XTI Aerospace, Inc.

Current report

In connection with the litigation matter described in the immediately preceding paragraph, on June 12, 2024, the Company received correspondence from legal counsel for Auctus Fund, LLC (“Auctus”), dated April 3, 2024, asserting that the Company and/or Legacy XTI may have assumed Xeriant’s obligations under a Senior Secured Promissory Note (the “Note”) issued by Xeriant to Auctus in the original principal amount of $6,050,000, pursuant to a letter agreement dated May 17, 2022, between Xeriant and Legacy XTI (the “May 17 letter”). Auctus claimed that the outstanding amount due under the Note, including accrued interest, was $8,435,008.81 as of April 3, 2024. In July 2024, Legacy XTI responded to Auctus’s claims, asserting that the May 17 letter is invalid and unenforceable on multiple grounds. Legacy XTI further stated that, even if the May 17 letter were enforceable, it did not create or trigger any obligation for Legacy XTI to assume Xeriant’s debt under the Note or otherwise. On May 13, 2025, Auctus filed a lawsuit against Legacy XTI in the District Court of Arapahoe County, Colorado, asserting a single claim for breach of contract based on its prior allegations. Auctus contends that Legacy XTI is contractually obligated to repay nearly $9 million in principal and accrued interest, based on Legacy XTI’s entry into a loan agreement with Legacy Inpixon in March 2023 and its subsequent merger with Legacy Inpixon in March 2024. On June 25, 2025, Legacy XTI filed a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to stay the proceedings pending resolution of the Xeriant litigation. Legacy XTI’s motion asserts that Auctus’ complaint should be dismissed: (i) for lack of standing, because Auctus is neither a party to, nor a third-party beneficiary of, the May 17 letter; (ii) for failure of a condition precedent, because no obligation ever arose in that the alleged triggering condition—a business combination involving Legacy XTI and Legacy Inpixon did not occur within the required one-year time frame; (iii) for lack of valid assignment, because Xeriant’s unilateral assignment of debt to Legacy XTI is void because the underlying Note prohibits assignment without Auctus’s prior written consent, which is not alleged. On August 5, 2025, Auctus filed a response arguing that it was an intended third-party beneficiary of the May 17 letter, that the anti-assignment clause does not bar its claims, and that the request for a stay is unwarranted because the Xeriant litigation involves different parties and broader claims. XTI believes it has strong counterarguments and will file a reply in further support of its motion to dismiss or stay. The litigation remains in the early stages of discovery. The Company believes that the claims asserted by Auctus are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against the lawsuit. As of the date of this filing, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this matter or determine the likelihood or magnitude of a potential loss, i…

Excerpt shortened here; the source contains the full paragraph.

Current report

On May 13, 2025, the Company entered into an advisory agreement with a third party advisor, pursuant to which the Company issued 125,000 shares of restricted common stock to the advisor’s designees (the “Advisor Shares”) in consideration for financial advisory services agreed to be rendered to the Company pursuant to the agreement. The Advisor Shares were issued pursuant to an exemption from registration provided by Section 4(a)(2) and/or Rule 506 of Regulation D of the Securities Act because such issuances did not involve a public offering, the recipients took the securities for investment and not resale, the Company took appropriate measures to restrict transfer, and the recipients are sophisticated investors.

Previous report

In connection with the litigation matter described in the immediately preceding paragraph, on June 12, 2024, we received a letter from counsel for Auctus Fund, LLC (“Auctus”), dated April 3, 2024, claiming that, pursuant to the above-referenced May 17 letter by and between Xeriant and Legacy XTI, as a result of the XTI Merger and Legacy XTI’s entry into a promissory note agreement with Legacy Inpixon in March 2023, XTI Aerospace and Legacy XTI may have assumed Xeriant’s obligations under that certain Senior Secured Promissory Note in the principal amount of $6,050,000 issued by Xeriant to Auctus, including the obligation to repay Auctus all principal and accrued and unpaid interest thereunder, which Auctus claims was $8,435,008.81 as of April 3, 2024. In July 2024, Legacy XTI responded to such letter and indicated that it believes that the May 17 letter is invalid and unenforceable on several bases. It further explained that even if it were valid and enforceable, Legacy XTI does not believe such letter resulted in, or otherwise triggered, the assumption of obligations of Xeriant under the Senior Secured Promissory Note or any other obligation on the part of Legacy XTI. There have been no further developments on this matter. We are unable to make a reasonable estimate of a potential loss, if any, on this matter. To the extent suits or actions are commenced with respect to this matter, we intend to vigorously defend against any and all claims.

Previous report

On or about August 1, 2024, Chardan Capital Markets LLC (“Chardan”) commenced an arbitration (the “Arbitration”) before FINRA against the Company and its subsidiary, XTI Aircraft Company (“Aircraft”). Aircraft and Chardan are parties to an engagement letter agreement (the “Agreement”). In the Arbitration, Chardan originally alleged that the Company was bound by the Agreement even though it did not sign the Agreement, which the Company denied. Chardan further alleged that Aircraft and the Company breached the Agreement by not making separate payments to Chardan of $200,000, $94,511, $484,044.40 and $174,000. Chardan also sought to recover unspecified amounts relating to an alleged right of first refusal to perform banking services (the “ROFR”) that the Company supposedly did not honor, including with respect to an At-The-Market securities offering that was underwritten by The Maxim Group LLC (the “ATM”). The Company filed a petition in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the “Court”) seeking to stay the Arbitration to the extent that it was asserted against the Company. On or about January 21, 2025, the Court entered a final judgment that: (a) enjoins Chardan from prosecuting the Arbitration against the Company; and (b) declares that the Company has no contractual or other duty to arbitrate with Chardan.

Previous report

On April 30, 2025, Chardan amended its Statement of Claim in the Arbitration. The Amended Statement of Claim (“ASOC”) is asserted solely against Aircraft. Thus, the Company no longer is a respondent in the Arbitration. Through the ASOC, Chardan now asserts claims against Aircraft for breach of contract and unjust enrichment. It seeks to recover: (a) a $200,000 cash payment that Aircraft supposedly was required to, but did not, make; (b) approximately $134,000 in damages, for supposedly issuing 189,037 shares of the Company’s common stock to Chardan on March 19, 2024 instead of 208,113 shares; and (c) all payments supposedly due to Chardan under the ROFR, which Chardan states continue to accumulate. According to Chardan, amounts due under the ROFR include 30% of any banking fees paid with respect to at least the following acts of the Company: (i) the entry into an Exchange Agreement, pursuant to which Streeterville exchanged the remaining balance of principal and accrued interest under a December 2023 Note in the aggregate amount $9,801,521 for 9,801.521 shares of the Company’s Series 9 Preferred Stock; (ii) the entry into an Equity Distribution Agreement with Maxim that increased the value of stock that could be sold under the Company’s ATM from $48,000,000 to $83,800,000; (iii) the January 10, 2025 capital raise that used the services of ThinkEquity LLC; and (d) the February 13, 2025 entry into an Exchange Agreement with Streeterville, wherein an outstanding secured promissory note issued on May 1, 2024 (the “May 2024 Note”) in the principal amount of $250,000.00 held by Streeterville was partitioned into a new secured promissory note (the “February 2025 Note”) in the same form and amount as the May 2024 Note, with the Company and Streeterville subsequently agreeing to exchange the February 2025 Note for 59,832 shares of Company common stock with an effective price of $4.21 per share. Aircraft has not yet responded to the ASOC. The Company has indicated that Aircraft intends to defend against the ASOC vigorously.

Previous report

There were no sales of unregistered securities by the Company during the quarter ended March 31, 2025 that were not previously reported in current reports on Form 8-K filed with the SEC.