The Company has $37,044 in open purchase commitments for miners or mining equipment as of December 31, 2023. These commitments pertain to the purchase transaction with Bitmain Technologies Delaware Limited signed in October 2023 for the purchase 4.4 EH/s of Antminer S21 bitcoin mining machines for a purchase price up to $61,740 (after coupons). As of December 31, 2023, $24,696 of payments have been made and are recorded as deposits for mining equipment or miners.

The following table sets forth certain information concerning our obligations to make contractual future payments towards our agreements as of December 31, 2023:


($ in thousands)	Fiscal Year 2024		Fiscal Year 2025		Fiscal Year 2026		Fiscal Year 2027		Fiscal Year 2028		Thereafter		Total
Recorded contractual obligations:
Operating lease obligations	$	154	$	201	$	204	$	106	$	41	$	—	$	706
Finance lease obligations		89		9		—		—		—		—		98
Loans		5,465		7,957		798		269		92		36		14,617
Construction in progress		8,350		—		—		—		—		—		8,350
Miners and mining equipment contracts		24,696		12,348		—		—		—		—		37,044
Total	$	38,754	$	20,515	$	1,002	$	375	$	133	$	36	$	60,815

On January 20, 2021, Scott Bishins (“Bishins”), individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated (together, the “Class”), filed a class action complaint (the “Class Complaint”) in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company, its Chief Executive Officer, Zachary Bradford (“Bradford”), and its Chief Financial Officer at the time, Lori Love (“Love”) (such action, the “Class Action”). Subsequent to the filing of the Class Action, Darshan Hasthantra, as lead Plaintiff (together with Bishins, the “Plaintiffs”) filed an amended complaint (the “Amended Class Complaint”), which named S. Matthew Schultz (“Schultz”) as a defendant (the Company, Bradford and Schultz, collectively, the “Defendants”) and no longer named Love as a defendant.

The Amended Class Complaint alleges that, between December 10, 2020 and August 16, 2021 (the “Class Period”), Defendants made material misstatements and omissions regarding the Company’s acquisition of ATL and its anticipated expansion of bitcoin mining operations and seeks: (a) certification of the Class, (b) an award of compensatory damages to the Class, and (c) an award of reasonable costs and expenses incurred by the Class in the litigation.

To date, no class has been certified in the Class Action, and the case is moving forward in discovery.

The Company believes that the claims raised in the Amended Class Complaint are without merit. The Company intends to defend itself vigorously against these claims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the Amended Class Complaint.

On May 26, 2021, Andrea Ciceri (“Ciceri”), derivatively on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc., filed a verified shareholder derivative action (the “Ciceri Derivative Action”) in the United States District Court in the District of Nevada against certain of the Company’s officers and directors (collectively referred to as “Ciceri Derivative Defendants”) (Ciceri v. Bradford, Schultz, Love, Beynon, McNeill and Wood). On June 22, 2021, Mark Perna (“Perna”) (Ciceri, Perna, and Ciceri Derivative Defendants collectively referred to as the “Parties”) filed a verified shareholder derivative action (the “Perna Derivative Action”) in the same Court against the same Ciceri Derivative Defendants, making substantially similar allegations. On June 29, 2021, the Court consolidated the Ciceri Derivative Action with the Perna Derivative Action in accordance with a stipulation among the parties (the consolidated case referred to as the “Consolidated Ciceri Derivative Action”). The Consolidated Ciceri Derivative Action asserts claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, and waste of corporate assets and seeks declaratory relief, monetary damages, and imposition of adequate corporate governance and internal controls.

In June 2023, the Company’s Board of Directors appointed a special litigation committee (the “SLC”), comprised of independent Directors and represented by independent counsel to investigate, evaluate and prosecute as appropriate any and all claims asserted in the Consolidated Ciceri Derivative Action as well as the Consolidated Smith Derivative Actions (defined below). On October 23, 2023, the Court stayed the case until July 23, 2024, pending the completion of the SLC’s investigation.

The Company believes that the claims raised in that case are without merit. The Company intends to both defend itself vigorously against these claims and to vigorously prosecute any counterclaims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the Consolidated Ciceri Derivative Action.

On February 21, 2023, Brandon Smith (“Smith”), derivatively on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc., filed a verified shareholder derivative action in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County against certain of the Company’s officers and directors (Smith v. Bradford, Love, Schultz, Beynon, McNeill and Wood).

On February 24, 2023, Plaintiff Nicholas Iraci (“Iraci”), derivatively on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc., filed a verified shareholder derivative action (the “Iraci Derivative Action”) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County against certain of the Company’s officers and directors (Iraci v. Bradford, Love, Schultz, Beynon, McNeill and Wood).

On March 1, 2023, Plaintiff Eric Atanasoff (“Atanasoff”), derivatively on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc., filed a verified shareholder derivative action (the “Atanasoff Derivative Action”) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of

Nevada in and for Clark County against certain of the Company’s Officers and Directors (Atanasoff v. Bradford, Schultz, Beynon, McNeill, and Wood).

On March 8, 2023, Plaintiff Travis France (“France”), derivatively on behalf of CleanSpark, Inc., filed a verified shareholder derivative action (the “France Derivative Action”) in the Eighth Judicial District Court of the State of Nevada in and for Clark County against certain of the Company’s officers and directors (France v. Bradford, Love, Tadayon, Schultz, Beynon, McNeill and Wood).

Ultimately, each of the aforementioned derivative actions were consolidated into the Smith Derivative Action in the Eighth Judicial District Court of Nevada (the “Consolidated Smith Derivative Actions”).

The operative Consolidated Smith Derivative Actions assert claims of breach of fiduciary duties, unjust enrichment and corporate waste and seek monetary damages, restitution, declaratory relief, litigation costs, and imposition of adequate corporate governance and internal controls.

On November 6, 2023, the Court stayed the Consolidated Smith Derivative Action for five months pending the completion of the SLC’s investigation.

The Company believes that the claims raised in Consolidated Smith Derivative Actions are without merit. The Company intends to both defend itself vigorously against these claims and to vigorously prosecute any counterclaims. At this time, the Company is unable to estimate potential losses, if any, related to the Consolidated Smith Derivative Actions.

The Company is subject to various legal proceedings and claims that have arisen in the ordinary course of business and that have not been fully resolved. The outcome of litigation is inherently uncertain. In the opinion of management, there was not at least a reasonable possibility the Company may have incurred a material loss, or a material loss greater than a recorded accrual, concerning loss contingencies for asserted legal and other claims.