OK, so you agree changes to the budget occurred.
And you know the vote had to be in writing. How do you know? Probably wasn’t. It was just a vote.
There may be minutes of their meeting, which would show if the agreement by all committee member was 100% of all five members. You presume it was not. You also presume that the minutes, if they exist, we’re not provided in discovery by likely either party, as only one version of minutes would exist as distributed for all members to have including each XTI and Xeriant and Eco-Aero. So, likely already provided in discovery.
Have you read the court filing that you claim you know about? We know you haven’t, and therefore you’re just making stuff up to fit your predecided outcome fit your guess.
You say, “Just like any loan if you don't complete payments you lose the asset.”
You understand Xeriant payments were not loans, right?
You just keep making stuff up.
Also, you continue to flat ignore the obvious in your claim about a $1M default that does not exist. Where has XTI claimed default of $1M down payment? Never. Yet you keep insisting so.
XTI has after-the-fact and only in legal proceedings newly claimed default by Xeriant by Xeriant not paying the full $10M.
However, what has XTI provided to substantiate its claim of a Xeriant default?
Has XTI claimed they did not agree to the Eco-Aero budget changes? Or is that only your claim?
You also continue to flat ignore the obvious that XTI Aircraft has so many times claimed it owes Xeriant 3.3 million XTI common stock annually adjusted valuation at initially and subsequently each year at approximately $5.4M.
Why do you keep ignoring the fact that XTI claimed it owed Xeriant $5.4M in XTI stock? Xeriant already earned ownership irrespective of “full payment to be entitled to take ownership.”. XTI has admitted so. XTI admitted its debt obligation to Xeriant. XTI even issued XTI shares to Xeriant.
I cited where often in SEC filings XTI stated the JV Agreement provided for Xeriant to pay “up to” $10M.
Up to $10M is not a guaranteed $10M in payments obligation. Xeriant also stated “up to” $10M. Clearly both XTI and Xeriant were in agreement that Xeriant could be “up to” $10M hence also the Pro Rata provision which assumes and presumes potential or actual payment in full under $10M, hence “pro rata.”
The JVA, 3.1.1, permitted budget changes. So what if? and yes, all Committee members had to agree.
Subsequently paid and XTI accepted payments suggests XTI did agree to budget changes, hence XTI admitting their debt to Xeriant.
Why do you keep denying this very evident fact?
Pro rata is not a type or categorization of shares, as you mistakenly understand.
Pro rata means the equivalent portion, as can be exactly measured. In this case a percentage portion of payment equivalent to percentage of XTI stock.
Has the judge ignored that fact?
Seems XTI to admit its $5.4M debt would have to have agreed that Xeriant payments were real, actual, legit and without default. XTI clearly stated Xeriant’s right and ownership to $5.4M of XTI stock… irrespective of you and XTI after-the-fact claiming Xeriant in default for not paying the full $10M (or $1M down payment) when XTI does admit its $5.4M Xeriant debt obligation, and never previously filed default, and where 3.1.1 of the JVA permits Committee changes to the budget… and where 5,4% portion (pro rata) equivalent of XTI shares are owed to Xeriant for its paid money to XTI, seems to undo XTI and your claim after-the-fact of Xeriant default. XTI newly claims default of non-full $10M payment. You claim default on initial Xeriant payment not exactly $1M. Yes, Duffy lied in his SEC filing about the initial payment, and he took a toxic loan to meet Xeriant’s JV Agreement with XTI, and XTI agreed to pay that Auctus loan if Xeriant got XTI its desired merger and Nasdaq listing. Yet…
XTI kept taking money, never issued default notice, often stated it owed Xeriant $5.4M in stock, and even issued XTI stock to Xeriant… which you claim with crickets explaining…, that these shares were “returned.”
Gonna ever explain that one either?
The shares were returned to where, and from where?
Your claims never hold up, and they never hold water.
.
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
