Cryptocurrency mining company Argo continues to undergo a flurry of company changes in light of the large acquisition and the newly filed lawsuit.

Peter Wall, CEO of Argo Blockchain, announced his resignation from his CEO position on February 9.

According to the announcement, Wall will remain an advisor to Argo for the next three months to support the transition from the position. He also commented that he was “delighted” to have led the recent acquisition of Galaxy Digital.

In the same announcement, the company also revealed that Argo board member Sarah Gao has resigned. This development is due to health reasons.

However, just a week before that company changed hands, Argo lost its Chief Financial Officer Alex Appleton in yet another resignation.

CT Markets Pro | Up to 4 Weekly Winning Crypto Alerts | Get full details >>>
That announcement, made on February 1, said Appleton had resigned in order to “pursue other opportunities,” according to a filing on the London Stock Exchange. This coincided with the completion of the sale of the Helios facility to Galaxy Digital Holdings.

Appleton has been with the company in an executive capacity since September 2020.

Related: Bitcoin Mining Revenue Jumps 50% To $23 Million In One Month

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

A few weeks after this announcement, the company revealed that it had sold its top mining facility Helios to global crypto-focused financial services company, 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 Nasdaq’s minimum bid price rule. This entails maintaining a minimum share bid price of $1 for 30 consecutive trading days.

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

The case alleges that the company failed to disclose its sensitivity to capital restrictions, electricity costs and network difficulties.