Rhodium Enterprises’ dispute with Riot Platforms and its subsidiary, Whinstone US, ended through a $185 million settlement and asset sale on April 28, 2025. Both sides agreed to end their related legal disputes and terminate their hosting contracts. That deal resolved the main fight over Rhodium’s operations at the Rockdale facility in Texas. It did not create a consumer compensation fund or promise payments to everyone who had invested in Rhodium.
Confusion comes from the separate cases that surround the company. Whinstone sued Rhodium entities over unpaid fees. Rhodium later pursued its own claims against Whinstone and Riot. Bankruptcy brought those disputes into another court process, and legal fees became the subject of a later fight. Each matter has its own parties, claims, and outcome. Court documents and SEC filings help separate the original contract dispute from the issues that followed.
What Did the Rhodium Enterprises Lawsuit Concern?
Rhodium’s dispute with Whinstone centered on contracts for its Bitcoin mine at Rockdale, Texas. These agreements covered power, water, hosting, and other services needed to operate the site. Whinstone claimed that Rhodium owed unpaid hosting and service fees. Rhodium pursued claims over unpaid energy sale credits and lost profits. Several Rhodium companies held rights under separate agreements, which explains the different company names in the court papers.
Riot became part of the dispute through its ownership of Whinstone and later faced claims alongside its subsidiary. Each company’s role depended on the contracts and claims involved. Neither side’s demand for money proved that the other owed it. Those figures represented amounts sought in the legal proceedings, rather than damages already awarded by a court.
How Did the Whinstone Lawsuit Against Rhodium Start?
Whinstone filed its petition on May 2, 2023, in the 20th District Court of Milam County, Texas. Its amended petition sought more than $26 million, plus legal fees, costs, and interest. Whinstone alleged that Rhodium JV and Air HPC had failed to pay contract fees. It also asked the court to declare that it owed no power credits to Rhodium entities.
Rhodium disputed the claims and requested arbitration. On September 13, 2023, the court sent Whinstone’s claims to arbitration and paused the lawsuit. Rhodium later filed its own demand, which it amended in June 2024 to seek at least $67 million. Whinstone denied those claims and pursued counterclaims. Arbitration changed where the dispute would proceed; it did not establish a winner. Rhodium’s later bankruptcy added further court proceedings before the parties reached a settlement.
| Stage | Verified event |
|---|---|
| May 2, 2023 | Whinstone filed its Milam County lawsuit. |
| September 13, 2023 | Court sent Whinstone’s claims to arbitration. |
| August 2024 | Rhodium entities sought Chapter 11 protection. |
| February 11, 2025 | Rhodium entities filed a separate complaint against Riot and Whinstone. |
| April 28, 2025 | Parties completed their $185 million settlement and asset transaction. |
These events appear in Riot’s SEC disclosures and the settlement documents. They describe stages of the same wider business conflict, rather than five separate damage awards.
Rhodium’s Chapter 11 Case and Hosting Contract Dispute
Rhodium entities filed Chapter 11 cases on August 24 and August 29, 2024. Those cases became part of a jointly administered process in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division. The lead case was In re Rhodium Encore LLC, et al., Case No. 24-90448. Joint administration allowed the court to handle related cases together, although the companies still had separate legal identities.
Rhodium asked the bankruptcy court to let it assume its hosting agreements. In plain English, it sought permission to retain those contracts under the bankruptcy process. Whinstone opposed Rhodium on disputed issues about the agreements. After a contested hearing, the court granted Rhodium’s motion through an interim order in December 2024. Later proceedings and an appeal followed.
That contract decision was important, but it was not a final award of every dollar Rhodium sought. Bankruptcy courts can decide several issues at different stages. Permission to retain a contract, approval of an asset sale, and a decision on damages serve different purposes. The interim order addressed the hosting agreements, not a final damages award.
Rhodium’s $300 Million Claim Against Riot and Whinstone
Rhodium entities filed a separate complaint against Riot and Whinstone on February 11, 2025, with claims for breach of contract and tortious interference. Riot’s SEC disclosure stated that Rhodium sought more than $300 million in damages and permanent injunctive relief. In simple terms, Rhodium alleged broken contract duties and improper interference with business relationships. It also sought a court order to require or stop certain conduct. Riot and Whinstone denied that the claims had merit.
Rhodium’s demand did not represent damages awarded by a court. The later $185 million transaction covered an asset purchase, contract termination, and settlement of the related disputes. These figures served different purposes: one stated the damages sought, and the other reflected a negotiated deal. The $185 million deal was a negotiated transaction, not a court award based on the $300 million demand.
What Did the $185 Million Settlement Include?
Whinstone, Riot, and Rhodium reached an agreement after mediation. Riot’s quarterly filing states that the proposed resolution received court approval on April 8, 2025. The parties completed the transaction on April 28. Their deal combined the settlement of legal claims with Whinstone’s purchase of specific Rhodium assets and the mutual termination of the hosting agreements.
Payment did not consist of $185 million in new cash. Riot disclosed a mix of cash, a returned deposit, and company shares. That distinction helps explain the headline figure. Stock formed part of the agreed value, and a returned security deposit was another component. Neither should be described as an extra cash damages payment on top of the deal.
| Transaction component | Disclosed value |
|---|---|
| Cash | About $129.9 million |
| Return of Rhodium’s power security deposit | About $6.1 million |
| Riot common stock | About $49 million |
| Total consideration | $185 million |
Riot issued 6,989,800 shares as part of the transaction. Its SEC filing also states that Whinstone acquired Rhodium’s 125 megawatts of power capacity at Rockdale, along with specified property. Certain assets, including cash, cryptocurrency, intellectual property, and specified unrelated real property, fell outside the sale. Those exclusions show why the deal should not be described as a purchase of every Rhodium asset everywhere.
Did the Settlement Decide Who Was at Fault?
Settlement resolved the dispute without a trial verdict on fault. Both sides agreed to dismiss related lawsuits and appeals, end the hosting contracts, and transfer specified Rockdale assets and power capacity to Whinstone.
Dismissal with prejudice generally prevents the same claims from returning as a new lawsuit. The releases had limits, including exceptions for settlement duties and later events. These terms did not establish that either side proved every allegation or won every claim. Settlement releases also became a central issue in the separate TruLife Distribution lawsuit, where courts examined whether an earlier agreement affected later claims.
What Happened to Rhodium After the Settlement?
Rhodium’s bankruptcy continued after the Rockdale deal. The court confirmed its second amended joint Chapter 11 liquidation plan on December 19, 2025, and the plan took effect on January 14, 2026. That plan governed how assets and claims would be handled. Individual recoveries depended on claim status and the plan’s terms, rather than the settlement’s headline value.
Court papers from March 2026 named Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. as the “Wind Down Debtor,” responsible for the remaining wind-down work. The April 2025 settlement resolved the Rockdale dispute, but it did not complete every task or settle every issue in the bankruptcy case.
What Is the Lehotsky Keller Cohn Fee Dispute?
Legal fees became a separate source of conflict after the settlement. Court-filed material records an application from Lehotsky Keller Cohn for $11,671,994.33 in fees and expenses through June 30, 2025. Rhodium’s special committee objected to that request, including its view that the success fee request came too soon. Those documents establish a fee dispute, rather than a new claim about unpaid Rockdale hosting bills.
Reuters reported in February 2026 that Lehotsky Keller Cohn sued a special board committee and an investor group. The firm alleged interference with its fee and harm to its reputation. Those statements were allegations by the law firm. They should not be presented as findings that the committee or investors committed misconduct.
A final outcome for that separate lawsuit was not verified in the sources reviewed here. Its existence does not undo the confirmed April 2025 transaction. Instead, it explains why newer reports can discuss a “Rhodium lawsuit” even after the Riot and Whinstone dispute ended.
Can Investors or Customers Claim Part of the Settlement?
Rhodium’s $185 million settlement covered a deal between named businesses. It did not establish a consumer class action payout. Buying cryptocurrency or using a related service does not automatically create a right to compensation. Any recovery for creditors or investors depends on their claim and its treatment under the bankruptcy plan.
Relevant records include:
- The confirmed liquidation plan.
- The claim register and objections to specific claims.
- Notices with applicable deadlines.
- Court orders that determine claim treatment.
Riot’s SEC filing explains the transaction. Rhodium’s case website provides access to bankruptcy documents. Payment rights depend on the company involved, so a claim against one Rhodium entity does not automatically apply to the others.
Rhodium’s Settled Claims and Separate Bankruptcy Issues
Rhodium Enterprises’ main conflict with Riot and Whinstone ended through the $185 million settlement and asset sale completed in April 2025. The transaction resolved covered disputes, ended hosting contracts, and transferred specified Rockdale assets and power capacity. It was a negotiated business resolution, not a $185 million consumer payout or a trial verdict on every allegation.
Rhodium’s liquidation plan and the later legal fee dispute belong to separate parts of the record. Clear reporting must keep those matters apart. The useful questions are which company brought the claim, what it asked the court to decide, and which order or agreement resolved it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Are Rhodium Enterprises and Rhodium Encore the same company?
Rhodium Enterprises, Inc. and Rhodium Encore LLC are separate legal entities within the Rhodium group. Court papers may list both alongside other affiliates. Their jointly administered bankruptcy cases did not merge them into a single company.
What were the energy credits in the Rhodium dispute?
Rhodium claimed that Whinstone owed credits tied to energy sales under their agreements. Whinstone disputed that obligation. These claims concerned commercial contract payments, rather than tax credits available to cryptocurrency investors.
Did Riot buy the whole Rhodium company?
Whinstone, Riot’s subsidiary, bought specified Rhodium assets at the Rockdale facility. The transaction included power capacity and operating property. Certain assets, such as cash, cryptocurrency, and intellectual property, remained outside the sale.
Did Rhodium receive a fixed number of Riot shares?
Rhodium received 6,989,800 Riot common shares as part of the transaction. The deal valued those shares at about $49 million based on the agreed pricing method. That transaction value does not mean the shares would retain the same market value afterward.