Evidence Record

IP HII EDVA 00483 Doc. 0180 Exhibit 9

On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq.,1 appeared by and through counsel...

Type
exhibit
Court
EDVA
Case
HII v. Cyberlux interpleader
Docket
3:25-cv-00483
Pages
5
Lines
138
SHA-256
f25abe26eb3c

DISTIL analysis

DISTIL Run
Profile
Standard
Version
1
Doc Type
Consent Final Order
Total Nodes
28
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
Consent Final Order Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, Virginia Civil litigation - breach of contract, receivership proceedings 2024-2025 (case filed CL24-3910, order entered December 8, 2025)
receivershipmulti_jurisdictionalconsent_judgmentsubstantial_damages
Analytical Frame
Legal judgment establishing monetary damages and resolving multi-jurisdictional disputes
Analytical Summary
This consent final order from the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond resolves litigation between Atlantic Wave Holdings/Secure Community and Cyberlux Corporation/Mark D. Schmidt through a receiver-negotiated settlement. The court awards plaintiffs $6 million in compensatory damages plus $25,250.50 in attorney's fees, with joint and several liability against both defendants. The order follows complex procedural history involving a Texas receivership, appeals, and prior court rulings validating a settlement agreement from a separate case (CL22-3882). The receiver, appointed by Texas courts to control Cyberlux's business functions, had authority to enter this consent judgment despite defendants' objections and procedural challenges.
Key Points
  • $6,000,000 compensatory damages awarded jointly and severally against defendants
  • Receiver Robert W. Berleth negotiated settlement on behalf of defendants
  • Prior October 30, 2025 court order validated settlement agreement from CL22-3882
  • Texas Court of Appeals abated defendants' mandamus appeal on November 4, 2025
  • Defendants' Motion to Quash hearing denied; procedural objections overruled
  • All claims dismissed with prejudice; cause ended and stricken from docket
Stage 2
Core — Entities, Events, Claims
17 nodes
ENT-001
Entity
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Plaintiff entity in civil litigation seeking damages for breach of settlement agreement
Page 1 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs
ENT-002
Entity
Secure Community, LLC
Co-plaintiff entity jointly pursuing litigation with Atlantic Wave Holdings
Page 1 — ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs
ENT-003
Entity
Cyberlux Corporation
Defendant corporation subject to receivership and liable for $6 million judgment
Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants
ENT-004
Entity
Mark D. Schmidt
Individual defendant, personally liable jointly and severally for $6 million judgment, subject to receivership
Page 1 — CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually, Defendants
ENT-005
Entity
Robert W. Berleth, Esq.
Court-appointed receiver with authority to control business functions of Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, who negotiated the consent judgment
Page 1 — Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq.
ENT-006
Entity
Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney
Presiding Judge of the Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia, who entered the consent final order
Page 4 — Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia
EVT-001
Event
Receivership Appointment (Texas)
Texas court appointed Robert W. Berleth as receiver on May 22, 2025, in Harris County to control business functions of Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
Page 2 — The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt.
EVT-002
Event
First Joint Motion Filed
Plaintiffs and Receiver filed Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order on September 19, 2025
Page 1 — when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order ("First Motion") entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs
EVT-003
Event
October 30, 2025 Court Order
Court entered Opinion and Order ruling on First Motion, validating Settlement Agreement from CL22-3882 and staying proceedings pending Texas resolution
Page 1, 2 — the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion. As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid
EVT-004
Event
Texas Appeals Court Abatement
Texas Court of Appeals abated and removed from docket the defendants' appeal of mandamus denial on November 4, 2025
Page 2 — by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants' appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus
EVT-005
Event
Texas District Court Denial
Harris County District Court denied Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay on November 11, 2025
Page 2 — on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay
EVT-006
Event
December 16, 2025 Hearing
Court hearing held on Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order, with defendants' counsel filing Motion to Quash but not appearing
Page 1 — On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq., appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order
EVT-007
Event
Consent Final Order Entry
Court entered Consent Final Order on December 8, 2025, awarding $6 million in damages and dismissing all claims with prejudice
Page 4 — ENTERED This 8 day of December, 2025 Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge
CLM-001
Claim
$6 Million Compensatory Damages
Court awards plaintiffs $6,000,000 in compensatory damages jointly and severally against defendants
Page 3 — The Court awards Plaintiffs the negotiated sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint.
CLM-002
Claim
Attorney's Fees Award
Plaintiffs awarded $25,250.50 in attorney's fees plus 6% post-judgment interest per annum
Page 3 — That Plaintiffs be awarded all their costs, including reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $25,250.50, per the parties agreement and post judgment interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entry of this order.
CLM-003
Claim
Settlement Agreement Validity
Court ruled that Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between plaintiffs and defendants was valid
Page 1 — the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid
CLM-004
Claim
Receiver Authority
Court found receiver has authority to control and manage litigation incident to his role
Page 3 — it lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage litigation incident to his role
Stage 3
In Situ — Quotations, Tells, Tensions, Questions
7 nodes
QUO-001
Quotation
Receiver Scope Definition
Texas court order defined receiver's control as extending to 'all respects' of business function
Page 2 — to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt
TLL-001
Tell
Defendants' Objection Pattern
Defendants objected to First Motion, leading to briefing and initial stay, then pursued appeals and emergency motions in Texas
Page 1, 2 — The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues... based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants' representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership
TLL-002
Tell
Procedural Non-Appearance
Defense counsel filed Motion to Quash December 16 hearing claiming improper scheduling and inability to appear, but did not attend
Page 3 — The Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the December 16, 2025, hearing based on its assertion that the hearing was improperly scheduled, and that defense counsel was unable to appear. The Defendants' counsel of record did not appear.
TEN-001
Tension
Receiver vs. Defendant Authority Conflict
Structural tension between receiver's court-granted authority to represent defendants in litigation and defendants' attempts to independently challenge proceedings
Page 3 — the Receiver has authority to control and or manage litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to the entry of a judgment by consent against the Defendants... The Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash
TEN-002
Tension
Multi-Jurisdictional Coordination
Procedural complexity arising from parallel Virginia state court proceedings requiring resolution of Texas receivership and appellate matters
Page 2 — the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas... there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay
QST-001
Question
Schmidt Individual Receivership Status
Whether Mark D. Schmidt individually remains under receivership terms is unclear
Page 1 — While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.
QST-002
Question
Defendants' Standing and Appellate Rights
Court declined to rule on whether defendants had standing to claim defective notice or possess appellate rights
Page 4 — The Court makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights.
Stage 4
Interpretive — Inferences, Omissions, Patterns
4 nodes
INF-001
Inference
Consent Through Receivership
The 'consent' judgment reflects receiver's negotiated agreement rather than defendants' voluntary acceptance; defendants actively opposed through procedural challenges
Page 1, 2, 3 — the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to the entry of a judgment by consent against the Defendants... The Defendants objected... The Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash
INF-002
Inference
Strategic Exhaustion
Texas procedural defeats (appeals abatement, stay denial) eliminated defendants' leverage, triggering Virginia court's readiness to enter judgment
Page 2 — subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances... the Texas Court of Appeals abated... the Harris County District Court denied Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay
OMI-001
Omission
Underlying Claims Unspecified
Order references 'claims alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint' but does not detail the nature of the underlying breach or dispute
Page 3 — to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint
OMI-002
Omission
CL22-3882 Settlement Terms
Court validates prior settlement agreement from CL22-3882 as foundation for this case but does not describe its substantive terms
Page 1 — the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid

Extracted text

5 pages · 6724 characters

IP HII EDVA 00483 Doc. 0180 Exhibit 9 — Formatted Extract

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

VIRGINIA:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND

ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, individually,

Case No .: CL24-3910

Defendants.

CONSENT FINAL ORDER

On December 16, 2025, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, by their Receiver, Robert W. Berleth, Esq.,1 appeared by and through counsel before this Court on the Plaintiffs' Motion to Dissolve Stay and Enter Consent Order. Having considered the arguments and evidence presented, the Court makes the following ruling:

It appearing that this matter has been previously visited by the court when Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on September 19, 2025, filed a Joint Motion for Entry of a Consent Order ("First Motion") entered between Plaintiffs and the Receiver, on behalf of the Plaintiffs. The Defendants objected and the Court allowed the parties to brief the issues, after which the Court entered a written "Opinion and Order" dated October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion.

As part of the October 30, 2025, order, the Court, among other things, ruled that the Settlement Agreement entered in CL22-3882 between Plaintiffs and Defendants was valid, and

' While the Receivership names Mark D. Schmidt, individually, as a Judgment Debtor, the Receiver has filed an Order in Texas, which has yet to be entered, removing Mark D. Schmidt, individually, from the terms of the Receivership Order in Texas.

that the Order of Receivership was properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without objection. The Receiver in this case was appointed by the Honorable Michael Gomez, on May 22, 2025, in the 129th Judicial Court in Harris County Texas, Cause Number 2024448085, to control the business function, in all respects, of the Defendant Cyberlux Corporation and the individual, Mark D. Schmidt.

Notwithstanding, based on the representation that the Defendants had noted an appeal in the Texas Court of Appeals appealing the denial of the Defendants' Petition for a Writ of Mandamus, and the Defendants' representation that the Defendants had filed an Emergency Motion in the Harris County District Court seeking the termination of the Receivership, the Court denied the entry of the consent order in the First Motion and stayed further rulings pending the resolution of proceedings in Texas.

And it further appearing that, subsequent to the entry of the October 30, 2025, ruling on the First Motion, there has been a change in circumstances causing Plaintiffs to file this second motion to lift the current stay and enter an order based on the original agreement set forth in the First Motion (the "Second Motion"). The Receiver had no objection to the Second Motion.

And it further appearing that by Abatement Order entered in the Texas Court of Appeals on November 4, 2025, the Texas Court of Appeals abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from the docket, the Defendants' appeal of the denial of the Petition for Writ of Mandamus as reflected by Exhibit B attached to Second Motion.

And it further appearing that on November 11, 2025, the Harris County District Court denied Defendants' Emergency Motion to Stay as reflected by Exhibit D attached to the Second Motion.

And it lastly appearing to the court the Receiver has authority to control and or manage

litigation incident to his role and that the Receiver and Plaintiffs have agreed to the entry of a judgment by consent against the Defendants to resolve the Complaint and finalize the litigation, it is therefore ORDERED that judgment is GRANTED in favor of Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC and against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, jointly and severally, as follows:

a. The Court awards Plaintiffs the negotiated sum of SIX MILLION DOLLARS ($6,000,000.00) in compensatory damages, jointly and severally, against Defendants Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, individually, to resolve the claims alleged in Plaintiffs' complaint.

b. That Plaintiffs be awarded all their costs, including reasonable attorney's fees in the amount of $25,250.50, per the parties agreement and post judgment interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of entry of this order.

c. Any remaining Motions pending before the court are dismissed as moot.

d. Plaintiffs' Complaint and Defendants' Counter-Complaint are hereby dismissed with prejudice to the parties.

e. The cause is ended and may be stricken from the docket upon entry of this order.

The Court notes that the Defendants, by counsel, filed a Motion to Quash the December 16, 2025, hearing based on its assertion that the hearing was improperly scheduled, and that defense counsel was unable to appear. The Defendants' counsel of record did not appear. The Plaintiffs filed a Response in Opposition to the Motion to Quash electronically with supporting exhibits. The Defendants then filed a reply, electronically, all of which were reviewed by the court and considered. Based on the pleadings and argument, the Motion to Quash is Denied. The Court

makes no ruling on whether the Defendants had standing to claim defective notice and makes no ruling on whether the Defendants have any appellate rights. It is SO ORDERED. ENTERED This 8 day of December, 2025

Honorable Jacqueline S. McClenney, Presiding Judge Circuit Court for the City of Richmond, Virginia

WE ASK FOR THIS: G&

A Copy Teste: EDWARD F. JEWETT, CLERK BY: Jawanda Randolph D.C.

Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391 Rudy Coyner, Attorneys at Law 13271 Rivers Bend Blvd. Chester, Virgnia 23836 (804) 748-3600, ext. 306 (804) 748-4671 facsimile E-mail: cgavin@rudycoyner.com Counsel for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC

: BlAdy

Vernon E. Inge, Jr. #32699 Robert N. Drewry, VSB #91282 Whiteford Taylor & Preston, LLP Two James Center 1021 E. Cary Street, Suite 2001 Richmond, VA 23219 804.977.3301 804.977.3291 Facsimile vinge@whitefordlaw.com rdrewry@whitefordlaw.com Counsel for Robert W. Berleth, Receiver

Signature Waived Pursuant to Rule 1:13

Jimmy F. Robinson, Esquire Ogletree Deakins 901 East Byrd Street Suite 1300 Richmond, VA 23219 804-663-2330 jimmy.robinson@ogletree.com Counsel for Cyberlux Corp. & Mark D. Schmidt

i

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-0180-exhibit-9.pdf
Source UID
source:f25abe26eb3c9933e47338792c3a9e372242fa0f8ab17cb6d8cdb9d829896d80
Full SHA-256
f25abe26eb3c9933e47338792c3a9e372242fa0f8ab17cb6d8cdb9d829896d80