COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | NOTE 10 – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments : As discussed in Note 4 – Equipment Deposits , the Company has entered into various equipment contracts to purchase miners. Most of these contracts required a percentage of deposits upfront and subsequent payments to cover the contracted purchase price of the equipment. Details of the outstanding purchase agreement with MinerVa are summarized below. MinerVa Semiconductor Corp On April 2, 2021, the Company entered into a purchase agreement (the "MinerVa Purchase Agreement") with MinerVa for the acquisition of 15,000 of their MV7 ASIC SHA256 model cryptocurrency miners with a total terahash to be delivered equal to 1.5 million terahash. The price per miner was $4,892.50 for an aggregate purchase price of $73,387,500 to be paid in installments. The first installment equal to 60% of the purchase price, or $44,032,500, was paid on April 2, 2021, and an additional payment of 20% of the purchase price, or $14,677,500, was paid on June 2, 2021. As of September 30, 2024, there were no remaining deposits owed. In December 2021, the Company extended the deadline for delivery of the MinerVa miners to April 2022. In March 2022, MinerVa was again unable to meet its delivery date and had only delivered approximately 3,200 of the 15,000 miners. As a result, an impairment totaling $12,228,742 was recorded in the first quarter of 2022. Furthermore, in the fourth quarter of 2022, the difference between the fair value of the MinerVa equipment deposits and the carrying value resulted in the Company recording an additional impairment charge of $5,120,000. As of September 30, 2024, MinerVa had delivered, refunded cash or swapped into deliveries of industry-leading miners of equivalent value to approximately 12,700 of the 15,000 miners. As disclosed below, the Company is pursuing legal action through the dispute resolution process, and as a result, the Company no longer expects equipment deliveries. Contingencies: Legal Proceedings The Company experiences litigation in the normal course of business. Certain of these matters are discussed below. The Company accrues for estimated costs related to existing lawsuits, claims and legal proceedings when it is probable that it will incur these costs in the future and the costs are reasonably estimable. McClymonds Supply & Transit Company, Inc. and DTA, L.P. vs. Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P. On January 31, 2020, McClymonds Supply and Transit Company, Inc. (“McClymonds”) made a Demand for Arbitration, as required by the terms of the Transportation Agreement between McClymonds and Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P. ("Scrubgrass") dated April 8, 2013 (the “Agreement”). In its demand, McClymonds alleged damages in the amount of $5,042,350 for failure to pay McClymonds for services. On February 18, 2020, Scrubgrass submitted its answering statement denying the claim of McClymonds in its entirety. On March 31, 2020, Scrubgrass submitted its counterclaim against McClymonds in the amount of $6,747,328 as the result of McClymonds’ failure to deliver fuel as required under the terms of the Agreement. Hearings were held from January 31, 2022, to February 3, 2022. On May 9, 2022, an award in the amount of $5.0 million plus interest of approximately $0.8 million was issued in favor of McClymonds. The two managing members of Q Power have executed a binding document to pay the full amount of the award and have begun to pay the full amount of the award, such that there will be no effect on the financial condition of the Company. McClymonds shall have no recourse to the Company with respect to the award. Allegheny Mineral Corporation v. Scrubgrass Generating Company, L.P., Butler County Court of Common Pleas, No. AD 19-11039 In November 2019, Allegheny Mineral Corporation ("Allegheny Mineral") filed suit against the Company seeking payment of approximately $1,200,000 in outstanding invoices. In response, the Company filed counterclaims against Allegheny Mineral asserting breach of contract, breach of express and implied warranties, and fraud in the amount of $1,300,000. After unsuccessful mediation in August 2020, the parties again attempted to mediate the case on October 26, 2022, which led to a mutual agreement to settlement terms of a $300,000 cash payment, and a supply agreement for limestone. Subject to completion of the settlement terms, this matter has been stayed in Butler County Court, and the outstanding litigation has been terminated. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ("FERC") Matters On November 19, 2021, Scrubgrass received a notice of breach from PJM Interconnection, LLC alleging that Scrubgrass breached Interconnection Service Agreement – No. 1795 (the “ISA”) by failing to provide advance notice to PJM Interconnection, LLC and Mid-Atlantic Interstate Transmission, LLC pursuant to ISA, Appendix 2, section 3, of modifications made to the Scrubgrass Plant. On December 16, 2021, Scrubgrass responded to the notice of breach and respectfully disagreed that the ISA had been breached. On January 7, 2022, Scrubgrass participated in an information gathering meeting with representatives from PJM regarding the notice of breach and continued to work with PJM regarding the dispute, including conducting a necessary study agreement with respect to the Scrubgrass Plant. On January 20, 2022, the Company sent PJM a letter regarding the installation of a resistive computational load bank at the Panther Creek Plant. On March 1, 2022, the Company executed a necessary study agreement with respect to the Panther Creek Plant. PJM’s investigation and discussions with the Company regarding the notice of breach at the Scrubgrass Plant and the Panther Creek Plant are ongoing, including with respect to interim procedures, until the Company receives revised Interconnect Service Agreements for the Scrubgrass Plant and the Panther Creek Plant. Stronghold does not expect to make any material payments related to any resettlements of prior billing statements. The Company continues to expect to source electricity for its computational load banks from the Scrubgrass and Panther Creek Plants; however, Stronghold expects that, until the revised Interconnect Service Agreements are finalized and potentially thereafter, the Company will pay retail rates for electricity that is imported from the grid should it be unable to fully supply power to the computational load banks. On May 11, 2022, the Division of Investigations of the FERC Office of Enforcement (“OE”) informed the Company that the OE was conducting a non-public preliminary investigation concerning Scrubgrass’ compliance with various aspects of the PJM tariff. The OE requested that the Company provide certain information and documents concerning Scrubgrass’ operations by June 10, 2022. On July 13, 2022, after being granted an extension to respond by the OE, the Company submitted a formal response to the OE's request. Since the Company submitted its formal response to the OE's request, the Company has had further discussions with the OE regarding the Company's formal response. The OE's investigation, and discussions between the OE and the Company, regarding potential instances of non-compliance is continuing. The Company does not believe that the PJM notice of breach, the Panther Creek necessary study agreement, discussions regarding other potential issues related to the computational load bank, including power consumption and potential resettlements of billing statements for certain prior months, or the preliminary investigation by the OE will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reported financial position or results of operations, although the Company cannot predict with certainty the final outcome of these proceedings. Shareholder Securities and Derivative Lawsuits On April 14, 2022, the Company, and certain of our current and former directors, officers and underwriters were named in a putative class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Winter v. Stronghold Digital Mining, Case No. 1:22-cv-3088). On August 4, 2022, co-lead plaintiffs were appointed. On October 18, 2022, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, alleging that the Company made misleading statements and/or failed to disclose material facts in violation of Section 11 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. §77k and Section 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act"), about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects in the Company’s registration statement on Form S-1 related to its initial public offering, and when subsequent disclosures were made regarding these operational issues when the Company announced its fourth quarter and full year 2021 financial results, the Company’s stock price fell, causing significant losses and damages. As relief, the plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, compensatory damages. The amended complaint also alleged violations of Section 12 of the Securities Act based on alleged false or misleading statements in the Company’s prospectus related to its initial public offering. On December 19, 2022, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, which the court largely denied on August 10, 2023. On September 8, 2023, the Court entered a Case Management Order, which set a number of case deadlines, including the completion of all discovery by April 21, 2025. On January 19, 2024, the Court granted the motion of one co-lead plaintiff to withdraw from the case, leaving one plaintiff remaining. Plaintiff filed a motion for class certification on February 19, 2024, and defendants’ response to that motion is due on June 10, 2024. The defendants continue to believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend these suits vigorously. On September 5, 2023, and September 15, 2023, respectively, purported shareholders of the Company filed two derivative actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Wilson v. Beard, Case No. 1:23-cv-7840, and Navarro v. Beard, Case No. 1:23-cv-08714) against certain of our current and former directors and officers, and the Company as a nominal defendant. The shareholders generally allege that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by making or failing to prevent the misrepresentations alleged in the putative Winter securities class action, and assert claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, corporate waste, and for contribution under Section 11 of the Securities Act and Section 21D of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The two cases were consolidated on October 24, 2023, under the case name In Re Stronghold Digital Mining, Inc., Stockholder Derivative Litigation (the “Consolidated Derivative Action”). On November 21, 2023, the Court entered an order staying the Consolidated Derivative Action pending a ruling on the motion for class certification in the putative Winter securities class action. The defendants believe the allegations in the Consolidated Derivative Action are without merit and intend to defend the suits vigorously. On November 14, 2023, and February 4, 2024, respectfully, purported shareholders of the Company filed two additional derivative actions in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Parker v. Beard, Case No. 23 Civ. 10028 and Bruno v. Beard, Case No. 24 Civ. 798) against certain of our current and former directors and officers, and the Company as a nominal defendant. These lawsuits assert substantially the same claims and allegations as the Wilson and Navarro complaints. Plaintiff in the Bruno action had previously served a books and records demand, as well as an investigation/litigation demand, on the Company making similar allegations. On April 24, 2024, the Parker and Bruno cases were consolidated with the Consolidated Derivative Action by agreement of the parties. As a result, the Parker and Bruno cases are also stayed pending further proceedings in the putative Winter securities class action. Representatives for the Company and plaintiffs executed a Memorandum of Understanding reflecting the terms of their agreement in principle on July 18, 2024. On November 8, 2024, counsel for all parties to the Class Action executed a Stipulation of Settlement (the "Stipulation") which contains the terms of the settlement of the Class Action. Among other terms, the Company has agreed to pay an amount equal to $4.75 million payable in cash on the first day of the month following entry by the District Court of an order preliminarily approving the Stipulation (the "Preliminary Approval"). The Preliminary Approval is expected to be entered into within ninety (90 days) of November 8, 2024. $2.5 million is expected to be covered in full by the Company's insurance providers and paid directly at the time of Preliminary Approval. The terms of the Stipulation also include the Company paying the cash value of twenty-five (25) Bitcoins, one of which will be paid monthly for two years beginning on the first day of the month following Preliminary Approval, and two of which will be paid in the final month. The cash value of each Bitcoin is expected to be calculated monthly according to a price set by the Nasdaq Bitcoin reference price index. The Company expects District Court to enter the Preliminary Approval Order and to schedule a Final Hearing, at which time the shareholders may raise objections to the terms of the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation. The Company expects the final hearing to be scheduled approximately 120 days after the District Court enters the Preliminary Order. The Company has not executed a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the Consolidated Derivative Actions to date. The Company has agreed to settle the claims in order to avoid the cost, risks and distraction of continued litigation, as the expected costs of defense likely exceeded to amounts agreed to in the Stipulation. The Company continues to deny all allegations of wrongdoing and the Stipulation is not an admission of guilt. However, given the inherent risk of any trial and the potential cost of an adverse resolution of the litigation, the Company believes that the Stipulation is in the Company’s best interest and in the best interests of its stockholders. Mark Grams v. Treis Blockchain, LLC, Chain Enterprises, LLC, Cevon Technologies, LLC, Stronghold Digital Mining, LLC, David Pence, Michael Bolick, Senter Smith, Brian Lambretti and John Chain On May 4, 2023, Stronghold Digital Mining, LLC, a subsidiary of the Company, was named as one of several defendants in a complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama Eastern Division (the "Grams Complaint"). The Grams Complaint alleges that certain Bitcoin miners the Company purchased from Treis Blockchain, LLC ("Treis") in December 2021 contained firmware that is alleged to have constituted “trade secrets” owned by Grams. Principally, the Grams Complaint included allegations of misappropriation of these alleged trade secrets. The Company believes that the allegations against it and its subsidiaries in the Grams Complaint are without merit and intends to vigorously defend the suit. To that end, the Company has entered into a joint defense agreement with Treis and the other named defendants. The Company has also entered into a tolling agreement with Treis. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the case for lack of personal jurisdiction on June 23, 2023. On October 6, 2023, Grams filed an Amended Complaint, to which the Company filed a renewed Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative to Transfer the Case to the District of South Carolina, in addition to a renewed Motion to Dismiss several causes of action alleged in the Amended Complaint. On December 8, 2023, the Company filed its reply to Plaintiff’s response to the Company's Motion to Transfer or Alternatively to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2). On April 12, 2024, Grams filed an opposition to the Company’s previously filed motion to dismiss. On April 22, 2024, the Company filed a reply in support of its motion to dismiss. A ruling on the pending motions is expected to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future. On July 8, 2024, the Court denied the Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative to Transfer the Case to the District of South Carolina. It further requested the Defendants to refile their Motion to Dismiss several causes of action alleged in the Amended Complaint so that the court could consider that motion separately. Defendants filed their Motion to Dismiss on July 22, 2024. The Company does not believe the Grams Complaint will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reported financial position or results of operations. MinerVa Purchase Agreement On July 18, 2022, the Company provided written notice of dispute to MinerVa pursuant to the MinerVa Purchase Agreement. Under the MinerVa Purchase Agreement, the Company and MinerVa were required to work together in good faith towards a resolution for a period of sixty (60) days following this notice, after which, if no settlement had been reached, the Company could end discussions, declare an impasse, and adhere to the dispute resolution provisions of the MinerVa Purchase Agreement. As the 60-day period has expired, the Company is evaluating all available remedies under the MinerVa Purchase Agreement. On October 30, 2023, the Company sent MinerVa a Notice of Impasse. On October 31, 2023, the Company filed a Statement of Claim in Calgary, Alberta against MinerVa for breach of contract related to the MinerVa Purchase Agreement. On October 18, 2024, the Company filed an Amended Statement of Claim that adds additional misrepresentation allegations against MinerVa and Chong Chao Ma, MinerVa’s former Chief Executive Officer and Director. The Claim is ongoing before the Alberta courts. John W. Krynock v. Panther Creek Fuel Services, LLC c/o Olympus Power On June 2, 2023, Panther Creek Fuel Services, LLC, an affiliate of the Company was named as a defendant in a Federal Black Lung Case under Title IV of the Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act of 1969. The Plaintiff previously settled a state law claim with a predecessor in interest of the Company. The Company denies any liability in connection with the claim and intends to defend the suit vigorously. The Company does not believe that the claim will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reported financial position or results of operations, although the Company cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of these proceedings. Department of Environmental Protection On November 9, 2023, the Company entered into a Consent Order and Agreement (“COA”) with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection (“DEP”). Pursuant to the COA, the DEP found that a July 5, 2022, inspection of the Company’s Scrubgrass Plant observed that coal ash at the Scrubgrass Plant exceeded the capacity of the permitted ash conditioning area as approved by the DEP on September 12, 2007. The COA found that the Scrubgrass Plant’s storage of excess waste coal ash violated certain provisions of the Solid Waste Management Act and Pennsylvania Code, among other items. Pursuant to the COA, Scrubgrass must pay a civil penalty in the amount of $28,800, in two equal installments within ninety (90) days of entry into the COA. The Company made the first payment to the DEP on November 10, 2023. The terms of the COA also require the Company to remove (i) a minimum of 80,000 tons of excess waste coal ash by November 9, 2024, (ii) 160,000 aggregate tons of excess waste coal ash by November 9, 2025, (iii) 220,000 aggregate tons of excess waste coal ash by November 9, 2026, and (iv) all remaining excess waste coal ash by November 9, 2027, such that the ash conditioning area is consistent with the specifications accepted by the DEP on September 7, 2007. Beginning on January 24, 2024, the Company is to provide quarterly progress reports to the DEP. On December 15, 2023, the Scrubgrass Creek Watershed Association and Citizens for Pennsylvania’s Future filed a Notice of Appeal to the Environmental Hearing Board regarding the COA (the “COA Appeal”). The Company has removed in excess of 80,000 tons coal ash from the Scrubgrass Plant during the time period from November 9, 2023 until November 9, 2024. The Company has been made aware that waste coal ash from one transporter may not have arrived at its contracted location. The Company is currently investigating this situation. This waste coal ash represents a small percentage of the waste coal ash to be removed under the COA. Previously, in connection with the COA, in 2023 the Company had discussions with the Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (“PUC”) and the DEP regarding potential resettlement or forfeiture of Pennsylvania Tier II Alternative Energy Credits during any period of non-compliance, between July 5-22, 2022. In February of 2024, the Company retired 25,968 Alternative Energy Credits reflective of the amount of credits generated during the period of non-compliance from July 5-22, 2022. At this time, the Company does not believe the COA, COA Appeal or discussions with the PUC will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reported financial position or its operations. Save Carbon County On March 26, 2024, the Company, Panther Creek Power Operating, LLC, Stronghold and Stronghold LLC were named as defendants (collectively, the “Stronghold Defendants”) in a complaint filed in the Court of Common Pleas in Philadelphia County by Save Carbon County (the “Complaint”). In addition to the Stronghold Defendants, Josh Shapiro in his capacity as the Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, Jessica Shirley in her capacity as the Interim Secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection, and the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission were named as defendants. Pursuant to the Complaint, Save Carbon County alleges certain public nuisance, private nuisance, products liability, and negligence claims against the Stronghold Defendants and demands compensatory and punitive damages, together with costs of suit, interest, and attorney’s fees. On July 30, 2024, the parties stipulated to the transfer of the litigation to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, where the litigation will resume in the initial pleading stage, including resolution of preliminary objections to dismiss or narrow the scope of the Complaint's claims. The Commonwealth Court processed the transfer on October 8, 2024, and the Company filed its preliminary objections on October 28, 2024. The Company believes the Complaint is without merit. The Company does not believe that the claim will have a material adverse effect on the Company’s reported financial position or results of operations, although the Company cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of these proceedings. |