Note 12.  Commitments and contingencies:

Contingencies:

The Company, and its subsidiaries, are subject at times to various claims, lawsuits and governmental proceedings relating to the Company’s business and transactions arising in the ordinary course of business. The Company cannot predict the final outcome of such proceedings. Where appropriate, the Company vigorously defends such claims, lawsuits and proceedings. Some of these claims, lawsuits and proceedings seek damages, including, consequential, exemplary or punitive damages, in amounts that could, if awarded, be significant. Certain of the claims, lawsuits and proceedings arising in ordinary course of business are covered by the Company’s insurance program. The Company maintains property, and various types of liability insurance in an effort to protect the Company from such claims. In terms of any matters where there is no insurance coverage available to the Company, or where coverage is available and the Company maintains a retention or deductible associated with such insurance, the Company may establish an accrual for such loss, retention or deductible based on current available information. In accordance with accounting guidance, if it is probable that an asset has been impaired or a liability has been incurred as of the date of the financial statements, and the amount of loss is reasonably estimable, then an accrual for the cost to resolve or settle these claims is recorded by the Company in the accompanying consolidated balance sheets. If it is reasonably possible that an asset may be impaired as of the date of the financial statement, then the Company discloses the range of possible loss. Paid expenses related to the defense of such claims are recorded by the Company as incurred and paid and included in the accompanying consolidated statements of operations. Management, with the assistance of outside counsel, may from time to time adjust such accruals according to new developments in the matter, court rulings, or changes in the strategy affecting the Company’s defense of such matters. On the basis of current information, the Company does not believe there is a reasonable possibility that, other than with regard to the Class Action described below, any material loss, if any, will result from any claims, lawsuits and proceedings to which the Company is subject to either individually, or in the aggregate.

On February 17, 2018, Creighton Takata filed an action asserting putative class action claims on behalf of the Company's shareholders in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey, Takata v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3: 18-cv-02293. The complaint asserts violations of federal securities laws under Section 10(b) and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a putative class of shareholders that purchased stock from November 13, 2017 through February 15, 2018. The complaint alleges that the Company and certain of its officers and directors made, caused to be made, or failed to correct false and/or misleading statements in press releases and public filings regarding its business plan in connection with its cryptocurrency business. The complaint requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief.

Two additional, nearly identical complaints were subsequently filed by Richard Roys and Bruce Greenawalt in the United District States Court for the Southern District of Florida (Roys v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 9:18-cv-80225) and the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (Greenawalt v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 1:18-cv-00440), respectively. On March 27, 2018, the court closed the Roys case for administrative purposes. On April 2, 2018, Mr. Greenawalt filed a notice of voluntary dismissal of his action, which the court entered on the same date.

On April 18, 2018, Joseph J. Klapper, Jr., filed a complaint against Riot Blockchain, Inc., and certain of its officers and directors in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey (Klapper v. Riot Blockchain Inc., et al., Case No. 3: 18-cv-8031). The complaint contained substantially similar allegations and the same claims as those filed by Mr. Takata, and requests damages in unspecified amounts, costs and fees of bringing the action, and other unspecified relief. On November 6, 2018, the court in the Takata action issued an order consolidating Takata with Klapper into a single putative class action. The court also appointed Dr. Golovac as Lead Plaintiff and Motely Rice as Lead Counsel of the consolidated class action.

Lead Plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint on January 15, 2019. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 18, 2019. Lead Plaintiff was subsequently granted leave to file another amended complaint on May 8, 2019. Defendants intend to file a motion to dismiss in response, with briefing expected to be completed on the motion to dismiss in late June 2019. Subject to the outcome of the pending motions, defendants intend to continue to vigorously contest Lead Plaintiff’s allegations. Because this litigation is still at this early stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the magnitude of such an outcome, if any.

On April 5, 2018, Michael Jackson filed a shareholder derivative complaint on behalf of the Company in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, against certain of the Company's officers and directors, as well as against an investor (Jackson v. Riot Blockchain, Inc., et al., Case No. 604520/18). The complaint contains similar allegations to those contained in the shareholder class action complaints and seeks recovery for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, abuse of control and gross mismanagement. The complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and corporate governance changes. At the preliminary conference, the court adjourned the conference until September 9, 2019 in lieu of staying the action.  Defendants do not anticipate any other activity on this case until the next preliminary conference.

On May 22, 2018, two additional shareholder derivative complaints were filed on behalf of the Company in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for the County of Clark (Kish v. O'Rourke, et al., Case No. A-18-774890-B & Gaft v. O'Rourke, et al., Case No. A-18-774896-8). The two complaints make identical allegations, which are similar to the allegations contained in the shareholder class action complaints. The shareholder derivative plaintiffs also seek recovery for alleged breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, waste of corporate assets, and aiding abetting a breach of fiduciary duty. The complaints seek unspecific monetary damages and corporate governance changes.

On September 24, 2018, the court entered an order consolidating the Gaft and Kish actions, which is now styled as In re Riot BlockChain, Inc. Shareholder Derivative Litigation, Case No. A-18-774890-B. The plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 15, 2019.  The consolidated action has been temporarily stayed until the resolution of the motion(s) to dismiss in the securities class action pending in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On October 9, 2018, another shareholder derivative complaint was filed on behalf of the Company in the United District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Rotkowitz v. O'Rourke, et al., Case No. 2:18-cv-05632). As with the other shareholder derivative actions, the shareholder plaintiff alleges breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against certain of the Company's officers, directors, and an investor. The complaint's allegations are substantially similar to those made in the other securities class action and shareholder derivative complaints filed in 2018. The complaint seeks unspecific monetary damages and corporate governance changes. The parties filed a motion with the court to temporarily stay this action until the resolution of the motion(s) to dismiss in the securities class action pending in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey. In response, the court dismissed the action without prejudice with leave to refile a complaint following the resolution of the motion(s) to dismiss in the securities class action pending in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey.

On October 22, 2018, a fifth shareholder derivative complaint was filed on behalf of the Company in the United District Court for the Southern District of New York (Finitz v. O'Rourke, et al., Case No. 1: 18-cv-09640). The shareholder plaintiffs allege breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment against certain of the Company's officers, directors, and an investor. The complaint's allegations are substantially similar to those made in the other securities class action and shareholder derivative complaints filed in 2018. The complaint seeks unspecific monetary damages and corporate governance changes. Upon the parties' stipulation, the court issued an order temporarily staying this action until the resolution of the motion(s) to dismiss in the securities class action pending in the United District Court for the District of New Jersey.

Defendants intend to vigorously contest plaintiffs’ allegations in the shareholder derivative actions and plaintiffs’ right to bring the action in the name of Riot Blockchain.  But because this litigation is still at this early stage, we cannot reasonably estimate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or the magnitude of such an outcome, if any.

On April 9, 2018, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC, requesting documents and information.  The SEC has continued to request information from the Company and the Company has been fully cooperating with the SEC in that investigation.

During 2018 the Company received several comment letters (the “Comment Letters”) from the Division of Corporation Finance and the Division of Investment Management of the SEC.  The Comment Letters had been issued on the Company’s periodic reports on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2018, Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017, amendment to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 and current report on Form 8-K filed October 4, 2017.  The Comment Letters raised matters related to, among other things, the unsettled nature of accounting treatment for the Company’s digital currency mining and the fair value method selected by the Company (as opposed to intangible accounting methods proposed by some experts) and applicability to the Company of the Investment Company Act of 1940, particularly as it relates to the Company’s minority interest in Coinsquare. On April 5, 2019, the Company received a letter from the SEC informing the Company that the SEC had completed their review of the above filings.

 

Beneficial Ownership

Pursuant to the rules of the SEC, the Company has consistently reported its beneficial ownership positions in its proxy and other filings where beneficial ownership disclosures are presented, for certain beneficial owners with respect to any person (including any “group” as that term is used in Section 13(d)(3) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”) who is known to the Company to be the beneficial owner of more than 5% of the Company’s common stock.  The Company has relied on each person who has reported to the SEC beneficial ownership of more than 5% of our common stock to provide complete and accurate information regarding their ownership, based on the reports filed by these persons.

On September 7, 2018, a complaint was filed by the SEC (Case 1:18-cv-08175) and amended as of March 8, 2019, (the “Complaint”) against, among others, a number of individuals and entities some of whom the Company has previously disclosed as its beneficial owners, as well as, Mr. John O’Rourke III, the Company’s former chairman of the board of directors and chief executive officer who resigned from the Company on September 8, 2018, as disclosed in the Current Periodic Report on Form 8-K filed September 10, 2018.  Other persons named in the Complaint have previously reported that they were beneficial owners of the Company’s common stock, however, the Company has no basis to determine whether any such persons may have operated as a control group, collectively beneficially owning more than 5% of the Company’s common stock.