XML 37 R27.htm IDEA: XBRL DOCUMENT
v3.20.2

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 6 Months Ended
--- | ---
Jun. 30, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract] |
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES | 21. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Derivative Action On July 31, 2018, Ethan Young and Greg Young (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed a stockholder derivative complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the “Court”) against the Company as the nominal defendant, as well as its current directors and a former director, in action captioned, Ethan Young and Greg Young, Derivatively on Behalf of Nominal Defendant, DPW Holdings, Inc. v. Milton C. Ault, III, Amos Kohn, William B. Horne, Jeff Bentz, Mordechai Rosenberg, Robert O. Smith, and Kristine Ault and DPW Holdings, Inc., as the nominal defendant, (collectively, “Defendants”) Case No. 18-cv-6587 (the “Derivative Action”). The Complaint alleged violations of state law and breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement by the individual defendants, in connection with various transactions entered into by the Company. The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, and on February 25, 2019, the Court granted Defendants motion to dismiss, in its entirety, without prejudice, and also granted Plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint. On March 11, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint asserting violations of breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment claims based on the previously pled transactions (the “Amended Complaint”). On March 25, 2019, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss (the “Motion”) the Amended Complaint. On May 21, 2019, the Court granted in part, and denied in part, the Defendants’ Motion. On February 24, 2020, the Company entered into a definitive settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with Plaintiffs to settle the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. On April 15, 2020, the Court issued an Order (the “Order”) approving a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Settlement in the Derivative Action. On July 16, 2020, the Court issued an Order (the “Final Order”) approving a Motion for Final Approval of Settlement in the Derivative Action filed against DPW as a Nominal Defendant and its directors who served on its board of directors on July 31, 2018 who were not dismissed from the action as a result of the Court’s partial grant of the Motion. On July 16, 2020, the Court entered a Judgment based upon the Final Order Under the terms of the Final Order, the Board shall adopt and/or maintain certain resolutions and amendments to the Company’s committee charters and/or bylaws, to ensure adherence to certain corporate governance policies (collectively, the “Reforms”). The Final Order further provides that such Reforms shall remain in effect for a period of no less than five (5) years and shall be subject to any of the following: (a) a determination by a majority of the independent directors that the Reforms are no longer in the best interest of the Company, including, but not limited to, due to circumstances making the Reforms no longer applicable, feasible, or available on commercially reasonable terms, or (b) modifications which the Company reasonably believes are required by applicable law or regulation. In connection with the Settlement Agreement, the parties have agreed upon a payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $600,000, which sum shall be payable by our Director & Officer liability insurance. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. We have always maintained and continue to believe that neither we nor our current or former directors engaged in any wrongdoing or otherwise committed any violation of federal or state securities laws or any other laws or regulations. Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd. On November 28, 2018, Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd. (“Blockchain Mining”) a vendor who sold computers to our subsidiary, filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against us and our subsidiary, Digital Farms, Inc. (f/k/a Super Crypto Mining, Inc.), in an action captioned Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd. v. Super Crypto Mining, Inc. and DPW Holdings, Inc., Case No. 18-cv-11099. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against the us and our subsidiary arising from the subsidiary’s alleged failure to honor its obligations under the purchase agreement. The Complaint seeks monetary damages in excess of $1,388,495, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them. On April 13, 2020, we and our subsidiary, jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety as against us, and the promissory estoppel claim as against our subsidiary. On the same day, our subsidiary also filed a partial Answer to the Complaint in connection with the breach of contract claim. On April 29, 2020, Blockchain Mining filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint asserts the same causes of action and seeks the same damages as the initial Complaint. On May 13, 2020, we and our subsidiary, jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety as against us, and the promissory estoppel claim as against of our subsidiary. On the same day, our subsidiary also filed a partial Answer to the Amended Complaint in connection with the breach of contract claim. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Notwithstanding, we have established a reserve in the amount of the unpaid portion of the purchase agreement. An unfavorable outcome may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Ding Gu (a/k/a Frank Gu) and Xiaodan Wang Litigation On January 17, 2020, Ding Gu (a/k/a Frank Gu) (“Gu”) and Xiaodan Wang (“Wang” and with “Gu” collectively, “Plaintiffs”), filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against us and our Chief Executive Officer, Milton C. Ault, III, in an action captioned Ding Gu (a/k/a Frank Gu) and Xiaodan Wang v. DPW Holdings, Inc. and Milton C. Ault III (a/k/a Milton Todd Ault III a/k/a Todd Ault), Index No. 650438/2020. The Complaint asserts causes of action for declaratory judgment, specific performance, breach of contract, conversion, attorneys’ fees, permanent injunction, enforcement of Guaranty, unjust enrichment, money had and received, and fraud arising from: (i) a series of transactions entered into between Gu and us, as well as Gu and Ault, in or about May 2019; and (ii) a term sheet entered into between Plaintiffs and DPW, in or about July 2019. The Complaint seeks, among other things, monetary damages in excess of $1,100,000, plus a decree of specific performance directing DPW to deliver unrestricted shares of DPW’s common stock to Gu, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. We believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them. On May 4, 2020, we and Ault jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. On July 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their opposition papers to our joint motion to dismiss. The return date for the motion to dismiss is presently set for August 25, 2020. Based on our assessment of the facts underlying the above claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, we cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that may result from this action. An unfavorable outcome may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Subpoena The Company received a subpoena from the SEC for the voluntary production of documents. The Company is fully cooperating with this non-public, fact-finding inquiry and Management believe that the Company has operated its business in compliance with all applicable laws. The subpoena expressly provides that the inquiry is not to be construed as an indication by the Commission or its staff that any violations of the federal securities laws have occurred, nor should it be considered a reflection upon any person, entity or security. However, there can be no assurance as to the outcome of this matter. Other Litigation Matters Several non-trade creditors of the Company commenced litigation against the Company for payment of approximately $4.2 million of debt obligations not paid according to contractual terms. The Company has since repaid approximately $3.6 million of such debt obligations and entered into settlement agreements for the remaining amount of approximately $600,000 which are included within future receipts obligations in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet at June 30, 2020. The Company also recorded approximately $400,000 of trade liabilities for a judgment settled in favor of a trade creditor as of June 30, 2020 and is currently a defendant in several other claims made by trade creditors in which the maximum loss exposure is currently estimated to be approximately $800,000. The outcome of any matters relating to unresolved trade credit obligations cannot be predicted at this time. The Company is involved in litigation arising from other matters in the ordinary course of business. We are regularly subject to claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, and other proceedings involving labor and employment, commercial disputes, and other matters. Such claims, suits, regulatory and government investigations, and other proceedings could result in fines, civil penalties, or other adverse consequences. Certain of these outstanding matters include speculative, substantial or indeterminate monetary amounts. We record a liability when we believe that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If we determine that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, we disclose the reasonably possible loss. We evaluate developments in our legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued, and the matters and related reasonably possible losses disclosed, and make adjustments as appropriate. Significant judgment is required to determine both likelihood of there being and the estimated amount of a loss related to such matters. With respect to our other outstanding matters, based on our current knowledge, we believe that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcome of such matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties.

X
- References No definition available. + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureAbstract
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | xbrli:stringItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration

X
- Definition The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies. + References Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 450 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2127136 Reference 2: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef -Publisher FASB -Name Accounting Standards Codification -Topic 440 -URI http://asc.fasb.org/topic&trid=2144648 + Details
Name: | us-gaap_CommitmentsAndContingenciesDisclosureTextBlock
Namespace Prefix: | us-gaap_
Data Type: | nonnum:textBlockItemType
Balance Type: | na
Period Type: | duration