Evidence Record

Exhibit 6

See below from Berleth. What's the deal with the settlement conference? Feet free to give me a call if its easier to discuss over the phone.

Type
exhibit
Pages
5
Lines
117
SHA-256
ae6289d440e5

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
email_chain
Total Nodes
32
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
email_chain multiple_attorneys litigation_receivership 2025-06-26 to 2025-06-27
settlement_negotiationpayment_disputeprocedural_uncertainty
Analytical Frame
creditor_rights_dispute
Analytical Summary
This email chain documents a dispute between attorneys representing Legalist (a creditor) and Robert Berleth (receiver's counsel) regarding Legalist's participation in a settlement conference related to Cyberlux receivership proceedings. Legalist claims to have wired funds to satisfy a judgment in full and terminate the receivership, while Berleth disputes this, stating Cyberlux has not paid in full and has objected to fund disbursement. A key tension emerges around whether Legalist will participate in the settlement conference or pursue collection remedies outside the receivership. The exchange reveals procedural confusion about hearing dates, appeal status, and the impact of these factors on the receivership's continuation.
Key Points
  • Legalist claims to have wired judgment amount to satisfy debt and terminate receivership
  • Berleth disputes that Cyberlux has paid in full and states objections prevent fund disbursement
  • Appeal has been filed, preventing trial court from setting hearing to terminate receivership until resolved
  • Settlement conference scheduled but Legalist not participating as non-party to matter
  • Berleth interprets Legalist's position as proceeding with settlement without Legalist participation
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
15 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
Legalist
Legalist is a creditor entity that wired funds claimed to satisfy a judgment amount related to Cyberlux receivership proceedings. Represented by Austin Priddy and Jeff Prostok of VHH law firm.
Page 3 — Legalist is not a party to the matter...Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount...Legalist is not challenging anything-they simply wanted to make the payment to ensure that sufficient funds were in place to satisfy the judgment, terminate the receivership, and get everyone paid.
ENT-002
Entity
Cyberlux
Cyberlux is the debtor entity subject to receivership proceedings. According to Berleth, Cyberlux has not paid in full, has objected to disbursement of funds, and has filed an appeal.
Page 2 — Cyberlux has not "paid in full", and they've objected to the disbursement of funds anyways, so the receivership remains in place...Now they've appealed, so the trial court can't even set a hearing to terminate the receivership until the appeal is dealt with.
ENT-003
Entity
Robert Berleth
Robert Berleth is an attorney with Berleth & Associates, PLLC, representing the receiver in Cyberlux receivership proceedings. Contact information: rberleth@berlethlaw.com, 713-588-6900, 9950 Cypresswood Dr., Ste. 200, Houston, Texas 77070.
Page 2, 4 — Robert Berleth Attorney-at-Law Beleth& Associates, PLLC & Serious. Collections. Attorneys. 9950 Cypresswood Dr., Ste. 200 Houston, Texas 77070 E-mail: rberleth@berlethlaw.com Tele: 713-588-6900
ENT-004
Entity
Austin Priddy
Austin Priddy is an attorney at VHH law firm representing Legalist. Email: Austin.Priddy@vhh.law.
Page 2, 3 — From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>
ENT-005
Entity
Jeff Prostok
Jeff Prostok is an attorney at VHH law firm representing Legalist. Email: jeff.prostok@vhh.law.
Page 2, 3, 4 — Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
ENT-006
Entity
Alex Pennetti
Alex Pennetti is a recipient of email communication from Austin Priddy regarding the settlement conference.
Page 2 — To: Pennetti, Alex
EVT-001
Event
June 12, 2025 Court Hearing
A court hearing occurred on June 12, 2025, where judgment satisfaction and receivership termination were discussed. Legalist attended this hearing.
Page 3 — Our understanding based on the last hearing we attended on June 12 is that the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount.
EVT-002
Event
Legalist Wire Transfer of Judgment Amount
Legalist wired funds to satisfy the judgment amount with the intent to terminate the receivership and ensure creditor payments.
Page 3 — the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount...Legalist is not challenging anything-they simply wanted to make the payment to ensure that sufficient funds were in place to satisfy the judgment, terminate the receivership, and get everyone paid.
EVT-003
Event
Cyberlux Appeal Filing
Cyberlux filed an appeal, which prevents the trial court from setting a hearing to terminate the receivership until the appeal is resolved.
Page 2 — Now they've appealed, so the trial court can't even set a hearing to terminate the receivership until the appeal is dealt with.
EVT-004
Event
Settlement Conference
A settlement conference is scheduled, but details and timing are unclear. Legalist was not informed about it and is questioning whether to participate.
Page 2, 3, 4 — What's the deal with the settlement conference?...We haven't been made aware of a settlement conference. What's the status on that?...Is Legalist simply going to skip participating in settlement conference
CLM-001
Claim
Berleth: Cyberlux Has Not Paid in Full
Robert Berleth asserts that Cyberlux has not paid in full, contradicting Legalist's understanding from the June 12 hearing.
Page 2 — For the record, Cyberlux has not "paid in full", and they've objected to the disbursement of funds anyways, so the receivership remains in place.
CLM-002
Claim
Priddy: Judgment Satisfied in Full
Austin Priddy claims that the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist's wire transfer of the judgment amount.
Page 3 — Our understanding based on the last hearing we attended on June 12 is that the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount.
CLM-003
Claim
Cyberlux Objection to Fund Disbursement
Cyberlux has objected to the disbursement of funds, which impacts the receivership status according to Berleth.
Page 2 — Cyberlux has not "paid in full", and they've objected to the disbursement of funds anyways, so the receivership remains in place.
CLM-004
Claim
Receivership Termination Hearing Timing
Berleth states the earliest hearing to terminate the receivership would be September or October 2025, but the appeal prevents the trial court from setting such a hearing.
Page 2 — The earliest hearing to terminate is September or October of 2025. Now they've appealed, so the trial court can't even set a hearing to terminate the receivership until the appeal is dealt with.
CLM-005
Claim
Cyberlux Challenge to Judgment and Fees
Cyberlux indicated plans to challenge the judgment and fee amount, which is their prerogative according to Priddy.
Page 3 — Cyberlux indicated at the hearing that they plan to challenge the judgment and fee amount, which is their prerogative.
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
12 nodes
QUO-001
Quotation
Reserve Your Rights
Berleth's terse response to Priddy's statement about the settlement conference and Legalist's position.
Page 2 — Okay. Reserve your rights.
QUO-002
Quotation
Proceed Without Legalist
Berleth's interpretation of Priddy's communication regarding the settlement.
Page 2 — I interpret your email as instructing me to proceed with the settlement without Legalist participating.
QUO-003
Quotation
Lack of Collection Instructions
Berleth states Legalist has not instructed him to collect funds or specified amounts owed.
Page 3 — But you also haven't asked me to collect the funds for legalist or even told me how much is owed. I'll take your lack of action and communication as a "no".
QUO-004
Quotation
Keep Receiver's Fees Down
Berleth acknowledges Legalist and Cyberlux's strategy regarding receiver fees.
Page 3 — I understand legalist amd cyberlux are trying to keep the receiver's fees down. Smart.
TLL-001
Tell
Non-Party Status Information Gap
Priddy reveals that Legalist, as a non-party, does not receive court updates and was not informed by Cyberlux about the settlement conference.
Page 3 — As Legalist is not a party to the matter, we are not provided with updates from the Court. And Cyberlux has not told us anything about a settlement conference.
TLL-002
Tell
Legalist's Reserved Rights Statement
Priddy explicitly states Legalist reserves all rights to seek legally entitled funds, indicating potential future action.
Page 3 — Legalist reserves all rights to seek funds to which it is legally entitled.
TEN-001
Tension
Payment Satisfaction Dispute
Fundamental disagreement exists between Legalist's counsel (claiming judgment satisfied in full) and Berleth (asserting Cyberlux has not paid in full).
Page 2, 3 — Our understanding based on the last hearing we attended on June 12 is that the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount. [versus] For the record, Cyberlux has not "paid in full", and they've objected to the disbursement of funds anyways
TEN-002
Tension
Settlement Conference Participation Uncertainty
Tension exists around whether Legalist will participate in the settlement conference, with Berleth seeking clarification and ultimately interpreting non-response as non-participation.
Page 2, 4 — Is Legalist simply going to skip participating in settlement conference, and seek remedy for collecting on Cyberlux outside the receivership? [followed by] I interpret your email as instructing me to proceed with the settlement without Legalist participating.
TEN-003
Tension
Communication Breakdown on Collection Instructions
Berleth notes lack of collection instructions from Legalist despite payment being made, interpreting this as Legalist declining his collection services.
Page 3 — But you also haven't asked me to collect the funds for legalist or even told me how much is owed. I'll take your lack of action and communication as a "no".
QST-001
Question
What Settlement Conference Details?
Priddy seeks clarification about the settlement conference status and details, indicating incomplete information sharing.
Page 2, 3 — See below from Berleth. What's the deal with the settlement conference? [and] We haven't been made aware of a settlement conference. What's the status on that?
QST-002
Question
Will Legalist Participate in Settlement?
Berleth explicitly questions whether Legalist will skip settlement conference participation and pursue collection outside the receivership.
Page 4 — Is Legalist simply going to skip participating in settlement conference, and seek remedy for collecting on Cyberlux outside the receivership?
QST-003
Question
Are Additional Funds Available for Other Creditors?
Priddy asks whether the landscape has changed with additional funds available to pay other creditors beyond the judgment amount Legalist wired.
Page 3 — If the landscape has changed and additional funds are in play to pay other creditors, please let us know.
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
5 nodes
INF-001
Inference
Procedural Coordination Failure
The exchange reveals a coordination failure between Legalist (non-party creditor) and the receivership proceedings, with information gaps about hearings, settlement conferences, and fund disbursement status.
Page 3 — As Legalist is not a party to the matter, we are not provided with updates from the Court. And Cyberlux has not told us anything about a settlement conference. [combined with] We haven't been made aware of a settlement conference.
INF-002
Inference
Strategic Misalignment on Collection Path
Legalist appears to be pursuing a collection strategy outside the receivership framework, while Berleth expected participation within the settlement conference structure, leading to strategic misalignment.
Page 2, 4 — Is Legalist simply going to skip participating in settlement conference, and seek remedy for collecting on Cyberlux outside the receivership? [and] I interpret your email as instructing me to proceed with the settlement without Legalist participating.
INF-003
Inference
Appeal as Complicating Factor
The Cyberlux appeal creates a procedural barrier that prevents receivership termination despite Legalist's payment, potentially frustrating Legalist's goal of quick resolution.
Page 2, 3 — Now they've appealed, so the trial court can't even set a hearing to terminate the receivership until the appeal is dealt with. [in context of] Legalist is not challenging anything-they simply wanted to make the payment to ensure that sufficient funds were in place to satisfy the judgment, terminate the receivership, and get everyone paid.
OMI-001
Omission
Missing Settlement Conference Details
Neither party provides specific details about the settlement conference timing, scope, or formal notice requirements, despite it being central to the dispute.
Page 2, 3, 4 — What's the deal with the settlement conference?...We haven't been made aware of a settlement conference. What's the status on that?...Is Legalist simply going to skip participating in settlement conference
OMI-002
Omission
Amount Owed to Legalist Not Disclosed
The specific amount Legalist claims to be owed and the amount they wired are referenced but not quantified in the email exchange.
Page 3 — But you also haven't asked me to collect the funds for legalist or even told me how much is owed. [and] based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount

Extracted text

5 pages · 5836 characters

Exhibit 6 — Formatted Extract

Type: exhibit
Filing Header

Unofficial Copy Office of marilyn Burgess District Clerk

EXHIBIT 6

From:

Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>

Sent:

Friday, June 27, 2025 9:56 AM

To:

Pennetti, Alex

Cc:

Jeff Prostok; Brown, Jeffrey N.

Subject:

FW: Legalist Participation

RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SENDER - USE CAUTION

Alex,

See below from Berleth. What's the deal with the settlement conference? Feet free to give me a call if its easier to discuss over the phone.

Thanks, -Austin

From: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 9:49 AM To: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law> Subject: RE: Legalist Participation

Okay. Reserve your rights.

For the record, Cyberlux has not "paid in full", and they've objected to the disbursement of funds anyways, so the receivership remains in place. The earliest hearing to terminate is September or October of 2025. Now they've appealed, so the trial court can't even set a hearing to terminate the receivership until the appeal is dealt with.

I interpret your email as instructing me to proceed with the settlement without Legalist participating. Be well.

Warmly, Robert Berleth Attorney-at-Law

Beleth& Associates, PLLC

&

Serious. Collections. Attorneys.

9950
Cypresswood Dr., Ste. 200 Houston, Texas 77070 E-mail: rberleth@berlethlaw.com Tele: 713-588-6900 Fax: 713-481-0894 www.berlethlaw.com

elnofficial Copy saff of Marilian Burgess District Clerk

From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 9:31 AM To: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law> Subject: RE: Legalist Participation

Robert,

unofficial wap ence of Marilyn Burger estado de Clerk

As Legalist is not a party to the matter, we are not provided with updates from the Court. And Cyberlux has not told us anything about a settlement conference. Our understanding based on the last hearing we attended on June 12 is that the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount. Cyberlux indicated at the hearing that they plan to challenge the judgment and fee amount, which is their prerogative. Legalist is not challenging anything-they simply wanted to make the payment to ensure that sufficient funds were in place to satisfy the judgment, terminate the receivership, and get everyone paid. If the landscape has changed and additional funds are in play to pay other creditors, please let us know. Legalist reserves all rights to seek funds to which it is legally entitled.

Thanks, -Austin

From: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 8:01 AM To: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law> Subject: RE: Legalist Participation

You don't often get email from rberleth@berlethlaw.com. Learn why this is important

But you also haven't asked me to collect the funds for legalist or even told me how much is owed. I'll take your lack of action and communication as a "no".

I understand legalist amd cyberlux are trying to keep the receiver's fees down. Smart. Best of luck in your collection efforts and be well.

R

Original message From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law> Date: 6/26/25 8:13 PM (GMT-06:00) To: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com>, Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law> Subject: Re: Legalist Participation

Robert,

We haven't been made aware of a settlement conference. What's the status on that?

Thanks, -Austin

Get Outlook for ios

From: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2025 4:15 PM To: Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law> :selected: Cc: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>

Subject: Legalist Participation

Jeff,

Is Legalist simply going to skip participating in settlement conference, and seek remedy for collecting on Cyberlux outside the receivership?

Warmly, Robert Berleth Attorney-at-Law

&

Berleth& Associates, PLL

Serious. Collections. Attorneys.

9950
Cypresswood Drive, Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77070 E-mail: rberleth@berlethlaw.com Tele: 713-588-6900 Fax: 713-481-0894 www.berlethlaw.com

roomburse hibitentschieden copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk

THIS IS AN ATTEMPT BY A DEBT COLLECTOR TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. YOU ARE NOW COMMUNICATING WITH A DEBT COLLECTOR.

CONFIDENTIAL NOTICE: This document and or documents are intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is subject to attorney-client privilege, patient confidentiality, and/or is otherwise exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this document and or documents, is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the document and or documents to the intended recipients, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distributing, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone and return the original message to us at P.O. Box 692293, Houston, TX 77269-2293 via US Postal Services. We will reimburse any costs you incur in notifying us and returning the document to us. Thank you in advance for your

NO TAX ADVICE: Any accounting, business or tax advice contained in this communication, including attachments and enclosures, is not intended as a thorough, in-depth analysis of specific issues, nor a substitute for a formal opinion, nor is it sufficient to avoid tax-related penalties. If desired, the above attorney would be pleased to perform the requisite

research and provide you with a detailed written analysis. Such an engagement may be the subject of a separate engagement letter that would define the scope and limits of the desired consultation services.

Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk

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-121327617.pdf
Source UID
source:ae6289d440e5e2ce147194e0e109420fc2fe29b200bc0286af3ed76bbea60b7b
Full SHA-256
ae6289d440e5e2ce147194e0e109420fc2fe29b200bc0286af3ed76bbea60b7b