In these circumstances, there is a big difference between repudiation and non-performance in the interim.
Repudiation by the four investors would allow Xstate to immediately offer the same share allotments to new investors at the best price attainable within a reasonable time frame, and any shortfall in terms of the capital raised could be recovered from the four original investors in the form of damages.
Non-performance, on the other hand, does not automatically give rise to that right, esp. if the non-performance relates to some frustrating event (eg. Bank Indonesia policy compliance).
At this stage, Xstate has lost the oil field deal and the deposit, so is pursuing the four investors for damages in relation to these things.
But as stated above, other damages may be quantified only if/when the same shares are allotted to new investors at a reduced premium, creating a shortfall in capital raised.
So then, why hasn't Xstate offered the same shares to new investors? A: Because the four investors have not repudiated the agreements.
Why haven't the four investors repudiated their respective agreements? A: Because they intend to honor them and, in any event, the (irreversible?) MT103 for $25m presumably has been frozen by Bank Indonesia. (nb. One HC member said Cosimo responded to his email indicating that one of the key documents in question was a MT103.)
Why hasn't Xstate terminated the agreements? A: Because there's a good chance the funds will still come through. -Otherwise Xstate would line up new investors, surely?
Mull it over.
Personal opinion, pure speculation, DYOR, seek professional advice, I'm not an expert etc
(20min delay)