Evidence Record

Order Appointing Receiver

1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver.

Type: document
Pages: 10
Lines: 367
SHA-256: 390d6d30c7e5

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run

Profile

Standard

Version

Doc Type

Emergency Motion to Stay Receivership

Total Nodes

Node Legend

Entity (ENT)

Event (EVT)

Claim (CLM)

Anchor (ANC)

Omission (OMI)

Tension (TEN)

Tell (TEL)

Inference (INF)

Hypothesis (HYP)

Stage 1

Index

Orientation · No nodes

Document Classification

Emergency Motion to Stay Receivership Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Defense Counsel) Post-Judgment Enforcement Dispute, Texas State Court 2025-05-22 to 2025-06-06

emergency_motionreceivership_disputetender_claimscope_of_authority_challengegovernment_contract_involvement

Analytical Frame

Creditor-Debtor Conflict, Receiver Authority Challenge

Analytical Summary

Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt filed an emergency motion on June 6, 2025 to stay enforcement of a May 22, 2025 receiver appointment order in Harris County, Texas. The motion asserts that Legalist SPV III, LP tendered $2,755,100.10 on June 5, 2025—exceeding the $2.11 million judgment—making the turnover order moot under Texas law. Defendants allege the Receiver is exceeding statutory authority by attempting to seize a $25 million government subcontract receivable from HII Mission Technologies and soliciting offers to sell Cyberlux's subsidiary, Datron World Communications. The motion invokes Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3), arguing a turnover receiver's authority is strictly limited to satisfying the specific judgment and terminates upon tender of sufficient funds.

Key Points

Legalist SPV III, LP tendered $2,755,100.10 to Receiver on June 5, 2025 via teleconference to satisfy judgment
Tender amount includes $2,111,086.01 judgment principal, $75,652.07 interest, $546,684.52 statutory fees, and $21,677.50 Atlantic Wave attorneys' fees
Receiver refused wire instructions and is demanding $25M government subcontract receivable from HII Mission Technologies
Receiver soliciting offers to sell Cyberlux subsidiary Datron World Communications despite exceeding turnover order scope
Motion argues Texas law makes turnover order immediately moot upon judgment satisfaction
Cyberlux shipped drones to U.S. Government week of May 26, 2025, creating $25M accounts receivable

Stage 2

Core — Entities, Events, Claims

19 nodes

ENT-001

Entity

Cyberlux Corporation

Judgment debtor corporation operating drone and communications business with active U.S. Government subcontract and wholly-owned subsidiary Datron World Communications.

Page 1, 3, 4, 5 — Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt ("Cyberlux"), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court's May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver

ENT-002

Entity

Mark D. Schmidt

Individual co-defendant and judgment debtor alongside Cyberlux Corporation.

Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors.

ENT-003

Entity

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff and judgment creditor seeking enforcement of $2.11 million judgment.

Page 1, 2 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor

ENT-004

Entity

Legalist SPV III, LP

Third-party creditor with existing credit agreement with Cyberlux, exercising attorney-in-fact rights to tender protective advance satisfying judgment.

Page 1, 2, 5 — On June 5,) 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist"), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist

ENT-005

Entity

Court-Appointed Receiver

Receiver appointed via May 22, 2025 Turnover Order under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3) to collect judgment amount.

Page 1, 2, 4, 5 — The Court appointed the Receiver pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3). The Receiver was not appointed under the General Receivership Statute, as a bankruptcy trustee, or to act as a rehabilitative receiver.

ENT-006

Entity

HII Mission Technologies Corp.

U.S. Government contractor holding approximately $25 million accounts receivable owed to Cyberlux for drone shipment under subcontract.

Page 3 — Cyberlux previously represented to the Court various details surrounding its U.S. Government subcontract with HII Mission Technologies Corp. ("HII"). Consistent with Cyberlux's representations to the Court, the drones and drone equipment in Cyberlux's leased facility in Spring, Texas were inspected by the United States Government and shipped to the Government's preferred destination. This means that Cyberlux will be awaiting payment on a $25 million account receivable

ENT-007

Entity

Datron World Communications

Wholly-owned subsidiary of Cyberlux Corporation operating as active business with multiple contracts.

Page 5 — Upon information and belief, the Receiver solicited-and even after Legalist's tender, continues to solicit-offers and is engaging in negotiations with third parties in an attempt to sell Cyberlux's wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications ("Datron"). Datron is an operating business with several active contracts.

ENT-008

Entity

129th Judicial District Court, Harris County

Texas state court presiding over judgment enforcement and receivership in Cause No. 2024-48085.

Page 1 — IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

ENT-009

Entity

Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP

Law firm representing Legalist, holding tendered funds in IOLTA trust account.

Page 5 — The funds tendered to the Receiver are being held in the IOLTA trust account of Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP, counsel for Legalist.

EVT-001

Event

June 5, 2025 Teleconference and Tender

Legalist counsel, judgment debtor counsel, and Receiver held teleconference during which Legalist tendered $2,755,100.10 to satisfy judgment via protective advance under credit agreement.

Page 1, 2 — On June 5,) 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist"), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the subject of the Turnover Order, and the Receiver's appointment. During that call, Legalist indicated that its protective advance would be an amount sufficient to satisfy the outstanding judgment, and would be a total of no less than $2,755,100.10.

EVT-002

Event

May 22, 2025 Receiver Appointment

Court issued Order Appointing Receiver under Texas turnover statute to recover $2.11 million judgment.

Page 1, 4 — their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court's May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the "Turnover Order") based upon the tender of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed.

EVT-003

Event

Receiver Refusal to Provide Wire Instructions

After tender offer during June 5 call, Receiver indicated he would provide wire instructions but failed to do so.

Page 2 — At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office's wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer. The Receiver has not provided those instructions.

EVT-004

Event

Week of May 26, 2025 Drone Shipment

Cyberlux completed final shipment of drones and equipment to U.S. Government after inspection, creating $25 million accounts receivable from HII subcontract.

Page 3 — Consistent with Cyberlux's representations to the Court, the drones and drone equipment in Cyberlux's leased facility in Spring, Texas were inspected by the United States Government and shipped to the Government's preferred destination. This means that Cyberlux will be awaiting payment on a $25 million account receivable (subject to reductions described in the subcontract modification). The final shipment occurred the week of May 26, 2025. The Receiver's staff were present and were permitted to observe these activities.

EVT-005

Event

Receiver Solicitation of Datron Sale

Receiver solicited and continues to pursue offers from third parties to sell Cyberlux's wholly-owned subsidiary despite tender satisfying judgment.

EVT-006

Event

June 6, 2025 Emergency Motion Filing

Cyberlux and Schmidt filed emergency motion to stay or suspend enforcement of Turnover Order based on satisfaction of judgment.

Page 1 — 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM

CLM-001

Claim

Sufficient Tender Satisfies Judgment

Legalist's tender of $2,755,100.10 exceeds the $2.11 million judgment amount and includes all statutory fees, interest, and awarded costs, thereby satisfying the judgment in full.

Page 2 — The total of Legalist's protective advance included funds representing: · $2,111,086.01, the amount of the judgment listed in the Court's Order Appointing Receiver (the "Turnover Order"). · $75,652.07, interest on the $2,111,086.01 from 2/18/2025, the date specified in the order. · $546,684.52, representing 25% of $2,186,422.60@principal balance and interest in the Court's Turnover Order). · $21,677.50, representing attorneys' fees incurred by Atlantic Wave.

CLM-002

Claim

Turnover Order Immediately Moot Upon Tender

Under Texas law, a turnover order becomes immediately moot when the judgment it was issued to enforce is satisfied, requiring dissolution of receivership.

Page 4, 5, 6 — When a judgment is satisfied, a turnover order is of no further force and effect. Pandozy y. Beaty, 254 S.W.3d 613, 617 (Tex. App .- Texarkana 2008, no pet.). In other words, a turnover order becomes "immediately moot when the judgment which it was issued to enforce was satisfied." Bennett/Nguyen Joint Venture v. Coghlan, No. 01-10-00575-CV, 2011 WL 2732435, at *1 (Tex. App .- Houston [1st Dist.] July 14, 2011, no pet.).

CLM-003

Claim

Receiver Exceeding Statutory Authority on HII Receivable

Receiver's demand for $25 million HII accounts receivable exceeds statutory authority under § 31.002(b)(3), which limits receiver to amount required to satisfy judgment.

Page 3 — Even though Legalist tendered more than enough funds to satisfy Plaintiffs' judgment to the Receiver, the Receiver is currently demanding that a debtor of Cyberlux, HII, pay the total of Cyberlux's account receivable (~$25 million) directly to the Receiver. As stated above, not only has the Receiver been tendered - and refused - an amount in excess of the judgment upon which he was appointed, but that judgment is, at most, $2.7 million, more than $20 million less than what the Receive is seeking to levy upon. This indisputably exceeds the scope of the Receiver's authority under § 31.002(b)(3), which is limited to the extent required to satisfy the judgment.

CLM-004

Claim

Receiver Exceeding Authority via Datron Sale Efforts

Receiver's attempts to sell Datron subsidiary exceed turnover statute authority, as receiver was not appointed as bankruptcy trustee or rehabilitative receiver.

Page 4, 5 — The Court appointed the Receiver pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3). The Receiver was not appointed under the General Receivership Statute, as a bankruptcy trustee, or to act as a rehabilitative receiver. ... Upon information and belief, the Receiver solicited-and even after Legalist's tender, continues to solicit-offers and is engaging in negotiations with third parties in an attempt to sell Cyberlux's wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications ("Datron").

Stage 3

In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions

8 nodes

QUO-001

Quotation

Legal Definition of Tender

Footnote defining tender under Texas law as unconditional offer to pay amount due on debt.

Page 1 — In general, 'an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation' is a tender of payment. " Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App .- Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)).

QUO-002

Quotation

Texas Turnover Statute Authority Limit

Statutory citation defining receiver authority as limited to satisfying specific judgment only.

Page 4 — A trial court's authority to appoint a receiver is limited to appointing a receiver "with the authority to take possession of the nonexemp property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to the judgment creditor to the extent required to satisfy the judgment." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. § 31.002(b)(3).

TEN-001

Tension

Receiver Refusal vs. Tender Obligation

Receiver indicated willingness to accept wire transfer but then failed to provide instructions, creating impasse despite defendants' claim of full tender.

Page 2 — At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office's wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer. The Receiver has not provided those instructions.

TEN-002

Tension

Turnover Receiver vs. General Receiver Authority

Motion emphasizes receiver appointed only under turnover statute, not as bankruptcy trustee or general receiver, while alleging receiver acting beyond limited scope.

Page 4, 5 — The Court appointed the Receiver pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3). The Receiver was not appointed under the General Receivership Statute, as a bankruptcy trustee, or to act as a rehabilitative receiver. ... The Receiver also continues to engage various third parties, including unsecured creditors, making attempts to act as if he has been appointed as a quasi-bankruptcy trustee, which he is not.

TEN-003

Tension

Operating Concern vs. Liquidation Actions

Defendants assert Cyberlux continues operating as going concern, but receiver's asset seizure and subsidiary sale attempts threaten business viability.

Page 5 — The Receiver was present at the January 16, 2025 hearing on Judgment Creditors' Application for Turnover, and he is aware that Cyberlux continues to operate its business as a going concern. Nevertheless, the Receiver's actions indisputably exceed his authority and are interfering with and harming Cyberlux's business. ... The Receiver's actions, if allowed to continue, will severely damage the value of the Datron) asset.

QST-001

Question

Validity of Judgment Amount

Whether the $2,111,086.01 judgment amount in Turnover Order is correct, given defendants' pending written objections seeking modification or correction.

Page 2, 6 — For the reasons described in Defendants Written Objections to the Court's Turnover Order, the Judgment balance (and any interest flowing therefrom) is incorrect and should be modified or corrected.

QST-002

Question

Schmidt Individual Liability

Whether Mark D. Schmidt should be individually subject to turnover order, given defendants' objections seeking his removal.

Page 6 — At this time, Cyberlux submits that the Turnover Order should be stayed pending this Court's review of Defendants' objections (i.e., to make necessary correction to the judgment amount and removal of Schmidt from the Turnover Order)

QST-003

Question

Actual Tender vs. Constructive Tender

Whether funds held in counsel's IOLTA account constitute legal tender when receiver has not provided wire instructions to complete transfer.

Page 5 — The funds tendered to the Receiver are being held in the IOLTA trust account of Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP, counsel for Legalist. Legalist has made clear that it wishes to pay the Receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership.

Stage 4

Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns

6 nodes

INF-001

Inference

Receiver Seeking Broader Authority

Receiver's actions suggest attempt to exercise general receivership or bankruptcy trustee powers despite limited statutory appointment.

Page 5 — The Receiver also continues to engage various third parties, including unsecured creditors, making attempts to act as if he has been appointed as a quasi-bankruptcy trustee, which he is not.

INF-002

Inference

Strategic Timing of Government Contract Completion

Final drone shipment week of May 26, 2025 occurred four days after receiver appointment, potentially creating complexity in asset identification.

Page 3 — The final shipment occurred the week of May 26, 2025. The Receiver's staff were present and were permitted to observe these activities.

INF-003

Inference

Legalist's Financial Interest in Receivership Termination

Legalist's protective advance under existing credit agreement suggests priority creditor position motivating intervention to prevent asset dissipation by receiver.

Page 1 — Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist

OMI-001

Omission

Receiver's Justification for Refusal

Motion does not provide receiver's stated reasons for refusing wire instructions or pursuing assets beyond judgment amount.

Page 2 — At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office's wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer. The Receiver has not provided those instructions.

OMI-002

Omission

Original Judgment Basis

Motion does not detail underlying facts or legal basis of original $2.11 million judgment against Cyberlux and Schmidt.

Page 1 — The Court's Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs.

OMI-003

Omission

Legalist Credit Agreement Terms

Motion references existing credit agreement and attorney-in-fact rights but does not disclose security interests, priority, or repayment terms.

Extracted text

10 pages · 15029 characters

Filing Header

ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,

§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF §

Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor

v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and

§ HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §

MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually,

Defendant/Judgment Debtors.

§ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT'S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER

COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt ("Cyberlux"), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court's May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the "Turnover Order") based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows:

1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver.

The Court's Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5,) 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist"), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the

In general, 'an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation' is a tender of payment. " Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App .- Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)).

subject of the Turnover Order, and the Receiver's appointment .2 During that call, Legalist indicated that its protective advance would be an amount sufficient to satisfy the outstanding judgment, and would be a total of no less than $2,755,100.10.3

The total of Legalist's protective advance included funds representing:

· $2,111,086.01, the amount of the judgment listed in the Court's Order Appointing Receiver (the "Turnover Order").4

· $75,652.07, interest on the $2,111,086.01 from 2/18/2025, the date specified in the order.5

· $546,684.52, representing 25% of $2,186,422.60@principal balance and interest in the Court's Turnover Order).

· $21,677.50, representing attorneys' fees incurred by Atlantic Wave. The Southern District of Texas ordered Cyberlux and Schmidt to pay Atlantic Wave, and this amount represents the total amount submitted by Atlantic Wave's counsel.6

At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office's wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer.7 The Receiver has not provided those instructions.8

recientes Halal Copy Officelacof Waril som urgees District Clerk

See Declaration of A. Pennetti, at 15, attached as Exhibit A; Declaration of Legalist counsel, J. Prostok, attached as Exhibit B.

Exhibit B, at | 5.

For the reasons described in Defendants Written Objections to the Court's Turnover Order, the Judgment balance (and any interest flowing therefrom) is incorrect and should be modified or corrected.

Interest was calculated from this date because the "judgment balance" in the Turnover Order appears to be inclusive of interest.

See Exhibit A, at 17.

Id., at 16.

Exhibit B, at 17.

2. The Receiver is acting beyond his authority to interfere with accounts receivable flowing from Cyberlux's U.S. Government subcontract.

Cyberlux previously represented to the Court various details surrounding its U.S. Government subcontract with HII Mission Technologies Corp. ("HII"). Consistent with Cyberlux's representations to the Court, the drones and drone equipment in Cyberlux's leased facility in Spring, Texas were inspected by the United States Government and shipped to the Government's preferred destination. This means that Cyberlux will be awaiting payment on a $25 million account receivable (subject to reductions described in the subcontract modification). The final shipment occurred the week of May 26, 2025.9 The Receiver's staff were present and were permitted to observe these activities.10

Even though Legalist tendered more than enough funds to satisfy Plaintiffs' judgment to the Receiver, the Receiver is currently demanding that a debtor of Cyberlux, HII, pay the total of Cyberlux's account receivable (~$25 million) directly to the Receiver. As stated above, not only has the Receiver been tendered - and refused - an amount in excess of the judgment upon which he was appointed, but that judgment is, at most, $2.7 million, more than $20 million less than what the Receive is seeking to levy upon. This indisputably exceeds the scope of the Receiver's authority under § 31.002(b)(3), which is limited to the extent required to satisfy the judgment. The Receiver is taking actions outside the scope of the Turnover Order, and outside the law with respect to § 31.002(b)(B)

Exhibit A., at 19. 10 Id., at 19.

3. The Receiver is attempting to sell Cyberlux's wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications, and is engaging unsecured creditors regarding claims unrelated to the judgment.

The Court appointed the Receiver pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3).11 The Receiver was not appointed under the General Receivership Statute,12 as a bankruptcy trustee, or to act as a rehabilitative receiver. As discussed below, the Receiver's authority under 31.002 is limited to satisfying a judgment for judgment creditor(s), and only the judgment creditor(s) that are parties to the action.

A trial court's authority to appoint a receiver is limited to appointing a receiver "with the authority to take possession of the nonexemp property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to the judgment creditor to the extent required to satisfy the judgment." TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. § 31.002(b)(3).

A turnover order becomes "immediately moot when the judgment which it was issued to enforce was satisfied." Bennett/Nguyen Joint Venture v. Coghlan, No. 01-10- 00575-CV, 2011 WL 2732435, at (Tex. App .- Houston [1st Dist.] July 14, 2011, no pet.).

Since Legalist has tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the Turnover Order is immediately nullified and the receivership must be dissolved. In this instance, however, even after Legalist tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment and pay the Receiver, the Receiver continues to try and seize assets that have a total value in excess of the judgment amount.

Turnover Order, at 18 ("A Receiver is necessary in this case pursuant to the Texas Turnover Statute . . . ).

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 64.001(a)(2).

Upon information and belief, the Receiver solicited-and even after Legalist's tender, continues to solicit-offers and is engaging in negotiations with third parties in an attempt to sell Cyberlux's wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications ("Datron"). Datron is an operating business with several active contracts. The Receiver's actions, if allowed to continue, will severely damage the value of the Datron) asset.

The Receiver also continues to engage various third parties, including unsecured creditors, making attempts to act as if he has been appointed as a quasi-bankruptcy trustee, which he is not.

The Receiver was present at the January 16, 2025 hearing on Judgment Creditors' Application for Turnover, and he is aware that Cyberlux continues to operate its business as a going concern. Nevertheless, the Receiver's actions indisputably exceed his authority and are interfering with and harming Cyberlux's business. A stay of enforcement should be issued given that Legalist tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment.

4. The Court should stay or suspend enforcement of the Turnover Order immediately, pending dissolution of the receivership.

The funds tendered to the Receiver are being held in the IOLTA trust account of Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP, counsel for Legalist.13 Legalist has made clear that it wishes to pay the Receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership.

When a judgment is satisfied, a turnover order is of no further force and effect. Pandozy y. Beaty, 254 S.W.3d 613, 617 (Tex. App .- Texarkana 2008, no pet.). In other words, a turnover order becomes "immediately moot when the judgment which it was issued to enforce was satisfied." Bennett/Nguyen Joint Venture v. Coghlan, No. 01-10-

Exhibit B, at 16.

00575-CV, 2011 WL 2732435, at *1 (Tex. App .- Houston [1st Dist.] July 14, 2011, no pet.).

After a judgment is satisfied, the trial court may conduct limited proceedings to conclude the receivership and discharge the receiver. Hill v. Hill, 460 S.W.3d 751, 767 (Tex. App .- Dallas 2015, pet. denied).

At this time, Cyberlux submits that the Turnover Order should be stayed pending this Court's review of Defendants' objections (i.e., to make necessary correction to the judgment amount and removal of Schmidt from the Turnover Order), reviewing the receivership, apportioning costs, ensuring excess funds are relinquished to Cyberlux, discharging the Receiver, and entering a Satisfaction of Judgment and release of all liens pertaining to this matter.

Because funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment, interest, the Receiver's fee, and attorneys' fees awarded to Atlantic Wave have been tendered, there is nothing more to do but to find that the judgment was satisfied, return any excess tendered, and terminate the receivership.

CONCLUSION

Cyberlux asks that the Court stay or suspend enforcement of the Turnover Order until the Court may make necessary corrections to the Turnover Order, review and approve the Receiver's compensation, and take other necessary actions to discharge the Receiver and enter a Satisfaction of Judgment. Cyberlux prays for all further relief to which it is entitled.

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Alexander J. Pennetti Douglas S. Lang State Bar No. 11895500 Alexander J. Pennetti State Bar No. 24110208

THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201 Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100 Fax: (972) 629-7171 dlang@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com

Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux orporation and Mark D. Schmidt

Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE

On June 5, 2025, the undersigned attended a teleconference with the Receiver, during which funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Receiver has refused to accept these funds. Following that call, the undersigned learned that the Receiver's efforts to interfere with Cyberlux's business operations, chiefly by taking custody of funds in excess of the judgment amount owed, and making attempts to sell Cyberlux's wholly-owned subsidiary. Further conference is not practical because it would likely result in further activities by the Receiver, which will cause additional harm to the company, which continues to operate as a going concern.

Unofficial Copy Office of Martyn burgess bálstrict onal felse o

/s/ Alexander J. Pennetti

Alexander J. Pennetti

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on June 6, 2025.

lexander J. Pennetti

Alexander J. Pennetti

Automated Certificate of eService

This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Lena Brasher on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101743796 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250606 Cyberluxs Motion to Stay or Suspend Enforcement of Turnover Order Status as of 6/9/2025 7:55 AM CST

Case Contacts

Name

BarNumber

TimestampSubmitted

Status

David A.Walton

dwalton@bellnunnally.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

LaDonna Arey

LArey@bellnunnally.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Sandra Meiners

smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Travis Vargo

tvargo@vargolawfirm.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Laurie DeBardeleben

Idebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Roxanna Lock

rlock@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Jeff Brown

jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Records Department

Records@bellnunnally.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Micah Jackson

mjackson@berlethlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Sheli Davis

sdavis@berlethlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Paula Gentry

pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Lena Brasher

lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Frankie Huff

fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Tristian Harris

tharris@berlethlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Corinne Martin

cmartin@berlethlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Hannah Fischer

hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Hannah Petrea

hpetrea@bellnunnally.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Michael Poynter

mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Automated Certificate of eService

Case Contacts

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Alex Pennetti

apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com tomtom District e

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Douglas S.Lang

dlang@thompsoncoburn.com At

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Katharine Clark

kclark@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Edward W.Gray, Jr.

EGray@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Jocelin A.Tapia

jtapia@thompsoncoburn.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Greg Nieman

gnieman@bellnunnally.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Jemisha Gandhi

jgandhi@bellnunnally.com Jnofficial Copy Oftheboston

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

David M.Keithly

dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com

6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM

SENT

Original source file

No source file is attached yet. The record is ready for the PDF/media link when the attachment importer is connected.

File: aw-harris-awh-2024-48085-doc-120966318.pdf
Source UID: source:390d6d30c7e5fec279a0172774a40f7cdb981c408b04a70417f9928753d5ac0f
Full SHA-256: 390d6d30c7e5fec279a0172774a40f7cdb981c408b04a70417f9928753d5ac0f

DISTIL analysis

Extracted text

Order Appointing Receiver — Formatted Extract

Original source file