Argo CEO follows resignation trend after company acquisition by Galaxy Digital

Bitcoin News

The cryptocurrency miner Argo continues to undergo a series of company changes in light of its major acquisition and newly filed lawsuit. 

Peter Wall, the CEO of Argo Blockchain, announced his resignation from his executive position on Feb. 9. 

According to the announcement, Wall will remain an adviser to Argo throughout the next three months to support the transition out of the position. He also commented that he was “pleased” to have spearheaded the recent Galaxy Digital acquisition deal.

In the same announcement, the company also revealed the resignation of Argo board member Sarah Gow. This development is due to health reasons.

However, just one week before these company changes, Argo lost its chief financial officer Alex Appleton in yet another resignation.

That announcement, on Feb. 1, said Appleton resigned to “pursue other opportunities,” according to a filing with the London Stock Exchange. This coincided with the finalization of the sale of the Helios facility to Galaxy Digital Holdings.

Appleton had been with the company in his executive role since September 2020.

Related: Bitcoin mining revenue jumps up 50% to $23M in one month

This is the latest development in a series of changes for Argo, which began in late December 2022 when it reported insufficient funds and little assurance of avoiding filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy.

A few weeks after this announcement, the company revealed that it sold its top Helios mining facility to the global crypto-focused financial services firm Galaxy Digital for $65 million. This helped Argo reduce its total debt by $41 million.

The acquisition was a factor that helped Argo regain compliance with the Nasdaq minimum bid price rule. This entails maintaining the stock’s minimum bid price of $1 for 30 straight trading days.

However, a lawsuit filed on Jan. 26 targeted Argo and several of its executives and board members for failing to disclose key information to investors.

The case claims the company failed to disclose its susceptibility toward capital constraints, electricity costs and network difficulties.