Player Profile / Cyberlux Corporation

Mark D. Schmidt

CEO · Chairman · Primary Signatory · Transfer Focal Point

Mark D. Schmidt is the chief executive and chairman of Cyberlux Corporation, the Nevada-incorporated OTC-listed company that held the HII Mission Technologies subcontract at the centre of this investigation. His name appears across 166 documents in the record — more than any other individual — spanning the contract award, the advance payment, the use-of-funds record, the stop-work period, the Modification 4 termination settlement, and the interpleader proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia that followed.

Bottom Line

What this profile says up front

01
Schmidt was the primary signatory and executive on a $78.8M Foreign Military Financing subcontract whose $38.7M advance was disbursed at a rate exceeding the total stated production cost of all 2,000 contracted drones within twenty-two days of arrival.
02
The Welter Declaration documents Schmidt-controlled transfers on Day 0, Day 3, and Day 38 — including to a personal investment account, a luxury vehicle dealership, and a UK entity incorporated 21 days before the transfer — none of which carry a public contractual justification.
03
The Modification 4 termination settlement credited Cyberlux for 1,608 drones the government had not formally accepted under DD-250 records; the factual basis Schmidt provided to HII for that credit does not appear in any public filing.
04
The record raises unanswered questions about FAR 52.203-5 certification compliance at award, ITAR Part 130 disclosure obligations to the State Department, and the segregation requirements imposed on advance funds under FAR 32.4.
Role in the Record

The principal actor across every material event

Mark D. Schmidt is the chief executive and chairman of Cyberlux Corporation, the Nevada-incorporated OTC-listed company that held the HII Mission Technologies subcontract at the centre of this investigation. His name appears across 166 documents in the record — more than any other individual — spanning the contract award, the advance payment, the use-of-funds record, the stop-work period, the Modification 4 termination settlement, and the interpleader proceeding in the Eastern District of Virginia that followed.

He is not named as a defendant in the Rosen federal securities enforcement action. He is not, as of the date of this brief, a criminal defendant in any proceeding. The findings below are drawn from court filings, contract documents, OTC disclosure materials, and publicly available records. These are the facts in the record and the questions they raise. The categories are analytical, not findings of liability.

Key Numbers

The numbers that frame the profile

Advance received
$38.7M
Sept 8, 2023 · Day 0
Prior account balance
$2,297
Per court filings
Disbursed by Day 22
$21.8M
vs. $9.4M stated total production cost
Drones govt-accepted
392
DD-250 record · of 2,000 contracted
Signal chat unit cost
$4,700
Schmidt · March 2022
Contract implied unit cost
$39,429
$78.857M ÷ 2,000 · Aug 2023
Analytical Findings

What the record establishes

01 Bedrock

The $4,700 / $39,429 gap

In March 2022, Schmidt stated in a Signal communication that the all-in cost of a K8 drone was $4,700 — covering materials, labour, electronics, and packaging. Seventeen months later, the HII subcontract carried an implied per-unit value of $39,429. The Signal communication is cited in court proceedings. The contract is a matter of public record. No public filing contains an explanation of how a $4,700 production cost supports a $39,429 unit price on a firm fixed-price government subcontract.

Source: Signal chat cited in litigation record · HII subcontract (Aug 2023) · Court filings, E.D. Va. 3:25-cv-00483Source:
02 Bedrock

The advance and its required trust structure

Advance payments are the least preferred form of contract financing under FAR 32.4 because the money leaves the government before any delivery is made. The funds are required to be held in a segregated account, in trust, disbursed only for contract purposes. HII's own draft settlement language described the advance as "Government property held in trust — not Cyberlux property." That paragraph did not survive the final Modification 4 agreement. Cyberlux's counsel struck it before signing.

Source: FAR 32.402(b) · HII draft release language · Modification 4 settlement documentSource:
03 Bedrock

Day 0 through Day 38: the documented transfers

On the same banking day the advance arrived (Day 0), $3,000,000 left Cyberlux's account for the acquisition of Datron World Communications — a competing drone company. By Day 3, $213,000 had been transferred to Fletcher Jones Motorcars, a luxury vehicle dealership. By Day 22, $21,806,076 had been disbursed, against a stated total drone production cost of $9.4 million. On Day 38, the record documents a transfer of $850,000 to an Edward Jones investment account associated with Schmidt personally. The same day, $994,460 moved to G2G Global Ltd — a UK entity incorporated 21 days earlier, with no documented contractual relationship to Cyberlux appearing in any public filing. Holly Schmidt appears in use-of-funds materials as a related-party transfer recipient.

Source: Welter Declaration and full exhibits · AWH v. Cyberlux court filings · G2G Global Ltd UK incorporation records (Sept 25, 2023)Source:
04 Bedrock

The stop-work order and the velocity of disbursement

The Stop Work Order was issued on December 22, 2023 — Day 105 of the subcontract. By Day 114, the confirmed account balance was approximately $3.2 million. Total disbursed in 114 days: $35.5 million. The Welter Declaration aggregates a subset of Schmidt-controlled transfers; it does not account for the full disbursement record. Schmidt's stated position at the time of the Stop Work Order — according to court filings — was that the unearned advance balance was owed back to HII.

Source: Welter Declaration · HII Stop Work Order · AWH v. Cyberlux court recordSource:
05 Bedrock

Modification 4: credit for 1,608 unaccepted drones

Nine months after the Stop Work Order, Modification 4 — the termination settlement — gave Cyberlux credit for 1,608 drones the government had not formally accepted under DD-250 records. Those units have been classified in interpleader filings into four categories: 37 accepted by HII only (not the government); 745 that had not passed factory acceptance testing; 526 described as incomplete or built after the stop-work order; and 300 for which assembly had not started. The DD-250 acceptance record stands at 392 units, valued at $14,954,400. The Modification 4 settlement figure is $25.7 million. Upon information and belief, the unaccepted hardware is in a warehouse at Naval Station Crane. The factual basis Schmidt presented to HII to justify credit for the 1,608 units does not appear in any public filing.

Source: HII Modification 4 · DD-250 acceptance records · Interpleader filings, E.D. Va. 3:25-cv-00483Source:
06 Rock

The communication restriction and the CO's approval

Modification 4 contains a clause — drafted by HII — prohibiting Cyberlux from communicating with the government contracting officer about the performance or termination of the contract. The contracting officer read that clause and approved the settlement. A contractor prohibited from speaking to its own government customer about contract performance is not a standard commercial term. Whether Schmidt consented to that clause and on what basis has not been addressed in any public filing.

Source: HII Modification 4 · Interpleader record · Regulatory Flowdown documentationSource:
07 Rock

The commission architecture and the certification question

FAR 52.203-5 requires a contractor to certify, at the time of award, that no contingent fee arrangement exists with any person retained to solicit or secure the contract. ITAR Part 130 requires disclosure to the State Department of any fees paid in connection with the sale of a defence article where the amount exceeds $500,000. The K8 is a defence article sold under Foreign Military Financing. At the time of the subcontract award, four parties held pre-existing arrangements entitling them to a share of proceeds: ARG Group (20%), Montague Capital Partners (approximately 5%), WeShield/Assure Global, and Fairwinds Technologies (8%). Their combined claims total approximately $22.5 million against a court-held interpleader corpus of $23.7 million. Whether these arrangements were disclosed to HII, to the contracting officer, or to the State Department at the time of the FAR 52.203-5 certification does not appear in any public filing.

Source: FAR 52.203-5 · ITAR Part 130 · Interpleader claims record, E.D. Va. · Fairwinds commission calculation document · Interpleader Doc 0144Source:
08 Rock

The securities layer

Cyberlux Corporation (OTC: CYBL) is named as an issuer in the January 2026 federal securities enforcement action against Brett Rosen and RB Capital Partners. Schmidt is not individually named as a defendant in that action. The company's OTC disclosures during the contract period — including the characterisation of the subcontract in quarterly and annual filings during and after its termination — are part of the public record. As of the FY2025 annual report, Cyberlux reports cash of $326,958, total liabilities of $64.1 million, and a $26.4 million receivable representing the interpleader corpus, against which $35.9 million in competing claims are filed.

Source: SEC v. Rosen et al., S.D. Cal. 3:26-cv-00361 · DOJ indictment (Jan 2026) · Cyberlux FY2025 Annual ReportSource:
Open Questions

What the record does not explain

Q01
What was the contractual basis for the $3 million Datron acquisition executed on the same banking day the advance arrived, using funds required by FAR 32.4 to be segregated and held in trust for contract purposes?
Q02
What was the contractual basis for the $994,460 transfer to G2G Global Ltd — an entity incorporated 21 days before the transfer, with no documented relationship to Cyberlux appearing in any public filing?
Q03
What was the contractual basis for the $850,000 transfer to an Edward Jones investment account associated with Schmidt personally on Day 38?
Q04
Were the advance funds held in a segregated account as required under FAR 32.4? If so, which account, and what was the balance at each confirmed disbursement date?
Q05
What factual justification did Schmidt present to HII to support Modification 4 credit for 1,608 drones the government had not formally accepted — including 300 for which assembly had not started?
Q06
Did Schmidt consent to the Modification 4 clause prohibiting Cyberlux from communicating with the contracting officer, and if so, on what basis?
Q07
Were the contingent fee arrangements with ARG Group, Montague Capital Partners, WeShield, and Fairwinds Technologies disclosed to HII and to the contracting officer at the time of the FAR 52.203-5 certification?
Q08
Were those same arrangements reported to the State Department under ITAR Part 130, given that the K8 is a defence article sold under Foreign Military Financing and each arrangement individually and collectively exceeds the $500,000 disclosure threshold?
Q09
What does the full disbursement record for the advance account show for transactions not captured in the Welter Declaration?