Commitments and Contingencies

12 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2023

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies

Commitments and Contingencies

Litigation

Certain conditions may exist as of the date the consolidated financial statements are issued which may result in a loss to the Company, but which will only be resolved when one or more future events occur or fail to occur. The Company assesses such contingent liabilities, and such assessment inherently involves an exercise of judgment. In assessing loss contingencies related to legal proceedings that are pending against the Company, or unasserted claims that may result in such proceedings, the Company evaluates the perceived merits of any legal proceedings or unasserted claims, as well as the perceived merits of the amount of relief sought or expected to be sought therein.

If the assessment of a contingency indicates that it is probable that a material loss has been incurred and the amount of the liability can be estimated, then the estimated liability would be accrued in the Company’s consolidated financial statements. If the assessment indicates that a potentially material loss contingency is not probable, but is reasonably possible, or is probable but cannot be estimated, then the nature of the contingent liability and an estimate of the range of possible losses, if determinable and material, would be disclosed.

Loss contingencies considered remote are generally not disclosed, unless they involve guarantees, in which case the guarantees would be disclosed. There can be no assurance that such matters will not materially and adversely affect the Company’s business, financial position, and results of operations or cash flows. However, the performance of our Company's business, financial position, and results of operations or cash flows may be affected by unfavorable resolution of any particular matter.

On December 6, 2023, Xeriant, Inc. (“Xeriant”) filed a complaint against Legacy XTI, along with two unnamed companies and five unnamed persons, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. On January 31, 2024, Xeriant filed an amended complaint, which added us as a defendant. On February 2, 2024, the Court ordered Xeriant to show cause as to why the amended complaint should not be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On February 29, 2024, Xeriant filed a second amended complaint, which removed us and one of the unnamed companies as defendants. The second amended complaint alleges that Legacy XTI, through multiple breaches and fraudulent actions, has caused substantial harm to Xeriant and has prevented it from obtaining compensation owed to it under various agreements entered into between Xeriant and Legacy XTI, including but not limited to a joint venture agreement, a cross-patent license agreement, an operating agreement, and a letter agreement. In particular, Xeriant contends that Legacy XTI gained substantial advantages from the

intellectual property, expertise, and capital deployed by Xeriant in the design and development of Legacy XTI’s TriFan 600 aircraft yet has excluded Xeriant from the transaction involving the TriFan 600 technology in its merger with us, which has resulted in a breach of the Letter Agreement, in addition to the other aforementioned agreements. Xeriant, in the second amended complaint, asserts the following causes of action: (1) breach of contract; (2) intentional fraud; (3) fraudulent concealment; (4) quantum meruit; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) unfair competition/deceptive business practices; and (7) misappropriation of confidential information, and seeks damages in excess of $500 million, injunctive relief enjoining us from engaging in any further misconduct, the imposition of a royalty obligation, and such other relief as deemed appropriate by the court. On March 13, 2024, Legacy XTI moved for partial dismissal of the second amended complaint, Counts 2 through 7 in particular. Legacy XTI argued that Counts 2 through 7 are (1) impermissible attempts to repackage claims arising from contractual dispute as quasi-contractual or tort claims; and (2) expressly refuted by the clear and unequivocal terms of the aforementioned agreements. The case is in its early stages, no discovery with respect to the Company has occurred, and we are unable to estimate the likelihood or magnitude of a potential adverse judgment. The Court has neither scheduled Legacy XTI’s motion for hearing nor otherwise ruled upon it. Legacy XTI nevertheless denies the allegations of wrongdoing contained in the second amended complaint and is vigorously defending against the lawsuit.