Replies to post #38652 on Xeriant Inc (XERI)

[StockItOut]

You did say that. You’re just wrong. The contract, the JVA, section 9.2.2, says something different.

It’s been explained yet you’re too hardened and obstinate (or stupid) to go with what the contract actually does mean.

You’re saying without any Liquidity Event, Acceleration Event or Completion Event Xeriant funded more money without Committee agreement. Of course you just made that up, and crazy man believe it . 9.2,2 addresses potential funding action if there was a Liquidity Event, Acceleration Event or Completion Event where Xeriant could then act at its sole discretion.

Nowhere has the court stated what you claim. The court is not stupid like you.

No where has XTI in court made this claim either.

Only you have.

.

[quester614]

Maybe we'll start with the courts saying that XTI did notify XERI that they had IN FACT received a notice of DEFAULT with an opportunity to cure the default. What BS does SIO have NOW after 4 years of saying that didn't happen. He should just STFU and leave like SP2 since he lost 2 bets. That's where your SOLE DISCRETION should comes into play. LOL
Looks like XTI gets to keep their TF600 IP "due to Xeriant’s breach and by the Agreement’s own terms; all technology and intellectual property developed through the joint venture has reverted exclusively to XTI;"
III.Discussion A.Breach of Contract
The SAAC additionally alleges that XTI performed its obligations under the Agreement and provided Xeriant with notice of its default and an opportunity to cure the default. (Id. ¶¶ 225, 227.) (pg5)


C.Declaratory Judgment Count III of the SAAC seeks declaratory judgment from this Court declaring that: the May 17 Letter has expired by its terms and is invalid and unenforceable; the Agreement has been terminated due to Xeriant’s breach and by the Agreement’s own terms; all technology and intellectual property developed through the joint venture has reverted exclusively to XTI; and Xeriant has no further rights or interests in the VTOL Technology or any joint venture assets. (SAAC ¶ 240.)
https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2023cv10656/611598/98/