Evidence Record

Order Appointing Receiver

1. On June 10, 2025, Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist") transmitted payment of $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver, via wire transfer.

Type: document
Pages: 10
Lines: 373
SHA-256: 3d3159f228e3

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run

Profile

Standard

Version

Doc Type

Reply Brief in Support of Emergency Motion

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

Reply Brief in Support of Emergency Motion Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (Judgment Debtors) via Thompson Coburn LLP Post-judgment receivership dispute; Harris County District Court, Texas; enforcement of judgment and receiver authority limits 2024-10-28 to 2025-06-11

emergency_motionsanctions_request_opposedreceivership_scope_disputepayment_tender_claimed

Analytical Frame

Debtor challenge to receiver conduct; payment tender dispute; procedural due process claims

Analytical Summary

This is a reply brief filed June 11, 2025, by Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt in Cause No. 2024-48085 in the 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas. The judgment debtors argue that their emergency motion to stay or suspend the order appointing receiver Robert Berleth should be granted because they tendered full payment of $3,083,639.75 on June 10, 2025, via Legalist SPV III, LP. They assert that Receiver Berleth refuses to accept payment, exceeds his authority by attempting to collect a $25 million receivable from HII far in excess of the judgment, and is improperly attempting to sell Cyberlux's subsidiary. The reply refutes Berleth's claim that proper notice was not provided for the June 9 hearing, documents service to all Berleth & Associates employees, and opposes Berleth's request for sanctions. Cyberlux argues the receiver's conduct—including refusing payment and pursuing assets beyond the judgment scope—necessitates court intervention and that credits/offsets for prior payments have not been applied to the judgment calculation.

Key Points

Legalist SPV III, LP transmitted wire payment of $3,083,639.75 to Receiver on June 10, 2025
Payment allegedly covers judgment amount per Receiver's own June 9, 2025 calculation, but no credits/offsets applied
Receiver Berleth and all employees received notice of June 9, 2025 hearing via e-filing system and email
Receiver attempting to collect $25 million HII receivable, over $20 million in excess of judgment
Receiver continuing efforts to sell Cyberlux subsidiary even after payment tendered
Fifth Circuit previously found Berleth exceeded authority in separate Matter of Preferred Ready-Mix case (2024)
Debtors oppose Receiver's sanctions request based on alleged misstatements at October 28, 2024 hearing

Stage 2

Core — Entities, Events, Claims

23 nodes

ENT-001

Entity

Cyberlux Corporation

Defendant and judgment debtor corporation in Harris County receivership proceeding, represented by Thompson Coburn LLP

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

ENT-002

Entity

Mark D. Schmidt

Individual defendant and judgment debtor, sued individually alongside Cyberlux Corporation

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

ENT-003

Entity

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC

Plaintiff judgment creditors in the underlying lawsuit

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

ENT-004

Entity

Robert Berleth / Berleth & Associates, PLLC

Court-appointed receiver in the case, principal of Berleth & Associates law firm, seeking sanctions against judgment debtors' counsel

Page 1 — Court Appointed Receiver Robert Berleth's unfounded request for sanctions against counsel for Judgment Debtors

ENT-005

Entity

Legalist SPV III, LP

Third-party entity that transmitted wire payment of judgment amount to the receiver on behalf of judgment debtors

Page 1 — On June 10, 2025, Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist") transmitted payment of $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver, via wire transfer.

ENT-006

Entity

Thompson Coburn LLP

Law firm representing Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, with attorneys Douglas S. Lang and Alexander J. Pennetti as counsel of record

Page 7 — Douglas S. Lang State Bar No. 11895500 Alexander J. Pennetti State Bar No. 24110208 THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201

ENT-007

Entity

HII

Entity holding a $25 million receivable that Cyberlux is awaiting payment on; receiver allegedly attempting to redirect payment

Page 5 — Berleth is attempting to recover a $25 million receivable payment from HII, upon which Cyberlux is awaiting payment

EVT-001

Event

Wire Transfer Payment to Receiver

On June 10, 2025, Legalist SPV III, LP transmitted payment of $3,083,639.75 to Receiver Robert Berleth via wire transfer

Page 1 — On June 10, 2025, Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist") transmitted payment of $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver, via wire transfer.

EVT-002

Event

Receiver Provides Wiring Instructions

On June 9, 2025, shortly before 12 p.m., the Receiver provided his wiring instructions for the first time

Page 1 — The Receiver provided his wiring instructions for the first time shortly before 12 p.m. on June 9, 2025.

EVT-003

Event

June 9, 2025 Court Hearing

Court hearing held on June 9, 2025, regarding Cyberlux's emergency motion to stay; receiver represented judgment amount at hearing

Page 6 — At the June 9, 2025 hearing, Berleth represented to the Court that $3.083 million was owed on the judgment.

EVT-004

Event

Notice of Hearing Filed and Served

On Friday, June 6, 2025, upon filing of Cyberlux's Motion to Stay and Notice of June 9, 2025 hearing, Berleth & Associates employees were notified through court electronic filing system and direct email

Page 2 — On Friday, June 6, 2025, upon filing of Cyberlux's Motion to Stay and filing of the Notice of the Court's June 9, 2025 hearing, Harris, Jackson, Davis, and Martin were notified of the filing of the Motion to Stay and the Notice of Hearing through the Court's electronic filing system. Immediately after filing, the undersigned e-mailed a courtesy copy of the Notice of Hearing, along with the Motion to Stay and Cyberlux's Motion to Correct, to Berleth.

EVT-005

Event

June 5, 2025 Telephone Conference

During a June 5, 2025 telephone conference, Cyberlux with Legalist tendered payment to the Receiver; Receiver said he would provide wiring instructions but thereafter refused to accept payment

Page 3 — Cyberlux-with Legalist-tendered payment to the Receiver during a June 5, 2025 telephone conference. At the end of that call, the Receiver said he would provide wiring instructions for Cyberlux to make payment. He thereafter refused to accept payment.

EVT-006

Event

October 28, 2024 Hearing Statement

During hearing on October 28, 2024, undersigned counsel made a mistaken statement regarding Virginia litigation that was corrected by opposing counsel during the same hearing

Page 3 — The Receiver appears to seek sanctions for a mistaken statement the undersigned made during a hearing on October 28, 2024. The undersigned believes that mistake was corrected by counsel for Atlantic Wave during the very same hearing.

EVT-007

Event

Fifth Circuit Ruling Against Berleth

Fifth Circuit held that Berleth exceeded his authority as court-appointed receiver in Matter of Preferred Ready-Mix, L.L.C., No. 24-20158, decided December 31, 2024

Page 6, 7 — In fact, even while this matter was pending, the Fifth Circuit held that Berleth had exceeded his authority as Court-appointed receiver. Matter of Preferred Ready-Mix, L.L.C., No. 24-20158, 2024 WL 5252498, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 2024). Berleth lost that appeal, which arose after the Southern District of Texas concluded that he had "effectively held the major assets of the debtor hostage."

CLM-001

Claim

Payment of $3,083,639.75 Satisfies Judgment

Cyberlux claims that the wire transfer of $3,083,639.75 transmitted on June 10, 2025, matches the exact amount calculated by the Receiver on June 9, 2025, and therefore their motion to stay should be granted

Page 1 — On June 10, 2025, Legalist's counsel transmitted a wire transfer of $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver. This is the exact amount depicted by the Receiver's calculation, provided on June 9, 2025. A partially redacted copy of the wire confirmation is attached as Exhibit A. This alone illustrates that Cyberlux's Motion to Stay should be granted

CLM-002

Claim

Receiver Received Proper Notice

Cyberlux asserts that Receiver's claim of failing to receive notice of the June 9 hearing is factually incorrect; all employees of Berleth & Associates received notice through electronic filing system and direct email

Page 2 — The Receiver claims in his response that Cyberlux's counsel failed to provide notice of the June 9 hearing. This claim is factually incorrect. In addition to principal Robert Berleth, Berleth & Associates, PLLC lists one additional attorney (Tristian Harris, Texas Bar No. 24134449) and three paralegals (Micah Jackson, Sheli Davis, and Corinne Martin) as employees. On Friday, June 6, 2025, upon filing of Cyberlux's Motion to Stay and filing of the Notice of the Court's June 9, 2025 hearing, Harris, Jackson, Davis, and Martin were notified of the filing of the Motion to Stay and the Notice of Hearing through the Court's electronic filing system. Immediately after filing, the undersigned e-mailed a courtesy copy of the Notice of Hearing, along with the Motion to Stay and Cyberlux's Motion to Correct, to Berleth.

CLM-003

Claim

Receiver Refused to Accept Tendered Payment

Cyberlux claims that after tendering payment during June 5, 2025 conference call, the Receiver refused to accept payment despite saying he would provide wiring instructions

CLM-004

Claim

Judgment Amount Increased Unexplained

Cyberlux claims the judgment amount inexplicably increased from $2.975 million (stated June 5) to $3.083 million (stated June 9), over $115k increase in 3 days including a weekend

Page 5, 6 — on June 5, 2025, Berleth informed Cyberlux and Legalist that ~$2.975 million was outstanding on the judgment. Berleth stated this despite being repeatedly informed by Cyberlux's counsel that he had completely failed to account for credits and offsets (i.e., prior payments made by Cyberlux to Judgment Creditors, pursuant to their settlement agreement). At the June 9, 2025 hearing, Berleth represented to the Court that $3.083 million was owed on the judgment. Berleth did not explain how the judgment amount increased over $115k in 3 days (and over a weekend, no less).

CLM-005

Claim

Receiver Attempting to Recover $25M Receivable

Cyberlux claims Receiver is attempting to recover a $25 million receivable payment from HII, which is more than $20 million in excess of the judgment amount

Page 5 — First, Berleth is attempting to recover a $25 million receivable payment from HII, upon which Cyberlux is awaiting payment, This is more than $20 million in excess of the judgment.

CLM-006

Claim

Payment is Overpayment Due to Missing Credits

Cyberlux claims the payment of $3,083,639.75 is an overpayment because no credits or offsets have been applied for numerous prior payments made under the settlement agreement

Page 2 — The payment of $3,083,639.75 is an overpayment because no credits or offsets have been applied. Cyberlux has made numerous payments on the parties' underlying settlement agreement. Even Atlantic Wave, in its May 15, 2025 letter correspondence to the Court, acknowledged that credits and offsets should be applied.

CLM-007

Claim

Receiver Attempting to Sell Cyberlux Subsidiary

Cyberlux claims Receiver has undertaken efforts to sell Cyberlux's subsidiary even after payment was tendered

Page 6 — Additionally, Berleth's response does not dispute that he has undertaken efforts to sell Cyberlux's subsidiary, even after Cyberlux and Legalist tendered payment to him.

CLM-008

Claim

Receiver Contacted Non-Party Creditors

Cyberlux claims Receiver attested at June 9 hearing to efforts to contact various creditors that are not parties to this action and are not judgment creditors in any jurisdiction

Page 6 — at the June 9, 2025 hearing, the Receiver attested to the Court his efforts to contact various creditors that (1) are not parties to this action; and (2) are not even judgment creditors in any jurisdiction.

CLM-009

Claim

Wiring Instructions Not Previously Available

Cyberlux claims Receiver falsely represented that wiring instructions had been sent and were available on his website; website actually requires contacting Berleth & Associates for account numbers

Page 4, 5 — In an attempt to refute the fact he refused to provide wiring instructions so that Cyberlux could satisfy the judgment, Berleth stated that he had not only provided his wiring instructions, but that they were posted on his website. Both claims are inaccurate. The Court heard from the undersigned and counsel from Legalist that they had not been sent wiring instructions. Further, a cursory review of the "Wire Transfer Protocols" on Berleth & Associates, PLLC's website include: Frost Bank Account Number: (Contact Berleth & Associates) Routing Number: (Contact Berleth & Associates)

Stage 3

In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions

7 nodes

TEN-001

Tension

Payment Tendered vs. Receiver Pursuit

Fundamental tension between debtor's claim of full payment satisfaction and receiver's continued aggressive asset collection activities including subsidiary sale and $25M receivable pursuit

TEN-002

Tension

Judgment Amount Calculation Dispute

Unresolved dispute over proper judgment amount due to missing credits/offsets for prior payments under settlement agreement, with amount increasing unexplained over 3-day period

QST-001

Question

What are the proper credits/offsets?

Document repeatedly references credits and offsets that should be applied for prior payments under settlement agreement, but specific amounts and calculations are not provided

QST-002

Question

What is receiver's actual authority scope?

Document argues receiver exceeds authority under section 31.002 post-judgment receivership, but precise legal boundaries and whether receiver disputes these limits remain unclear

Page 5 — Cyberlux's Motion to Stay laid out Berleth's recent acts, which very clearly exceed the authority of a post-judgment receiver appointed under section 31.002.

QST-003

Question

Why did judgment amount increase $115k in 3 days?

Unexplained increase from approximately $2.975M to $3.083M between June 5 and June 9, 2025, spanning a weekend period

Page 5, 6 — on June 5, 2025, Berleth informed Cyberlux and Legalist that ~$2.975 million was outstanding on the judgment. At the June 9, 2025 hearing, Berleth represented to the Court that $3.083 million was owed on the judgment. Berleth did not explain how the judgment amount increased over $115k in 3 days (and over a weekend, no less).

QUO-001

Quotation

Fifth Circuit Finding on Berleth

Southern District of Texas concluded receiver Berleth had 'effectively held the major assets of the debtor hostage' in prior case

Page 6, 7 — which arose after the Southern District of Texas concluded that he had "effectively held the major assets of the debtor hostage."

TLL-001

Tell

Pattern of Receiver Overreach

Document's repeated emphasis on receiver exceeding authority, combined with citation to Fifth Circuit case where Berleth previously exceeded authority, constructs narrative of pattern rather than isolated incident

Stage 4

Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns

3 nodes

INF-001

Inference

Receiver Exceeding Post-Judgment Authority

Pattern of conduct suggests receiver is attempting to exercise authority beyond section 31.002 post-judgment receivership scope by pursuing assets far in excess of judgment amount

Page 5 — Cyberlux's Motion to Stay laid out Berleth's recent acts, which very clearly exceed the authority of a post-judgment receiver appointed under section 31.002. First, Berleth is attempting to recover a $25 million receivable payment from HII, upon which Cyberlux is awaiting payment, This is more than $20 million in excess of the judgment.

INF-002

Inference

Strategic Refusal to Accept Payment

Receiver's conduct of refusing payment after tender while simultaneously pursuing subsidiary sale and excessive receivable suggests strategic attempt to expand scope of receivership beyond judgment satisfaction

Page 6 — even after funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment were tendered to the Receiver, the Receiver refused payment. After the funds were tendered, Berleth continued his efforts to solicit bids for the sale of Cyberlux's subsidiary. Berleth also continued his efforts to "coordinate" with HII, i.e., to persuade HII to pay a $25 million receivable to Berleth, rather than to Cyberlux.

OMI-001

Omission

No Response to Subsidiary Sale Activity

Brief notes that receiver's response does not dispute efforts to sell Cyberlux's subsidiary, suggesting acknowledgment through silence

Page 6 — Additionally, Berleth's response does not dispute that he has undertaken efforts to sell Cyberlux's subsidiary, even after Cyberlux and Legalist tendered payment to him.

Extracted text

10 pages · 15324 characters

Filing Header

ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC OF

§ IN THE DISTRICT COURT §

and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,

Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor

§ § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS §

v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and

MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually,

Defendant/Judgment Debtors.

§ 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT'S REPLY IN SUPPORT OF EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND

ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER

Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt's Emergency Motion to Stay and Emergency Motion to Correct the Order Appointing Receiver ("Turnover Order") should be granted. Court Appointed Receiver Robert Berleth's unfounded request for sanctions against counsel for Judgment Debtors (hereinafter, "Cyberlux") must be denied.

1. On June 10, 2025, Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist") transmitted payment of $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver, via wire transfer.

The Receiver provided his wiring instructions for the first time shortly before 12 p.m. on June 9, 2025.1 On June 10, 2025, Legalist's counsel transmitted a wire transfer of $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver. This is the exact amount depicted by the Receiver's calculation, provided on June 9, 2025.2 A partially redacted copy of the wire confirmation is attached as Exhibit A. This alone illustrates that Cyberlux's Motion to Stay should be granted

These had not been provided before, contrary to the Receiver's representations. And, as depicted below, the Receiver's wiring instructions are not on his law firm website.

The Receiver's Judgment Calculation is attached as Exhibit B.

The payment of $3,083,639.75 is an overpayment because no credits or offsets have been applied. Cyberlux has made numerous payments on the parties' underlying settlement agreement. Even Atlantic Wave, in its May 15, 2025 letter correspondence to the Court, acknowledged that credits and offsets should be applied. Despite being informed about his error, the Receiver continues to use the total judgment amount, and it appears the Receiver has taken no action to investigate what credits are appropriate. Although funds sufficient for the Receiver's fee have been paid, Cyberlux reserves the right to challenge the Receiver's fee, which must be determined by the Court after the Receiver submits documentation of his fees and expenses.

2. Berleth, along with every employee of Berleth & Associates, PLLC, received notice of the June 9 hearing.

The Receiver claims in his response that Cyberlux's counsel failed to provide notice of the June 9 hearing. This claim is factually incorrect.

In addition to principal Robert Berleth, Berleth & Associates, PLLC lists one additional attorney (Tristian Harris, Texas Bar No. 24134449) and three paralegals (Micah Jackson, Sheli Davis, and Corinne Martin) as employees. On Friday, June 6, 2025, upon filing of Cyberlux's Motion to Stay and filing of the Notice of the Court's June 9, 2025 hearing, Harris, Jackson, Davis, and Martin were notified of the filing of the Motion to Stay and the Notice of Hearing through the Court's electronic filing system.3

Immediately after filing, the undersigned e-mailed a courtesy copy of the Notice of Hearing, along with the Motion to Stay and Cyberlux's Motion to Correct, to Berleth.4 Counsel for Atlantic Wave was copied on that e-mail.

See EFileTexas.gov Notifications of Service, attached as Exhibits C-D.

See E-mail correspondence to R. Berleth and D. Walton, attached as Exhibit E.

Further, in a misreading of the Court's Turnover Order, Berleth seems to suggest that Cyberlux cannot seek protection from the Receivership order through motion practice. In doing so, Berleth claims that Cyberlux should be sanctioned simply for requesting relief from this Court.

Entertaining Berleth's unsupported request would effectively deny Cyberlux any meaningful due process. Moreover, the request directly contradicts Paragraph 21(h) of the Turnover Order, which permits Cyberlux to seek the Court's protection so long as Cyberlux attempts to resolve the issues and gives the Receiver notice of hearing.5 Cyberlux's counsel had telephonic conversations and exchanged written correspondence with the Receiver regarding these issues. Cyberlux also filed written objections with the Court, as required by the Turnover Order. These objections concerned, among other things, the scope of the Receiver's actions.

After these discussions and the filing of Cyberlux's objections, Cyberlux-with Legalist-tendered payment to the Receiver during a June 5, 2025 telephone conference. At the end of that call, the Receiver said he would provide wiring instructions for Cyberlux to make payment. He thereafter refused to accept payment.

The Receiver appears to seek sanctions for a mistaken statement the undersigned made during a hearing on October 28, 2024. The undersigned believes that mistake was corrected by counsel for Atlantic Wave during the very same hearing. In any event, the undersigned acknowledges that his understanding of the Virginia litigation was incorrect. The undersigned's quoted statements during the hearing were not made to deliberately

Paragraph 24 even allows Cyberlux to sue the Receiver.

mislead the Court or the parties. It was a mistake that was corrected by other counsel during the same hearing.

Nevertheless, the Receiver cannot obtain sanctions for activity that preceded his appointment. Indeed, he cites no authority for this concept. The statements could not have affected the Receiver's work in any way because he was not appointed until almost seven months after the fact. The Court should reject this effort to distract from the issues presented by the present motion.

In short, Cyberlux did everything it could short of asking this Court intervene to resolve these issues. Since Cyberlux complied with paragraph 21(h) of the Turnover Order, sanctions are not warranted.

Berleth falsely represented to the Court that his wiring instructions were sent to Cyberlux and that they were also available on his website.

In an attempt to refute the fact he refused to provide wiring instructions so that Cyberlux could satisfy the judgment, Berleth stated that he had not only provided his wiring instructions, but that they were posted on his website. Both claims are inaccurate.

The Court heard from the undersigned and counsel from Legalist that they had not been sent wiring instructions. Further, a cursory review of the "Wire Transfer Protocols" on Berleth & Associates, PLLC's website include:

Unofficial dny office of Misal wyn Burgess Distlast train to

To all:

For all settlement payments in excess of $100,000, we REQUIRE electronic transfer by wire directly into or from our account, for both security and efficiency. Please ensure payment is addressed to BERLETH & ASSOCIATES, not the name of the client or case.

To wire to the IOLTA account use the following information:

Account Holder: BERLETH & ASSOCIATES

Frost Bank Account Number: (Contact Berleth & Associates)

Routing Number: (Contact Berleth & Associates)

Remarks: Cause number and debtor's name

Berleth & Associates requires all incoming or outgoing transfers to follow these Wire Transfer Protocol steps:

See https://www.berlethlaw.com/wiring-protocol/.

4. Berleth's response failed toaddress the merits of Cyberlux's Motion to Stay

Cyberlux's Motion to Stay laid out Berleth's recent acts, which very clearly exceed the authority of a post-judgment receiver appointed under section 31.002. First, Berleth is attempting to recover a $25 million receivable payment from HII, upon which Cyberlux is awaiting payment, This is more than $20 million in excess of the judgment.

Regarding the judgment amounts, on June 5, 2025, Berleth informed Cyberlux and Legalist that ~$2.975 million was outstanding on the judgment. Berleth stated this despite being repeatedly informed by Cyberlux's counsel that he had completely failed to account for credits and offsets (i.e., prior payments made by Cyberlux to Judgment Creditors, pursuant to their settlement agreement). At the June 9, 2025 hearing, Berleth represented

to the Court that $3.083 million was owed on the judgment. Berleth did not explain how the judgment amount increased over $115k in 3 days (and over a weekend, no less). Additionally, Berleth's response does not dispute that he has undertaken efforts to sell Cyberlux's subsidiary, even after Cyberlux and Legalist tendered payment to him.

Instead of disputing the merits of the motion, Berleth's response entirely misses the mark by arguing that Cyberlux is still challenging enforcement of the judgment. That too is incorrect. Cyberlux's motion asserts that the Receiver is refusing payment of the judgment and greatly exceeding his authority.

The Receiver own representations demonstrate that hezis exceeding his authority - at the June 9, 2025 hearing, the Receiver attested to the Court his efforts to contact various creditors that (1) are not parties to this action; and (2) are not even judgment creditors in any jurisdiction. If nothing else, the Receiver's admissions, standing alone, are grounds to grant Cyberlux's Motion to Stay.

5. The Court should not award Berleth any attorneys' fees, as Berleth's refusal to accept payment and attempts to exceed his authority necessitated the motions.

As described in Cyberlux's Motion to Stay, even after funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment were tendered to the Receiver, the Receiver refused payment. After the funds were tendered, Berleth continued his efforts to solicit bids for the sale of Cyberlux's subsidiary. Berleth also continued his efforts to "coordinate" with HII, i.e., to persuade HII to pay a $25 million receivable to Berleth, rather than to Cyberlux. These sorts of tactics are improper. In fact, even while this matter was pending, the Fifth Circuit held that Berleth had exceeded his authority as Court-appointed receiver. Matter of Preferred Ready-Mix, L.L.C., No. 24-20158, 2024 WL 5252498, at *1 (5th Cir. Dec. 31, 2024). Berleth lost that

appeal, which arose after the Southern District of Texas concluded that he had "effectively held the major assets of the debtor hostage." If Berleth is willing to withhold tools and dump trucks (which he apparently did in Preferred Ready-Mix), there should be grave concerns that he will be tempted to withhold cash paid into his account.

CONCLUSION

Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk

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

Respectfully submitted,

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

THOMPSON COBURN LLP 2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200 Dallas, Texas 75201

Tel Phone: (972) 629-7100 Fax: (972) 629-7171 dlang@thompsoncoburn.com apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com

Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on June 11, 2025.

/s/ Alexander J. Pennetti

Alexander J. Pennetti

Unofficial Copy Office of Marilyn Burgess District Clerk

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.

Paula Gentry on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101870179

Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Cyberlux and M. Schmidt's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay or Suspend Order Granting Receiver Status as of 6/11/2025 8:31 AM CST

Associated Case Party: Robert Berleth

Name

BarNumber

TimestampSubmitted

Status

Robert W.Berleth

rberleth@berlethlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Case Contacts

Name

BarNumber

TimestampSubmitted

Status

Robert W.Berleth

rberleth@berlethlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

David A.Walton

dwalton@bellnunnally.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

LaDonna Arey

LArey@bellnunnally.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Sandra Meiners

smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com :selected:

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Travis Vargo

tvargo@vargolawfirm.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Laurie DeBardeleben

Idebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Roxanna Lock

rlock@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Paula Gentry

pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Records Department

Records@bellnunnally.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Micah Jackson

mjackson@berlethlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Sheli Davis

sdavis@berlethlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Lena Brasher

lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Frankie Huff

fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Hannah Petrea

hpetrea@bellnunnally.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Michael Poynter

mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Tristian Harris

tharris@berlethlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Automated Certificate of eService

Paula Gentry on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101870179

Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: Cyberlux and M. Schmidt's Reply in Support of Motion to Stay or Suspend Order Granting Receiver Status as of 6/11/2025 8:31 AM CST

Case Contacts

Tristian Harris

tharris@berlethlaw.com burgess DistrictClerk

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Corinne Martin

cmartin@berlethlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Bernadette Martin

bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com Isch

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Shawn Grady

shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com Ved

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Jeff Brown

jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com 3s

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Douglas S.Lang

dlang@thompsoncoburn.com 36

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Katharine Clark

kclark@thompsoncoburn.com Lem

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Edward W.Gray, Jr.

EGray@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Alex Pennetti

De apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Hannah Fischer

hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Greg Nieman

banco

gnieman@bellnunnally.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Jemisha Gandhi

jgandhi@bellnunnally.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

David M.Keithly

dkeithly@mortensontaggart.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

SENT

Jocelin A. Tapia

jtapia@thompsoncoburn.com

6/11/2025 7:39:29 AM

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-121014239.pdf
Source UID: source:3d3159f228e342681368ef8f75b76f6a0f0ee4663eff825cce4ac9721e121d4d
Full SHA-256: 3d3159f228e342681368ef8f75b76f6a0f0ee4663eff825cce4ac9721e121d4d

DISTIL analysis

Extracted text

Order Appointing Receiver — Formatted Extract

Original source file