows from operating leases   $ -     $ 52,246  
Weighted-average remaining lease term – operating leases     -       1.4  
Weighted-average discount rate – operating leases     0.0 %     6.5 %


As of June 30, 2021, contractual minimal lease payments are nil.


Legal Proceedings


Feinberg Litigation


On March 27, 2018, Jeffrey Feinberg, purportedly joined by the Jeffrey L. Feinberg Personal Trust and the Jeffrey L. Feinberg Family Trust, filed a complaint against the Company and certain of its former officers and directors. The complaint was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York. The plaintiffs purported to state claims under Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the federal Securities Act of 1933 and common law claims for “actual fraud and fraudulent concealment,” constructive fraud, and negligent misrepresentation, seeking unspecified money damages (including punitive damages), as well as costs and attorneys’ fees, and equitable or injunctive relief. On June 15, 2018, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims asserted in the complaint and, on July 27, 2018, the plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion. The court heard argument on the motion and, on January 15, 2019, the court granted the motion to dismiss, allowing 30 days for the filing of an amended complaint. On February 15, 2019, Jeffrey Feinberg, individually and as trustee of the Jeffrey L. Feinberg Personal Trust, and Terrence K. Ankner, as trustee of the Jeffrey L. Feinberg Family Trust, filed an amended complaint that purports to state the same claims and seeks the same relief sought in the original complaint. On March 7 and 22, 2019, defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint and on April 5, 2019, plaintiffs filed an opposition to those motions. The court heard oral argument on the motions to dismiss on July 9, 2019, and at the conclusion of the argument the court took the motions under submission. On March 13, 2020, the court issued its Decision in which it granted the motions to dismiss in full and ordered that the case be dismissed with prejudice. On or about May 4, 2020, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal. Plaintiffs filed their opening appellate brief on January 4, 2021, and defendants filed their responsive appellate briefs on February 3, 2021. Oral argument on the appeal was conducted on April 1, 2021. On April 22, 2021, the court’s Appellate Division issued its Decision and Order affirming the dismissal of the case.


Ho Matter


On January 14, 2021, Plaintiff Michael Ho (“Plaintiff” or “Ho”) filed a Civil Complaint for Damages and Restitution (“Complaint”) against Marathon Patent Group, Inc., now known as Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (the “Company”) and 10 Doe Defendants in the Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Riverside. 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. Claims 5 and 6 are pled against “all Defendants” and may involve later named defendants. The Complaint seeks damages, restitution, punitive damages, and costs of suit. The claims arise from the same set of facts. Ho alleges that the Company profited from commercially-sensitive information he shared with the Company, purportedly under a mutual non-disclosure agreement, and that the Company failed 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. The parties are currently engaged in discovery, including written discovery and depositions. Trial is set to begin on March 3, 2022. Due to outstanding issues of fact and law, it is impossible to predict the outcome at this time; however, 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.