WRONG AGAIN! It actually says that XERI must be approved for uplisting for the merger to happen — but NOT that XERI must uplist prior to the merger. The ability to uplist was predicated on the merger and the uplist essentially happening simultaneously. The merged entity (still called XERIANT) would have been uplisted, NOT the pre-merger XERI. As for the other terms you claim XERI failed to meet, that was because they were never given the opportunity to do so, or may not have been necessary (such as a reverse) -- since XTI backed out of the deal. Not once, but TWICE -- as shown in the lawsuit!
Once again, you seem to think that XERI would make an argument in XTI's defense in a lawsuit that XERI is bringing against them. Only someone with no understanding of the law (or of plain English, for that matter) would make that assumption!
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
