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...
DISTIL analysis
- 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
Extracted text
13 pages · 16306 charactersP
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.
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:
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:
BACKGROUND
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
P.O. Box 389 (27602-0389)
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
Telephone:
Facsimile:
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.
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)
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
Research Triangle Park
Durham, NC 27709
Confirm To:
Ship To:
Cyberlux Corporation
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
- File
- ip-hii-edva-00483-doc-0041-exhibit-15.pdf
- Source UID
- source:69381b5632ed5ef8a6d7893f81e443b464b933c41cbc838a6891dc45653ada3e
- Full SHA-256
- 69381b5632ed5ef8a6d7893f81e443b464b933c41cbc838a6891dc45653ada3e