Bitcoin miner Bitfarms issued a statement addressing what it called misleading claims by rival Riot Platforms amid ongoing tensions over the latter’s amended acquisition proposal.
In the Sept. 4 press release, Bitfarms emphasized that Riot’s proposal is not about corporate governance but rather an attempt to acquire it at a discounted price. The firm further stated that the move would primarily benefit Riot shareholders rather than Bitfarms’ own investors.
The statement comes after Riot criticized Bitfarms’ plan to acquire Stronghold Digital in an open letter to shareholders on Sept. 3.
Changes made independently
Bitfarms claimed that Riot has refused to engage in meaningful discussions, including declining to sign a standard non-disclosure agreement or submit a revised proposal. Instead, Riot has taken actions that Bitfarms claims have undermined the interests of its shareholders.
The firm also clarified that the recent leadership changes were made “independently of Riot’s involvement” and implemented to strengthen shareholder value. It further emphasized the qualifications of its leadership team and questioned the potential value that Riot’s board nominees could offer.
Bitfarms also highlighted that its proposed acquisition of Stronghold as part of its ongoing strategy to diversify energy access and expand its presence in the US. The acquisition, which could add up to 307 megawatts (MW) of power capacity, aligns with Bitfarms’ goal of growing its energy portfolio to over 950 MW by the end of 2025, with nearly half of that capacity based in the US.
Bitfarms stated that the Board would review and respond to Riot’s amended requisition proposal in due course but advised shareholders that no immediate action was required. The company reiterated its commitment to enhancing shareholder value in both the short and long term.
Hostile takeover
The dispute between the two firms dates began earlier this year when Riot first made an unsolicited offer to acquire Bitfarms. However, the latter rejected this overture, citing concerns about the terms of the acquisition, which it believed undervalued its business.
Riot, undeterred, continued its pursuit and began pushing for changes in Bitfarms’ corporate governance, suggesting that improvements in leadership and strategic direction were necessary. It also nominated its own slate of candidates for Bitfarms’ board, arguing that fresh perspectives were needed to align the company’s strategy with market demands.
However, Bitfarms has consistently refuted Riot’s claims, asserting that its board and management have been taking independent actions to strengthen the company’s financial position and growth prospects.
This public back-and-forth has escalated, with Riot resorting to what Bitfarms describes as “public attacks” to pressure the firm into accepting a deal.
