Stockholder derivative suits consolidated
Company: Marathon Digital
The claim, verbatim
The court consolidated the Bernard and Strassman stockholder derivative actions brought on behalf of Marathon, finding the actions related and that there was good cause to reassign them to one District Judge.
Source (primary)
Strassman v. <mark>Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc</mark>. — Entry #33: Joint STIPULATION re Discovery Concerning Discovery Plan (First Request) re 32 Order, by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp… (RECAP, court_filing)
View cached copy (2026-11-02)Live source ↗
Quote: “the Court entered an order consolidating the Bernard and Strassman Actions captioned above, both of which are stockholder derivative actions alleged to have been brought on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (“Marathon”), after determining “that these actions are related and that there is good cause to reassign them to one District Judge,””
How we checked this
This claim has not yet been checked assertion-by-assertion against its source. It carries a cited source and quote, but the deeper check has not run. When it does, the result appears here whatever it says.
Additional evidence
confirms Strassman v. <mark>Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc</mark>. — Entry #33: Joint STIPULATION re Discovery Concerning Discovery Plan (First Request) re 32 Order, by Defendants Georges Antoun, Kevin Denuccio, Sarita James, Jay Leupp…
Quote: “the Court entered an order consolidating the Bernard and Strassman Actions captioned above, both of which are stockholder derivative actions alleged to have been brought on behalf of Nominal Defendant Marathon Digital Holdings, Inc. (“Marathon”), after determining “that these actions are related and that there is good cause to reassign them to one District Judge,””