A Delaware court has issued a temporary stay for a Bitcoin mining company from Pennsylvania involved in a payment conflict with its hosting provider. This ruling prevents the hosting company from denying access and taking control of the miner’s 21,000 rigs located on-site.
On March 12, Vice Chancellor Morgan Zurn approved a temporary restraining order at the request of the Bitcoin miner and its systems owner against the hosting service, which specializes in providing colocation services for cryptocurrency miners.
The two parties have been at odds over claims of unpaid fees, the stipulations of their contract, and the miner’s intention to relocate, which has allegedly resulted in the hosting company preventing the miner’s staff from accessing the facility.
The miner has accused the hosting provider of using the rigs for its own benefit since February 28 while blocking access to the site. Conversely, the hosting company asserts that it is entitled to utilize the rigs based on the terms of the agreement with the miner and maintains first refusal rights regarding the relocation plans.
The Bitcoin miner is seeking injunctive relief to reclaim control of its equipment and stop the hosting provider from using the rigs. As part of the order issued on March 12, the hosting company is prohibited from using the hashrate generated by the miners and is no longer allowed to restrict the miner’s digital or physical access to the rigs at the Pennsylvania facility.
This temporary restraining order will remain in effect until a preliminary hearing can be conducted.
Neither company responded promptly to requests for comments on the situation.
### The Origin of the Dispute
In a legal complaint filed on March 6, attorneys representing the mining firm accused the hosting service of mining Bitcoin with their equipment—valued at approximately $30 million—since February 28, generating daily profits estimated between $100,000 and $200,000, all while preventing access both physically and via VPN.
The mining firm and Stone Ridge Ventures entered a colocation agreement with the hosting service in December 2023, which included a plan to wind down their partnership by the end of March 2025, with a gradual decrease in capacity leading up to that date, and a removal process set to start on March 3.
The hosting company claims it is owed fees and prepayments for electricity used in February and March, and argues that the colocation agreement allows it to redirect the hashrate of the miner’s equipment to cover these costs.
Legal representatives for the miner contended in their suit that the agreement was effective only until April 1, 2024, under limited circumstances related to the replenishment of a deposit.
They argued that when the hosting company began redirecting the hashrate on February 28, the deposit was fully paid. Furthermore, they claimed that the hosting provider has unlawfully utilized hashrate worth significantly more than the $17,505.45 that the hosting company alleges is owed in late fees.