IP HII EDVA 00483 Doc. 0144 Exhibit 1

Exhibit

BA

C Berleth & Associates, PLLC

Serious. Collections. Attorneys.

Robert Berleth rberleth@berlethlaw.com

June 4, 2025

Thompson Coburn Attn: Alex Pennetti 2100 Ross Avenue, Ste. 3200 Dallas, TX 75201

Counsel for Cyberlux via email

Arcadi Jackson Attn: Greg Jackson 2911 Turtle Creek Blvd., Ste. 800 Dallas, TX 75219

Counsel for HII via email

Bell Nunnally Attn: David A. Walton 2323 Ross Avenue, Ste. 1900 Dallas, TX 75201

Counsel for Atlantic Wave via email

Re: Cause No. 2024-48085, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC v. Cyberlux Corp, in the 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas.

Messrs.,

This letter is a formal response from the undersigned Receiver to the letters regarding payment of $25,795,303.38 (the "Funds" or "Corpus") from HII Mission Technologies Corp. ("HII") dated May 28, 2025, and the responsive letter from Cyberlux Corporation ("Cyberlux") dated May 30, 2025, respectively. See enclosures 1 & 2. The Receiver has three responsive points. First, both letters inaccurately state the total indebtedness, omits creditors to Cyberlux, and fail to properly triage the debts. Secondly, because Cyberlux is under a receivership, all payments must go through the Receiver for credit against the judgment(s). Any funds paid directly from HII to Cyberlux may result in the receivership court ordering HII to pay the funds a second time through the receivership. Lastly, Cyberlux does not have the authority to enter into a settlement agreement nor release HII from the current indebtedness. In short, a careful and measured approach is necessary to properly resolve this matter and eliminate years of protracted litigation.

Cyberlux has significant indebtedness to various creditors, triaged into four classes:

Class 1: Creditors with a final judgment or perfected lien against Cyberlux.

Class 2: Creditors with pending litigation claims, in order of date of filing:

Class 3: Creditors with a contractual obligation from Cyberlux, but without a final judgment or pending litigation.

a. $21,677.50 - Attorneys' fees for second removal to Law Firm of Shawn M. Grady, PLLC. See Enclosure 10.

b. $21,880.00 Attorney's fees for post-judgment expenses to Vargo Law Firm, P.C.

Class 4: Creditors with invalid or nonsensical claims the receiver does not intend to pay.

Receivership Levy: Payments from HII to Cyberlux will only be recognized if the payment is processed by the Receiver. Thus, failure to comply with the Receiver's levy may result in HII being ordered to pay the funds twice. It is disputable that HII is a party to the receivership case; however, being a party to the litigation is irrelevant. Courts must grant full faith and credit to orders appointing receivers from other states. See, e.g., Peden v. Pohl, App. No. 01-08-00373- CV, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 7115 (Tex. Sep. 10, 2009) ("The Ohio injunction against suits in other states that may interfere with the receivership process is entitled to full faith and credit in Texas."); see also Bard v. Charles R. Myers Ins. Agency, Inc., 839 S.W.2d 791, 795 (Tex. 1992). Other states have similarly granted full faith and credit to injunctions entered by sister states prohibiting suits that may interfere with the receivership process. See, e.g., Brown v. Link Belt Div. of FMC Corp., 666 F.2d 110 (5th Cir. 1982) (Louisiana federal court upheld injunction by Illinois receivership court); State ex rel. Low v. Imperial Ins. Co., 140 Ariz. 426, 682 P.2d 431, 439 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1984) (injunction by California receivership court); Integrity Ins. Co. v. Martin, 105 Nev.

16, 769 P.2d 69, 70 (Nev. 1989) (injunction by New Jersey receivership court); Nasef v. U & I Invs., Inc., 755 P.2d 136, 138 (Or. Ct. App. 1988) (injunction by Indiana receivership court).

It is undisputed HII has been properly notified of the active receivership. If nothing else, this letter is proof of such notification. Not to be confused with a garnishment, the Receiver served a levy upon HII, which remains effective in perpetuity until the receivership is terminated. HII is obligated to forward any funds held or paid to Cyberlux to the Receiver. See Order Appointing Receiver regarding a third party's responsibilities to the Receiver at page 15, para. 37 and page 6-7, para. 19. It is clear the funds are subject to custodia legis, and regardless of HII's status as a party in the above-styled litigation, the funds must be paid to the Receiver by that third party for proper credit.

Settlement Authority: Settlement and release authority with third parties lies solely with the Receiver, ratified via court order. "A trial court has an affirmative duty to enforce its judgment." In re Crow-Billingsley Air Park, 98 S.W.3d 178, 179 (Tex. 2003) (citing TEX. R. CIV. P. 308). Thus, even after a court's plenary power has expired, it has the power to enforce its judgment and to aid the judgment creditor in collecting on that judgment until the judgment is satisfied. " ... if a court of competent jurisdiction, Federal or state, has taken possession of property, or by its procedure has obtained jurisdiction over the same, such property is withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the courts of the other authority as effectually as if the property had been entirely removed to the territory of another sovereignty." Palmer v. Texas, 212 U.S. 118, 29 S. Ct. 230, 53 L. Ed. 435 (1909). During the pendency of a receivership, the property held in custodia legis is free from interference, with the exclusive custody and possession the court assumes over it. See Neel v. Fuller, 557 S.W.2d 73, 76 (Tex. 1977). Once a turnover order appointing a receiver is signed, all of the judgment debtor's non-exempt property becomes property in custodia legis. Tex. Am. Bank/W. Side v. Haven, 728 S.W.2d 102, 104 (Tex. App .- Fort Worth 1987, no writ); see First S. Props. v. Vallone, 533 S.W.2d 339, 343 (Tex. 1976). The court appointing a receiver has exclusive jurisdiction over property subject to the receivership. Chimp Haven, Inc. v. Primarily Primates, Inc., 281 S.W.3d 629, 633 (Tex. App .- San Antonio 2009, no pet.).

Settlement authority with third parties is in custodia legis pursuant to the directions of the Receiver and the Turnover Order. See Order Appointing Receiver page 8-9, para. 22 (" ... no decision may be made or carried out without the express approval of the Receiver."). Further, the proceeds from HII is a non-exempt asset and the Receiver has demanded possession of the asset pursuant to the Order Appointing Receiver. This is the best outcome for HII because a district court will enter an order releasing HII from any and all future liability to Cyberlux and, inversely, Cyberlux will be released from any contractual obligations to HII. Settlement authority rests solely with the Receiver as a non-exempt asset. See Order Appointing Receiver at page 15, para. 37 and page 6-7, para. 19. The Receiver has a right to intervene in any matter which the Debtor may have an interest. See Vallone, 533 S.W.2d at 343; M&E Endeavours LLC v. Air Voice Wireless LLC, No. 01-18-00852-CV, 2020 WL 5047902, at *8 (Tex. App .- Houston [1st Dist.] Aug. 27, 2020, no pet.) (mem. op.). The Debtor has an interest in the funds of HII and the Receiver has intervened on the Debtors behalf.

Further, the Receiver may obtain approval to settle any claims between HII and Cyberlux via a court order, which would further indemnify HII or other settlors from future litigation. All parties will be invited to attend such hearing and/or informed of any motion that will be heard by submission. A proposed settlement agreement and release has been sent directly to HII through counsel contemporaneously with this letter.

Once the corpus of funds has been received from the federal government by HII, the Receiver expects to enter a final settlement and release with HII, then transfer the funds from HII to the receivership. Hopefully, this transfer will be accompanied by an agreed distribution order that will also terminate the receivership. In the interim, the Receiver seeks to abandon and return the Spring, Texas Cyberlux manufacturing facility back to Cyberlux. Please feel free to contact me for any questions or comments. I thank each of you for your continued efforts in this case, and look forward to an amicable and prompt resolution.

I remain,

Sincerely yours, RABAL

Robert Berleth

APPOINTED RECEIVER

Cc:

Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC Attn: Will Welter C/O Bell Nunnally David Walton 2323 Ross Ave., Ste. 1900 Dallas, TX 75201

Judgment Creditor via email

Cyberlux Corporation Attn. Larry Eisley 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle Park, NC 27709

HII Mission Technologies Corp. Attn: Tim McAtee 8350 Broad St., Ste. 1400, McLean, VA 22102

Judgment Debtor via email

Intervenor via email

Hahn Loeser & Parks

Counsel for Cyberlux

Attn: Gabe Wright 600 West Broadway, Ste. 1500 San Diego, CA 92101

via email

Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.

Counsel for HII

Attn: Clark J. Belote 150 W. Main St., Ste. 2100

via email

Norfolk, VA 23510

Law Firm of Shawn M. Grady, PLLC

Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC via email

Attn: Shawn Michael Grady 2100 West Loop S., Ste. 805

Houston, TX 77027

Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP

Counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP,

Attn: Jeff Prostok 301 Commerce St., Ste. 3635 Fort Worth, TX 76102

via email

Saikin Rosenberg

Counsel for 3rd Generation Dev., LP

Attn: Jonathan D. Saiken 5373 W. Alabama St., Ste. 650 Houston, TX 77056

via email

Anderson Jones

Counsel for Aerotek, Inc.

Attn: Todd A. Jones 421 N. Blount St.

via email

Raleigh, NC 27601

Ardmore Law Firm, PLLC

Counsel for Catalyst Machineworks, LLC

Attn: Daniel Ardmore 16219 Lakewood Grove Dr. Tomball, TX 77377

via email

Law Offices of Jason M. Zoladz

Counsel for Montague Capital Partners

Attn: Jason Zoladz P.O. Box 26954 Los Angeles, CA 90026

via email

Hendershot Cowart, P.C.

Counsel for ANPC

Attn: Ashley Arnett 1800 Bering Dr., Ste. 600 Houston, TX 77057

via email

Noonan Lance Boyer & Banach LLP

Counsel for RB Capital Partners

Attn: Ethan Thomas Boyer

via email

San Diego, CA 92101

Anderson Jones

Counsel for ARG Group, LLC

Attn: Christian Lunghi

via email

Raleigh, NC 27601

Enclosures: (12)

THIS IS AN ATTEMPT BY A DEBT COLLECTOR TO COLLECT A DEBT. ANY INFORMATION OBTAINED WILL BE USED FOR THAT PURPOSE. YOU ARE NOW COMMUNICATING WITH A DEBT COLLECTOR.