COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	23. 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 the Company 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 adopted and shall 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 agreed upon a payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $600,000, which sum was paid by our Director & Officer liability insurance. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing. The Company has always maintained and continues to believe that neither it nor any of its 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 a subsidiary of the Company, filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its 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 Company and its 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. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them. On April 13, 2020, the Company and its subsidiary jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety as against the Company, and the promissory estoppel claim as against its subsidiary. On the same day, the Company’s 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, the Company and its subsidiary, jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety as against the Company, and the promissory estoppel claim as against of its subsidiary. On the same day, the Company’s subsidiary also filed a partial Answer to the Amended Complaint in connection with the breach of contract claim. In its partial Answer, the Company’s subsidiary admitted to the validity of the contract at issue and also asserted numerous affirmative defenses concerning the proper calculation of damages. On December 4, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing the Parties to engage in limited discovery (the “Limited Discovery”) which was completed on March 4, 2021. In connection therewith, the Court also denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. The Company and its subsidiary have informed the Court that they intend to file a revised motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and anticipate filing such motion to dismiss when the Court issues a briefing schedule. Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Notwithstanding, the Company has 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 the Company and its Executive Chairman, 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 the Company, as well as Gu and Ault, in or about May 2019; and (ii) a term sheet entered into between Plaintiffs and the Company, 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 the Company to deliver unrestricted shares of Common Stock to Gu, plus attorneys’ fees and costs. The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them. On May 4, 2020, the Company 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 the Company’s joint motion to dismiss. The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is currently pending before the court. Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the above claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company 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 believes that the Company has operated its business in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 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. I.AM Bankruptcy Filing On November 2, 2020, I.AM, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, case number 8:20-bk-13076. Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP On November 20, 2020, the Company’s former counsel, Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP as successor to Sichenzia Ross Ference Kesner LLP (“SRF”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company Defendants”), in an action captioned Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP as successor to Sichenzia Ross Ference Kesner LLP v. Digital Power Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-CV-09811-JGK. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, against the Company Defendants, and seeks monetary damages in the amount of $2,558,121 plus interest thereon. On January 4, 2021, the Company Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement. On January 11, 2021, the Court held a conference in connection with the Company Defendants’ Motion wherein the Court denied the Company Defendants’ Motion as moot, ordered SRF to amend its Complaint by on or before January 25, 2021, and referred the matter to mediation. On January 25, 2021, SRF filed a First Amended Complaint in the action and dropped the two subsidiaries as parties to the action. The First Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, against the Company, and seeks monetary damages in the amount of $2,518,468 plus interest thereon. On or about February 18, 2021, SRF, the Company Defendants, and various of the Company Defendants’ related parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement. On or about February 23, 2021, SRF filed, on behalf of itself and the Company Defendants, a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, with prejudice. Other Litigation Matters 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. The Company records a liability when it believes that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the Company determines that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, the Company discloses the reasonably possible loss. The Company evaluates developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued, and the matters and related reasonably possible losses disclosed, and makes 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 the Company’s other outstanding matters, based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company believes that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcome of such matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2020

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

23. 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 the Company 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 adopted and shall 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 agreed upon a payment of attorneys’ fees in the amount of $600,000, which sum was paid by our Director & Officer liability insurance. The Settlement Agreement contains no admission of wrongdoing.

The Company has always maintained and continues to believe that neither it nor any of its 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 a subsidiary of the Company, filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and its 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 Company and its 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.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them.

On April 13, 2020, the Company and its subsidiary jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety as against the Company, and the promissory estoppel claim as against its subsidiary. On the same day, the Company’s 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, the Company and its subsidiary, jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety as against the Company, and the promissory estoppel claim as against of its subsidiary. On the same day, the Company’s subsidiary also filed a partial Answer to the Amended Complaint in connection with the breach of contract claim.

In its partial Answer, the Company’s subsidiary admitted to the validity of the contract at issue and also asserted numerous affirmative defenses concerning the proper calculation of damages.

On December 4, 2020, the Court issued an Order directing the Parties to engage in limited discovery (the “Limited Discovery”) which was completed on March 4, 2021. In connection therewith, the Court also denied Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss without prejudice.

The Company and its subsidiary have informed the Court that they intend to file a revised motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint and anticipate filing such motion to dismiss when the Court issues a briefing schedule.

Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company cannot reasonably estimate the potential loss or range of loss that may result from this action. Notwithstanding, the Company has 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 the Company and its Executive Chairman, 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 the Company, as well as Gu and Ault, in or about May 2019; and (ii) a term sheet entered into between Plaintiffs and the Company, 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 the Company to deliver unrestricted shares of Common Stock to Gu, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.

The Company believes that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend them.

On May 4, 2020, the Company 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 the Company’s joint motion to dismiss.

The motion to dismiss has been fully briefed and is currently pending before the court.

Based on the Company’s assessment of the facts underlying the above claims, the uncertainty of litigation, and the preliminary stage of the case, the Company 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 believes that the Company has operated its business in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. 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.

I.AM Bankruptcy Filing

On November 2, 2020, I.AM, Inc. filed a voluntary petition for bankruptcy under Chapter 7 in the United States Bankruptcy Court in the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division, case number 8:20-bk-13076.

Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP

On November 20, 2020, the Company’s former counsel, Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP as successor to Sichenzia Ross Ference Kesner LLP (“SRF”) filed a Complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and two of its subsidiaries (collectively, the “Company Defendants”), in an action captioned Sichenzia Ross Ference LLP as successor to Sichenzia Ross Ference Kesner LLP v. Digital Power Corporation, et al., Case No. 20-CV-09811-JGK. The Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, against the Company Defendants, and seeks monetary damages in the amount of $2,558,121 plus interest thereon.

On January 4, 2021, the Company Defendants filed a motion for a more definite statement.

On January 11, 2021, the Court held a conference in connection with the Company Defendants’ Motion wherein the Court denied the Company Defendants’ Motion as moot, ordered SRF to amend its Complaint by on or before January 25, 2021, and referred the matter to mediation.

On January 25, 2021, SRF filed a First Amended Complaint in the action and dropped the two subsidiaries as parties to the action. The First Amended Complaint asserts claims for breach of contract, account stated, unjust enrichment and quantum meruit, against the Company, and seeks monetary damages in the amount of $2,518,468 plus interest thereon.

On or about February 18, 2021, SRF, the Company Defendants, and various of the Company Defendants’ related parties entered into a confidential settlement agreement.

On or about February 23, 2021, SRF filed, on behalf of itself and the Company Defendants, a stipulation of voluntary dismissal, with prejudice.

Other Litigation Matters

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. The Company records a liability when it believes that it is probable that a loss has been incurred and the amount can be reasonably estimated. If the Company determines that a loss is reasonably possible and the loss or range of loss can be estimated, the Company discloses the reasonably possible loss. The Company evaluates developments in its legal matters that could affect the amount of liability that has been previously accrued, and the matters and related reasonably possible losses disclosed, and makes 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 the Company’s other outstanding matters, based on the Company’s current knowledge, the Company believes that the amount or range of reasonably possible loss will not, either individually or in aggregate, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. However, the outcome of such matters is inherently unpredictable and subject to significant uncertainties.