Player Profile / Cyberlux Corporation

WeShield / Assure Global LLC

Commission Claimant · Security Interest Claimant · ITAR / FAR Exposure Layer

Assure Global LLC, doing business as WeShield, is classified in the interpleader record under the commission and intermediary stack — parties claiming a share of the HII subcontract proceeds based on pre-existing arrangements with Cyberlux. WeShield's claim encompasses both commission entitlement and an asserted security interest, making it structurally distinct from the other commission claimants.

Bottom Line

What this profile says up front

01
WeShield/Assure Global LLC claims both a commission entitlement and a security interest against the interpleader corpus; the Vintfeld Declaration is the primary evidentiary anchor for the basis and nature of that claim.
02
A payment from Cyberlux to WeShield — described in one set of filings as a consulting fee — was characterized in Welter Declaration materials as connected to a strip club liability settlement; the two characterizations are in tension and the record does not resolve them.
03
ITAR Part 130 requires disclosure to the State Department of commissions paid in connection with the sale of a defense article exceeding $500,000; WeShield's claimed entitlement against a $78.857M Foreign Military Financing contract exceeds that threshold.
04
Whether WeShield's commission arrangement was disclosed in the FAR 52.203-5 certification at the time of the subcontract award does not appear in any public filing.
Role in the Record

A commission and security claimant with two competing characterizations of the same payment

Assure Global LLC, doing business as WeShield, is classified in the interpleader record under the commission and intermediary stack — parties claiming a share of the HII subcontract proceeds based on pre-existing arrangements with Cyberlux. WeShield's claim encompasses both commission entitlement and an asserted security interest, making it structurally distinct from the other commission claimants.

Michael Sinensky appears across WeShield, Roman Investments, and MAS USA claim materials. The Vintfeld Declaration is the primary source document anchoring WeShield's claim in the interpleader record.

The findings below are analytical observations drawn from interpleader filings, the Welter Declaration, and regulatory materials. They are not findings of liability.

Key Numbers

The numbers that frame the profile

WeShield claim
$2.5M+
Commission + security interest
ITAR 130 threshold
$500K
WeShield claim exceeds threshold
Payment characterizations
2
Consulting fee vs. strip club settlement — in conflict
Analytical Findings

What the record establishes

01 BEDROCK

Commission and security interest claim in the interpleader

WeShield/Assure Global LLC has filed a claim in the E.D. Va. interpleader asserting both commission entitlement and a security interest against the corpus. The claim amount is documented at $2.5M plus interest. The combination of a commission claim and a security interest positions WeShield differently from the other commission-only claimants: it asserts both a contractual and a property right against the same fund.

Source: Interpleader filings, E.D. Va. 3:25-cv-00483 · Interpleader Doc 0144 Exhibits 6, 7Source:
02 BEDROCK

The Vintfeld Declaration: evidentiary anchor for the claim

The Vintfeld Declaration is the primary document in the interpleader record setting out the basis for WeShield's claim. It appears across 31 documents in the corpus. The declaration's specifics regarding the nature of WeShield's arrangement with Cyberlux — what services were provided, under what agreement, and when — are the foundation of the claim's validity.

Source: Vintfeld Declaration · Interpleader Doc 0144 · AWH record documentsSource:
03 BEDROCK

The competing payment characterizations

A payment from Cyberlux to WeShield was characterized in interpleader and related proceedings as a consulting fee. Welter Declaration materials — filed in the Atlantic Wave Holdings litigation and capturing the advance payment disbursement record — connect the same payment to a strip club liability settlement. The two characterizations are in direct tension. The record does not resolve which characterization is accurate, and no court has adjudicated the question.

Source: Welter Declaration and exhibits · Lapdances & Liability coverage, June 2025 · Interpleader filingsSource:
04 ROCK

ITAR Part 130 and FAR 52.203-5 questions

WeShield's commission entitlement, if arising from an arrangement to solicit or facilitate the HII contract, falls within the scope of FAR 52.203-5's certification requirement. The K8 is a defense article under Foreign Military Financing; WeShield's claim against a $78.857M contract exceeds ITAR Part 130's $500,000 disclosure threshold. Whether either disclosure requirement was satisfied does not appear in any public filing.

Source: FAR 52.203-5 · 22 C.F.R. Part 130 · Interpleader claim recordSource:
05 SAND

Roman Investments and MAS USA connections

Roman Investments and MAS USA appear in the interpleader record in the same claim cluster as WeShield, with Michael Sinensky associated across all three. The nature of the relationships between these entities and their respective roles relative to the Cyberlux/HII contract proceeds are documented in a single interpleader filing (Doc 0194). The public record does not fully establish the structure or purpose of these related entities.

Source: Interpleader Doc 0194 · Fairwinds commission calculation document · Prior coverageSource:
Open Questions

What the record does not explain

Q01
What services did WeShield/Assure Global provide that give rise to both a commission entitlement and a security interest against a Foreign Military Financing contract?
Q02
Was WeShield's commission arrangement disclosed in the FAR 52.203-5 certification at the time of the subcontract award?
Q03
Was WeShield registered as a foreign military sales broker as required under ITAR Part 130?
Q04
Which characterization of the Cyberlux-to-WeShield payment is accurate — consulting fee or strip club liability settlement — and on what documentary basis?
Q05
What is the legal basis for WeShield's asserted security interest in the interpleader corpus, and when was that interest perfected relative to the other claimants?
Q06
What are the relationships between WeShield, Roman Investments, MAS USA, and Michael Sinensky in the context of the Cyberlux contract?