Evidence Record

Exhibit 3

1. On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882, in the Circuit Court of the City of...

Type: exhibit
Pages: 8
Lines: 358
SHA-256: c87d9565f26a

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run

Profile

Standard

Version

Doc Type

Letter to Court

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

Letter to Court Plaintiff's Counsel (David A. Walton, Bell Nunnally) Texas state court enforcement proceeding, judgment collection, receivership motion 2023-06-15 to 2025-06-05

multiple_creditorsasset_dissipation_riskfederal_removal_attemptssubstantial_claimsreceivership_requested

Analytical Frame

Creditor enforcement action with allegations of debtor asset dissipation

Analytical Summary

This is a May 15, 2025 letter from plaintiff's counsel David A. Walton to Judge Michael Gomez concerning enforcement of a judgment against Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt. Atlantic Wave Holdings alleges Cyberlux owes over $7.7 million under various judgments, security interests, and claims, and is owed over $20 million by Huntington Ingalls Industries under a February 2025 settlement. Walton contends Cyberlux has engaged in deliberate delay tactics through failed removal attempts to hide or dissipate assets before creditors can collect. The letter identifies at least six other creditors claiming over $13.5 million from Cyberlux, including Legalist SPV III claiming $7.3 million with daily accruing fees. Counsel urgently requests the court sign a receivership order immediately upon jurisdiction being restored to prevent asset dissipation and preserve the status quo.

Key Points

Atlantic Wave holds Virginia judgment against Cyberlux for minimum $912,000, domesticated in California and Texas
Cyberlux settlement with HII expected to yield over $20 million imminently per February 26, 2025 agreement
Atlantic Wave claims total debt of over $7.7 million including breach of settlement agreement damages
At least six other creditors claim over $13.5 million from Cyberlux in various jurisdictions
Counsel alleges Cyberlux used two failed removal attempts to delay collection and dissipate assets
Receivership order requested to preserve status quo and prevent asset dissipation

Stage 2

Core — Entities, Events, Claims

24 nodes

ENT-001

Entity

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC

Plaintiff and judgment creditor in enforcement action, holder of Virginia judgment domesticated in California and Texas, claims total debt exceeding $7.7 million from Cyberlux

Page 2 — I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action

ENT-002

Entity

Cyberlux Corporation

Judgment debtor defendant, subject to multiple creditor claims totaling over $21 million, allegedly engaged in asset dissipation tactics

Page 2 — Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux)

ENT-003

Entity

Mark D. Schmidt

Individual judgment debtor, jointly liable with Cyberlux Corporation under Virginia amended final order and judgment

Page 2 — Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux)

ENT-004

Entity

Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII)

Contracting party obligated to pay Cyberlux substantial sum exceeding $20 million under February 26, 2025 settlement agreement

ENT-005

Entity

David A. Walton

Attorney representing Atlantic Wave Holdings, author of letter to Judge Gomez, member of Bell Nunnally law firm

Page 2 — David A. Walton TEL: 214.740.1445 FAX: 214.740.5745 DWALTON@BELLNUNNALLY.COM

ENT-006

Entity

Judge Michael Gomez

Judge presiding over 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, recipient of enforcement letter regarding Cyberlux matter

Page 2 — Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002

ENT-007

Entity

Legalist SPV III, LP

Intervening creditor claiming $7,313,627.17 debt from Cyberlux with daily accruing fees of $4,364.46 under loan agreement

Page 5 — Legalist SPV III, LP filed a Petition in Intervention on February 7, 2025, alleging that Cyberlux is "indebted to Legalist in the amount of $7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46 by virtue of their failure to satisfy their obligations under the Loan Agreement."

ENT-008

Entity

Thin Air Gear, LLC

Creditor claiming $365,049.42 from Cyberlux as of November 18, 2024, obtained default judgment on April 30, 2025

Page 4 — In Case No. 1:25-cv-00805-GPG-MDB, Thin Air Gear, LLC, v. Cyberlux Corporation (D.Colo.), filed on March 12, 2025, Thin Air Gear, LLC, alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to Thin Air Gear in the amount of $365,049.42 as of November 18, 2024, including a 1.5% late fee per month on past due amounts. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 8-13.) On April 30, 2025, the court clerk entered default against Cyberlux.

ENT-009

Entity

Aerotek, Inc.

Creditor awarded judgment of $235,411.27 against Cyberlux on April 11, 2025 in Wake County Superior Court for unpaid payroll expenses

Page 5 — In Case No. 24CV034906-910, Aerotek, Inc. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., In the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, State of North Carolina, filed on October 29, 2024, Aerotek alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to Aerotek for payroll expenses in the amount of $204,705.45, plus interest and attorney fees. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 22-29.) On April 11, 2025, in Wake County Superior Court, an order was entered against Cyberlux Corporation et al. in favor of Aerotek, Inc., in the amount of $235,411.27.

ENT-010

Entity

RB Capital Partners

Creditor claiming $5,686,960 plus interest and attorney fees from Cyberlux in Southern District of California action filed August 12, 2024

Page 5 — In Case No. 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-DTF, RB Capital Partners v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. (S.D.Cal.), filed on August 12, 2024, RB Capital Partners alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to RB Capital in the amount of $5,686,960, plus interest and attorney fees.

ENT-011

Entity

The ARG Group, LLC

Creditor alleging debt from Cyberlux under distributor partner agreement in North Carolina action filed April 24, 2025

Page 5 — In Case No. 25CV004246-310, The ARG Group, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation, In the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, State of North Carolina, filed on April 24, 2025, ARG Group alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to ARG Group for amounts due and owed under a distributor partner agreement.

EVT-001

Event

Virginia Amended Final Order and Judgment - June 28, 2023

Virginia state court entered Amended Final Order and Judgment against Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt in Case No. CL22-3882, Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, with outstanding balance of minimum $912,000

Page 3 — On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The Amended Final Order and Judgment has since been domesticated in California state court in January of 2024 and in Texas state court in July 0₺2024. The outstanding balance due and owed under the Amended Final Order and Judgment is, at minimum, $912,000, after accounting for any prior payments, credits, or offsets.

EVT-002

Event

Settlement Agreement - June 15, 2023

Atlantic Wave and Cyberlux entered into Settlement Agreement in Virginia case requiring Cyberlux to pay Atlantic Wave's attorneys' fees and costs for any breach, with breach damages exceeding $592,000 as of April 24, 2025

Page 3 — On June 15, 2023, Atlantic Wave and Cyberlux entered into a Settlement Agreement in Case No. CL22-3882, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, wherein Cyberlux agreed to be "responsible for the payment of [Atlantic Wave's] attorneys' fees and costs in any action caused by the breach of this [Settlement] Agreement." As of April 24, 2025, the attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Atlantic Wave caused by Cyberlux's breach of the Settlement Agreement is well in excess of $592,000, and

EVT-003

Event

UCC Financing Statements Filed - July 6, 2023

Atlantic Wave filed UCC-1 financing statements in Virginia and Texas to perfect security interest in Cyberlux collateral including money and accounts receivable

Page 3 — On July 6, 2023, Atlantic Wave filed a UCC Financing Statement (Form UCC1) with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Office of the Clerk, to perfect Atlantic Wave's security interest in certain collateral of Cyberlux, including but not limited to "money ... [and] accounts receivable and other rights to payment and performance." On July 6, 2023, Atlantic Wave filed a UCC Financing Statement (Form UCC1) with the Texas Secretary of State to perfect Atlantic Wave's security interest in certain collateral of Cyberlux, including but not limited to "money ... [and] accounts receivable and other rights to payment and performance."

EVT-004

Event

HII Settlement Agreement - February 26, 2025

Cyberlux and Huntington Ingalls Industries entered settlement agreement effective February 26, 2025, under which HII will pay Cyberlux upon delivery of drones (Federal Government Property)

Page 2 — Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII. Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that "Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract."

EVT-005

Event

Legalist Intervention - February 7, 2025

Legalist SPV III, LP filed Petition in Intervention in Texas enforcement action claiming $7.3 million debt with daily accruing fees of $4,364.46

Page 5 — In Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, Legalist SPV III, LP filed a Petition in Intervention on February 7, 2025, alleging that Cyberlux is "indebted to Legalist in the amount of $7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46 by virtue of their failure to satisfy their obligations under the Loan Agreement."

EVT-006

Event

Thin Air Gear Default - April 30, 2025

Court clerk entered default against Cyberlux in Colorado federal action brought by Thin Air Gear claiming $365,049.42

EVT-007

Event

Aerotek Judgment - April 11, 2025

Wake County Superior Court entered order against Cyberlux in favor of Aerotek for $235,411.27 for unpaid payroll expenses

Page 5 — On April 11, 2025, in Wake County Superior Court, an order was entered against Cyberlux Corporation et al. in favor of Aerotek, Inc., in the amount of $235,411.27.

EVT-008

Event

Second Remand Order - May 14, 2025

Federal court (Judge Lee H. Rosenthal) granted Atlantic Wave's request for attorney's fees and costs for responding to Cyberlux's second removal attempt, remanding case to state court

Page 4 — On May 14, 2025, the Texas federal court entered a memorandum and opinion granting "Atlantic Wave's request for an award of the attorney's fees and costs incurred in responding to the second removal." (Notice of Second Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2.)

CLM-001

Claim

Atlantic Wave Total Debt Claim - $7,774,000+

Atlantic Wave contends it is owed in excess of $7,774,000 from Cyberlux based on judgment, security interests, liens, claims, breach of settlement agreement, stock marketability damages, and unpaid attorney fees

Page 4 — Based on the foregoing judgment, security interest, liens, and claims, among others, Atlantic Wave contends it is currently owed in excess of $7,774,000, and further contends that it is entitled to satisfy the amount with non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux.

CLM-002

Claim

Asset Dissipation Allegation

Atlantic Wave alleges Cyberlux's jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay collection efforts long enough to hide or dissipate assets, with legitimate risk of active measures to place assets out of creditors' reach

Page 2 — Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux's jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave's judgment, as well as other creditors' claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors.

CLM-003

Claim

Stock Marketability Damages - $6,017,250

Atlantic Wave claims damages exceeding $6,017,250 due to Cyberlux's failure to bring stock to Pink Current status, make stock marketable, and remedy caveat emptor classification by December 31, 2023 deadline

Page 4 — Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Cyberlux was contractually obligated, among other obligations, to bring its stock to Pink Current status, make the stock marketable, and to remedy the caveat emptor classification on such stock by December 31, 2023, or be subject to additional liability and damages to Atlantic Wave. Cyberlux did not comply with its contractual obligation, which is now the subject of Case No. CI-24-3910, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The damages caused by Cyberlux's wrongful conduct is in excess of $6,017,250 (calculated based on a 20-day rolling average share price of $.0308577 for 195,000,000 shares).

CLM-004

Claim

Security Interest in HII Payment

Atlantic Wave claims security interest and entitlement to satisfy debts with funds held or to be paid by HII to Cyberlux under perfected UCC-1 filings and judgment lien provisions

Page 3 — Atlantic Wave asserts it is an interested stakeholder in any payment due and owed to Cyberlux by HII because Cyberlux has not satisfied debts due and owed to Atlantic Wave, in whole or in part, under a valid and enforceable judgment, writs of garnishment, or liens

CLM-005

Claim

Aggregate Creditor Claims - $13,500,000+

Court filing alleges Cyberlux is indebted to other creditors in amount exceeding $13,500,000 based on face of pleadings, not including amounts owed to Atlantic Wave

Page 5 — On the face of those pleadings, Cyberlux is allegedly indebted to other creditors in an amount in excess of $13,500,000, not including the amount due and owed to Atlantic Wave.

Stage 3

In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions

7 nodes

QUO-001

Quotation

Judge Rosenthal on Receivership Order

Judge Lee H. Rosenthal stated the proposed receivership order does not indicate intent to seize U.S. government property, rejecting Cyberlux's objections

Page 6 — As aptly noted by the Honorable Judge Lee H. Rosenthal: "the proposed [receivership] order does not state, or even suggest, that Atlantic Wave or [the receiver Robert] Berleth intend to seize U.S. government property." (Notice of Second Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2, pp. 5-6.) Indeed, Cyberlux's objections to the language in the proposed order are without merit.

QUO-002

Quotation

Judgment Security Interest Language

Virginia Amended Final Order and Judgment includes agreed language establishing security and lien interests in all property of defendants until all sums paid

Page 3 — The Amended Final Order and Judgment, as agreed to by Cyberlux, also provides that "the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest in all property of Defendants [Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt] in favor of Plaintiffs [Atlantic Wave and Secure Community, LLC] until all sums are paid, and such security interest may be further memorialized through the filing of appropriate UCC 1 forms and the filing of appropriate Liens."

QUO-003

Quotation

Cyberlux Federal Court Concession

Cyberlux conceded to federal court that it and HII are concluding subcontract obligations with Cyberlux delivering drones and HII paying pursuant to subcontract

Page 2 — Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that "Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract." (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.)

TEN-001

Tension

Asset Protection vs. Creditor Rights

Fundamental tension between Cyberlux's attempts to delay collection through jurisdictional challenges and multiple creditors' efforts to reach assets before dissipation

TEN-002

Tension

Competing Creditor Priority

Multiple creditors including Atlantic Wave, Legalist, RB Capital, and others competing for access to limited Cyberlux assets including anticipated HII payment exceeding $20 million

Page 5 — On the face of those pleadings, Cyberlux is allegedly indebted to other creditors in an amount in excess of $13,500,000, not including the amount due and owed to Atlantic Wave.

QST-001

Question

Landlord Lockout Circumstances

What is the full extent of Cyberlux's delinquency on warehouse lease and what portion of drones were removed before lockout?

Page 5 — Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is considerably delinquent in paying rent under its lease for the warehouse facility in Spring, Texas, which caused the landlord to lock out Cyberlux from the facility, after Cyberlux removed a material portion of the drones located at the facility.

QST-002

Question

Asset Factoring Status

Has Cyberlux actually factored $7.3 million in assets as suggested, and if so, to what entity and under what terms?

Page 2 — There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46).

Stage 4

Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns

3 nodes

INF-001

Inference

Deliberate Delay Strategy

Pattern of failed removal attempts and timing of enforcement resistance suggests calculated strategy to delay creditor access until HII payment received and potentially dissipated

INF-002

Inference

Insolvency Risk

Combined creditor claims exceeding $21 million against anticipated HII payment of $20+ million suggests Cyberlux likely insolvent with insufficient assets to satisfy all creditors

Page 4, 5 — On the face of those pleadings, Cyberlux is allegedly indebted to other creditors in an amount in excess of $13,500,000, not including the amount due and owed to Atlantic Wave. Atlantic Wave contends it is currently owed in excess of $7,774,000

OMI-001

Omission

Missing Cyberlux Response

Letter presents only plaintiff's perspective on asset dissipation risk and removal motives without including Cyberlux's stated reasons for jurisdictional challenges or asset management

Page 2 — Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux's jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect

Extracted text

8 pages · 14852 characters

Filing Header

6/5/2025 12:13 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101664202 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/5/2025 12:13 PM

Unofficial Copy Office o Marilyn Burgess District Clerk

EXHIBIT 3

BELLNUNNALLY ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS

May 15, 2025

VIA EFILE.TXCOURTS.GOV

Honorable Michael Gomez 129th Judicial District Court Harris County Civil Courthouse 201 Caroline, 10th Floor Houston Texas 77002

RE: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas.

Dear Judge Gomez:

I represent Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community, LLC (Atlantic Wave) in the above-referenced action and write to briefly address the two failed attempts to remove this enforcement action by Judgment Debtors Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Cyberlux). Atlantic Wave contends that Cyberlux's jurisdictional challenges were deliberately calculated to delay or interfere with any efforts to collect on Atlantic Wave's judgment, as well as other creditors' claims or judgments, long enough for Cyberlux to hide or dissipate assets out of the reach of those creditors. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is in position to receive a substantial sum of money (in excess of $20 million) any day now, from Huntington Ingalls Industries (HII), based on a settlement agreement, effective February 26, 2025, by and between Cyberlux and HII.1 Thus, it is imperative that this Court take all appropriate actions to protect non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberluxyas soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in the Court. There is legitimate risk that Cyberlux is taking active measures to place any such non-exempt assets out of the reach of Atlantic Wave and other creditors, e.g., factoring a large amount of the assets ($7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46).

Judgment Debtors conceded to the Federal Court that "Cyberlux and HII are concluding their obligations under the subcontract, by which Cyberlux will deliver the Federal Government Property (the drones), and HII will pay Cyberlux pursuant to the subcontract." (Case No. 4:25-cv-01689, S.D.Tex., Doc. 9, p. 11 of 17.)

erstellt de & Burgers District Clerk

Atlantic Wave asserts it is an interested stakeholder in any payment due and owed to Cyberlux by HII because Cyberlux has not satisfied debts due and owed to Atlantic Wave, in whole or in part, under a valid and enforceable judgment, writs of garnishment, or liens:

On June 28, 2023, a Virginia state court signed the Amended Final Order and Judgment against Cyberlux (and Mark D. Schmidt) in Case No. CL22-3882, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The Amended Final Order and Judgment has since been domesticated in California state court in January of 2024 and in Texas state court in July 0₺2024. The outstanding balance due and owed under the Amended Final Order and Judgment is, at minimum, $912,000, after accounting for any prior payments, credits, or offsets.

The Amended Final Order and Judgment, as agreed to by Cyberlux, also provides that "the parties have agreed to a security interest and lien interest in all property of Defendants [Cyberlux and Mark D. Schmidt] in favor of Plaintiffs [Atlantic Wave and Secure Community, LLC] until all sums are paid, and such security interest may be further memorialized through the filing of appropriate UCC 1 forms and the filing of appropriate Liens."

On July 6, 2023, Atlantic Wave filed a UCC Financing Statement (Form UCC1) with the Virginia State Corporation Commission, Office of the Clerk, to perfect Atlantic Wave's security interest in certain collateral of Cyberlux, including but not limited to "money ... [and] accounts receivable and other rights to payment and performance."

On July 6, 2023, Atlantic Wave filed a UCC Financing Statement (Form UCC1) with the Texas Secretary of State to perfect Atlantic Wave's security interest in certain collateral of Cyberlux, including but not limited to "money ... [and] accounts receivable and other rights to payment and performance."

On June 15, 2023, Atlantic Wave and Cyberlux entered into a Settlement Agreement in Case No. CL22-3882, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia, wherein Cyberlux agreed to be "responsible for the payment of [Atlantic Wave's] attorneys' fees and costs in any action caused by the breach of this [Settlement] Agreement." As of April 24, 2025, the attorneys' fees and costs incurred by Atlantic Wave caused by Cyberlux's breach of the Settlement Agreement is well in excess of $592,000, and

attorneys' fees and costs continue to accrue as a result of Cyberlux's wrongful conduct.

Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, Cyberlux was contractually obligated, among other obligations, to bring its stock to Pink Current status, make the stock marketable, and to remedy the caveat emptor classification on such stock by December 31, 2023, or be subject to additional liability and damages to Atlantic Wave. Cyberlux did not comply with its contractual obligation, which is now the subject of Case No. CI-24-3910, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia. The damages caused by Cyberlux's wrongful conduct is in excess of $6,017,250 (calculated based on a 20-day rolling average share price of $.0308577 for 195,000,000 shares).

On September 10, 2024, the Virginia state court entered an order awarding attorney fees in the amount of $9,392.50 to be paid on or before December 27, 2024, which were not paid.

On May 14, 2025, the Texas federal court entered a memorandum and opinion granting "Atlantic Wave's request for an award of the attorney's fees and costs incurred in responding to the second removal." (Notice of Second Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2.)

Based on the foregoing judgment, security interest, liens, and claims, among others, Atlantic Wave contends it is currently owed in excess of $7,774,000, and further contends that it is entitled to satisfy the amount with non-exempt assets of Cyberlux, including funds held (or to be paid) by HII on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux.

Not only does Cyberlux owe Atlantic Wave a substantial amount of money, Cyberlux is the subject of several other claims for monies due and owed by Cyberlux:

In Case No. 1:25-cv-00805-GPG-MDB, Thin Air Gear, LLC, v. Cyberlux Corporation (D.Colo.), filed on March 12, 2025, Thin Air Gear, LLC, alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to Thin Air Gear in the amount of $365,049.42 as of November 18, 2024, including a 1.5% late fee per month on past due amounts. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 8-13.) On April 30, 2025, the court clerk entered default against Cyberlux.

In Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, et al. v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al., 129th Judicial District Court, Harris County, Texas, Legalist SPV III, LP filed a Petition in Intervention on February 7, 2025,

alleging that Cyberlux is "indebted to Legalist in the amount of $7,313,627.17 with fees accruing at a daily rate of $4,364.46 by virtue of their failure to satisfy their obligations under the Loan Agreement." (Doc. 1-3, pp. 16-19.)

In Case No. 24CV034906-910, Aerotek, Inc. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., In the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, State of North Carolina, filed on October 29, 2024, Aerotek alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to Aerotek for payroll expenses in the amount of $204,705.45, plus interest and attorney fees. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 22-29.) On April 11, 2025, in Wake County Superior Court, an order was entered against Cyberlux Corporation et al. in favor of Aerotek, Inc., in the amount of $235,411.27.

In Case No. 3:24-cv-01434-AJB-DTF, RB Capital Partners v. Cyberlux Corporation et al. (S.D.Cal.), filed on August 12, 2024, RB Capital Partners alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to RB Capital in the amount of $5,686,960, plus interest and attorney fees. (Doc. 1-3, pp. 32-37.) Case 4:25-cv-01689 Document 6 Filed on 04/29/25 in TXSD Page 5 of 11

In Case No. 25CV004246-310, The ARG Group, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation, In the General Court of Justice, Superior Court Division, State of North Carolina, filed on April 24, 2025, ARG Group alleges that Cyberlux is indebted to ARG Group for amounts due and owed under a distributor partner agreement.

Upon information and belief, Cyberlux is considerably delinquent in paying rent under its lease for the warehouse facility in Spring, Texas, which caused the landlord to lock out Cyberlux from the facility, after Cyberlux removed a material portion of the drones located at the facility.

On the face of those pleadings, Cyberlux is allegedly indebted to other creditors in an amount in excess of $13,500,000, not including the amount due and owed to Atlantic Wave.

Based on Cyberlux's conduct to date, there is a legitimate and severe risk that if Cyberlux receives money held on behalf of or for the benefit of Cyberlux, which is likely soon pursuant to the agreements between Cyberlux and HII, the money will be dissipated before Atlantic Wave and other creditors are paid or can take any further action to prevent such dissipation by Cyberlux. It is imperative that the status quo is preserved

and Cyberlux's deliberate tactics to avoid paying valid and enforceable judgments, writ of garnishment, or liens be brought to an end.

Thus, as soon as jurisdiction is formally revested in this Court, Atlantic Wave respectfully requests that the receivership order previously submitted to the Court on April 1, 2025, be signed instanter to preserve the status quo and minimize any further delay implemented by Cyberlux. Again, to be clear, the focus of Atlantic Wave's collection efforts is not to seize personal property on which the United States (or anyone else) has or claims a mortgage or other lien as established by competent evidence, but rather to seize personal property of Cyberlux as set forth in the proposed receivership order. As aptly noted by the Honorable Judge Lee H. Rosenthal: "the proposed [receivership] order does not state, or even suggest, that Atlantic Wave or [the receiver Robert] Berleth intend to seize U.S. government property." (Notice of Second Remand Order, dated May 14, 2025, Ex. 2, pp. 5-6.) Indeed, Cyberlux's objections to the language in the proposed order are without merit.

At the court's convenience, Atlantic Wave is available for a telephonic (or other remote) status conference to further discuss the foregoing matters. We appreciate your prompt attention to this important matter

Very truly yours, Dank A. Walken

David A. Walton

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on May 15, 2025, a true and correct copy of this document was served on all parties of record via electronic service from the court's ECF system for registered users, in accordance with Rule 21a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

By: /s/ David A. Walton

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.

Frankie Huff on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101664202

Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)

Filing Description: Defendants Objection to Court s Order Appointing Receiver Dated May 22 2025 Status as of 6/5/2025 3:44 PM CST

Case Contacts

Name

BarNumber

TimestampSubmitted

Status

David A.Walton

dwalton@bellnunnally.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

LaDonna Arey

LArey@bellnunnally.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Sandra Meiners

smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Travis Vargo

tvargo@vargolawfirm.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Laurie DeBardeleben

Idebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Roxanna Lock

rlock@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Jeff Brown

jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Records Department

Records@bellnunnally.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Micah Jackson

mjackson@berlethlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Sheli Davis

sdavis@berlethlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Paula Gentry

pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Lena Brasher

lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Frankie Huff

fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Tristian Harris

tharris@berlethlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Corinne Martin

cmartin@berlethlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Hannah Fischer

hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Hannah Petrea

hpetrea@bellnunnally.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Michael Poynter

mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Automated Certificate of eService

Frankie Huff on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101664202

Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee)

Filing Description: Defendants Objection to Court s Order Appointing Receiver Dated May 22 2025 Status as of 6/5/2025 3:44 PM CST

Case Contacts

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Alex Pennetti

apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Douglas S.Lang

dlang@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Katharine Clark

kclark@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Edward W.Gray, Jr.

EGray@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Jocelin A. Tapia

jtapia@thompsoncoburn.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Greg Nieman

gnieman@bellnunnally.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

Jemisha Gandhi

jgandhi@bellnunnally.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 PM

SENT

David M.Keithly

dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com

6/5/2025 12:13:55 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-120929913.pdf
Source UID: source:c87d9565f26a353245a21ffbd973d3b1271701677db325ddd0041d4e14236c60
Full SHA-256: c87d9565f26a353245a21ffbd973d3b1271701677db325ddd0041d4e14236c60

DISTIL analysis

Extracted text

Exhibit 3 — Formatted Extract

Original source file