Order Appointing Receiver

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

2 subject of the Turnover Order, and the Receiver’s appointment .2 During that call, Legalist indicated that its protective advance would be an amount sufficient to satisfy the outstanding judgment, and would be a total of no less than $2,755,100.10.3 The total of Legalist’s protective advance included funds representing:  $2,111,086.01, the amount of the judgment listed in the Court’s Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”).4  $75,652.07, interest on the $2,111,086.01 from 2/18/2025, the date specified in the order.5  $546,684.52, representing 25% of $2,186,422.60 (principal balance and interest in the Court’s Turnover Order).  $21,677.50, representing attorneys’ fees incurred by Atlantic Wave. The Southern District of Texas ordered Cyberlux and Schmidt to pay Atlantic Wave, and this amount represents the total amount submitted by Atlantic Wave’s counsel.6 At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office’s wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer.7 The Receiver has not provided those instructions.8 2 See Declaration of A. Pennetti, at ¶ 5, attached as Exhibit A; Declaration of Legalist counsel, J. Prostok, attached as Exhibit B. 3 Exhibit B, at ¶ 5. 4 For the reasons described in Defendants Written Objections to the Court’s Turnover Order, the Judgment balance (and any interest flowing therefrom) is incorrect and should be modified or corrected. 5 Interest was calculated from this date because the “judgment balance” in the Turnover Order appears to be inclusive of interest. 6 See Exhibit A, at ¶ 7. 7 Id., at ¶ 6. 8 Exhibit B, at ¶ 7. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

3 2. The Receiver is acting beyond his authority to interfere with accounts receivable flowing from Cyberlux’s U.S. Government subcontract. Cyberlux previously represented to the Court various details surrounding its U.S. Government subcontract with HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”). Consistent with Cyberlux’s representations to the Court, the drones and drone equipment in Cyberlux’s leased facility in Spring, Texas were inspected by the United States Government and shipped to the Government’s preferred destination. This means that Cyberlux will be awaiting payment on a $25 million account receivable (subject to reductions described in the subcontract modification). The final shipment occurred the week of May 26, 2025.9 The Receiver’s staff were present and were permitted to observe these activities.10 Even though Legalist tendered more than enough funds to satisfy Plaintiffs’ judgment to the Receiver, the Receiver is currently demanding that a debtor of Cyberlux, HII, pay the total of Cyberlux’s account receivable (~$25 million) directly to the Receiver. As stated above, not only has the Receiver been tendered – and refused – an amount in excess of the judgment upon which he was appointed, but that judgment is, at most, $2.7 million, more than $20 million less than what the Receive is seeking to levy upon. This indisputably exceeds the scope of the Receiver’s authority under § 31.002(b)(3), which is limited to the extent required to satisfy the judgment. The Receiver is taking actions outside the scope of the Turnover Order, and outside the law with respect to § 31.002(b)(3). 9 Exhibit A., at ¶ 9. 10 Id., at ¶ 9. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

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. Lena Brasher on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101743796 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250606 Cyberluxs Motion to Stay or Suspend Enforcement of Turnover Order Status as of 6/9/2025 7:55 AM CST Case Contacts Name David A.Walton LaDonna Arey Sandra Meiners Travis Vargo Laurie DeBardeleben Roxanna Lock Shawn Grady Shawn Grady Jeff Brown Records Department Micah Jackson Sheli Davis Paula Gentry Lena Brasher Frankie Huff Tristian Harris Corinne Martin Hannah Fischer Hannah Petrea Michael Poynter Bernadette Martin Bernadette Martin BarNumber Email dwalton@bellnunnally.com LArey@bellnunnally.com smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com tvargo@vargolawfirm.com ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com rlock@thompsoncoburn.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com Records@bellnunnally.com mjackson@berlethlaw.com sdavis@berlethlaw.com pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com tharris@berlethlaw.com cmartin@berlethlaw.com hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com hpetrea@bellnunnally.com mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com TimestampSubmitted 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

2 subject of the Turnover Order, and the Receiver’s appointment .2 During that call, Legalist indicated that its protective advance would be an amount sufficient to satisfy the outstanding judgment, and would be a total of no less than $2,755,100.10.3 The total of Legalist’s protective advance included funds representing:  $2,111,086.01, the amount of the judgment listed in the Court’s Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”).4  $75,652.07, interest on the $2,111,086.01 from 2/18/2025, the date specified in the order.5  $546,684.52, representing 25% of $2,186,422.60 (principal balance and interest in the Court’s Turnover Order).  $21,677.50, representing attorneys’ fees incurred by Atlantic Wave. The Southern District of Texas ordered Cyberlux and Schmidt to pay Atlantic Wave, and this amount represents the total amount submitted by Atlantic Wave’s counsel.6 At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office’s wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer.7 The Receiver has not provided those instructions.8 2 See Declaration of A. Pennetti, at ¶ 5, attached as Exhibit A; Declaration of Legalist counsel, J. Prostok, attached as Exhibit B. 3 Exhibit B, at ¶ 5. 4 For the reasons described in Defendants Written Objections to the Court’s Turnover Order, the Judgment balance (and any interest flowing therefrom) is incorrect and should be modified or corrected. 5 Interest was calculated from this date because the “judgment balance” in the Turnover Order appears to be inclusive of interest. 6 See Exhibit A, at ¶ 7. 7 Id., at ¶ 6. 8 Exhibit B, at ¶ 7. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

2 subject of the Turnover Order, and the Receiver’s appointment .2 During that call, Legalist indicated that its protective advance would be an amount sufficient to satisfy the outstanding judgment, and would be a total of no less than $2,755,100.10.3 The total of Legalist’s protective advance included funds representing:  $2,111,086.01, the amount of the judgment listed in the Court’s Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”).4  $75,652.07, interest on the $2,111,086.01 from 2/18/2025, the date specified in the order.5  $546,684.52, representing 25% of $2,186,422.60 (principal balance and interest in the Court’s Turnover Order).  $21,677.50, representing attorneys’ fees incurred by Atlantic Wave. The Southern District of Texas ordered Cyberlux and Schmidt to pay Atlantic Wave, and this amount represents the total amount submitted by Atlantic Wave’s counsel.6 At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office’s wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer.7 The Receiver has not provided those instructions.8 2 See Declaration of A. Pennetti, at ¶ 5, attached as Exhibit A; Declaration of Legalist counsel, J. Prostok, attached as Exhibit B. 3 Exhibit B, at ¶ 5. 4 For the reasons described in Defendants Written Objections to the Court’s Turnover Order, the Judgment balance (and any interest flowing therefrom) is incorrect and should be modified or corrected. 5 Interest was calculated from this date because the “judgment balance” in the Turnover Order appears to be inclusive of interest. 6 See Exhibit A, at ¶ 7. 7 Id., at ¶ 6. 8 Exhibit B, at ¶ 7. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

2 subject of the Turnover Order, and the Receiver’s appointment .2 During that call, Legalist indicated that its protective advance would be an amount sufficient to satisfy the outstanding judgment, and would be a total of no less than $2,755,100.10.3 The total of Legalist’s protective advance included funds representing:  $2,111,086.01, the amount of the judgment listed in the Court’s Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”).4  $75,652.07, interest on the $2,111,086.01 from 2/18/2025, the date specified in the order.5  $546,684.52, representing 25% of $2,186,422.60 (principal balance and interest in the Court’s Turnover Order).  $21,677.50, representing attorneys’ fees incurred by Atlantic Wave. The Southern District of Texas ordered Cyberlux and Schmidt to pay Atlantic Wave, and this amount represents the total amount submitted by Atlantic Wave’s counsel.6 At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office’s wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer.7 The Receiver has not provided those instructions.8 2 See Declaration of A. Pennetti, at ¶ 5, attached as Exhibit A; Declaration of Legalist counsel, J. Prostok, attached as Exhibit B. 3 Exhibit B, at ¶ 5. 4 For the reasons described in Defendants Written Objections to the Court’s Turnover Order, the Judgment balance (and any interest flowing therefrom) is incorrect and should be modified or corrected. 5 Interest was calculated from this date because the “judgment balance” in the Turnover Order appears to be inclusive of interest. 6 See Exhibit A, at ¶ 7. 7 Id., at ¶ 6. 8 Exhibit B, at ¶ 7. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

3 2. The Receiver is acting beyond his authority to interfere with accounts receivable flowing from Cyberlux’s U.S. Government subcontract. Cyberlux previously represented to the Court various details surrounding its U.S. Government subcontract with HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”). Consistent with Cyberlux’s representations to the Court, the drones and drone equipment in Cyberlux’s leased facility in Spring, Texas were inspected by the United States Government and shipped to the Government’s preferred destination. This means that Cyberlux will be awaiting payment on a $25 million account receivable (subject to reductions described in the subcontract modification). The final shipment occurred the week of May 26, 2025.9 The Receiver’s staff were present and were permitted to observe these activities.10 Even though Legalist tendered more than enough funds to satisfy Plaintiffs’ judgment to the Receiver, the Receiver is currently demanding that a debtor of Cyberlux, HII, pay the total of Cyberlux’s account receivable (~$25 million) directly to the Receiver. As stated above, not only has the Receiver been tendered – and refused – an amount in excess of the judgment upon which he was appointed, but that judgment is, at most, $2.7 million, more than $20 million less than what the Receive is seeking to levy upon. This indisputably exceeds the scope of the Receiver’s authority under § 31.002(b)(3), which is limited to the extent required to satisfy the judgment. The Receiver is taking actions outside the scope of the Turnover Order, and outside the law with respect to § 31.002(b)(3). 9 Exhibit A., at ¶ 9. 10 Id., at ¶ 9. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

3 2. The Receiver is acting beyond his authority to interfere with accounts receivable flowing from Cyberlux’s U.S. Government subcontract. Cyberlux previously represented to the Court various details surrounding its U.S. Government subcontract with HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”). Consistent with Cyberlux’s representations to the Court, the drones and drone equipment in Cyberlux’s leased facility in Spring, Texas were inspected by the United States Government and shipped to the Government’s preferred destination. This means that Cyberlux will be awaiting payment on a $25 million account receivable (subject to reductions described in the subcontract modification). The final shipment occurred the week of May 26, 2025.9 The Receiver’s staff were present and were permitted to observe these activities.10 Even though Legalist tendered more than enough funds to satisfy Plaintiffs’ judgment to the Receiver, the Receiver is currently demanding that a debtor of Cyberlux, HII, pay the total of Cyberlux’s account receivable (~$25 million) directly to the Receiver. As stated above, not only has the Receiver been tendered – and refused – an amount in excess of the judgment upon which he was appointed, but that judgment is, at most, $2.7 million, more than $20 million less than what the Receive is seeking to levy upon. This indisputably exceeds the scope of the Receiver’s authority under § 31.002(b)(3), which is limited to the extent required to satisfy the judgment. The Receiver is taking actions outside the scope of the Turnover Order, and outside the law with respect to § 31.002(b)(3). 9 Exhibit A., at ¶ 9. 10 Id., at ¶ 9. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

4 3. The Receiver is attempting to sell Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications, and is engaging unsecured creditors regarding claims unrelated to the judgment. The Court appointed the Receiver pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3).11 The Receiver was not appointed under the General Receivership Statute,12 as a bankruptcy trustee, or to act as a rehabilitative receiver. As discussed below, the Receiver’s authority under 31.002 is limited to satisfying a judgment for judgment creditor(s), and only the judgment creditor(s) that are parties to the action. A trial court’s authority to appoint a receiver is limited to appointing a receiver “with the authority to take possession of the nonexempt property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to the judgment creditor to the extent required to satisfy the judgment.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. § 31.002(b)(3). A turnover order becomes “immediately moot when the judgment which it was issued to enforce was satisfied.” Bennett/Nguyen Joint Venture v. Coghlan, No. 01-10- 00575-CV, 2011 WL 2732435, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 14, 2011, no pet.). Since Legalist has tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the Turnover Order is immediately nullified and the receivership must be dissolved. In this instance, however, even after Legalist tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment and pay the Receiver, the Receiver continues to try and seize assets that have a total value in excess of the judgment amount. 11 Turnover Order, at ¶ 8 (“A Receiver is necessary in this case pursuant to the Texas Turnover Statute . . .). 12 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 64.001(a)(2). UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

5 Upon information and belief, the Receiver solicited—and even after Legalist’s tender, continues to solicit—offers and is engaging in negotiations with third parties in an attempt to sell Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications (“Datron”). Datron is an operating business with several active contracts. The Receiver’s actions, if allowed to continue, will severely damage the value of the Datron asset. The Receiver also continues to engage various third parties, including unsecured creditors, making attempts to act as if he has been appointed as a quasi-bankruptcy trustee, which he is not. The Receiver was present at the January 16, 2025 hearing on Judgment Creditors’ Application for Turnover, and he is aware that Cyberlux continues to operate its business as a going concern. Nevertheless, the Receiver’s actions indisputably exceed his authority and are interfering with and harming Cyberlux’s business. A stay of enforcement should be issued given that Legalist tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment. 4. The Court should stay or suspend enforcement of the Turnover Order immediately, pending dissolution of the receivership. The funds tendered to the Receiver are being held in the IOLTA trust account of Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP, counsel for Legalist.13 Legalist has made clear that it wishes to pay the Receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership. When a judgment is satisfied, a turnover order is of no further force and effect. Pandozy v. Beaty, 254 S.W.3d 613, 617 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). In other words, a turnover order becomes “immediately moot when the judgment which it was issued to enforce was satisfied.” Bennett/Nguyen Joint Venture v. Coghlan, No. 01-10- 13 Exhibit B, at ¶ 6. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

7 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 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

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. Lena Brasher on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101743796 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250606 Cyberluxs Motion to Stay or Suspend Enforcement of Turnover Order Status as of 6/9/2025 7:55 AM CST Case Contacts Name David A.Walton LaDonna Arey Sandra Meiners Travis Vargo Laurie DeBardeleben Roxanna Lock Shawn Grady Shawn Grady Jeff Brown Records Department Micah Jackson Sheli Davis Paula Gentry Lena Brasher Frankie Huff Tristian Harris Corinne Martin Hannah Fischer Hannah Petrea Michael Poynter Bernadette Martin Bernadette Martin BarNumber Email dwalton@bellnunnally.com LArey@bellnunnally.com smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com tvargo@vargolawfirm.com ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com rlock@thompsoncoburn.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com Records@bellnunnally.com mjackson@berlethlaw.com sdavis@berlethlaw.com pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com tharris@berlethlaw.com cmartin@berlethlaw.com hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com hpetrea@bellnunnally.com mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com TimestampSubmitted 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

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. Lena Brasher on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101743796 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250606 Cyberluxs Motion to Stay or Suspend Enforcement of Turnover Order Status as of 6/9/2025 7:55 AM CST Case Contacts Name David A.Walton LaDonna Arey Sandra Meiners Travis Vargo Laurie DeBardeleben Roxanna Lock Shawn Grady Shawn Grady Jeff Brown Records Department Micah Jackson Sheli Davis Paula Gentry Lena Brasher Frankie Huff Tristian Harris Corinne Martin Hannah Fischer Hannah Petrea Michael Poynter Bernadette Martin Bernadette Martin BarNumber Email dwalton@bellnunnally.com LArey@bellnunnally.com smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com tvargo@vargolawfirm.com ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com rlock@thompsoncoburn.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com Records@bellnunnally.com mjackson@berlethlaw.com sdavis@berlethlaw.com pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com tharris@berlethlaw.com cmartin@berlethlaw.com hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com hpetrea@bellnunnally.com mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com TimestampSubmitted 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

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. Lena Brasher on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101743796 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250606 Cyberluxs Motion to Stay or Suspend Enforcement of Turnover Order Status as of 6/9/2025 7:55 AM CST Case Contacts Name David A.Walton LaDonna Arey Sandra Meiners Travis Vargo Laurie DeBardeleben Roxanna Lock Shawn Grady Shawn Grady Jeff Brown Records Department Micah Jackson Sheli Davis Paula Gentry Lena Brasher Frankie Huff Tristian Harris Corinne Martin Hannah Fischer Hannah Petrea Michael Poynter Bernadette Martin Bernadette Martin BarNumber Email dwalton@bellnunnally.com LArey@bellnunnally.com smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com tvargo@vargolawfirm.com ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com rlock@thompsoncoburn.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com Records@bellnunnally.com mjackson@berlethlaw.com sdavis@berlethlaw.com pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com tharris@berlethlaw.com cmartin@berlethlaw.com hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com hpetrea@bellnunnally.com mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com TimestampSubmitted 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

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. Lena Brasher on behalf of Alex Pennetti Bar No. 24110208 lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com Envelope ID: 101743796 Filing Code Description: Motion (No Fee) Filing Description: 20250606 Cyberluxs Motion to Stay or Suspend Enforcement of Turnover Order Status as of 6/9/2025 7:55 AM CST Case Contacts Name David A.Walton LaDonna Arey Sandra Meiners Travis Vargo Laurie DeBardeleben Roxanna Lock Shawn Grady Shawn Grady Jeff Brown Records Department Micah Jackson Sheli Davis Paula Gentry Lena Brasher Frankie Huff Tristian Harris Corinne Martin Hannah Fischer Hannah Petrea Michael Poynter Bernadette Martin Bernadette Martin BarNumber Email dwalton@bellnunnally.com LArey@bellnunnally.com smeiners@thompsoncoburn.com tvargo@vargolawfirm.com ldebardeleben@thompsoncoburn.com rlock@thompsoncoburn.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com Records@bellnunnally.com mjackson@berlethlaw.com sdavis@berlethlaw.com pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com lbrasher@thompsoncoburn.com fhuff@thompsoncoburn.com tharris@berlethlaw.com cmartin@berlethlaw.com hfischer@thompsoncoburn.com hpetrea@bellnunnally.com mpoynter@vargolawfirm.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com TimestampSubmitted 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM 6/6/2025 5:53:19 PM Status SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT SENT UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

3 2. The Receiver is acting beyond his authority to interfere with accounts receivable flowing from Cyberlux’s U.S. Government subcontract. Cyberlux previously represented to the Court various details surrounding its U.S. Government subcontract with HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”). Consistent with Cyberlux’s representations to the Court, the drones and drone equipment in Cyberlux’s leased facility in Spring, Texas were inspected by the United States Government and shipped to the Government’s preferred destination. This means that Cyberlux will be awaiting payment on a $25 million account receivable (subject to reductions described in the subcontract modification). The final shipment occurred the week of May 26, 2025.9 The Receiver’s staff were present and were permitted to observe these activities.10 Even though Legalist tendered more than enough funds to satisfy Plaintiffs’ judgment to the Receiver, the Receiver is currently demanding that a debtor of Cyberlux, HII, pay the total of Cyberlux’s account receivable (~$25 million) directly to the Receiver. As stated above, not only has the Receiver been tendered – and refused – an amount in excess of the judgment upon which he was appointed, but that judgment is, at most, $2.7 million, more than $20 million less than what the Receive is seeking to levy upon. This indisputably exceeds the scope of the Receiver’s authority under § 31.002(b)(3), which is limited to the extent required to satisfy the judgment. The Receiver is taking actions outside the scope of the Turnover Order, and outside the law with respect to § 31.002(b)(3). 9 Exhibit A., at ¶ 9. 10 Id., at ¶ 9. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

4 3. The Receiver is attempting to sell Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications, and is engaging unsecured creditors regarding claims unrelated to the judgment. The Court appointed the Receiver pursuant to Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code § 31.002(b)(3).11 The Receiver was not appointed under the General Receivership Statute,12 as a bankruptcy trustee, or to act as a rehabilitative receiver. As discussed below, the Receiver’s authority under 31.002 is limited to satisfying a judgment for judgment creditor(s), and only the judgment creditor(s) that are parties to the action. A trial court’s authority to appoint a receiver is limited to appointing a receiver “with the authority to take possession of the nonexempt property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to the judgment creditor to the extent required to satisfy the judgment.” TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE. § 31.002(b)(3). A turnover order becomes “immediately moot when the judgment which it was issued to enforce was satisfied.” Bennett/Nguyen Joint Venture v. Coghlan, No. 01-10- 00575-CV, 2011 WL 2732435, at *1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] July 14, 2011, no pet.). Since Legalist has tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment, the Turnover Order is immediately nullified and the receivership must be dissolved. In this instance, however, even after Legalist tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment and pay the Receiver, the Receiver continues to try and seize assets that have a total value in excess of the judgment amount. 11 Turnover Order, at ¶ 8 (“A Receiver is necessary in this case pursuant to the Texas Turnover Statute . . .). 12 Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code section 64.001(a)(2). UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

5 Upon information and belief, the Receiver solicited—and even after Legalist’s tender, continues to solicit—offers and is engaging in negotiations with third parties in an attempt to sell Cyberlux’s wholly-owned subsidiary, Datron World Communications (“Datron”). Datron is an operating business with several active contracts. The Receiver’s actions, if allowed to continue, will severely damage the value of the Datron asset. The Receiver also continues to engage various third parties, including unsecured creditors, making attempts to act as if he has been appointed as a quasi-bankruptcy trustee, which he is not. The Receiver was present at the January 16, 2025 hearing on Judgment Creditors’ Application for Turnover, and he is aware that Cyberlux continues to operate its business as a going concern. Nevertheless, the Receiver’s actions indisputably exceed his authority and are interfering with and harming Cyberlux’s business. A stay of enforcement should be issued given that Legalist tendered funds sufficient to satisfy the judgment. 4. The Court should stay or suspend enforcement of the Turnover Order immediately, pending dissolution of the receivership. The funds tendered to the Receiver are being held in the IOLTA trust account of Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP, counsel for Legalist.13 Legalist has made clear that it wishes to pay the Receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership. When a judgment is satisfied, a turnover order is of no further force and effect. Pandozy v. Beaty, 254 S.W.3d 613, 617 (Tex. App.—Texarkana 2008, no pet.). In other words, a turnover order becomes “immediately moot when the judgment which it was issued to enforce was satisfied.” Bennett/Nguyen Joint Venture v. Coghlan, No. 01-10- 13 Exhibit B, at ¶ 6. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

7 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 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

7 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 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

7 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 UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

2 subject of the Turnover Order, and the Receiver’s appointment .2 During that call, Legalist indicated that its protective advance would be an amount sufficient to satisfy the outstanding judgment, and would be a total of no less than $2,755,100.10.3 The total of Legalist’s protective advance included funds representing:  $2,111,086.01, the amount of the judgment listed in the Court’s Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”).4  $75,652.07, interest on the $2,111,086.01 from 2/18/2025, the date specified in the order.5  $546,684.52, representing 25% of $2,186,422.60 (principal balance and interest in the Court’s Turnover Order).  $21,677.50, representing attorneys’ fees incurred by Atlantic Wave. The Southern District of Texas ordered Cyberlux and Schmidt to pay Atlantic Wave, and this amount represents the total amount submitted by Atlantic Wave’s counsel.6 At the end of the call, the Receiver indicated he would provide his office’s wire instructions so Legalist could effectuate the transfer.7 The Receiver has not provided those instructions.8 2 See Declaration of A. Pennetti, at ¶ 5, attached as Exhibit A; Declaration of Legalist counsel, J. Prostok, attached as Exhibit B. 3 Exhibit B, at ¶ 5. 4 For the reasons described in Defendants Written Objections to the Court’s Turnover Order, the Judgment balance (and any interest flowing therefrom) is incorrect and should be modified or corrected. 5 Interest was calculated from this date because the “judgment balance” in the Turnover Order appears to be inclusive of interest. 6 See Exhibit A, at ¶ 7. 7 Id., at ¶ 6. 8 Exhibit B, at ¶ 7. UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk

1 CAUSE NO. 2024-48085 § § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF § § § § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS § § § § § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, Plaintiff/Judgment-Creditor v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION and MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, Defendant/Judgment Debtors. CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK D. SCHMIDT’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO STAY OR OTHERWISE SUSPEND ORDER APPOINTING RECEIVER COME NOW, Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Cyberlux”), and file their Emergency Motion to Stay or Otherwise Suspend Enforcement of the Court’s May 22, 2025 Order Appointing Receiver (the “Turnover Order”) based upon the tender1 of sufficient funds to satisfy the judgment upon which the receiver was appointed. In support thereof, Cyberlux respectfully shows: 1. Sufficient funds to satisfy the Judgment were tendered to the Receiver. The Court’s Turnover Order is limited to the recovery of $2.11 million in favor of Plaintiffs. On June 5, 2025, counsel for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”), counsel for Judgment Debtors, and the Receiver held a teleconference during which Legalist advised the Receiver that it was exercising its contractual right to act as attorney-in-fact for Cyberlux and would issue a protective advance pursuant to an existing credit agreement between Cyberlux and Legalist, for more than is required to satisfy the judgment that is the 1 In general, ‘an unconditional offer by a debtor or obligor to pay another ... a sum not less in amount than that due on a specified debt or obligation’ is a tender of payment.” Bluntson v. Wuensche Servs., Inc., 374 S.W.3d 503, 507 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2012, no pet.)) (citing Baucum v. Great Am. Ins. Co. of New York, 370 S.W.2d 863 (Tex. 1963)). 6/6/2025 5:53 PM Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 101743796 By: Shanelle Taylor Filed: 6/6/2025 5:53 PM UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk