Company: XTIA
Filing Date: 2025-11-19
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001213900-25-112615
Chunk: 333

Company: XTI Aerospace, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-11-19
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 2
Chunk 333
---
 Senior Secured Promissory Note (the “Note”) issued by Xeriant to Auctus in the original principal amount
of $6,050,000, pursuant to a letter agreement dated May 17, 2022, between Xeriant and Legacy XTI (the “May 17 letter”). Auctus
claimed that the outstanding amount due under the Note, including accrued interest, was $8,435,008.81 as of April 3, 2024. In July 2024,
Legacy XTI responded to Auctus’s claims, asserting that the May 17 letter is invalid and unenforceable on multiple grounds. Legacy
XTI further stated that, even if the May 17 letter were enforceable, it did not create or trigger any obligation for Legacy XTI to assume
Xeriant’s debt under the Note or otherwise. On May 13, 2025, Auctus filed a lawsuit against Legacy XTI in the District Court of
Arapahoe County, Colorado, asserting a single claim for breach of contract based on its prior allegations. Auctus contends that Legacy
XTI is contractually obligated to repay nearly $9 million in principal and accrued interest, based on Legacy XTI’s entry into a
loan agreement with Legacy Inpixon in March 2023 and its subsequent merger with Legacy Inpixon in March 2024. On June 25, 2025, Legacy
XTI filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the Xeriant litigation. Legacy XTI’s
motion asserts that Auctus’ complaint should be dismissed: (i) for lack of standing, because Auctus is neither a party to, nor a
third-party beneficiary of, the May 17 letter; (ii) for failure of a condition precedent, because no obligation ever arose in that the
alleged triggering condition—a business combination involving Legacy XTI and Legacy Inpixon did not occur within the required one-year
time frame; (iii) for lack of valid assignment, because Xeriant’s unilateral assignment of debt to Legacy XTI is void because the
underlying Note prohibits assignment without Auctus’s prior written consent, which is not alleged. On August 5, 2025, Auctus filed
a response arguing that it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the May 17 letter, that the anti-assignment clause does not bar