Jackson Holt · 19 May 2026 · thecyberluxfiles.com
Interpleader · EDVA 3:25-cv-00483
This afternoon, Cyberlux’s lawyers filed a motion using Judge Gibney’s own findings to attempt to eliminate Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community from any distribution of the $23.7 million sitting in the federal court registry. The legal argument rests entirely on findings Gibney already made on May 11. Whether it succeeds is for the court to determine.
Berleth’s authority as receiver — as it pertained to the interpleader funds — ceased in June 2025 when the Atlantic Wave judgment was satisfied. Gibney found that the Texas receivership order strictly limited Berleth’s authority to collecting on that specific judgment, and that once the judgment was paid, his basis for acting in connection with those funds was extinguished. The Texas courts have not, to this day, formally terminated his receivership. But in Gibney’s determination, which governs the federal proceeding before him, Berleth had no authority to act on Cyberlux’s behalf after June 2025. Any agreement he entered in that period, the motion argues, is void from the beginning.
What Cyberlux’s lawyers may not have fully considered — or chose not to consider — is where that same argument lands when applied to the largest private claimant in the same proceeding.
One Person, One Claim, One Problem
ARG Group filed a claim in excess of $14.1 million — the largest single private claimant in this interpleader. The claim is based on a profit-sharing arrangement asserting a right to approximately 20% of the proceeds Cyberlux receives from the government contract funds. The principal of ARG Group is Anthony Gonzalez.
ARG Group’s standing to participate in this proceeding rests entirely on Amendment No. 1 to the Distributor Partner Agreement between Cyberlux Corporation and The ARG Group, LLC. The original agreement is dated February 28, 2022. The amendment does one thing: it replaces Section 17 — the governing law and venue clause — changing it to North Carolina and federal courts. That venue change is the procedural foundation on which ARG’s $14.1 million claim stands. Without it, ARG’s contract would have been governed by its original venue clause and the claim would have no basis in this proceeding.
The amendment appears in the public record as ECF Document 167-1, pages 33 through 34 of 178, filed by ARG Group as part of their summary judgment submission.
The signatures:
Cyberlux Corporation By: Robert Berleth on behalf of Cyberlux Corporation Date: 2/20/2026
The ARG Group, LLC By: Anthony Gonzalez Date: 25 Feb 2026
Berleth signed on behalf of Cyberlux on February 20, 2026. Gonzalez signed for ARG Group on February 25, 2026. Both dates are seven months after Gibney determined Berleth’s authority to act on Cyberlux’s behalf in connection with the interpleader funds had ceased.
Under the principle Cyberlux’s own lawyers articulated this afternoon — that any agreement Berleth signed on Cyberlux’s behalf after June 2025 is void because his authority had already ceased — this amendment is void. Without it, ARG Group’s basis for claiming in this proceeding disappears. The $14.1 million claim has no foundation.
What Atlantic Wave Was Actually Owed
Atlantic Wave’s dispute with Cyberlux did not begin with Berleth. It began in July 2023 with a settlement agreement that carried two distinct obligations — and Cyberlux failed to honour both.
The first was financial. The settlement included an acceleration clause: when Cyberlux made drone sales, the full outstanding balance became immediately due. Cyberlux received $38.7 million in advance government funds. The clause was triggered. Cyberlux did not pay. That failure produced litigation in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, ultimately yielding the $1.572 million judgment Atlantic Wave pursued through Texas and Fairfax County.
The second obligation was the stock. The settlement required Cyberlux to make 200 million CYBL shares tradable by a specified date. Atlantic Wave held those shares. CYBL carried a caveat emptor designation on OTC Markets that effectively rendered the stock untradeable. Cyberlux eventually removed the designation. They then declined to take the additional steps required to make the shares liquid. The 200 million shares remained without practical value. That failure produced separate Richmond litigation — not about the cash, but about the destroyed share value. It is this second breach that underlies the larger dollar figures in Atlantic Wave’s consolidated claim.
Berleth was a tool Atlantic Wave used to pursue obligations Cyberlux had already acknowledged and broken. The procedural question of whether he had authority to sign the February 2026 consent order is real and legally significant. What it does not extinguish is a breach of settlement on two separate dimensions that dates to 2023.
The Question the Filing Raises
A party acting in good faith applies its legal arguments consistently.
Cyberlux argued in their own filings that ARG Group has no valid contract at all. Cyberlux argued this afternoon that any agreement Berleth signed after June 2025 is void. Applied together, those arguments eliminate ARG’s $14.1 million claim before Atlantic Wave’s $6 million claim — because ARG’s standing rests entirely on a Berleth-signed document, while Atlantic Wave’s underlying grievance predates Berleth by years.
Cyberlux’s lawyers filed the motion against Atlantic Wave. They did not file it against ARG.
The asymmetry is difficult to ignore. Atlantic Wave has been the most persistent creditor Cyberlux has faced — years of litigation across Virginia, Texas, and California, pursuing two distinct breached obligations through every available venue. ARG Group entered this proceeding quietly, through an amendment, through a signature from someone Gibney determined had no authority to provide it.
The choice to apply Berleth’s void authority against the smaller claim while leaving the larger one untouched is not a legal compulsion. It is a decision. And decisions in litigation, particularly selective ones, tend to reflect the interests of the party making them.
A note on perspective: How this matter ultimately resolves rests entirely with Judge Gibney and the judicial process — as it should. What I have written here represents my observations as someone who has followed this proceeding closely, not a finding of guilt, innocence, or any other legal conclusion. I am not a lawyer and this is not legal analysis. What I can say is this: selectively applying a legal argument against a smaller claim while leaving a larger claim — one that Cyberlux themselves argue is without merit — untouched is, in my view, a strategically weak position. And strategic weakness in litigation rarely occurs without reason. It suggests, to this observer at least, that there may be an agenda at work beyond the simple pursuit of maximum recovery.
Note on sourcing: This analysis is based on publicly filed court documents in HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., EDVA 3:25-cv-00483, including ECF 211 (May 11, 2026 Memorandum Order terminating Berleth), ECF 212 and ECF 213 (Cyberlux’s Notice of Changed Circumstances, filed May 19, 2026), and ECF 167-1 pages 33–34 (Amendment No. 1 to Distributor Partner Agreement, filed April 15, 2026). All factual assertions are drawn from or directly inferred from the public docket. This article does not assert or imply any criminal conduct by any party.