Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Reminds Investors of Looming Deadline in the Class Action Lawsuit Against Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Marathon Patent Group, Inc. (MARA)

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") reminds investors of the upcoming February 15, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. f/k/a Marathon Patent Group, Inc. ("Marathon" or the "Company") (NASDAQ: MARA) securities between October 13, 2020 and November 15, 2021, inclusive (the "Class Period").

In October 2020, Marathon announced that it had formed a joint venture with Beowulf Energy LLC focused on delivering low-cost power to Marathon’s Bitcoin mining operations. The company also entered into a series of agreements with multiple parties to design and build a data center in Hardin, Montana, issuing 6 million shares of its common stock to the parties of those agreements.

On November 15, 2021, before the market opened, Marathon revealed that during its third quarter 2021, "the Company and certain of its executives received a subpoena to produce documents and communications concerning the Hardin, Montana data center facility" described in Marathon’s Form 8-K dated October 13, 2020.

On this news, Marathon’s stock price fell $20.52, or 27%, to close at $55.40 per share on November 15, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

The complaint filed alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (i) the Beowulf Joint Venture, as it related to the Hardin Facility, implicated potential regulatory violations, including U.S. securities law violations; (ii) as a result, the Beowulf Joint Venture subjected Marathon to a heightened risk of regulatory scrutiny; (iii) the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on the Company’s business and commercial prospects; and (iv) as a result, the Company’s public statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant times.