COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	18. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On July 31, 2018 a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as the nominal defendant, as well as its current directors and a former director styled 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 (Case No. 18-cv-6587) (the “Complaint”). No hearings have been scheduled as of the date hereof. The Complaint alleges violations of state law and breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement by the individual defendants as, in the view of the plaintiffs, the Company has entered into poorly advised loan transactions and related party transactions. The Company and the individual defendants believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves. The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and on February 25, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint. On March 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint asserting violations of breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment claims based on the previously pled transactions. On March 25, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 6, 2019, the Motion to Dismiss was fully submitted to the Court without oral argument. The Motion is now pending before the Court. 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 estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. However, an unfavorable outcome may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. On November 28, 2018, Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd, a vendor who sold computers to the Company’s subsidiary, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Super Crypto Mining, Inc. and the Company (Case No. 18-cv-11099). The Complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against the Company and its subsidiary arising from the subsidiary’s failure to satisfy a purchase agreement. The Complaint seeks damages in the amount of $1,388,495. On February 4, 2019, pursuant to the Court’s Rules, the Company requested a pre-motion Conference with the Court. The Company’s time to file its motion to dismiss is stayed until the Court’ holds the pre-motion Conference, which has not yet been scheduled by the Court. 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 estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. However, 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 the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

3 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

18. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On July 31, 2018 a stockholder derivative complaint was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California against the Company as the nominal defendant, as well as its current directors and a former director styled 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 (Case No. 18-cv-6587) (the “Complaint”). No hearings have been scheduled as of the date hereof.

The Complaint alleges violations of state law and breaches of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment and gross mismanagement by the individual defendants as, in the view of the plaintiffs, the Company has entered into poorly advised loan transactions and related party transactions. The Company and the individual defendants believe that these claims are without merit and intend to vigorously defend themselves. The Company and the individual defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint and on February 25, 2019, the Court granted the motion to dismiss but granted plaintiffs leave to amend their Complaint. On March 11, 2019, plaintiffs filed their amended complaint asserting violations of breaches of fiduciary duties and unjust enrichment claims based on the previously pled transactions. On March 25, 2019, the Company and the individual defendants filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint. On May 6, 2019, the Motion to Dismiss was fully submitted to the Court without oral argument. The Motion is now pending before the Court.

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 estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. However, an unfavorable outcome may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

On November 28, 2018, Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd, a vendor who sold computers to the Company’s subsidiary, filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against Super Crypto Mining, Inc. and the Company (Case No. 18-cv-11099). The Complaint asserted claims for breach of contract and promissory estoppel against the Company and its subsidiary arising from the subsidiary’s failure to satisfy a purchase agreement. The Complaint seeks damages in the amount of $1,388,495.

On February 4, 2019, pursuant to the Court’s Rules, the Company requested a pre-motion Conference with the Court. The Company’s time to file its motion to dismiss is stayed until the Court’ holds the pre-motion Conference, which has not yet been scheduled by the Court.

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 estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss that may result from this action. However, 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 the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.