Company: XTIA
Filing Date: 2025-06-12
Form Type: S-1
Source: 0001213900-25-053928
Chunk: 24

Company: XTI Aerospace, Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-06-12
Form: S-1
Chunk 24
---
ory Note due in October 2022, and that Xeriant used the
proceeds to fund a joint venture with Legacy XTI to develop aircraft technology. Auctus further claims that the May 17 letter obligated
Legacy XTI to assume this debt if it entered into a transaction with Legacy Inpixon, and asserts that Legacy XTI did so by obtaining a
loan from Legacy Inpixon in March 2023 and subsequently merging with Legacy Inpixon in March 2024. Based on these allegations, Auctus
asserts a single count for breach of contract and contends that Legacy XTI is contractually obligated to pay nearly $9 million representing
the outstanding principal and accrued interest on the Senior Secured Promissory Note. Legacy XTI denies Auctus’s claims, and, among
other defenses, Legacy XTI disputes the enforceability of the May 17 letter and maintains that even if the May 17 letter were enforceable,
it did not result in or trigger any assumption by Legacy XTI of Xeriant’s obligations under the Senior Secured Promissory Note or
any related obligation. Legacy XTI also disputes that Xeriant had the contractual right to assign its obligations under the Senior Secured
Promissory Note to Legacy XTI or that any assignment complied with the terms of the Senior Secured Promissory Note and underlying agreements,
among other issues. Legacy XTI intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit.

On or about August 1, 2024,
Chardan Capital Markets LLC (“Chardan”) commenced an arbitration (the “Arbitration”) before FINRA against the
Company and its subsidiary, XTI Aircraft Company (“Aircraft”). Aircraft and Chardan are parties to an engagement letter agreement
(the “Agreement”). In the Arbitration, Chardan originally alleged that the Company was bound by the Agreement even though
it did not sign the Agreement, which the Company denied. Chardan further alleged that Aircraft and the Company breached the Agreement
by not making separate payments to Chardan of $200,000, $94,511, $484,044.40 and $174,000. Chardan also sought to recover unspecified
amounts relating to an alleged right of first refusal to perform banking services (the “ROFR”) that the Company supposedly
did not honor, including with respect to an At-The-Market securities offering that was underwritten by The Maxim Group LLC (the “ATM”