Gryphon Digital Mining Inc

Item 1. Legal Proceedings.

Sphere 3D Litigation

On April 7, 2023, Sphere 3D filed an action against Gryphon in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, alleging claims for breach of the Sphere MSA entered between the parties on August 19, 2021, and subsequently amended on December 29, 2021, as well as claims for breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.

On June 15, 2023, Sphere 3D filed an amended complaint in connection with the Sphere 3D Litigation, which clarified certain of Sphere 3D’s prior allegations. On June 28, 2023, Gryphon requested leave to file a motion to dismiss Sphere 3D’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, which the Court granted on August 11, 2023. On August 18, 2023, Gryphon filed: (i) its motion to dismiss Sphere 3D’s claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (ii) its answer and counterclaims against Sphere 3D, asserting, among other things, that Sphere had breached the Sphere MSA, breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in connection with that contract, acted negligently in connection with a separate incident, and defamed Gryphon. Gryphon’s answer and counterclaims further asserted the defamation counterclaim against Sphere 3D’s Chief Executive Officer, Patricia Trompeter, personally.

On September 20, 2023, Sphere 3D filed a second amended complaint in connection with the Sphere 3D Litigation, which added a claim against Gryphon alleging that Gryphon’s counterclaim for defamation against Sphere 3D violated New York’s anti-SLAPP law.

On October 6, 2023, Sphere 3D delivered a purported termination notice to Gryphon (the “Sphere 3D MSA Termination”) regarding the Master Service Agreement (“MSA”) previously entered by the parties on August 19, 2021, and subsequently amended on December 29, 2021, largely on the basis of the deficient allegations made by Sphere 3D in the Sphere 3D Litigation. On January 17, 2024, Gryphon filed an amended answer with fourth amended counterclaims to Sphere 3D’s second amended complaint, in which, among other things, Gryphon alleged that Sphere 3D’s attempted termination of the Sphere MSA was wrongful and ineffective because it violated the express terms of the MSA. Gryphon is also seeking relief based on Sphere’s repeated breaches of the exclusivity terms of the MSA. Gryphon intends to continue to vigorously defend against the Sphere 3D Litigation, which it believes is without merit, and to aggressively pursue its counterclaims against Sphere 3D for Sphere 3D’s repeated violations of the MSA.

On February 1, 2024, Gryphon filed an amended answer and its own counterclaim against Sphere 3D. Gryphon’s counterclaim alleges that Sphere 3D flagrantly and repeatedly breached the terms of the MSA.

On March 25, 2024, Gryphon filed a pre-motion letter with the Court seeking pre-judgment attachment of the equity shares in Core that Sphere 3D received as a result of the Core Settlement (as defined below) to secure a judgment against Sphere 3D.

On June 27, 2024, during a discovery conference, Sphere 3D agreed that it was not seeking to impose any liability against Gryphon for events that occurred in late February 2023 whereby a hostile actor impersonated Sphere 3D’s chief financial officer in an email sent to both Sphere 3D and Gryphon’s personnel and requested the transfer of bitcoin (worth approximately $560,000) from a Sphere 3D wallet controlled by Gryphon. Gryphon intends to continue to vigorously defend against the Sphere 3D Litigation, which it believes lacks merit, and to aggressively pursue its counterclaim against Sphere 3D for Sphere 3D’s repeated violations of the MSA.

Gryphon cannot predict the outcome of these proceedings or provide an estimate of potential damages or recovery, if any. Failure by Gryphon to obtain a favorable resolution of the Sphere 3D Litigation could require it to pay damage awards or otherwise enter into settlement arrangements for which its insurance coverage may be insufficient. Any such damage awards or settlement arrangements in current or future litigation could have a material adverse effect on Gryphon’s business, operating results or financial condition. Even if Sphere 3D’s claims are not successful, or if Gryphon is successful in pursuing its counterclaims or negotiating a favorable settlement, defending against this or future litigation is expensive and could divert management’s attention and resources, all of which could have an adverse and material impact on Gryphon’s business, operating results and financial condition and negatively affect Gryphon’s value. Further, any valid termination of the Sphere MSA in accordance with its terms could also have a negative impact on Gryphon’s business and operating results. In addition, such lawsuits may make it more difficult for Gryphon to finance its operations in the future.

Core Complaint and Related Matters

In connection with the ongoing Core Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, on November 21, 2023, the Company was notified that Core Scientific and its debtor affiliates filed an adversary proceeding complaint (“Core Complaint”) against Sphere 3D and the Company (“Core Litigation”). As it pertains to the Company, the Core Complaint alleged, among other things, that the Company breached certain miner hosting agreements between Core and the Company by failing to deliver miners to Core under the miner hosting agreements. The Core Complaint sought damages in the amount of $100 million and a declaratory judgment that Core has no continuing obligations under those miner hosting agreements. The Company disputed the allegations of the complaint and was prepared to assert all available defenses as well as counterclaims against Core. However, before the Company had to respond to the Core Complaint, the parties reached a mutually agreeable settlement where all claims against the Company would be released and the Core Complaint dismissed with prejudice. Therefore, on January 2, 2024, the Core Debtors filed an emergency motion in the Core Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceedings, seeking the Court’s approval of a settlement resolving all claims as between the Core Debtors, on the one hand, and Sphere 3D and Gryphon on the other hand, arising from the miner hosting agreements; any claims and disputes as between Sphere 3D and Gryphon are excluded from this proposed settlement. The Bankruptcy Court approved the settlement by order entered on January 16, 2024 (the “Core Settlement”).

On November 21, 2023, the Company was notified by Core Scientific, Inc. that Core intended to cease hosting operations of 133 ASIC miners that the Company had operating at Core as of September 30, 2023. As of December 31, 2023, the Company had removed its hosted equipment pursuant to the terms of the operative Master Services Agreement between the Company and Core. This hosted capacity represented approximately 1% of the Company’s overall fleet and management does not anticipate this action to result in a material impact to its operations. The Company relocated those miners to its other existing operations.

PPP Loan

On April 21, 2020, the Company obtained a loan in the principal aggregate amount of $2.2 million (the “PPP Loan”) pursuant to the Paycheck Protection Program under the CARES Act, which was forgiven in full, by the SBA, on September 3, 2021.

On February 5, 2024, the Company received a letter, dated January 25, 2024, from the SBA, on behalf of Key Bank, in which the SBA indicated that, notwithstanding its prior notification of forgiveness, in full, of repayment of the PPP Loan, it was reviewing its prior determination of forgiveness for potential reversal. Specifically, the SBA indicated that based on its preliminary findings, the SBA is considering a full denial of the previously received forgiven amount based on the purported ineligibility of the Company to have received the PPP Loan under the SBA loan programs because the Company, operating as Akerna at the time of the PPP Loan, provided software support to the cannabis industry. The Company responded to the SBA on February 6, 2024, providing reasons as to why it believes it was eligible for the PPP Loan, but has not received any further correspondence from the SBA, since that date, and the SBA has not made any financial demands. The Company plans to continue to cooperate with any further inquiry from the SBA.

In January 2024, the Company received a civil investigative demand from the DOJ seeking information and documents about the PPP Loan. The Company is cooperating with the inquiry. At this time, there has been no formal demand for return of the PPP Loan proceeds, and no formal claim or lawsuit has been initiated against the Company.

Dutchie Litigation

On January 13, 2023, Courier Plus Inc. d/b/a Dutchie (“Dutchie”) filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania against Akerna and MJ Freeway, LLC (“MJF”) (which was a wholly-owned subsidiary prior to the closing of the Business Combination), alleging unfair competition, tortious interference, and unjust enrichment with respect to MJF’s exclusive government contract with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. We filed a preliminary objection alleging serious defects, such as jurisdiction. The parties attended a hearing in July 2023. In October 2023, the courts dismissed the case but left some items available in the complaint for an appeal. Dutchie has amended its complaint and filed again. We filed another preliminary objection to their amended complaint. A hearing on our preliminary objections was conducted, and the court granted in part and denied in part the second preliminary objections. Before and throughout this dispute, we have worked with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ensure continued compliance with our contract. We intend to continue to defend our position vigorously and, at this time, do not believe an estimate of potential loss, if any, is appropriate.

TreCom Litigation

On April 2, 2021, TreCom Systems Group, Inc. (“TreCom”) filed suit against Akerna and MJF in federal District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, seeking recovery of up to approximately $2.0 million for services allegedly provided pursuant to a Subcontractor Agreement between MJF and TreCom. MJF provided a notice of termination of the operative Subcontractor Agreement on August 4, 2020. MJF disputes the validity of TreCom’s invoices and the enforceability of the alleged agreement that TreCom submitted to the court. Akerna filed counterclaims against TreCom for breach of contract, a declaratory judgment, commercial disparagement, and defamation. TreCom failed to return Akerna’s intellectual property and issued numerous disparaging statements to one of Akerna’s clients. TreCom subsequently filed a motion to dismiss these counterclaims, which was denied by the court. The court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. A trial is currently set to commence on December 2, 2024. Akerna intends to vigorously defend against TreCom’s claims, and pursue its own claims. With respect to the TreCom matter, we established a loss contingency of $0.2 million in 2021 on the books of MJF which remains outstanding as of June 30, 2024.

From time to time, we may be subject to other legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business. Regardless of the outcome of any existing or future litigation, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors.

The information required with respect to this item can be found under “Commitments and Contingencies” in Note 8 to our condensed consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this Form 10-Q and is incorporated by reference into this Item 1.