Here is my take on this - the second to the last paragraph is key, plus the judges comments.
1) It sounds like JACO wants to file a counterclaim. JACO answered the initial claim in the Discover phase against NXNO and with the last minute turbulence they want to modify their answer to assert counter claim to include additional items ("amend their answer to assert counter claims against the Plaintiff")
2) JACO may have actually held the note (or at least held a note) for assets that were purchased by NXNO. Part of the asset transfer agreement was to pay off the note ("Failure to make payments on note held by Defendants")
3) We don't know what the initial asset purchase agreement was - but it may have included steps to prevent NXNO from selling or using a as colatoral those assets until paid off. (purely speculative from me)What we do know is that JACO is now saying NXNO broke those agreements. ("breach of the underlying purchase agreement")
3) NXNO may have not paid JACO the full amount they agreed on for the initial purchase.
With all that said, - not sure if this actually does anything for NXNO. the NXNO lawyers may come back and say "drop the counter suit and let us (Titan) keep the assets (that we already confiscated/bought) and we will drop our suit against JACO. That way the "pre-nup" aggeement with JACO is voided and both sides win - JACO doesn't pay the lawsuit and TITAN/Cornell (or whatever) gets to bypass whatever was indicated in the initial asset purchase agreement. PURELY speculative and probably full of holes, but this scenario would obviously be bad for shareholders. However, I don't think a judge would let that slide as it just reeks of conspiracy. Or, the counterclaim could potentially result in Titan/Cornell having to pay off the note JACO mentioned, or significantly reduce the award to NXNO or potentially put a hitch in the recent asset acquisition. Not sure how, but there is $$ to be had here, it just depends on where it settles and what will actually end up with NXNO and not with Titan or JACO.
In any case, if JACO amended their reply it was done by 11/28, NXNO would have to reply to that by 12/5 - per the judge. But, if NXNO has no capital (or assets) to pay the lawyers, who knows what will happen. It certainly seemed like NXNO wasn't there to respond. Interesting reading and thanks FJ for the DD.
All this IMO obviously.
