Evidence Record

Exhibit 15

2. Judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of $2,926,814.39, as set out in the Verified Complaint, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and (2) interest accruing at...

Type
exhibit
Court
EDVA
Case
HII v. Cyberlux interpleader
Docket
3:25-cv-00483
Pages
13
Lines
406
SHA-256
69381b5632ed

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
Legal correspondence with attached court filings (default judgment and verified complaint) and invoice
Total Nodes
29
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
Legal correspondence with attached court filings (default judgment and verified complaint) and invoice Catherine G. Clodfelter, Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, representing ANPC Commercial contract dispute involving payment for navigation equipment and services; interpleader action regarding disputed funds October 2024 - July 2025
judgment_obtainedgarnishment_pursuitthird_party_fundsequitable_lien_claim
Analytical Frame
Contract breach, equitable assignment theory, interpleader claims
Analytical Summary
This exhibit contains a July 21, 2025 letter from ANPC's counsel asserting claims to funds being held in a federal interpleader action (HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, 3:25-cv-483, E.D. Va.). ANPC obtained a default judgment against Cyberlux in North Carolina state court for $2,926,814.39 based on Cyberlux's failure to pay a final invoice of $2,830,050 for navigation equipment and services. Beyond its status as judgment creditor, ANPC asserts it has a superior interest in the disputed funds through either an equitable assignment or an equitable lien based on payment terms in the Purchase Agreement that tied payment to receipt of funds from Cyberlux's customer. The letter argues that North Carolina law supports imposing an equitable lien where a supplier creates value that enables the buyer to receive funds from which the supplier was to be paid, preventing unjust enrichment. The attached complaint and invoice detail the underlying transaction: ANPC supplied two Transportable Transponder Landing Systems and related services under a milestone-based payment structure.
Key Points
  • ANPC obtained default judgment against Cyberlux for $2,926,814.39 in Durham County, NC Superior Court on July 21, 2025
  • ANPC claims interest in funds held in federal interpleader action beyond general unsecured creditor status
  • ANPC asserts Purchase Agreement language created equitable assignment of customer payment funds
  • Payment terms required Cyberlux to pay ANPC within 10 business days of receiving payment from its own customer
  • ANPC will request federal court impose equitable lien based on unjust enrichment theory
  • Underlying transaction involved $2,830,050 final invoice for navigation systems and services
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
16 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation (ANPC)
Delaware corporation with principal place of business at 489 North 8th Street, Suite 203, Hood River, Oregon, 97031. Supplier of precision approach guidance and area surveillance solutions. Plaintiff in breach of contract action against Cyberlux.
Page 6, 7 — The Plaintiff Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation, ("Plaintiff" or "ANPC") is a Delaware corporation in good standing with a legal existence and the capacity to sue, with its principal place of business located at 489 North 8th Street, Suite 203, Hood River, Oregon, 97031. ANPC is a supplier of precision approach guidance and area surveillance solutions.
ENT-002
Entity
Cyberlux Corporation
Nevada corporation with principal place of business at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209, Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709. Defendant in breach of contract action brought by ANPC. Registered agent: CT Corporation System, 160 Mine Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27615.
Page 6 — Upon information and belief, Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant" or "Cyberlux") is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Durham County located at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709 and can be served with process upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 160 Mine Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27615.
ENT-003
Entity
Catherine G. Clodfelter
Partner at Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP, Raleigh, NC office. NC State Bar No. 47653. Counsel for ANPC in litigation against Cyberlux.
Page 2, 9 — Catherine G. Clodfelter Partner t: 919.835.4036 f: 919.834.4564 catherineclodfelter@parkerpoe.com... Catherine G. Clodfelter N.C. State Bar No. 47653
ENT-004
Entity
Clark J. Belote
Attorney at Kaufman & Canoles, P.C., 150 West Main Street, Suite 2100, Norfolk, VA 23510. Recipient of ANPC's letter asserting claims to disputed funds.
Page 2 — Clark J. Belote Kaufman & Canoles, P.C. 150 West Main Street Suite 2100 Norfolk, VA 23510 clark.belote@kaufcan.com
ENT-005
Entity
HII Mission Technologies
Plaintiff in federal interpleader action (Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483, E.D. Va.) involving disputed funds claimed by ANPC and others. Represented by Clark J. Belote.
Page 2 — Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
ENT-006
Entity
Tim Arbogast
CFO of Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation. Verified the complaint and signed the invoice dated December 20, 2024.
Page 11, 13 — Tim Arbogast, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the CFO of Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation... Prepared by: Tim Arbogast
EVT-001
Event
Purchase Agreement executed
On or around October 11, 2024, Cyberlux and ANPC entered into a purchase agreement under which ANPC agreed to provide two Transportable Transponder Landing Systems with guidance transmitter units, trailer, documentation, spare parts, plus installation, training, and assisted operations support. Payment was structured around five milestones.
Page 7 — On or around October 11, 2024, Cyberlux and ANPC entered into a purchase agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") in which ANPC agreed to provide and Cyberlux agreed to purchase two Transportable Transponder Landing Systems with two guidance transmitter units, one applicable trailer, documentation, and spare parts (the "Goods"), along with installation services, training services, and assisted operations support (the "Services") The parties agreed that ANPC was to invoice Cyberlux for the Goods and Services according to five milestones set out in the Purchase Agreement
EVT-002
Event
Final Invoice issued
On December 20, 2024, ANPC invoiced Cyberlux for $2,830,050 representing Milestone 4 (20% of contract due upon SAT). Invoice number 0000696-IN was prepared by Tim Arbogast.
Page 7, 13 — On December 20, 2024, ANPC invoiced Cyberlux a final invoice in the amount of $2,830,050 (the "Final Invoice")... Invoice Number: 0000696-IN Invoice Date: 12/20/2024... Milestone 4: 20% of contract due upon SAT... Invoice Total: 2,830,050.00
EVT-003
Event
Cyberlux fails to pay Final Invoice
Cyberlux breached the Purchase Agreement by failing to pay the Final Invoice by December 30, 2024 (10 business days after receipt of customer payment). Cyberlux had received payment from its customer by December 20, 2024 sufficient to pay the Final Invoice.
Page 8 — Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Cyberlux was required to pay the Final Invoice within ten days business days of Cyberlux's receipt of payment from Cyberlux's customer. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux had received payment from Cyberlux's customer as of December 20, 2024 sufficient to pay the Final Invoice by December 30, 2024. Cyberlux breached the Purchase Agreement when it failed to make a payment on the Final Invoice on or before December 30, 2024.
EVT-004
Event
Payment Dispute Letter sent
On May 15, 2025, ANPC's attorney sent a Payment Dispute Letter to Cyberlux's CEO via Federal Express and email, providing notice of Cyberlux's failure to make timely payments. This satisfied the Purchase Agreement requirement to refer disputes to senior management for 14 days before litigation.
Page 8 — According to the Purchase Agreement, all disputes arising under the Purchase Agreement must be initially referred to the parties' senior management for resolution. The parties agreed to wait fourteen calendar days following referral to senior management before bringing to court any action arising out of or related to the Purchase Agreement. Upon Cyberlux's failure to pay the Final Invoice in a timely manner, ANPC, by and through its attorney, gave notice to the Buyer's CEO of Cyberlux's failure to make timely payments on May 15, 2025 (the "Payment Dispute Letter"). The Payment Dispute Letter was sent to Cyberlux's CEO via Federal Express and email.
EVT-005
Event
Verified Complaint filed
On June 5, 2025, ANPC filed a Verified Complaint against Cyberlux in Durham County Superior Court (Case 25-CVS-005686-310) seeking $2,926,814.39 for breach of the Purchase Agreement, including $2,830,050 principal and $96,764.39 in prejudgment interest.
Page 2, 6, 9 — ANPC filed a complaint (the "Complaint") against Cyberlux in North Carolina... Electronically Filed Date: 6/5/2025 4:37 PM Durham Superior Court... This the 5th day of June, 2025... ANPC is entitled to a judgment against Cyberlux on the Purchase Agreement in the amount of $2,926,814.39, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and (2) interest in the amount of $96,764.39
EVT-006
Event
Default Judgment entered
On July 21, 2025, Durham County Superior Court Clerk Lisa P. Strickland entered a Default Judgment against Cyberlux for $2,926,814.39 after Cyberlux failed to plead or otherwise defend. The judgment includes post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
Page 2, 5 — ANPC obtained a default judgment (the "Judgment")... Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear... THIS CAUSE coming before the undersigned, upon Motion of Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation ("ANPC") for Default Judgment against Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") on a breach of contract claim filed by Verified Complaint. Defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend in this action and a default has been entered. Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that: 1. The Motion is GRANTED; and 2. Judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of $2,926,814.39... This the 21 day of July 2025. Lisa P. Strickland Clerk, Durham County Superior Court
EVT-007
Event
Letter asserting interest in interpleaded funds
On July 21, 2025, Catherine G. Clodfelter sent a letter to Clark J. Belote asserting ANPC's claim to disputed funds held in the HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux interpleader action (3:25-cv-483, E.D. Va.), claiming an interest beyond general unsecured creditor status based on default judgment, domestication in Virginia, garnishment pursuit, and equitable assignment/lien theory.
Page 2 — July 21, 2025 VIA EMAIL Clark J. Belote Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.... Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483 United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia Request for Confirmation of Interest in Payment Receivable... ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds, as opposed to a general unsecured claim... ANPC is domesticating the Judgment in Virginia and pursuing a garnishment. Those actions alone provide ANPC with a claim to the Disputed Funds beyond that of an unsecured creditor.
CLM-001
Claim
Breach of contract claim for unpaid invoice
ANPC claims Cyberlux materially breached the Purchase Agreement by failing to pay the Final Invoice of $2,830,050 when due (within 10 business days of receiving customer payment). ANPC performed all obligations under the agreement. Cyberlux did not dispute the invoice or that ANPC performed. Default judgment entered for $2,926,814.39 including prejudgment interest.
Page 7, 8, 9 — Cyberlux has materially breached the Purchase Agreement by failing to pay the Final Invoice as and when due. ANPC has been damaged by Cyberlux's failure to pay the Final Invoice, which represents amounts owed under the Agreement for ANPC's performance... ANPC has performed all of its obligations under the Purchase Agreement... Cyberlux has not disputed that ANPC performed under the Purchase Agreement, that ANPC provided the Goods and Services, or that the amount set out in the Final Invoice is due to ANPC.
CLM-002
Claim
Equitable assignment of customer payment funds
ANPC contends the Purchase Agreement language created an equitable assignment of funds Cyberlux received from its customer. Payment terms stated: 'payment by BUYER to the Supplier shall be made within ten (10) Business Days following the date of BUYER's receipt of payment from BUYER's customer.' ANPC argues this language assigned certain funds to ANPC to be used as payment for assets and services ANPC provided.
Page 3 — ANPC contends that, by language in the Purchase Agreement, Cyberlux assigned certain funds to ANPC to be used as payment for assets and services that ANPC provided to produce the product that Cyberlux then sold to its customer. ANPC contends that the assignment is contained in the payment terms, which are in part as follows: "payment by BUYER to the Supplier shall be made within ten (10) Business Days following the date of BUYER's receipt of payment from BUYER's customer."
CLM-003
Claim
Request for equitable lien on disputed funds
ANPC will request the federal court in the Eastern District of Virginia impose an equitable lien on the disputed funds to prevent unjust enrichment. ANPC and Cyberlux acted jointly to fulfill customer work. Cyberlux promised to pay ANPC from customer funds but retained those funds and allegedly used them to complete other work and serve other customers.
Page 3, 4 — ANPC will assert a lien on the Disputed Funds by asking the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Virginia to impose an equitable lien on the Disputed Funds... ANPC and Cyberlux acted jointly to fulfill the work and services request from Cyberlux's customer that was the subject of the Purchase Agreement. Cyberlux promised to pay ANPC for its work out of the funds received from Cyberlux's customer in the Purchase Agreement. However, Cyberlux retained those funds instead, and, upon information and belief, used the funds to complete other work and serve other customers.
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
7 nodes
QUO-001
Quotation
Payment terms from Purchase Agreement
Direct quotation of payment terms from the Purchase Agreement between ANPC and Cyberlux, central to equitable assignment argument.
Page 3 — payment by BUYER to the Supplier shall be made within ten (10) Business Days following the date of BUYER's receipt of payment from BUYER's customer.
TLL-001
Tell
ANPC confirms interest in disputed funds
ANPC explicitly confirms it claims an interest in the disputed funds beyond general unsecured creditor status in response to inquiry from HII's counsel.
Page 2 — Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interpleaded amounts (the "Disputed Funds"). ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds, as opposed to a general unsecured claim.
TLL-002
Tell
Cyberlux's customer received and payment established
ANPC states belief that Cyberlux received payment from its customer sufficient to pay the Final Invoice by the required date.
Page 8 — Upon information and belief, Cyberlux had received payment from Cyberlux's customer as of December 20, 2024 sufficient to pay the Final Invoice by December 30, 2024.
TLL-003
Tell
Alleged diversion of funds to other work
ANPC alleges Cyberlux used funds that should have been paid to ANPC to complete other work and serve other customers.
Page 4 — However, Cyberlux retained those funds instead, and, upon information and belief, used the funds to complete other work and serve other customers.
TEN-001
Tension
Competing claims to interpleaded funds
Multiple parties appear to claim interest in funds held by HII in interpleader action. ANPC asserts priority based on equitable theories while acknowledging other claimants exist (interpleader context implies multiple competing interests).
Page 2, 4 — Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interpleaded amounts (the "Disputed Funds"). ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds, as opposed to a general unsecured claim... ANPC requests that any HII continue to include ANPC in the interpleader action
QST-001
Question
Identity of Cyberlux's customer unclear
The Purchase Agreement involves work for 'Cyberlux's customer' but the specific customer entity is not identified in the documents. The relationship between this customer and HII (the interpleader plaintiff) is not explicitly stated.
Page 2, 4 — ANPC and Cyberlux acted jointly to fulfill the work and services request from Cyberlux's customer that was the subject of the Purchase Agreement... Cyberlux promised to pay ANPC for its work out of the funds received from Cyberlux's customer in the Purchase Agreement... Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al.
QST-002
Question
Source and amount of HII interpleaded funds unclear
The letter does not specify the amount of funds HII has interpleaded or confirm whether these funds originated from the same transaction covered by the Purchase Agreement. The connection between HII's disputed funds and the customer payment Cyberlux allegedly received is assumed but not documented.
Page 2, 4 — Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interpleaded amounts (the "Disputed Funds")... Cyberlux was unjustly enriched in such a manner as to support a finding that there should be an equitable assignment in favor of ANPC over the funds received, not only from Cyberlux's customer in the Purchase Agreement, but over funds received from HII as well.
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
6 nodes
INF-001
Inference
HII likely the end customer in transaction chain
The interpleader plaintiff (HII Mission Technologies) is likely the 'customer' referenced in the Purchase Agreement payment terms, creating a supply chain: ANPC supplied goods/services to Cyberlux, who then provided them to HII. This would explain why HII holds funds claimed by ANPC.
Page 2, 3, 4 — Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al... payment by BUYER to the Supplier shall be made within ten (10) Business Days following the date of BUYER's receipt of payment from BUYER's customer... Cyberlux was unjustly enriched in such a manner as to support a finding that there should be an equitable assignment in favor of ANPC over the funds received, not only from Cyberlux's customer in the Purchase Agreement, but over funds received from HII as well.
INF-002
Inference
Cyberlux may be financially distressed
Multiple indicators suggest Cyberlux financial distress: failure to respond to payment demand, failure to answer lawsuit, default judgment entry, alleged diversion of customer funds to other work, and multiple creditors competing for limited funds in interpleader.
Page 2, 4, 8 — Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear, and ANPC obtained a default judgment... As of the date of this Verified Complaint, Cyberlux has not responded to the Payment Dispute Letter... However, Cyberlux retained those funds instead, and, upon information and belief, used the funds to complete other work and serve other customers... Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interpleaded amounts (the "Disputed Funds").
INF-003
Inference
Strategic timing of judgment and letter
ANPC obtained default judgment and sent the claim letter to HII's counsel on the same day (July 21, 2025), suggesting coordinated legal strategy to establish judgment creditor status before asserting superior claim to interpleaded funds.
Page 2, 5 — This the 21 day of July 2025. Lisa P. Strickland Clerk, Durham County Superior Court... July 21, 2025 VIA EMAIL Clark J. Belote... Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interpleaded amounts
OMI-001
Omission
Purchase Agreement not provided despite relevance
ANPC explicitly withholds the Purchase Agreement itself despite its centrality to the equitable assignment claim, citing confidentiality agreement. Only selected payment term language is quoted. This limits ability to verify ANPC's interpretation of assignment language.
Page 2 — Because the parties have a confidentiality agreement which may include information set out in the Purchase Agreement, we will describe the provisions that are relevant and not confidential but will not provide you with a copy of the Purchase Agreement itself.
OMI-002
Omission
No detail on prior payment history
While the complaint states Cyberlux paid the first three milestone invoices, there is no detail about amounts, timing, or whether those payments were also conditioned on Cyberlux receiving customer funds. This context could affect equitable assignment analysis.
Page 7 — ANPC invoiced Cyberlux for its performance through the first three Milestones set out in the Purchase Agreement. Cyberlux paid ANPC the corresponding amount invoiced for the first three Milestones.
OMI-003
Omission
Cyberlux's position completely absent
Document reflects only ANPC's perspective. No response to payment demand letter, no answer to complaint, no defense to default judgment. Cyberlux's explanation for non-payment, if any, is completely absent from the record.
Page 2, 7, 8 — Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear, and ANPC obtained a default judgment... As of the date of this Verified Complaint, Cyberlux has not responded to the Payment Dispute Letter... Cyberlux did not communicate to ANPC any issues with the Final Invoice.

Extracted text

13 pages · 16306 characters

Exhibit 15 — Formatted Extract

Type: exhibit
Court: EDVA
Matter: HII v. Cyberlux interpleader
Docket: 3:25-cv-00483
EXHIBIT 15

P

Parker Poe

Catherine G. Clodfelter Partner t: 919.835.4036 f: 919.834.4564 catherineclodfelter@parkerpoe.com

Atlanta, GA Charleston, SC Charlotte, NC Columbia, SC Greenville, SC Raleigh, NC Spartanburg, SC Washington, DC

July 21, 2025

VIA EMAIL

Clark J. Belote

Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.

150
West Main Street

Suite 2100

Norfolk, VA 23510

clark.belote@kaufcan.com

Re:

HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al.

Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483

United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia

Request for Confirmation of Interest in Payment Receivable

Dear Mr. Belote,

Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interpleaded amounts (the "Disputed Funds"). ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds, as opposed to a general unsecured claim.

As an initial matter, ANPC filed a complaint (the "Complaint") against Cyberlux in North Carolina, to which Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear, and ANPC obtained a default judgment (the "Judgment"). We are including a copy of both the Complaint and Judgment with this letter.1 ANPC is domesticating the Judgment in Virginia and pursuing a garnishment. Those actions alone provide ANPC with a claim to the Disputed Funds beyond that of an unsecured creditor.

' ANPC is providing the Complaint and Judgment along with this letter. Because the parties have a confidentiality agreement which may include information set out in the Purchase Agreement, we will describe the provisions that are relevant and not confidential but will not provide you with a copy of the Purchase Agreement itself.

July 21, 2025

In addition, and to the extent necessary, ANPC will assert a lien on the Disputed Funds by asking the Federal Court in the Eastern District of Virginia to impose an equitable lien on the Disputed Funds. A brief outline of our contentions and supportive legal authority follows. Because the parties agreed in the Purchase Agreement that North Carolina law would govern any dispute, we are providing here the North Carolina and Fourth Circuit authority that supports ANPC's claim to the funds.

The Complaint stated a claim for money judgment based on Cyberlux's breach of a purchase agreement between the parties (the "Purchase Agreement"). ANPC contends that, by language in the Purchase Agreement, Cyberlux assigned certain funds to ANPC to be used as payment for assets and services that ANPC provided to produce the product that Cyberlux then sold to its customer. ANPC contends that the assignment is contained in the payment terms, which are in part as follows: "payment by BUYER to the Supplier shall be made within ten (10) Business Days following the date of BUYER's receipt of payment from BUYER's customer." To the extent necessary, ANPC will request in the interpleader action that the court create an equitable lien in favor of ANPC as a result of this language and the way that the funds, which were supposed to be paid to ANPC, were instead disbursed.

Under North Carolina law, an assignment occurs when a party intends to place a fund out of the owner's control for the benefit of another. Motz v. Stowe, 83 N.C. 434, 439 (1880) ("anything written, said, or done, in pursuance of an agreement and for valuable consideration, or in consideration of some pre-existing debt, to place a money right or fund out of the original owner's control, and to appropriate in favor of another person, amounts to an equitable assignment."). No particular writing is necessary for there to be an equitable assignment. Id. ("no writing or particular form of words is necessary, provided only a consideration be proved and the intention of the parties made apparent by suitable evidence.").

Equitable assignment will be allowed, even if the contract provides only a mere promise to pay from a specific fund, if considerations of unjust enrichment are implicated. See Embree Const. Grp., Inc. v. Rafcor, Inc., 330 N.C. 487, 497, 411 S.E.2d 916, 923 (1992). Where the assignee works to create a thing of value, and the sale of that thing of value allows the assignor to receive funds from which the assignee was to be paid, courts in North Carolina will impose an equitable assignment over the funds paid to the assignor so as to not allow the assignor to be unjustly enriched by the work of the assignee. Id.

July 21, 2025 Page 3

ANPC and Cyberlux acted jointly to fulfill the work and services request from Cyberlux's customer that was the subject of the Purchase Agreement.

Cyberlux promised to pay ANPC for its work out of the funds received from Cyberlux's customer in the Purchase Agreement. However, Cyberlux retained those funds instead, and, upon information and belief, used the funds to complete other work and serve other customers. Cyberlux was unjustly enriched in such a manner as to support a finding that there should be an equitable assignment in favor of ANPC over the funds received, not only from Cyberlux's customer in the Purchase Agreement, but over funds received from HII as well.

We have concluded from our research that in a federal interpleader filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1335, courts will allow and determine the contentions that ANPC raises in this letter. See Three Mountaineers, Inc. v. Ramsey, 143 F. Supp. 888, 889 (W.D.N.C. 1956).

ANPC requests that any HII continue to include ANPC in the interpleader action and would appreciate the chance to speak further if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Cati Carpeta

Catherine G. Clodfelter

CGC

cc: Steven Naito Charles Raynal

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DURHAM

FILED IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION

DATE: July 21, 2025 25-CVS-005686-310

TIME: 2:45:28 PM Advanced Navigation & Positioning DURHAM COUNTY Corporation

CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT BY: Strickland, Lisa

Plaintiff, )

)

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

-V-

)

)

Cyberlux Corporation

)

) Defendant. )

)

THIS CAUSE coming before the undersigned, upon Motion of Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation ("ANPC") for Default Judgment against Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant") on a breach of contract claim filed by Verified Complaint. Defendant has failed to plead or otherwise defend in this action and a default has been entered.

Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:

1.
The Motion is GRANTED; and
2.
Judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of $2,926,814.39, as set out in the Verified Complaint, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and (2) interest accruing at the legal rate of 8% on the principal amount until the judgment is satisfied, which is $96,764.39 as of July 15, 2025; and
3.
This Judgment shall accrue post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

This the 21 day of July 2025. Lisa P. Strickland

Clerk, Durham County Superior Court X Assistant Clerk

25CV005686-310

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA COUNTY OF DURHAM

IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION 25-CVS-

Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation

) )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

) VERIFIED COMPLAINT -V- ) Cyberlux Corporation

)

)

Defendant.

) )

Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, alleges:

PARTIES
1.
The Plaintiff Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation, ("Plaintiff" or "ANPC") is a Delaware corporation in good standing with a legal existence and the capacity to sue, with its principal place of business located at 489 North 8th Street, Suite 203, Hood River, Oregon, 97031.
2.
Upon information and belief, Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant" or "Cyberlux") is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Durham County located at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709 and can be served with process upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 160 Mine Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27615.
3.
This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action pursuant to N.C. General Statute §1-75.4 and other applicable bases for jurisdiction.
4.
Venue is proper pursuant to N.C. General Statute §1-82 and other applicable bases for venue.

BACKGROUND

5.
ANPC is a supplier of precision approach guidance and area surveillance solutions.
6.
On or around October 11, 2024, Cyberlux and ANPC entered into a purchase agreement (the "Purchase Agreement") in which ANPC agreed to provide and Cyberlux agreed to purchase two Transportable Transponder Landing Systems with two guidance transmitter units, one applicable trailer, documentation, and spare parts (the "Goods"), along with installation services, training services, and assisted operations support (the "Services")
7.
The parties agreed that ANPC was to invoice Cyberlux for the Goods and Services according to five milestones set out in the Purchase Agreement (each of the five milestones referred to individually as a "Milestone" and together as "Milestones").
8.
ANPC performed under the Purchase Agreement, providing the Goods and Services in accordance with the terms of the Purchase Agreement.
9.
ANPC invoiced Cyberlux for its performance through the first three Milestones set out in the Purchase Agreement.
10.
Cyberlux paid ANPC the corresponding amount invoiced for the first three Milestones.
11.
On December 20, 2024, ANPC invoiced Cyberlux a final invoice in the amount of $2,830,050 (the "Final Invoice"). A true and accurate copy of the Final Invoice is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit A.
12.
Cyberlux did not communicate to ANPC any issues with the Final Invoice.
13.
Cyberlux has not disputed that ANPC performed under the Purchase Agreement, that ANPC provided the Goods and Services, or that the amount set out in the Final Invoice is due to ANPC.
14.
Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Cyberlux was required to pay the Final Invoice within ten days business days of Cyberlux's receipt of payment from Cyberlux's customer.
15.
Upon information and belief, Cyberlux had received payment from Cyberlux's customer as of December 20, 2024 sufficient to pay the Final Invoice by December 30, 2024.
16.
Cyberlux breached the Purchase Agreement when it failed to make a payment on the Final Invoice on or before December 30, 2024.
17.
According to the Purchase Agreement, all disputes arising under the Purchase Agreement must be initially referred to the parties' senior management for resolution. The parties agreed to wait fourteen calendar days following referral to senior management before bringing to court any action arising out of or related to the Purchase Agreement.
18.
Upon Cyberlux's failure to pay the Final Invoice in a timely manner, ANPC, by and through its attorney, gave notice to the Buyer's CEO of Cyberlux's failure to make timely payments on May 15, 2025 (the "Payment Dispute Letter").
19.
The Payment Dispute Letter was sent to Cyberlux's CEO via Federal Express and email.
20.
As of the date of this Verified Complaint, Cyberlux has not responded to the Payment Dispute Letter.
21.
It has been more than fourteen days since ANPC sent the Payment Dispute Letter to Cyberlux.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Contract-Purchase Agreement)
22.
ANPC incorporates the prior allegations of the Complaint by reference.
23.
The Purchase Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract.
24.
ANPC has performed all of its obligations under the Purchase Agreement.
25.
Cyberlux has materially breached the Purchase Agreement by failing to pay the Final Invoice as and when due.
26.
ANPC has been damaged by Cyberlux's failure to pay the Final Invoice, which represents amounts owed under the Agreement for ANPC's performance.
27.
As of the date of this Verified Complaint, ANPC is entitled to prejudgment interest at the rate of eight percent (8%) per annum for failure to pay the invoice by December 30, 2024.
28.
ANPC is entitled to post-judgment interest accruing after the date of this Complaint through the date of judgment.
29.
ANPC is entitled to a judgment against Cyberlux on the Purchase Agreement in the amount of $2,926,814.39, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and (2) interest in the amount of $96,764.39, representing interest accruing from the date of breach through the date of this Complaint.

WHEREFORE, ANPC respectfully prays that the Court:

A. Enter judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of $2,926,814.39, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and (2) interest in the amount of $96,764.39.

B. Grant ANPC post-judgment interest as allowed by law.

C. Tax the costs of this action against Cyberlux.

D. Grant ANPC such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

This the 5th day of June, 2025.

/s/ Catherine G. Clodfelter Catherine G. Clodfelter N.C. State Bar No. 47653 Charles E. Raynal IV N.C. State Bar No. 32310 PARKER POE ADAMS & BERNSTEIN LLP

301
Fayetteville Street, Suite 1400

P.O. Box 389 (27602-0389)

Raleigh, North Carolina 27601

Telephone:

(919)
835-4036

Facsimile:

(919)
834-4564

Email:

catherineclodfelter@parkerpoe.com

charlesraynal@parkerpoe.com

Counsel for Plaintiff ANPC

VERIFICATION

Tim Arbogast, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the CFO of Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and, as such, he is authorized to make this oath; that he has read the foregoing and attached Verified Complaint, and that the same is true of his own personal knowledge except those matters stated upon information and belief, which he believes to be true.

Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation

By: Tim Arbogast

CFO

STATE OF Oregon COUNTY OF Hood River

OFFICIAL STAMP Emily Joyce

NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON

Personally appeared before me, Tim Arbogast, either being personally known to me or proven by satisfactory evidence (said evidence being ), and acknowledged that he signed the foregoing document.

This the 5 day of June 2025.

Enaly Joyce

OFFICIAL STAMP Emily Joyce NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON COMMISSION NO. 1058184 MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 13, 2029

Notary Public Emily Joyce (Type or Print Name)

My commission expires:

May 13, 2029

(Notary Seal)

Exhibit A

Page:

ANPC Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation

+ Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation 489 N 8th Street Suite 203 Hood River, OR 97031 (800) 228-1857

Invoice

Invoice Number:

0000696-IN

Invoice Date:

12/20/2024

Order Number:

Order Date:

10/8/2024

Salesperson:

FRMB

Customer Number:

14-CYB001

Sold To:

Cyberlux Corporation

800
Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209

Research Triangle Park

Durham, NC 27709

Confirm To:

Ship To:

Cyberlux Corporation

800
Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209

Research Triangle Park

Durham, NC 27709

Customer P.O.

Ship VIA

F.O.B.

Terms

CCC Agreement 106703.105

Prepaid

Item Code

Unit

Ordered

Shipped

Back Ordered

Price

Amount

/4000-14

EACH

1.00

1.00

0.00

2,830,050.00

2,830,050.00

Revenue-International Milestone 4: 20% of contract due upon SAT

Prepared by: Tim Arbogast 2024.12.20 07:16:42-08'00' +

Net Invoice:

2,830,050.00

Less Discount:

0.00

Freight:

0.00

Sales Tax:

0.00

Invoice Total:

2,830,050.00

Ti Adoção

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
ip-hii-edva-00483-doc-0041-exhibit-15.pdf
Source UID
source:69381b5632ed5ef8a6d7893f81e443b464b933c41cbc838a6891dc45653ada3e
Full SHA-256
69381b5632ed5ef8a6d7893f81e443b464b933c41cbc838a6891dc45653ada3e