COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2022
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES *Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd.* On November 28, 2018, Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd. (“Blockchain Mining”) a vendor who sold computers to one of the Company’s subsidiaries, filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the Company’s 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 intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted against it in this action. 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 to be completed by March 4, 2021. In connection therewith, the Court also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice. On June 2, 2021, the Company and its subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety as against the Company, and the promissory estoppel claim as against the subsidiary. On August 8, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss, in its entirety. The deadline for the Company and its subsidiaries to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint is September 2, 2022. 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, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses. An unfavorable outcome may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s 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 the Company’s 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 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 $1.1 million, 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 intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted against it in this action. On May 4, 2020, the Company and Ault jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice. On July 28, 2021, the Court conducted oral argument in connection with the motion to dismiss. During the oral argument, the Court informed the parties that the Court was dismissing the fraud claim, in its entirety, and provided Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their fraud claim within sixty days of the date of the oral argument. The Court reserved decision on the other causes of action. On December 14, 2021, the Court entered a decision and order in connection with the motion to dismiss whereby the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s causes of action for specific performance, conversion, permanent injunction, and reiterated its prior determination that the fraud claim was also dismissed. The Court denied the motion to dismiss in connection with the other causes of action asserted in the complaint. On January 26, 2022, the Company and Mr. Ault filed an answer to the complaint and asserted numerous affirmative defenses. 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 the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. Subpoena The Company and certain affiliates and related parties have received several subpoenas from the SEC for the production of documents and testimony. 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. The subpoenas expressly provide that the inquiry is not to be construed as an indication by the SEC or its staff that any violations of the federal securities laws have occurred, nor should they 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* The Company is involved in litigation arising from other matters in the ordinary course of business. The Company is 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

6 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2022

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

17. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd.

On November 28, 2018, Blockchain Mining Supply and Services, Ltd. (“Blockchain Mining”) a vendor who sold computers to one of the Company’s subsidiaries, filed a Complaint (the “Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company and the Company’s 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 intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted against it in this action.

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 to be completed by March 4, 2021. In connection therewith, the Court also denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss without prejudice.

On June 2, 2021, the Company and its subsidiary filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety as against the Company, and the promissory estoppel claim as against the subsidiary.

On August 8, 2022, the Court issued an Order denying the motion to dismiss, in its entirety.

The deadline for the Company and its subsidiaries to file an Answer to the Amended Complaint is September 2, 2022.

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, which is included in accounts payable and accrued expenses. An unfavorable outcome may have a material adverse effect on the Company’s 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 the Company’s 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 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 $1.1 million, 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 intends to vigorously defend against the claims asserted against it in this action.

On May 4, 2020, the Company and Ault jointly filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety, with prejudice.

On July 28, 2021, the Court conducted oral argument in connection with the motion to dismiss. During the oral argument, the Court informed the parties that the Court was dismissing the fraud claim, in its entirety, and provided Plaintiffs an opportunity to amend their fraud claim within sixty days of the date of the oral argument. The Court reserved decision on the other causes of action.

On December 14, 2021, the Court entered a decision and order in connection with the motion to dismiss whereby the Court dismissed Plaintiff’s causes of action for specific performance, conversion, permanent injunction, and reiterated its prior determination that the fraud claim was also dismissed. The Court denied the motion to dismiss in connection with the other causes of action asserted in the complaint.

On January 26, 2022, the Company and Mr. Ault filed an answer to the complaint and asserted numerous affirmative defenses.

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 the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

Subpoena

The Company and certain affiliates and related parties have received several subpoenas from the SEC for the production of documents and testimony. 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. The subpoenas expressly provide that the inquiry is not to be construed as an indication by the SEC or its staff that any violations of the federal securities laws have occurred, nor should they 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

The Company is involved in litigation arising from other matters in the ordinary course of business. The Company is 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.