Exhibit 20

Document 175-22 Filed 04/15/26

Page 1 of 50 PageID#

Document 175-22 Filed 04/15/26

REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 1 VOLUMES TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 2024-48085

) )

) IN THE DISTRICT COURT LLC, AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC

) ) ) 6 CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT

HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

) 7

) ) 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

On the 2nd day of March, 2026, the following proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled

and numbered cause before the Honorable Michael Gomez, Judge Presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas.

Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype machine.

THE COURT: The Court is on the record in

Will everyone, please, introduce

MS. MYERS: Elizabeth Myers, Thompson

Coburn, on behalf of defendants.

MR. SADIGH: Good morning, Your Honor. James Sadigh, on behalf of plaintiff, Atlantic Wave. MR. ARDMORE: David Ardmore, on behalf of Atlantic Wave and Secure Communities.

MR. MAHENDRU: Ashish Mahendru, along with Robert Berleth for the receiver, Robert Berleth.

MR. WALTON: Your Honor, David Walton on Atlantic Wave and Secure Community between.

MR. BEALE: Brice Beale, on behalf of Clayton Services.

MR. PRIDDY: Austin Priddy, on behalf of Intervenor, Legalist SPV III, LP.

THE COURT: Good morning, everybody. So we have a couple of things on the docket this morning. How did you want to proceed?

MR. MAHENDRU: Your Honor, if I may. I want to openly and transparently short-circuit the Court's proceedings this morning because I am not

This setting at 11:00 o'clock is on a

a ten-day rule, but let's just go back and default to

the Rules of Civil Procedure. A three-day rule for a motion has not been provided on whatever they're calling a joint motion.

The only thing that was pending this afternoon was the motion to withdraw of the lawyers from Thompson Coburn, which they should have set on submission months ago; and they didn't. That needs to be taken up first. We can do that at 1:30 this afternoon.

And the receiver's motion to expand the authority is the second issue. And then there's Atlantic Wave's motion to disburse funds. Outside of that, any attempt to dismiss this receivership, which at last count is now at No. 9 or 10, that can't go forward.

I haven't filed a response. I don't even know what they're talking about. And I certainly didn't know we were having a hearing at 11:00 a.m. this morning. So we can keep the train wreck going, if that's the way this thing is going to go.

But the lawyers standing before you, who are now trying to proffer a joint motion, withdrew months ago. When I tried to talk to them about a series of things after the last hearing with you, they refused to talk to me. They told me they're not in communication with their client.

So everything stalled because they were seeking to withdraw. And the earliest attempted hearing date they could get was in March, which we now know was another ploy and another game.

But I can't be here right now, Your Honor. I can be before you at 1:30. I certainly can't be hearing a motion to dismiss the receivership, which wasn't properly noticed, we weren't given the appropriate time, and it's not set for today.

MR. WALTON: Your Honor, if I can briefly address some of those issues raised by counsel.

First and foremost, as you know, Atlantic Wave was the party that initiated this enforcement and collection proceeding. And back in January, we had filed a motion for distribution of receivership funds that were focused on the attorney's fees that we were -- that we incurred in the efforts to enforce and collect a judgment in Texas.

Because of various circumstances, that

Hearing March 2, 2026

we filed the motion in January until now, the parties

have reached a settlement as to the amount of those reasonable and necessary attorney's fees.

And so from our position as the plaintiff, we believe that issue is ripe. It is before the Court. Everybody has received notice and has had the opportunity to object to those -- to the recovery of those fees, and nobody has filed an objection.

As far as notice of these various hearings, there is no doubt that everybody on this call has received notice of the various hearings and settings before this Court.

And so while -- if counsel for receiver wants to address the receivership issues -- in other words, the supplemental -- the motion for supplemental receivership at 1:30, that is certainly fine. We have no dog in that fight. We are not involved in that issue.

But for purposes of right now -- and as you see, we have a bunch of people on this call that were certainly aware of these proceedings -- we would ask the Court to take under consideration the issues as it relates to the attorney's fees due and owed to

Hearing March 2, 2026

THE COURT: Hold on. Hold on,

Mr. Mahendru.

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, may I briefly

THE COURT :

Yes.

MS. MYERS: First of all, every party has

request of your clerk. It was originally -- all the motions were originally set for 1:30. There was a request that the Court made to move to 11:00. We immediately amended the notice of hearing. So I do think all three motions are properly noticed before the Court.

With respect to the order of how we should potentially take these up, defendants' position is it would be most efficient if the Court would take up the joint motion -- the notice of settlement and joint motion so that the actual settlement and resolution of the issue before the Court can be reached first.

Because that will have the effect of making the motion to supplement the receivership

appointment of receiver, which, Your Honor, they have been substantial.

Atlantic Wave has had to hire appellate counsel. They've had to hire counsel in Virginia. They've had to hire multiple attorneys here in Texas, in Dallas and in Houston to deal with all of the

shenanigans that Cyberlux has been throwing. And

Your Honor is very aware of all the things that have been thrown up on the wall by Cyberlux.

Hearing March 2, 2026

I'm not sure why they set the motion to withdraw. They could have just put it on a submission docket and it had been signed and they had been gone, but it seems now that was merely a ruse for them to delay and kick this down the road, while in the meantime

creditors, which I'm counting Joe Clumbano, Rick Shiffler, Neil -- Mark Cane represents a judgment creditor. Austin Priddy represents a judgment creditor. Brice Beale represents another creditor.

So all of the other creditors -- and there's some $50 million in other creditors out there that are jointly supporting an expansion of this receivership. And we have a settlement conference scheduled in Virginia for March 25th. There are $25 million, ballpark, sitting in the registry of the 25 -- in the Eastern District of Virginia Federal Court registry.

Hearing March 2, 2026

I have endeavored for the past year,

research all of the creditors. At one point I had all

We inventoried, literally counted thousands of screws. Screws, individual, laid them out on a table. That's 4492 screws. Put them in a bag, shipped them to the Federal Government. The Federal Government paid. Those funds are in Virginia.

All of these other creditors want their piece of that pie. And so what I have done is I have endeavored to create what I call the consortium, where the receiver, who is a named party in the interpleader in Virginia, to go as kind of the figurehead of the consortium, with a stipulated agreement between all of these creditors.

Everybody knows how much they're going to get. We go to that court on the settlement conference on March 25th and get that court to issue a stipulated order, which we then come back to you and ratify.

What Cyberlux is trying to do is pull the rug out from everybody's feet so that they can then go to the Virginia court and abscond with the lion's share

Hearing March 2, 2026

of that corpus and not pay any of these other creditors, including Austin Priddy's Legalist, who is the main

creditor in this. They're secured. They lended the money, and they want to get away with all of this money.

For those reasons, we would ask -- I agree with Mr. Mahendru. We did not know this hearing was today at 11:00 o'clock. We received no notice of this hearing at 11:00 o'clock.

We found out about it about -- I think Mr. Mahendru found out about it about 9:30 this morning by e-mail late last night that, Oh, it's actually not at 1:30, it's at 11:00 o'clock.

If Thompson Coburn wants to take up their motion to withdraw, they can. Other than that, Judge, I'm asking everything to be kicked to 1:30, where we take up in order Thompson Coburn's motion to withdraw; Mr. Ardmore's motion for the interim distribution of attorney's fees that have been incurred by Atlantic Wave during the pendency of the receivership, which does not satisfy the underlying judgment; the receiver's motion to expand the authority.

If the court does grant Mr. Ardmore's motion, then it becomes moot as to the joint settlement because that $873, 000, which I have a check right here for Mr. Ardmore, to give to him on the record, would

Hearing March 2, 2026

render the joint settlement -- or joint motion to

distribute moot because that's the $873, 000 that they're trying to distribute.

THE COURT: So on the issue of -- so I don't have the time -- I don't have the bandwidth at 1:30.

MR. BERLETH: Fair enough. THE COURT: I guess the issue is -- I guess a couple of issues. One is on the expansion of the receiver, that was always going to be a heavy lift. I understand that there are underlying issues related to the other funds that are due, attorney's fees, that kind of thing, open issues.

Let's assume for a moment that there's not an expansion of the receivership, right. I'm not saying that I'm not considering that right now, but let's assume that. What is the next fallback?

MR. BERLETH: So the next fallback would be the -- the joint motion fails to address the receiver's fees entirely. At this point I have $594,000 in actual expenses that I have incurred in the administration of this receiver.

That includes paying the unpaid payroll that Cyberlux still has a significant amount owed on. So $990, 000 still owed. That includes rent on the

facilities. That includes transportation of these

drones to have them delivered to the Federal Government. That includes all of the attorneys.

Mr. Mahendru is not here today for peanuts. I've had to retain counsel at a significant cost in Virginia to defend myself in Virginia.

So there's been a significant expense incurred by the receiver, not to mention the fact,

Judge -- I'll draw your attention to paragraph 53 of the order appointing receiver, which clearly states that the receiver is entitled to at least 25 percent of the amounts collected, which is undisputedly the $3, 083, 000.

But at paragraph 53 of the order, it says specifically, The Court may award the receiver 33 percent of the collected funds should the receiver collect the full amount of the judgment, which in this case I did.

So that receiver's amount would be $1, 017, 000, plus the $594, 000 that I have incurred, Judge. So with that, they're offering their settlement that Atlantic Wave and Cyberlux did behind the receiver's back, even though the Court of Appeals instructed them to invite the receiver to the mediation. They never did that. Of course, they couldn't reach their client when I was trying to schedule that.

They're trying to take my ballpark $1.6 million expenses in legal fees, receiver's fee, and

cut it down to an agreed -- what they agreed to $218, 000, thinking they're doing me a favor, which would actually put me in the hole about $400, 000, Judge.

And I can assure you, Your Honor, if these two parties had asked your court reporter to create a transcript for a lengthy trial and she had done so and created a $600, 000 court transcript and delivered them to the parties and then suddenly the parties said, You know what, we settle, we're just not going to pay her, I would like to think His Honor would not let those parties just simply dissolve into the night, leaving the court reporter owed $600, 000, which is exactly what's happening here.

THE COURT: Right. So in a way I'm just trying to figure out what the game plan is moving forward to wrap this up, either through -- obviously, there's an effort to expand the receivership. I assume that that's sort of on a parallel track with the effort to resolve the -- all of the creditors' claims in Virginia.

Is the amounts that are in this court -- there is amounts that have been deposited in the

Hearing March 2, 2026

MR. BERLETH: Correct. Well, it's in the receiver's IOLTA. It was $3,083,000; but as I've said, I've had to pay payroll and things like that out of it.

THE COURT: But that's separate from,

like, the Virginia --

MR. BERLETH: That is completely separate from the Virginia. This is only Atlantic Wave's. And so what I've done, Judge, if you want to never hear the word "Cyberlux" again -- and trust me, I can share your empathy on that.

What I've done is I -- I already had a motion to terminate the receivership when I received the $3, 083, 000. What I would like to do is reurge my motion to terminate the receivership with this order, which does terminate the receivership.

It does the same thing that Ms. Myers is asking for, which is to terminate the receivership; but it pays the receiver what he's owed. And I'll distribute the funds. I have the $873, 000 check here that I'll forward in accordance with that order, and the receivership can be terminated here today right now in this hearing.

With that said, I can assure you that at least one or more of those creditors are going to be marching down the hall to Judge Roth -- I think their

Hearing March 2, 2026

consortium and go to Virginia and withdraw the $25 million to pay the actual creditors.

As I've said, Judge, there is more than 50 or $60 million in owed money. All of those creditors are taking a haircut and they know it, but they want something rather than nothing.

And if you sign the order that they have jointly presented to you, all of the other creditors are going to get hosed, including your own receiver.

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, may I -- MR. MAHENDRU: Can I interject, Your Honor, on behalf of the receiver?

You need a road map of what's on deck first, what's on deck second. This joint motion to terminate or dissolve the receiver, however they fashioned it, they only filed that on Thursday, setting it for a hearing this afternoon at 1:30. I don't know how it got moved to 11:00 a.m.

That is not proper notice. I don't care what any other lawyer before you says, whether it's Mr. Walton or Ms. Myers. No one gave proper three days' notice of any motion to terminate or dissolve the receivership. The joint motion wasn't filed until

Hearing March 2, 2026

Point No. 2 is if you wish to take the due

order of pleadings, the motion to withdraw by Thompson

Point No. 3, since Thursday of last week, you now have, at last count, six or seven parties that have intervened in this lawsuit. Those six or seven are creditors, who are also joining in the expansion of the receivership.

So this little game that is afoot between Cyberlux and Atlantic to, A, completely, as Mr. Berleth said, hose the receiver, that needs to be shelved.

B, the fact that there are other parties now before you, who are also judgment creditors, who are also seeking relief in your court, could never be disposed of on a two-day motion to dissolve the receivership.

Three, you couldn't ever and wouldn't ever, I imagine, Your Honor, dissolve the receivership without a proper accounting and a report by the

Hearing March 2, 2026

receiver, which you don't have, which the receiver has

And the only interim step that the

receiver is willing to take or proffer at this very moment, at 11:31 a.m., is an issue to be taken up at

1:30, which is, what is it Atlantic Wave is seeking in terms of interim attorney's fees under the turnover statute that Mr. Walton indicated was set this afternoon.

So, I don't know what it is the Thompson Coburn lawyers are doing because their motion, and I can share it with you on screen, says they wish to withdraw. And if they wish to withdraw, sign the order Judge, and we're done.

We will deal with Cyberlux and its principal, as we are entitled to under the Rules of Civil Procedure. They can't come to you and say, Dissolve the receivership because we have some back channel agreement with Atlantic Wave on how to completely upend this receivership.

THE COURT: Understood.

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, may I --

MR. SADIGH: Your Honor, I am sorry. May

I please address some of the issues that Mr. Berleth and his attorney, Mr. Mahendru, have been putting in front

Hearing March 2, 2026

Counselor, did you want to say something? MR. ARDMORE: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.

And so the problem that we're running into at this point is that the creditor is going to become prejudiced here fairly quickly, we believe, or at least there's a high risk of that. Because some of these attorneys with these big fees are getting restless; and we don't know that, you know, it's going to be so easy to recover attorney fees to defend against attorney fee claims.

And so that's why we've been pushing so hard. And I wrote a letter to the Court a little while back saying, you know, We're barely hanging on here. So -- but on top of that, just resolving that one issue -- and we've had a motion pending for quite some

But just resolving that one issue will make most of this go away; and it will make less people show up at the next hearing, such as Atlantic Wave.

THE COURT: And so you're -- and that

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, they can't press that motion under the settlement terms that we've agreed

MR. ARDMORE: I think we're agreed on everything.

MS. MYERS: The only motion that's currently pending is the joint motion to distribute funds and to terminate the receivership.

I do have a proposal that I think could make this go more efficiently. And it would only require two tweaks to our proposed order on the joint motion, which is the parties have stipulated that the receiver is entitled to $218, 000. The receiver can certainly put in evidence to support his claim he's entitled to more. Okay?

All you have to do in that order is change the parties have stipulated that the receiver is

MR. ARDMORE: The interim distribution motion that we put forward and filed maybe a month ago. 8 9 10 11 to. The only -- 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

payment in full satisfaction of this judgment, the receivership can be terminated except for the purpose of

But that gets everything done except for the one remaining issue. And the one remaining issue of the receiver's fees and costs cannot keep this receivership in place. This receivership has been over three different times, and now the parties have entered into a settlement agreement.

The judgment is done. The receivership is over as of the date of the settlement agreement. The only issue is what Mr. Berleth is entitled to. And so I think if you make those adjustments to our proposed order, then we can be available in two weeks or a week. We would need an accounting, of course. And we may be able to negotiate a resolution on that.

THE COURT: And Mr. Sadigh --

MR. SADIGH: Your Honor, please, I think

Hearing March 2, 2026

it will help the Court very much. If you just give me

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. SADIGH: First of all, Mr. Berleth said that we went to mediation without letting him know. No. He was aware. He was invited more than twice, when we went in December and he wanted to do it in January. And his attorney constantly said they're not available.

We spent a lot of money, hours and days, to prepare for mediation. We went to mediation with Cyberlux. And, unfortunately, because the receiver did not participate was one of the reasons we couldn't succeed in mediation.

Second, all of the other creditors that Mr. Berleth eloquently was trying to tell the Court that he has consortium so he can expand his receivership and go to Virginia and collect all this money for all of them, they have their remedies.

There is an interpleader. They're in a federal court in Virginia in the hands of a very able federal judge. They can file their claim in the interpleader; and a federal judge under federal guidelines, without charging any fees except a filing fee, will determine their share of that 23 million or $25 million that is sitting in Virginia.

Hearing March 2, 2026

Virginia, that these creditors cost can deal with a federal judge, which I'm certain is very fair and I'm certain can make the right decision. And I'm sure

The other matter is that when Mr. Berleth says that his attorney did not know about the hearing this morning until about 9:00 o'clock, I don't know how. Because Mr. Berleth has been on the phone with me, with my client, with all of us since last Thursday. He

didn't tell his attorney?

And when his attorney says that he's not available for this hearing, which is going to be done probably in 20 minutes and he wants to do it at 1:30, he's the one who you need to ask, but he's presenting that one of our attorneys has agreed to move the hearing that was in February to today.

Why is it that he's not available now, and he's been sitting there for the last 40 minutes? All of this shows that the only issue for the receiver is that he has to spend money. He has gone to try and find other creditors and try to make the consortium and make money for himself, Your Honor.

The fact of the matter is that up until

Hearing March 2, 2026

The only thing he was saying to us, and

almost getting in a yelling match, was threatening my client about, You will not see a cent if you don't go

Based on that, I believe what Ms. Myers has put in front of the Court. It's a very good solution. Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. MAHENDRU: Your Honor, I -- THE COURT: Hold on. Mr. Mahendru, just one second.

I can't support or oppose Mr. Ardmore's motion. And they have been asking me for months, Will you agree to distribute the $873, 000 for -- and I agree, Atlantic Wave has been supporting basically all of the attorney's fees for the consortium.

Hearing March 2, 2026

I believe the first reset was because of a weather-related closure. The second reset was because 6

the Court was unavailable, and it was kind of a

THE COURT: So I don't mind if we need to hear -- I don't mind hearing that motion. It would be late afternoon.

MR. BERLETH: Fantastic.

THE COURT: So we can come back and hear that motion.

MR. BERLETH: We're here.

THE COURT: And so I guess that -- and we can kind of address Mr. Ardmore's motion at that point. It sounds like we have a problem with joining stuff. I can kind of carry that, and then kind of -- carry that kind of issue until I kind of figure out where that fits into this.

I understand that you're opposed to it, and it's probably not -- but we can kind of follow up a little bit on that -- on those issues, as well. But I

Hearing March 2, 2026

understand that's -- so the reason I wanted to have this

trying to decide here today, where everybody was at.

And so at least I wanted to touch base with everybody at 11:00 to kind of figure out where everybody's posture was.

My biggest concern was that pending request, and so I wanted to at least address that on some level. I didn't know where that fit into all of this. And it sounds like that's still outside of that.

MR. BERLETH: The problem that they're bringing up is, for example, Rich Shiffler is an employee. And for him -- you know, for these employees to -- I mean, they're right. They do have, under the legal sense, a remedy to go to Virginia; and they can hire a Virginia lawyer to appear in federal court, which I can assure you is not cheap.

And, you know, for a single mother of two, who's just trying to get her $2, 500 paycheck, is she going to go to Virginia and get --

THE COURT: We've had this discussion before. I understand.

MR. BERLETH: -- yeah, she's not. And so that's the value of expanding the receivership, is because I can take all of those employees, these

Hearing March 2, 2026

thinking they were paid by Cyberlux and now they're not and they want me to go collect their $5,000. They can't afford to go and hire federal counsel in Virginia to do that.

THE COURT: Right, but that's a

separate --

MR. BERLETH: That's a separate issue.

If you want to terminate the receivership today, Judge, I'm prepared to do that; but I can't take a $218, 000 fee, even though they've agreed. And that's the problem with it.

My main problem with the joint motion is, is that it instructs me to distribute all of the funds and then interplead the $218, 000 that I can then go later and fight over, which Cyberlux, I'm sure you're aware by now, they would argue the sky is not blue, if they could.

And so now I'm sitting here for a fee of $218, 000 that if the Court decides, you know, what -- we do agree that the receiver is entitled to 1.6, there is no money there to pay me. So now do we reanimate the

THE COURT: Understood.

MR. BERLETH: -- I can't do that.

THE COURT: I'm about to recess the hearing.

Is there anything else you want to say? MR. ARDMORE: Thank you, Your Honor. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

I think that the fees to pay the attorneys

for the creditor have been agreed by, I think, everyone. So I don't think that there's any dispute over the amount of the fees. It's in the settlement agreement. And Mr. Berleth says that he's got the check ready to go.

THE COURT: You're either opposed or in agreement?

Hearing March 2, 2026

MR. BERLETH: I would ask the Court to --

And then we can take up the motion to expand the receivership later if Thompson Coburn is still their attorney, which I'm not sure if they're even going to be around after 1:30 this afternoon.

MR. MAHENDRU: Your Honor, we don't have any settlement agreement between these two parties. So if we want to fly by the seat of the pants -- I thought this was just a status conference. Why are we coming back this afternoon?

Why aren't they showing the Court the settlement agreement? Why haven't they shared the settlement agreement with all parties? Why don't the intervenors have a right to speak?

I mean, what is going on here? Like, we're just going to start making rulings and interlineating orders on motions that haven't been

Hearing March 2, 2026

properly set and add two words to it and let Cyberlux

I mean, I feel like I'm in the twilight zone.

THE COURT: Did you want to say something?

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, I just wanted to

reiterate again. Because as soon as any payment gets

made for the stipulated attorney's fees, that is the last remaining issue with respect to the receivership that was established by your order under Chapter 31. The only remaining issue, and it doesn't prolong the receivership, is what Mr. Berleth's reasonable attorney's fees and costs are.

Again, I would propose, enter the joint motion order, alter it to say that he's entitled to at least $218, 000 -- he doesn't have to prove that because we have stipulated to it -- have the remaining corpus put in the Court registry. So then we can come back, after a full accounting, and allow Mr. Berleth to make his motion to receive his piece.

MR. BERLETH: That's not -- first of all, that terminates the receivership. So it doesn't give all of the other people the ability to come and argue. Secondly, Judge, that money was spent. I paid payroll. So I can't. Now you're asking me to go

Hearing March 2, 2026

MR. MAHENDRU: Your Honor, I have to

leave. Can we come back this afternoon?

THE COURT: So, Mr. Mahendru, you

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. MAHENDRU: I do.

THE COURT: You can leave. I'll continue

to talk to Mr. Berleth, if you need to go.

MR. MAHENDRU: What time this afternoon would you like to see us, Your Honor?

THE COURT: If we recess, we'll probably reconvene at 4. But I'll let Mr. Berleth -- I'm sure Mr. Berleth can handle the details from here.

The -- so on -- so you're fine -- so the purpose of the 4:00 o'clock was to allow him to present his interim attorney's fees request?

MR. BERLETH: Correct. And there was a misstatement there. That 873 represents the attorney's

Hearing March 2, 2026

fees incurred by Atlantic Waves from May 22nd, 2025, to

Originally, this Court asked me to collect $2.1 million. With my expenses and fees on top of that came to about $3 million. That $3 million has been spent in part, but it's mostly sitting intact in my IOLTA. The Texas Access to Justice Foundation is a huge fan of mine now. It's sitting there, waiting on distribution.

THE COURT: Right. So if you have -- and I don't know how much. You said 400,000 to 2.6, roughly?

MR. BERLETH: Yeah, it's about there. THE COURT: Okay. It's 2.6. So -- MR. BERLETH: I mean, I have spent -- I mean, some of it was money that I spent out of my pocket; and some of it was money that I spent -- THE COURT: Let's say there's 2.6.

MR. BERLETH: Okay. THE COURT: So if we give them 800, that gets us to 1.8, right?

MR. BERLETH: Ballpark. THE COURT: Yeah.

MR. BERLETH: Well, it's actually 873. So

Hearing March 2, 2026

But if the interim distribution occurs,

that's only for the attorney's fees incurred during the receivership. They still have another million dollars plus that they're owed on the judgment.

THE COURT: Understood. So you have 1.8 million left, approximately. And then you want 1.2 or 6?

MR. BERLETH: I'm asking for -- my fee invoice is for $1,594, 719.94.

THE COURT: So 1.6. So that would leave 200 -- let's assume, best-case scenario, you got everything. That would leave $200 for --

MR. BERLETH: 200,000, which -- THE COURT: -- for the underlying judgment?

MR. BERLETH: Again, they're asking for it to go back to Cyberlux, which -- or Legalist, which, again, that's preferential treatment to a creditor. I think that should be interpled into the Virginia court for the Virginia court to decide who gets that money.

THE COURT: So you think the remainder should be taken out of this court and sent to Virginia? MR. BERLETH: And sent -- not out of this

Court, but out of the IOLTA. And that's --

MR. BERLETH: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

want to 200 --

MR. BERLETH: Correct. THE COURT: -- and then they just go figure out who gets what.

MR. BERLETH: Correct. And that Virginia court, whether it goes and deals with the consortium through another receivership --

THE COURT: Okay. So -- MR. BERLETH: -- or each individual person goes up there, that's what that court deals with.

THE COURT: On your 1.6, roughly, obviously that would have to be proved up and I wouldn't necessarily be bound by the contract, but --

MR. BERLETH: Correct. I'm prepared to do that today.

THE COURT: Yeah. I'm sorry?

MR. BERLETH: I'm prepared to do that

Hearing March 2, 2026

invoice ready, and I'm prepared to take on testimony.

THE COURT: I'm assuming that they're not and they would probably want an opportunity to talk, but

MR. BERLETH: That's what filing things with three days' notice gets you.

THE COURT: Okay. So best -- is it my understanding that there's the -- that if there's an

interim -- is there anybody opposed to the interim disbursement?

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, Cyberlux is opposed, because it doesn't take into account the full scope of the settlement agreement that the parties have entered into.

We don't oppose the amount, but that amount represents a full settlement and satisfaction of the underlying judgment itself, too. And so that's the opposition. And the settlement agreement frankly mooted their motion for interim fees, because it was a resolution of everything before this Court.

MR. BERLETH: I don't think there is a settlement agreement, as she's saying, Judge. I've asked them about that. There is the only signed document pursuant to what my conversation with

Hearing March 2, 2026

in place move forward with Mr. Ardmore's unopposed

THE COURT: So do you have a settlement

MS. MYERS: We do, Your Honor. We didn't attach it to the filing because it's confidential.

THE COURT: Do you have a settlement

MR. ARDMORE: Yes, Your Honor. It does stipulate the attorney fees that we seek in the interim distribution motion. And so they have been opposed to the interim distribution motion from the beginning. So I don't think that that changes. But everyone's been noticed on that.

And the amount of the distribution, the amount that goes to Atlantic Wave has been stipulated by -- all parties are agreed to the amount. And so at this point we don't see any reason why Atlantic Wave should be prejudiced -- why the creditors should be prejudiced by these other attorneys, who are very skilled litigation attorneys, which is what they unfortunately have had to employ.

Hearing March 2, 2026

And so when everything is stipulated and

he's got a check here, ready to go, we don't see why the creditors should be prejudiced. Now, if they want to -- if the argument is whether the receivership is shut down or not, we -- we're good either way. We're good. And that's something that can be heard at a later time, but we've had a very pressing issue for quite some time on these attorney's fees that are outstanding. And so when it's stipulated to the amount and the check is ready to go, I just don't see any reason for further suffering.

THE COURT: Right. And I understand that. And that's why I'm trying to see if it's necessary for the 4:00 o'clock. And so --

MR. ARDMORE: Oh, thank you, Your Honor. THE COURT: So the issue is if the amount is stipulated to and there doesn't seem to be any opposition, the concern is, is that because they're not getting the full benefit of their settlement agreement because the amounts being paid are sort of outside the scope of the settlement agreement.

But that's -- that settlement agreement is -- sort of just resolves the dispute between Atlantic Wave and Cyberlux and perhaps what you may be entitled in excess of the $800, 000 in attorney's fees.

Hearing March 2, 2026

MR. ARDMORE: Yes, Your Honor. And it

we agree that the receivership be terminated, but it doesn't say that it needs to happen right here today, in the settlement agreement.

So there's nothing in the settlement agreement that states that we can't do it in pieces and that we can't take care of this pressing issue, which was the -- so these unpaid attorney fees was the driving motivation that got us into -- to agree to this.

THE COURT: Okay. So on the issue of if their -- if the creditor that sort of spawned the receivership no longer has a pending claim, doesn't it moot the receivership? I mean, if they resolved their dispute?

MR. BERLETH: Well, I think under Chapter 64 (a) (7), this Court does have the ability in equity to grant the other parties the ability to -- you know, because there is, you know --

THE COURT: So I'm just --

MR. BERLETH: -- imminent and irreparable harm if you give that money to Cyberlux and you terminate the receivership, which will do that --

THE COURT: Well, I'm not talking about

Hearing March 2, 2026

THE COURT: And they've settled it --

outside they've settled it anyway, then --

MR. BERLETH: Sure. Well, they still have to settle my fee; but yeah.

THE COURT: Settle the fee.

MR. BERLETH: Correct.

THE COURT: But I haven't wound up the

receivership, there hasn't been an accounting, there hasn't been a prove-up on the attorney's fees.

MR. BERLETH: Correct.

THE COURT: But basically, the winds are out of the sails, at least with respect to the first order that was you collected the money, they've settled their claims, you've spent what you've spent, and the claims have been resolved by the original order to appoint.

MR. BERLETH: No. Because that 873 represents the fees incurred since the inception of the receivership. The $2.1 million I was originally assigned to collect, they've been paid $1.1 million through the Virginia court.

There is still a ballpark million dollars

Hearing March 2, 2026

It only settles the Texas action, pulls all the parties out of Texas, and they can resolve the rest of the issue in the Virginia court through a federal judge.

THE COURT: Is there a reason why you haven't shared the settlement agreement?

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, I haven't --

MR. SADIGH: It's confidential.

MS. MYERS: I haven't been asked for it. I'm happy to provide it in a confidential way, of course. Actually, I haven't heard from the receiver or his counselor except to ask whether our motion to withdraw is still pending.

MR. BERLETH: Which was several weeks ago; and they said, yes, they're still going to go forward with their motion to withdraw.

So, again, Judge, we came into -- you know, as of yesterday at 4:00 o'clock in the afternoon, the plan was they have their motion to withdraw up and

Hearing March 2, 2026

Thirdly is the receiver's motion to

expand. If you go through all of those, two unopposed motions and one, as you said, there is the burden of the

THE COURT: I understand. Okay. So your only objection to the payment -- or the -- your only objection is you otherwise have a settlement agreement?

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, the issue is what that payment resolves. And the parties have agreed that the payment of that amount of money resolves all pending issues between the parties in this matter.

MS. MYERS: And so granting it as an

Hearing March 2, 2026

settlement and it resolves all remaining issues in this

The parties can go fight in Virginia.

Those are excluded from the settlement. 7 8 THE COURT : Okay. So --

MR. BERLETH: It doesn't. You have three

intervenors right there. It doesn't resolve their

issues at all.

THE COURT: Understood.

So it doesn't sound like I have any objection to your interim payment. So I'm going to go ahead and grant that.

MR. ARDMORE: Thank you. Thank you, Your Honor.

THE COURT: The issue of the effect of the settlement agreement, I don't have it before me. And it looks like there's issues with scheduling. So we'll need to take that up at a later point. It sounds like there's objections and we won't be able to resolve that.

So the other issue is the motion to withdraw. Do you still want the Court to consider it, or do you want to hold off on it?

Hearing March 2, 2026

MS. MYERS: Your Honor, I need to know what is going to be heard this afternoon before I ask

THE COURT: So nothing is going to be heard this afternoon since I'm granting the relief.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. BERLETH: We need the receiver's motion to expand because the consortium is looking for the March 25th settlement -- I'm sorry, I keep saying

25th -- 26th --

THE COURT: That won't be on today because we don't have time.

MR. BERLETH: I get that. Can we get -- MR. PRIDDY: Judge, can I speak? I represent Legalist. They're the largest secured creditor here. Can I have 60 seconds? I know it's a busy day today, but I think I can help offer some clarification.

THE COURT: Yes.

MR. PRIDDY: So I represent Legalist SVP. We're owed about 13 million by Cyberlux. We deposited the 3 million and change with the receiver, my client did back in June, with the understanding that it would

move to intervene on Friday. The reason we did so was

One was we haven't seen the settlement agreement either, but our understanding was that it offered to release the funds we paid to the receiver back to Legalist, to the extent there were additional funds.

And the second reason we intervened is in the event that the receivership was expanded, we would obviously want to be involved in the case to protect our 14 rights.

That being said, as Legalist sits here today, we fully support the joint motion that was filed. We're fine with Atlantic Wave being paid their fees. And I believe the motion and the settlement stipulate that they're going to return the outstanding balance back to Legalist. Again, I haven't seen that.

But I can represent to the Court that if the Court goes the route of paying Atlantic Wave and terminating the receivership, Legalist is fine with the excess funds remaining in the registry while the parties dispute what the fees are.

Hearing March 2, 2026

And, frankly, while the funds are in the registry, those funds belong to Cyberlux, because we made that as a loan, a protective advance, to Cyberlux. So that's just some background on kind of our involvement in the case and why we may want to be involved moving forward. But we're fully signed off on the joint relief that Cyberlux and Atlantic Wave have asked for today.

And then very quickly, on this proceeding that's taking place in the Eastern District of Virginia, this case has been on file up there since June. It's a very active case. There's 150 docket entries. We're exchanging discovery as we speak.

The court has set a settlement conference with its magistrate judge on March 26th. And if the parties can't settle on March 26th, the court has given us summary judgment deadlines on April 15th.

It has indicated that either by settlement agreement or by summary judgment, the court in the Eastern District of Virginia intends to rule and dispose of these funds that relates to the additional creditors. We're comfortable with that process. We're fine with everything playing out. The 25 million, or whatever it is, we're fine with that playing out in Virginia. So that's just a little bit of flavor for the

THE COURT: And I'm fine with it playing out in Virginia, as well.

MR. BERLETH: I figured you would, but then you get Mr. Beale. His client is an intervenor in this case, and he's wanting the receiver to go collect the funds out of Virginia.

THE COURT :

Right.

MR. BERLETH: I'm sorry?

THE COURT: Is the magistrate mediating on the 26th?

MR. BERLETH: Correct, Your Honor. And that's what I'm saying. I've worked tirelessly for months to get everybody -- all of the creditors, potentially including Legalist -- together to have a stipulated agreement that all -- I mean, it's not even going to be a two-hour hearing.

THE COURT: Understood. MR. BERLETH: Here's the stipulation. They give it to us. I bring it back to you. I ratify it. And by April 15th, this case is over.

Hearing March 2, 2026

THE COURT: I can probably do something

MR. BERLETH: Okay.

THE COURT: Probably Thursday.

MR. BERLETH: I'm not -- actually, that

THE COURT: What's -- where's your motion?

MR. ARDMORE: Thank you, Your Honor.

MR. BERLETH: It's in the docket.

THE COURT: When was it filed?

MR. BERLETH: Several months ago. In

December, I believe.

MR. ARDMORE: I'll find out.

THE COURT: What's it entitled?

MR. WALTON: Your Honor, it was filed on

January 6, 2026. It's called Plaintiffs' Second Amended Motion for Distribution of Funds.

THE COURT: Plaintiffs' Second Amended

Motion for Distribution of Funds. I don't see it.

Is it the order --

Hearing March 2, 2026

MR. WALTON: January 6th.

THE COURT: Is it the proposed order

granting the motion to withdraw?

MR. BERLETH: Yes. Correct, Your Honor.

MR. WALTON: Your Honor, I think the proposed order was filed on February 9th. Although --

THE COURT: Okay. I see it.

MR. BERLETH: Correct, Judge.

And other than that, the receivership is to remain in place. And we will set a motion to expand the receivership as soon as possible.

And I would also like to suggest to the Judge that the motion to withdraw for Thompson Coburn has not been objected by any party, and if you want to --

THE COURT: Do you wish to continue with that or pass it?

MS. MYERS: As long as nothing is set for hearing later today, we would like to proceed with it.

THE COURT: Okay.

Document 175-22 Filed 04/15/26 2912

Hearing March 2, 2026

MS. MYERS : I can't ask you to let me

THE COURT : Okay. It's -- MR. BERLETH: There's not going to be one

MS. MYERS: Thank you.

THE COURT : Have a good day.

THE COURT : It's granted. 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

I, Jennifer Gajevsky, Official Court Reporter in and for the 129th District Court of Harris, State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a true and correct transcription

of all portions of evidence and other proceedings

I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, offered by the respective parties.

/s/ Jennifer Gajevsky

Jennifer Gajevsky, CSR Texas CSR 9250

Official Court Reporter

129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Houston, Texas 77002

Expiration: 2/2028