Company: XERI
Filing Date: 2025-11-19
Form Type: 10-Q
Source: 0001477932-25-008494
Chunk: 76

Company: XERIANT, INC.
Filing Date: 2025-11-19
Form: 10-Q
Item: Part I, Item 1
Chunk 76
---
, attorneys’ fees, punitive damages and a compensatory damage award exceeding $500 million. The legal action aims to address the alleged misconduct comprehensively and to protect the Company’s interests in the face of XTI’s actions. The foregoing description of the legal action does not purport to be complete and is subject in its entirety by the full text of the complaint, a copy of which was filed in an 8-K on December 12, 2023, Exhibit 99.1.  On February 29, 2024, the Company filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging seven counts including intentional fraud, fraudulent concealment, breach of contract, unjust enrichment, unfair competition, quantum meruit, and misappropriation of confidential information. XTI filed a Motion to Dismiss on March 13, 2024, seeking to dismiss all the Company’s claims except for breach of contract. The Company filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to XTI’s Motion to Dismiss on April 10, 2024, and on January 14, 2025, the Court agreed with the Company’s position that its claims were validly alleged and denied all of XTI’s arguments in their entirety.  On February 18, 2025, XTI filed its answer to the Company’s Second Amended Complaint adding two counter claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.  The Company responded on March 18, 2025, moving to dismiss both counterclaims and on April 1, 2025, XTI filed a Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims to the Second Amended Complaint.  On April 28, 2025, the Company filed a Motion to Dismiss XTI’s Second Amended Answer and Counterclaims.  On May 12, 2025, XTI filed a Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Xeriant’s Motion to Dismiss XTI’s Second Amended Counterclaim.  On May 20, 2025, Xeriant filed a Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss XTI’s Second Amended Answer with Counterclaims.  On September 23, 2025, Xeriant’s Motion to dismiss XTI’s Second Amended Answer with Counterclaim was denied by the Court. The parties are presently involved in the discovery process. The foregoing descriptions of the legal actions do not purport to be complete and are subject in their entirety by the full text of the court filings.

On July