Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
Priddy and Stout declarations with payoff, correspondence, receiver brief and UCC exhibits, May 2026
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT A
5/29/2026 1:16 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115503041
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 5/29/2026 1:16 PM
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF AUSTIN PRIDDY
1. My name is Austin Priddy. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist) in the above-styled
matter. In my capacity as counsel, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances
surrounding the above-styled matter and Legalist's efforts to collect amounts owed from
Cyberlux, including in the interpleader matter currently pending in the Eastern District of
Virginia styled HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., Civil Action
No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG (the "Virginia Interpleader").
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is a true and correct copy of the judgment calculation
provided by Robert Berleth ('Receiver") in the above-styled matter.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and counsel for Cyberlux.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit A -3 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and the Receiver.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of law in
support of motion for summary judgment filed by the Receiver in the Virginia Interpleader.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-5 is a true and correct copy of Legalist's UCC lien filed in
Nevada.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
1
claimallegation
Austin Priddy declares under penalty of perjury that he is counsel for Legalist and authenticates copies of the receiver’s judgment calculat
Austin Priddy declares under penalty of perjury that he is counsel for Legalist and authenticates copies of the receiver’s judgment calculation, counsel and receiver emails, the receiver’s Virginia summary-judgment brief, and Legalist’s Nevada UCC filing. He signs in Tarrant County on 29 May 2026; the Harris County filing stamp is that date. Authentication of a copied brief does not adopt its disputed arguments as true.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT A
5/29/2026 1:16 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115503041
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 5/29/2026 1:16 PM
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF AUSTIN PRIDDY
1. My name is Austin Priddy. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist) in the above-styled
matter. In my capacity as counsel, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances
surrounding the above-styled matter and Legalist's efforts to collect amounts owed from
Cyberlux, including in the interpleader matter currently pending in the Eastern District of
Virginia styled HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., Civil Action
No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG (the "Virginia Interpleader").
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is a true and correct copy of the judgment calculation
provided by Robert Berleth ('Receiver") in the above-styled matter.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and counsel for Cyberlux.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit A -3 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and the Receiver.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of law in
support of motion for summary judgment filed by the Receiver in the Virginia Interpleader.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-5 is a true and correct copy of Legalist's UCC lien filed in
Nevada.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
1
claimallegation
The receiver proposes ANPC $2,926,814.39, Thin Air Gear $1,385,489.46, Fairwinds $2,348,542, ARG reduced to $4.2 million and Catalyst/Tucker
The receiver proposes ANPC $2,926,814.39, Thin Air Gear $1,385,489.46, Fairwinds $2,348,542, ARG reduced to $4.2 million and Catalyst/Tucker/Whiteley $2,676,378.58, plus identified non-parties if they intervene. His suggestion that Schmidt likely retains or retained Atlantic Wave ownership is expressly speculative; Cyberlux is placed last in his proposed distribution.
Read the anchor · page 26
Page 17 of 20
(1) ANPC: $2,926,814.39.
(2) Thin Air Gear, LLC: $1,385,489.46.
(3) Fairwinds Technologies: $2,348,542.00.
(4) ARG Group (agreed reduction to commission on actual sales, not
contracted amount): $4,200,000.00.
(5) Catalyst Machineworks, LLC (Phillip Tucker and Neill Whiteley):
$2,676,378.58.
e. Unsecured, non-party14 creditors, non-insider claims. Should these nonparties intervene, the claims are legitimate, as they represent claims for
services related to the Subcontract or services to Cyberlux and should be
paid pro-rata with paragraph 4 creditors:
(1) Aerotek, Inc.: $235,411.27
(2) Clayton Services: $786,155.07
(3) Northwind Axis Advisory: $36,691.95
(4) Marlin Leasing Corp: $36,009.40
(5) 3rd Gen. Development: $342,478.34
The remaining claims represent Legalist’s remaining balance of $5,891,115.71, which is
money lent and interest earned following the Receivership, as well as a number of insiders or
invalid claims, as the agreements made with Cyberlux were done outside the Receiver’s
knowledge or approval, and without authority by Cyberlux pursuant to the Order. While in
Receivership, a number of parties entered into agreements, or caused judgments and security
agreements to be entered. Similarly, certain Interpleader Defendants are “insiders” as defined by
14 The Receiver expects certain of these non-parties to file a Motion to Intervene.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 176 Filed 04/15/26 Page 17 of 20 PageID# 3081
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Nevada acknowledgement and stamped UCC-1 record filing 2024395945-0 on 1 April 2024 at 11:49am, naming CYBERLUX CORPORATION debtor and LEGAL
Nevada acknowledgement and stamped UCC-1 record filing 2024395945-0 on 1 April 2024 at 11:49am, naming CYBERLUX CORPORATION debtor and LEGALIST SPV III, LP secured party, collateral ALL ASSETS. Receipt records $30 filing and $0.75 service fee. Filing evidence does not by itself establish attachment, advance tracing or priority over every competing claim.
Read the anchor · page 30
Legalist Inc.
58 West Portal Ave #747
San Francisco, CA 94127, USA
Work Order #: W2024040101722
April 1, 2024
Receipt Version: 1
Special Handling Instructions: Submitter ID: 557700
Charges
Description Fee Description Filing Number Filing
Date/Time
Filing
Status
Qty Price Amount
UCC-1 Fees 2024395945-0 4/1/2024
11:49:44 AM
Approved 1 $30.00 $30.00
Total $30.00
Payments
Type Description Payment Status Amount
Credit Card 7119973708576911003078 Success $30.00
Credit Card Service Fee Success $0.75
Total $30.75
Credit Balance: $0.00
FRANCISCO V. AGUILAR
Secretary of State
DEPUTY BAKKEDAHL
Deputy Secretary for
Commercial Recordings
STATE OF NEVADA
OFFICE OF THE
SECRETARY OF STATE
Commercial Recordings & Notary Division
401 N. Carson Street
Carson City, NV 89701
Telephone (775) 684-5708
Fax (775) 684-7138
North Las Vegas City Hall
2250 Las Vegas Blvd North, Suite 400
North Las Vegas, NV 89030
Telephone (702) 486-2880
Fax (702) 486-2888
Legalist Inc.
58 West Portal Ave #747
San Francisco, CA 94127, USA
(;+,%,7$
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Brian Stout declares he has been Legalist’s Investment Lead of Government Receivables since February 2024, that a financing agreement was en
Brian Stout declares he has been Legalist’s Investment Lead of Government Receivables since February 2024, that a financing agreement was entered on 27 March 2024, and that advances beginning April included $3,083,639.75 wired to the receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership. He attests indebtedness of $13,997,282.46 as of 26 May 2026. The declaration is executed May 28 in New London, Connecticut; its Docusign completion certificate records signing at 8:23:08am Pacific. No bank confirmation is attached.
Read the anchor · page 33
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF BRIAN STOUT
1. My name is Brian Stout. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I work for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”) as Investment Lead of Government
Receivables. I have held this position since February 2024.
3. On March 27, 2024, Legalist entered into a Government Purchase Order Financing
Agreement with Cyberlux, whereby Legalist would provide a line of credit for Cyberlux
to fund operational expenses (the “Financing Agreement”).
4. Beginning in April 2024, Legalist made a number of capital advances to Cyberlux under
the Financing Agreement, including by wiring $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver in the instant
action for the purpose of satisfying the underlying judgment and terminating the
receivership.
5. As of May 26, 2026, Cyberlux’s total indebtedness to Legalist is $13,997,282.46. A true
and correct copy of a Payoff Statement identifying Cyberlux’s indebtedness as of May 26,
2026, is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 28, 2026, in __________________ County, State of _____________________.
______________________________
Brian Stout
(;+,%,7%
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Legalist’s 26 May 2026 payoff statement identifies borrower Cyberlux, Inc. and totals $13,997,282.46: principal $10,033,639.75, unpaid inter
Legalist’s 26 May 2026 payoff statement identifies borrower Cyberlux, Inc. and totals $13,997,282.46: principal $10,033,639.75, unpaid interest $3,176,212.23, commitment fee $112,500, forbearance fees $53,000, paid legal fees $411,743.60 and unpaid legal fees $210,186.88. Components reconcile. May per diem is $6,740.22. The lender includes already-paid legal fees in its receivable calculation; this is not proof that those costs were repaid by Cyberlux.
Read the anchor · page 35
EXHIBIT B-1
Legalist
May 26th, 2026
Borrower:
Cyberlux, Inc.
PAYOFF STATEMENT
Period Ending
05/26/26
Principal
$10,033,639.75
Unpaid Interest
$3,176,212.23
Commitment Fee
$112,500.00
Forbearance Fees
$53,000.00
Paid Legal Fees
$411,743.60
Unpaid Legal Fees
$210,186.88
Total Balance
$13,997,282.46
May 2026 Per Diem
$6,740.22
The balance listed above is the total balance due to Legalist, Inc. and/or its affiliates ("Lender")
through May 26th, 2026 to fully and finally satisfy all loan obligations through such date.
Wire details are listed below in Schedule A.
If you have any questions about this matter, please do not hesitate to contact us.
claimallegation
Schedule A identifies Legalist SPV III, LP as beneficiary at Silicon Valley Bank for CYBLX Final Payoff and directs pre-transmission verific
Schedule A identifies Legalist SPV III, LP as beneficiary at Silicon Valley Bank for CYBLX Final Payoff and directs pre-transmission verification with Mike Battillo. Routing, account and SWIFT fields are visibly redacted. These instructions do not show a completed payment.
Read the anchor · page 36
EXHIBIT B-1
Legalist
Schedule A
Currency
USD
Bank name
Silicon Valley Bank
Bank address
3003 Tasman Drive, Santa
Clara, CA 95054
ABA/Routing number [redacted]
Beneficiary account
Legalist SPV III, LP
Account address
58 West Portal Ave No. 747
San Francisco, CA 94127
Account number [redacted]
SWIFT code [redacted]
Reference
CYBLX Final Payoff
Support:
Prior to wire transmission, please contact the following for payment instruction verification:
• Mike Battillo at mike@legalist.com or (415) 429-2297
Unofficial Copy
claimallegation
The automated service certificate identifies Legalist’s Response to Receiver’s Final Account, envelope 115503041, submitted 29 May 2026 at 1
The automated service certificate identifies Legalist’s Response to Receiver’s Final Account, envelope 115503041, submitted 29 May 2026 at 1:16:35pm, and lists contacts with SENT status. The registered file begins at Exhibit A and includes declarations/exhibits; the substantive response itself is not reproduced. SENT does not demonstrate recipients read it.
Read the anchor · page 37
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.
Austin Priddy on behalf of Austin Priddy
Bar No. 24098284
austin.priddy@vkhh.com
Envelope ID: 115503041
Filing Code Description: No Fee Documents
Filing Description: Legalist's Response to Receiver's Final Account
Status as of 5/29/2026 3:09 PM CST
Case Contacts
Name
Ashish Mahendru
Darren AndrewBraun
M. H. Cersonsky
Evan A.Moeller
Evan A.Moeller
Danielle Butler
LaDonna Arey
Linda Carranza
Elizabeth Myers
Tara Rollin
Robert W.Berleth
David A.Walton
Travis Vargo
Micah Jackson
Brice BBeale
Mary Jahn
Shawn Grady
Shawn Grady
Aaron McLeod
Jeff Brown
Paula Gentry
Bernadette Martin
BarNumber Email
amahendru@thelitigationgroup.com
dbraun@thelitigationgroup.com
mhcersonsky@law-cmpc.com
evan.moeller@arlaw.com
evan.moeller@arlaw.com
dbutler@thelitigationgroup.com
LArey@bellnunnally.com
lcarranza@thompsoncoburn.com
emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
tara.rollin@arlaw.com
rberleth@berlethlaw.com
dwalton@bellnunnally.com
tvargo@vargolawfirm.com
mjackson@berlethlaw.com
beale@hooverslovacek.com
mary.jahn@arlaw.com
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
shawn@gradycollectionlaw.com
aaron.mcleod@arlaw.com
jbrown@thompsoncoburn.com
pgentry@thompsoncoburn.com
bernadette@gradycollectionlaw.com
TimestampSubmitted
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 PM
5/29/2026 1:16:35 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
claimallegation
The receiver-supplied calculation as of 9 June 2025 totals $3,083,639.75: judgment $1,572,500 at 12%, pre-judgment $0, post-judgment $420,12
The receiver-supplied calculation as of 9 June 2025 totals $3,083,639.75: judgment $1,572,500 at 12%, pre-judgment $0, post-judgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady fees $21,677.50, Vargo fees $21,880 and Caudle fees $9,392.50. The listed monetary components sum to the stated total; the sheet supplies no underlying time or cost ledger.
On 10 June 2025 Priddy asks Cyberlux to agree that, assuming Legalist pays that day, any surplus after the enforcement proceeding—including
On 10 June 2025 Priddy asks Cyberlux to agree that, assuming Legalist pays that day, any surplus after the enforcement proceeding—including a reduced judgment or receiver fee—will return directly to Legalist. At 4:06pm Alex Pennetti answers “Cyberlux is agreed.” Earlier Pennetti describes a roughly two-year-old credit agreement and HII acknowledgement of assigned receivables; those are counsel’s statements, not attached instruments.
Read the anchor · page 4
1
Austin Priddy
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:06 PM
To: Austin Priddy
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N.; Jeff Prostok; Lang, Douglas S.; Brown, Jeffrey N.
Subject: RE: Wire
Cyberlux is agreed.
Alex Pennetti
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
P: 972 629 7168
F: 972 629 7171
Thompson Coburn LLP
2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
www.thompsoncoburn.com
From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>; Lang, Douglas S.
<DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: FW: Wire
RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SENDER - USE CAUTION
Alex – For the sake of a clear paper trail, please confirm that Cyberlux agrees to the highlighted directly below.
From: Austin Priddy
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff
Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Cc: Lang, Douglas S. <DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: RE: Wire
Alex,
Assuming Legalist makes the payment today, does Cyberlux agree that any surplus leftover at the end of the
enforcement proceeding will be returned directly to Legalist? For example, if the total payment amount is reduced
below ~3.1mm due to a lower judgment amount or a lower receiver fee, Cyberlux agrees any excess funds would
be returned directly to Legalist?
-Austin
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:32 PM
(;+,%,7$
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
On 26 June Berleth asks if Legalist will skip settlement and collect outside the receivership. Priddy says he was not told of a conference.
On 26 June Berleth asks if Legalist will skip settlement and collect outside the receivership. Priddy says he was not told of a conference. On 27 June Berleth treats lack of collection instructions and balance information as a no; Priddy responds that Legalist is not a party, understands from the 12 June hearing that its wire satisfied the judgment, and seeks termination and payment of creditors while reserving rights if the landscape changes. This records divergent expectations, not a court finding of satisfaction.
Read the anchor · page 7
1
Austin Priddy
From: Austin Priddy
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 9:31 AM
To: Robert Berleth; Jeff Prostok
Subject: RE: Legalist Participation
Attachments: Judgment Calculation Cyberlux.pdf
Robert,
As Legalist is not a party to the matter, we are not provided with updates from the Court. And Cyberlux has not told
us anything about a settlement conference. Our understanding based on the last hearing we attended on June 12
is that the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount.
Cyberlux indicated at the hearing that they plan to challenge the judgment and fee amount, which is their
prerogative. Legalist is not challenging anything—they simply wanted to make the payment to ensure that
sufficient funds were in place to satisfy the judgment, terminate the receivership, and get everyone paid. If the
landscape has changed and additional funds are in play to pay other creditors, please let us know. Legalist
reserves all rights to seek funds to which it is legally entitled.
Thanks,
-Austin
From: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 8:01 AM
To: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Subject: RE: Legalist Participation
But you also haven't asked me to collect the funds for legalist or even told me how much is owed. I'll take
your lack of action and communication as a "no".
I understand legalist amd cyberlux are trying to keep the receiver's fees down. Smart. Best of luck in
your collection efforts and be well.
R
-------- Original message --------
From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>
Date: 6/26/25 8:13 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com>, Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Subject: Re: Legalist Participation
Robert,
We haven’t been made aware of a settlement conference. What's the status on that?
You don't often get email from rberleth@berlethlaw.com. Learn why this is important
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
Exhibit A-4 reproduces the receiver’s 15 April 2026 ECF 176 summary-judgment memorandum. He seeks the entire interpleaded corpus for distrib
Exhibit A-4 reproduces the receiver’s 15 April 2026 ECF 176 summary-judgment memorandum. He seeks the entire interpleaded corpus for distribution or at least $5,934,234.39, 25% of the remaining corpus, and claims his efforts were necessary to create the fund. This is adverse-party advocacy attached by Legalist, not Legalist’s endorsement or an award of fees.
Read the anchor · page 10
Page 1 of 20
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., §
Interpleader Plaintiff, §
§
v. § Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483
§
CYBERLUX CORP., et al.,§
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. §
INTERPLEADER DEFENDANT’S, ROBERT W. BERLETH, AS RECEIVER,
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Interpleader Defendant/Claimant, Robert W. Berleth, as Receiver (the “Receiver”), by
counsel, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 and Local Civil Rule 56, submits this Memorandum of Law
in Support of his Motion for Summary Judgment.
INTRODUCTION
Despite the existence of an authorized state receivership action that pre-dates this litigation,
on June 24, 2025, Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) filed its Complaint for
Interpleader (the “Complaint”) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335, requesting that this Court allow HII
to interplead certain funds into this Court’s Registry that are, or may be, owed to Cyberlux, but are
subject to multiple claims. After HII amended the Complaint on August 4, 2025, the present
interpleader defendants consist of the following parties: (1) Cyberlux Corporation (“Cyberlux”)1
;
(2) Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC (“Atlantic Wave”)2
; (3) Secure Community, LLC (“Secure
Community”); (4) Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”); (5) United States of America (“USA”); (6)
1
Mark D. Schmidt (“Schmidt”) is CEO for Cyberlux.
2
Schmidt has also served as an officer for Atlantic Wave. Attached as Exhibit A is a May 11,
2021 Statement of Principal Office Change signed by Mark Schmidt as President. The Court can
take judicial notice of the publicly filed documents on Virginia’s State Corporation Commission
website from Atlantic Wave’s May 11, 2021 filing, wherein Schmidt signs the filing as President
of Atlantic Wave. See infra n.8.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 176 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 20 PageID# 3065
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The receiver’s brief recites the August 2023 subcontract, May 2024 terminations, February 2025 Modification 4, May 28 payment of $2,757,254.
The receiver’s brief recites the August 2023 subcontract, May 2024 terminations, February 2025 Modification 4, May 28 payment of $2,757,254.39 and July 15 payment of $23,012,114.64. It alleges final inventory shipment on 30 May through his efforts. The resulting $25,769,369.03 remains expressly subject to setoff and recoupment; no receiving report is included here.
Read the anchor · page 13
Page 4 of 20
issue concerning a material fact only arises when the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable
to the non-moving party, is sufficient to allow a reasonable trier of fact to return a verdict in that
party’s favor. Rhoades v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, No. 3:22-CV-728-HEH, 2023
WL 3981271, at *3 (E.D. Va. June 13, 2023) (citing JKC Holding Co. LLC v. Washington Sports
Ventures, Inc., 264 F.3d 459, 465 (4th Cir. 2001)).
A simple allegation of a dispute of fact is not enough to defeat a summary judgment motion;
rather, “[o]nly disputes over facts which might affect the outcome of the suit under the governing
law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment. Factual disputes that are irrelevant or
unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). “The
mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties … will not defeat an otherwise
properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine
issue of material fact.” Hooven-Lewis v. Caldera, 249 F.3d 259, 265 (4th Cir. 2001) (emphasis in
original) (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 247–48). When the record here is viewed consistent with
this standard, summary judgment in favor of the Receiver is appropriate.
STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED FACTS
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 56(B), the Receiver lists the following material facts that the
Receiver contends there is no genuine issue:
Cyberlux Contract and Payment of Corpus
1. In September 2014, the United States awarded HII a federal contract, Prime
Contract No. GS00Q14OADU109; Task/Delivery Order No. 47QFCA22F00039 and Technical
Direction Letter 1-023 (the “Prime Contract”), supporting the Department of Navy and the
General Services Administration, the Federal Systems Integration and Management Center. 1st
Am. Compl. ¶ 18; Berleth Decl. ¶ 6.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 176 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 20 PageID# 3068
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The receiver invokes January 16 oral appointment, May 22 written appointment and May 23 possession of the plant. He acknowledges denial of h
The receiver invokes January 16 oral appointment, May 22 written appointment and May 23 possession of the plant. He acknowledges denial of his July federal deposit request and denial of a February 2026 motion to expand the receivership, but argues the existing order survives and can be expanded in Virginia. He invokes 25% compensation, potentially 33% on full collection, and custodia legis; these legal conclusions remain his arguments.
Read the anchor · page 15
Page 6 of 20
8. On July 3, 2025, HII submitted an additional invoice to the Government in
connection with the completed shipment by Cyberlux and Mod. 4. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 28; Berleth
Decl. ¶ 16.
9. On July 15, 2025, HII received final payment from the Government on the Prime
Contract in relation to Cyberlux in the amount of $23,012,114.64. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 29; Berleth
Decl. ¶ 17.
10. As a result, HII received a total of $25,769,369.03, which, subject to setoff and
recoupment under § 7 of Mod. 4, may otherwise be or become payable to Cyberlux under the
Subcontract. 1st Am. Compl. ¶ 30; Berleth Decl. ¶ 13.
Appointment of Receiver
11. On or around August 24, 2022, Atlantic Wave and Secure Community sued
Cyberlux and Schmidt, individually in Virginia for breach of contract. Berleth Decl. ¶ 10.
12. The suit resulted in an agreed final judgment in the principal amount of $1,572,500
(the “Virginia Final Judgment”). Berleth Decl. ¶ 10.
13. On July 7, 2024, pursuant to the Uniform Enforcement of Foreign Judgment Act,
Atlantic Wave filed a Petition to Enforce a Foreign Judgment, domesticating the Virginia Final
Judgment against Cyberlux and Schmidt in the Texas Court. Berleth Decl. ¶ 10.
14. On January 16, 2025, the Texas Court established the Receivership. Berleth Decl.
¶ 10.
15. On May 22, 2025, following various unsuccessful attempts by Cyberlux to undercut
the Receivership (including two unsuccessful efforts to remove the case to the Southern District
of Texas), the Texas Court reduced its oral order to a written Order Appointing Receiver (the
“Order”) (Exhibit C). Berleth Decl. ¶ 11.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 176 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 20 PageID# 3070
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The brief subtracts $1,444,543.11 paid to Atlantic Wave and $587,888.36 HII fees from the gross fund, leaving $23,736,937.56 before earned i
The brief subtracts $1,444,543.11 paid to Atlantic Wave and $587,888.36 HII fees from the gross fund, leaving $23,736,937.56 before earned interest. It lists competing claims totalling $46,327,789.98 without receiver fees and $52,262,024.37 with them; neither list is an adjudication of allowance.
Read the anchor · page 16
Page 7 of 20
16. As a member of both NAFER7
and TATR8
, Mr. Berleth is an experienced and
respected receiver in state and federal courts. Berleth Decl. ¶ 3-4.
17. On May 23, 2025, the Receiver took physical possession of the Cyberlux
manufacturing facility located at 21631 Rhodes Road, Spring, Texas 77388, and changed the locks
to the building, took precursory inventory, and secured the entire premises. Berleth Decl. ¶ 12.
18. Working with the parties, the Receiver coordinated the final shipments of
Government property over the next several weeks, with the final truck departing the manufacturing
facility on May 30, 2025. Berleth Decl. ¶ 13.
19. The Receiver coordinated with HII and confirmed the total payment of
$25,769,369.03 from HII. Berleth Decl. ¶ 13.
20. Consistent with the Order, on July 17, 2025, the Receiver requested that HII seize
and forward to him any funds held by HII, which funds are non-exempt assets. Berleth Decl. ¶ 19.
21. On July 22, 2025, and August 15, 2025, the Circuit Court for Fairfax County
ordered the payment of $1,444,543.11 into that court’s registry, which was then paid to Atlantic
Wave. [D.N. 150.]
22. HII incurred costs and attorneys’ fees in connection with this matter totaling
$587,888.36, which was recouped from the Corpus. [D.N. 150.]
23. The Corpus, not inclusive of interest earned, available for distribution totals
$23,736.937.56. [D.N. 153.]
24. The Receiver has the ability to properly disburse the funds in accordance with the
Order and anticipated subsequent orders from the Texas Court, which would give all creditors an
7
National Association of Federal Equity Receivers.
8
Texas Association of Turnover Receivers.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 176 Filed 04/15/26 Page 7 of 20 PageID# 3071
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
claimallegation
The receiver proposes first USA $1,149,776.34, then Legalist $7,313,627.17 as of May 22, 2025, then receiver $5,934,234.39, leaving $9,339,2
The receiver proposes first USA $1,149,776.34, then Legalist $7,313,627.17 as of May 22, 2025, then receiver $5,934,234.39, leaving $9,339,299.66 for proposed pro-rata claims. He would treat Legalist’s remaining $5,891,115.71 as post-receivership lending/interest and challenges unauthorised or insider claims. He also offers a conditional pro-rata receiver alternative if the corpus is entrusted to him.
Read the anchor · page 25
Page 16 of 20
creditors, the Receiver proposes the following with respect to the distribution and validity of
claims:
a. USA for the full amount: $1,149,776.34.
i. This would leave approximately $22,587,161.22 of the Corpus.
b. Legalist’s secured claim for the amount owed as of May 22, 202512:
$7,313,627.17.
i. This would leave approximately $15,273,534.05 of the Corpus.
c. The Receiver’s fees, as administrative fee with priority over unsecured
creditors pursuant to the Order and substantially similar to 11 U.S.C. §
507(a)(2): 25% of the Corpus or $5,934,234.39.
i. This would leave approximately $9,339,299.66 of the Corpus.
However, should the Court order the entire Corpus, or the amount
remaining after payments to the USA and Legalist’s claim as of May
22, 2025 (approximately $15,273,534.05), the Receiver will take a
pro-rata portion in connection with the claims set forth in (d) and (e)
below.13
d. Unsecured, current party, non-insider claims. All legitimate and should be
paid pro-rata:
12 May 22, 2025 is the date the Order was signed establishing the Receivership. Any action taken
after this date would have required authority from the Receiver. Nevertheless, given Legalist and
Cyberlux still have a business relationship and Cyberlux continues to make public disclosures in
connection with obligations to the Securities and Exchange Commission, such quarterly reports
indicate that Legalist and the other insider creditors should not have any issue collecting from
Cyberlux.
13 The Receiver, similarly, will report to either this Court, or the Texas Court, as this Court directs,
for recommendations of distributions for creditors, including the Receiver’s fees, with an
opportunity for each creditor to object.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 176 Filed 04/15/26 Page 16 of 20 PageID# 3080
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
otherattribution
Cyberlux agrees that any surplus at the end of enforcement will return directly to Legalist, assuming Legalist makes the payment that day.
Read the anchor · page 4
1
Austin Priddy
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:06 PM
To: Austin Priddy
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N.; Jeff Prostok; Lang, Douglas S.; Brown, Jeffrey N.
Subject: RE: Wire
Cyberlux is agreed.
Alex Pennetti
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
P: 972 629 7168
F: 972 629 7171
Thompson Coburn LLP
2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
www.thompsoncoburn.com
From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>; Lang, Douglas S.
<DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: FW: Wire
RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SENDER - USE CAUTION
Alex – For the sake of a clear paper trail, please confirm that Cyberlux agrees to the highlighted directly below.
From: Austin Priddy
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff
Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Cc: Lang, Douglas S. <DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: RE: Wire
Alex,
Assuming Legalist makes the payment today, does Cyberlux agree that any surplus leftover at the end of the
enforcement proceeding will be returned directly to Legalist? For example, if the total payment amount is reduced
below ~3.1mm due to a lower judgment amount or a lower receiver fee, Cyberlux agrees any excess funds would
be returned directly to Legalist?
-Austin
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:32 PM
(;+,%,7$
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Austin Priddy
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT A
5/29/2026 1:16 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115503041
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 5/29/2026 1:16 PM
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF AUSTIN PRIDDY
1. My name is Austin Priddy. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist) in the above-styled
matter. In my capacity as counsel, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances
surrounding the above-styled matter and Legalist's efforts to collect amounts owed from
Cyberlux, including in the interpleader matter currently pending in the Eastern District of
Virginia styled HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., Civil Action
No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG (the "Virginia Interpleader").
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is a true and correct copy of the judgment calculation
provided by Robert Berleth ('Receiver") in the above-styled matter.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and counsel for Cyberlux.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit A -3 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and the Receiver.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of law in
support of motion for summary judgment filed by the Receiver in the Virginia Interpleader.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-5 is a true and correct copy of Legalist's UCC lien filed in
Nevada.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
1
entityobservation
Alex Pennetti
Read the anchor · page 4
1
Austin Priddy
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:06 PM
To: Austin Priddy
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N.; Jeff Prostok; Lang, Douglas S.; Brown, Jeffrey N.
Subject: RE: Wire
Cyberlux is agreed.
Alex Pennetti
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
P: 972 629 7168
F: 972 629 7171
Thompson Coburn LLP
2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
www.thompsoncoburn.com
From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>; Lang, Douglas S.
<DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: FW: Wire
RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SENDER - USE CAUTION
Alex – For the sake of a clear paper trail, please confirm that Cyberlux agrees to the highlighted directly below.
From: Austin Priddy
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff
Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Cc: Lang, Douglas S. <DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: RE: Wire
Alex,
Assuming Legalist makes the payment today, does Cyberlux agree that any surplus leftover at the end of the
enforcement proceeding will be returned directly to Legalist? For example, if the total payment amount is reduced
below ~3.1mm due to a lower judgment amount or a lower receiver fee, Cyberlux agrees any excess funds would
be returned directly to Legalist?
-Austin
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:32 PM
(;+,%,7$
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Robert Berleth
Read the anchor · page 7
1
Austin Priddy
From: Austin Priddy
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 9:31 AM
To: Robert Berleth; Jeff Prostok
Subject: RE: Legalist Participation
Attachments: Judgment Calculation Cyberlux.pdf
Robert,
As Legalist is not a party to the matter, we are not provided with updates from the Court. And Cyberlux has not told
us anything about a settlement conference. Our understanding based on the last hearing we attended on June 12
is that the judgment has been satisfied in full based on Legalist wiring you the attached judgment amount.
Cyberlux indicated at the hearing that they plan to challenge the judgment and fee amount, which is their
prerogative. Legalist is not challenging anything—they simply wanted to make the payment to ensure that
sufficient funds were in place to satisfy the judgment, terminate the receivership, and get everyone paid. If the
landscape has changed and additional funds are in play to pay other creditors, please let us know. Legalist
reserves all rights to seek funds to which it is legally entitled.
Thanks,
-Austin
From: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com>
Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 8:01 AM
To: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Subject: RE: Legalist Participation
But you also haven't asked me to collect the funds for legalist or even told me how much is owed. I'll take
your lack of action and communication as a "no".
I understand legalist amd cyberlux are trying to keep the receiver's fees down. Smart. Best of luck in
your collection efforts and be well.
R
-------- Original message --------
From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>
Date: 6/26/25 8:13 PM (GMT-06:00)
To: Robert Berleth <rberleth@berlethlaw.com>, Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Subject: Re: Legalist Participation
Robert,
We haven’t been made aware of a settlement conference. What's the status on that?
You don't often get email from rberleth@berlethlaw.com. Learn why this is important
&9)*#*5"
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
Brian Stout
Read the anchor · page 33
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF BRIAN STOUT
1. My name is Brian Stout. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I work for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”) as Investment Lead of Government
Receivables. I have held this position since February 2024.
3. On March 27, 2024, Legalist entered into a Government Purchase Order Financing
Agreement with Cyberlux, whereby Legalist would provide a line of credit for Cyberlux
to fund operational expenses (the “Financing Agreement”).
4. Beginning in April 2024, Legalist made a number of capital advances to Cyberlux under
the Financing Agreement, including by wiring $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver in the instant
action for the purpose of satisfying the underlying judgment and terminating the
receivership.
5. As of May 26, 2026, Cyberlux’s total indebtedness to Legalist is $13,997,282.46. A true
and correct copy of a Payoff Statement identifying Cyberlux’s indebtedness as of May 26,
2026, is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 28, 2026, in __________________ County, State of _____________________.
______________________________
Brian Stout
(;+,%,7%
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 32
UCC FINANCING STATEMENT
FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS
A. NAME & PHONE OF CONTACT AT FILER (optional)
Legalist Inc. 415-570-7878
B. E-MAIL CONTACT AT FILER (optional)
info@legalist.com
C. SEND ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO: (Name and Address)
Legalist, Inc.
58 West Portal Ave #747
San Francisco, CA 94127, USA
1. DEBTOR'S NAME: Provide only one Debtor name (1a or 1b) (use exact, full name; do not omit, modify, or abbreviate any part of the Debtor’s name); if any part of the Individual Debtor’s
name will not fit in line 1b, leave all of item 1 blank, check here and provide the Individual Debtor information in item 10 of the Financing Statement Addendum (Form UCC1Ad)
OR
1a. ORGANIZATION'S NAME
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
1b. INDIVIDUAL'S SURNAME FIRST PERSONAL NAME ADDITIONAL NAME(S)/INITIAL(S) SUFFIX
1c. MAILING ADDRESS
800 PARK OFFICES DR., STE. 3209
CITY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
STATE
NC
POSTAL CODE
27709
COUNTRY
USA
2. DEBTOR'S NAME: Provide only one Debtor name (2a or 2b) (use exact, full name; do not omit, modify, or abbreviate any part of the Debtor’s name); if any part of the Individual Debtor’s
name will not fit in line 2b, leave all of item 2 blank, check here and provide the Individual Debtor information in item 10 of the Financing Statement Addendum (Form UCC1Ad)
OR
2a. ORGANIZATION'S NAME
2b. INDIVIDUAL'S SURNAME FIRST PERSONAL NAME ADDITIONAL NAME(S)/INITIAL(S) SUFFIX
2c. MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE POSTAL CODE COUNTRY
3. SECURED PARTY'S NAME (or NAME of ASSIGNEE of ASSIGNOR SECURED PARTY): Provide only one Secured Party name (3a or 3b)
OR
3a. ORGANIZATION'S NAME
LEGALIST SPV III, LP
3b. INDIVIDUAL'S SURNAME FIRST PERSONAL NAME ADDITIONAL NAME(S)/INITIAL(S) SUFFIX
3c. MAILING ADDRESS
58 WEST PORTAL AVE. NO. 747
CITY
SAN FRANCISCO
STATE
CA
POSTAL CODE
94127
COUNTRY
USA
4. COLLATERAL: This financing statement covers the following collateral:
ALL ASSETS
5. Check only if applicable and check only one box: Collateral is held in a Trust (see UCC1Ad, item 17 and Instructions) being administered by a Decedent’s Personal Representative
6a. Check only if applicable and check only one box:
Public-Finance Transaction Manufactured-Home Transaction A Debtor is a Transmitting Utility
6b. Check only if applicable and check only one box:
Agricultural Lien Non-UCC Filing
7. ALTERNATIVE DESIGNATION (if applicable): Lessee/Lessor Consignee/Consignor Seller/Buyer Bailee/Bailor Licensee/Licensor
8. OPTIONAL FILER REFERENCE DATA:
FILING OFFICE COPY — UCC FINANCING STATEMENT (Form UCC1) (Rev. 04/20/11)
Filed in the Office of
Secretary of State
State Of Nevada
Initial Filing Number
2024395945-0
Filed On
April 1, 2024 11:49 AM
Number of Pages
1
—
—
(;+,%,7$
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
entityobservation
LEGALIST SPV III, LP
Read the anchor · page 32
UCC FINANCING STATEMENT
FOLLOW INSTRUCTIONS
A. NAME & PHONE OF CONTACT AT FILER (optional)
Legalist Inc. 415-570-7878
B. E-MAIL CONTACT AT FILER (optional)
info@legalist.com
C. SEND ACKNOWLEDGMENT TO: (Name and Address)
Legalist, Inc.
58 West Portal Ave #747
San Francisco, CA 94127, USA
1. DEBTOR'S NAME: Provide only one Debtor name (1a or 1b) (use exact, full name; do not omit, modify, or abbreviate any part of the Debtor’s name); if any part of the Individual Debtor’s
name will not fit in line 1b, leave all of item 1 blank, check here and provide the Individual Debtor information in item 10 of the Financing Statement Addendum (Form UCC1Ad)
OR
1a. ORGANIZATION'S NAME
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
1b. INDIVIDUAL'S SURNAME FIRST PERSONAL NAME ADDITIONAL NAME(S)/INITIAL(S) SUFFIX
1c. MAILING ADDRESS
800 PARK OFFICES DR., STE. 3209
CITY
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK
STATE
NC
POSTAL CODE
27709
COUNTRY
USA
2. DEBTOR'S NAME: Provide only one Debtor name (2a or 2b) (use exact, full name; do not omit, modify, or abbreviate any part of the Debtor’s name); if any part of the Individual Debtor’s
name will not fit in line 2b, leave all of item 2 blank, check here and provide the Individual Debtor information in item 10 of the Financing Statement Addendum (Form UCC1Ad)
OR
2a. ORGANIZATION'S NAME
2b. INDIVIDUAL'S SURNAME FIRST PERSONAL NAME ADDITIONAL NAME(S)/INITIAL(S) SUFFIX
2c. MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE POSTAL CODE COUNTRY
3. SECURED PARTY'S NAME (or NAME of ASSIGNEE of ASSIGNOR SECURED PARTY): Provide only one Secured Party name (3a or 3b)
OR
3a. ORGANIZATION'S NAME
LEGALIST SPV III, LP
3b. INDIVIDUAL'S SURNAME FIRST PERSONAL NAME ADDITIONAL NAME(S)/INITIAL(S) SUFFIX
3c. MAILING ADDRESS
58 WEST PORTAL AVE. NO. 747
CITY
SAN FRANCISCO
STATE
CA
POSTAL CODE
94127
COUNTRY
USA
4. COLLATERAL: This financing statement covers the following collateral:
ALL ASSETS
5. Check only if applicable and check only one box: Collateral is held in a Trust (see UCC1Ad, item 17 and Instructions) being administered by a Decedent’s Personal Representative
6a. Check only if applicable and check only one box:
Public-Finance Transaction Manufactured-Home Transaction A Debtor is a Transmitting Utility
6b. Check only if applicable and check only one box:
Agricultural Lien Non-UCC Filing
7. ALTERNATIVE DESIGNATION (if applicable): Lessee/Lessor Consignee/Consignor Seller/Buyer Bailee/Bailor Licensee/Licensor
8. OPTIONAL FILER REFERENCE DATA:
FILING OFFICE COPY — UCC FINANCING STATEMENT (Form UCC1) (Rev. 04/20/11)
Filed in the Office of
Secretary of State
State Of Nevada
Initial Filing Number
2024395945-0
Filed On
April 1, 2024 11:49 AM
Number of Pages
1
—
—
(;+,%,7$
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
Cyberlux counsel agrees to return conditional enforcement surplus to Legalist.
Read the anchor · page 4
1
Austin Priddy
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:06 PM
To: Austin Priddy
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N.; Jeff Prostok; Lang, Douglas S.; Brown, Jeffrey N.
Subject: RE: Wire
Cyberlux is agreed.
Alex Pennetti
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
P: 972 629 7168
F: 972 629 7171
Thompson Coburn LLP
2100 Ross Avenue Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
www.thompsoncoburn.com
From: Austin Priddy <Austin.Priddy@vhh.law>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 4:01 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Cc: Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>; Lang, Douglas S.
<DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: FW: Wire
RECEIVED FROM EXTERNAL SENDER - USE CAUTION
Alex – For the sake of a clear paper trail, please confirm that Cyberlux agrees to the highlighted directly below.
From: Austin Priddy
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:49 PM
To: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>; Brown, Jeffrey N. <JBrown@thompsoncoburn.com>; Jeff
Prostok <jeff.prostok@vhh.law>
Cc: Lang, Douglas S. <DLang@thompsoncoburn.com>
Subject: RE: Wire
Alex,
Assuming Legalist makes the payment today, does Cyberlux agree that any surplus leftover at the end of the
enforcement proceeding will be returned directly to Legalist? For example, if the total payment amount is reduced
below ~3.1mm due to a lower judgment amount or a lower receiver fee, Cyberlux agrees any excess funds would
be returned directly to Legalist?
-Austin
From: Pennetti, Alex <APennetti@thompsoncoburn.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 10, 2025 3:32 PM
(;+,%,7$
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Legalist states $13,997,282.46 payoff.
Read the anchor · page 33
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF BRIAN STOUT
1. My name is Brian Stout. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I work for Legalist SPV III, LP (“Legalist”) as Investment Lead of Government
Receivables. I have held this position since February 2024.
3. On March 27, 2024, Legalist entered into a Government Purchase Order Financing
Agreement with Cyberlux, whereby Legalist would provide a line of credit for Cyberlux
to fund operational expenses (the “Financing Agreement”).
4. Beginning in April 2024, Legalist made a number of capital advances to Cyberlux under
the Financing Agreement, including by wiring $3,083,639.75 to the Receiver in the instant
action for the purpose of satisfying the underlying judgment and terminating the
receivership.
5. As of May 26, 2026, Cyberlux’s total indebtedness to Legalist is $13,997,282.46. A true
and correct copy of a Payoff Statement identifying Cyberlux’s indebtedness as of May 26,
2026, is attached hereto as Exhibit B-1.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on May 28, 2026, in __________________ County, State of _____________________.
______________________________
Brian Stout
(;+,%,7%
UnofficialCopyOfficeofMarilynBurgessDistrictClerk
eventattribution
Priddy declaration and exhibit bundle filed in Harris County.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT A
5/29/2026 1:16 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115503041
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 5/29/2026 1:16 PM
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF AUSTIN PRIDDY
1. My name is Austin Priddy. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist) in the above-styled
matter. In my capacity as counsel, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances
surrounding the above-styled matter and Legalist's efforts to collect amounts owed from
Cyberlux, including in the interpleader matter currently pending in the Eastern District of
Virginia styled HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., Civil Action
No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG (the "Virginia Interpleader").
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is a true and correct copy of the judgment calculation
provided by Robert Berleth ('Receiver") in the above-styled matter.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and counsel for Cyberlux.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit A -3 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and the Receiver.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of law in
support of motion for summary judgment filed by the Receiver in the Virginia Interpleader.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-5 is a true and correct copy of Legalist's UCC lien filed in
Nevada.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
1
inferenceinference
The sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later rec
The sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later receiver brief asserts a much larger corpus-based fee. Payment purpose, satisfaction, authorised fee amount and entitlement to later receipts remain separate questions.
inferenceinference
The May 2026 payoff is a dated lender balance, not the receiver’s April litigation allocation. Its $10,033,639.75 principal equals $6.95 mil
The May 2026 payoff is a dated lender balance, not the receiver’s April litigation allocation. Its $10,033,639.75 principal equals $6.95 million plus the stated $3,083,639.75 protective advance, but the equality is arithmetic rather than bank tracing.
inferenceinference
Attaching an opponent’s memorandum supplies evidence of that opponent’s position, not independent corroboration of the embedded procurement,
Attaching an opponent’s memorandum supplies evidence of that opponent’s position, not independent corroboration of the embedded procurement, causation or insider allegations.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 39-page source reviewed at SHA-256 5399a90aa435a15e4d1fcece089f8d1af3c1d5b51a8754e09ff732495c5c6fda. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 39-page source reviewed at SHA-256 5399a90aa435a15e4d1fcece089f8d1af3c1d5b51a8754e09ff732495c5c6fda. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Registered 39-page source read in full page by page. Native text read for pages 4–34 and 37–39; own rendered pages 1–3 and 35–36 read because extraction was unusable, with OCR corrected against visible source. Material highlighted agreement on page 4 and signed Stout form on page 33 visually checked. Receiver memorandum pages 10–29 independently read in this source, not substituted with prior ECF 176 review. No bank transaction or judicial ruling inferred from counsel accounts.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT A
5/29/2026 1:16 PM
Marilyn Burgess - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 115503041
By: Shanelle Taylor
Filed: 5/29/2026 1:16 PM
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC,
PLAINTIFFS/JUDGMENT-CREDITORS,
V.
129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
CYBERLUX CORPORATION AND MARK
SCHMIDT, INDIVIDUALLY,
DEFENDANTS/JUDGMENT-DEBTORS.
HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
DECLARATION OF AUSTIN PRIDDY
1. My name is Austin Priddy. I am more than 21 years of age and competent to make this
declaration, which is based on my personal knowledge.
2. I am counsel for Plaintiff-Intervenor Legalist SPV III, LP ("Legalist) in the above-styled
matter. In my capacity as counsel, I am familiar with the facts and circumstances
surrounding the above-styled matter and Legalist's efforts to collect amounts owed from
Cyberlux, including in the interpleader matter currently pending in the Eastern District of
Virginia styled HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corporation et al., Civil Action
No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG (the "Virginia Interpleader").
3. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-1 is a true and correct copy of the judgment calculation
provided by Robert Berleth ('Receiver") in the above-styled matter.
4. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-2 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and counsel for Cyberlux.
5. Attached hereto as Exhibit A -3 is a true and correct copy of email correspondence between
myself and the Receiver.
6. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-4 is a true and correct copy of the memorandum of law in
support of motion for summary judgment filed by the Receiver in the Virginia Interpleader.
7. Attached hereto as Exhibit A-5 is a true and correct copy of Legalist's UCC lien filed in
Nevada.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
1
questionquestion
What bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any ref
What bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
distillateattribution
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
On 26 June Berleth asks if Legalist will skip settlement and collect outside the receivership. Priddy says he was not told of a conference. On 27 June Berleth treats lack of collection instructions and balance information as a no; Priddy responds that Legalist is not a party, understands from the 12 June hearing that its wire satisfied the judgment, and seeks termination and payment of creditors while reserving rights if the landscape changes. This records divergent expectations, not a court finding of satisfaction.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Austin Priddy declares under penalty of perjury that he is counsel for Legalist and authenticates copies of the receiver’s judgment calculation, counsel and receiver emails, the receiver’s Virginia summary-judgment brief, and Legalist’s Nevada UCC filing. He signs in Tarrant County on 29 May 2026; the Harris County filing stamp is that date. Authentication of a copied brief does not adopt its disputed arguments as true.supportsAttaching an opponent’s memorandum supplies evidence of that opponent’s position, not independent corroboration of the embedded procurement, causation or insider allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
On 26 June Berleth asks if Legalist will skip settlement and collect outside the receivership. Priddy says he was not told of a conference. On 27 June Berleth treats lack of collection instructions and balance information as a no; Priddy responds that Legalist is not a party, understands from the 12 June hearing that its wire satisfied the judgment, and seeks termination and payment of creditors while reserving rights if the landscape changes. This records divergent expectations, not a court finding of satisfaction.supportsWhat bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
On 10 June 2025 Priddy asks Cyberlux to agree that, assuming Legalist pays that day, any surplus after the enforcement proceeding—including a reduced judgment or receiver fee—will return directly to Legalist. At 4:06pm Alex Pennetti answers “Cyberlux is agreed.” Earlier Pennetti describes a roughly two-year-old credit agreement and HII acknowledgement of assigned receivables; those are counsel’s statements, not attached instruments.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver proposes first USA $1,149,776.34, then Legalist $7,313,627.17 as of May 22, 2025, then receiver $5,934,234.39, leaving $9,339,299.66 for proposed pro-rata claims. He would treat Legalist’s remaining $5,891,115.71 as post-receivership lending/interest and challenges unauthorised or insider claims. He also offers a conditional pro-rata receiver alternative if the corpus is entrusted to him.supportsWhat bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver-supplied calculation as of 9 June 2025 totals $3,083,639.75: judgment $1,572,500 at 12%, pre-judgment $0, post-judgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady fees $21,677.50, Vargo fees $21,880 and Caudle fees $9,392.50. The listed monetary components sum to the stated total; the sheet supplies no underlying time or cost ledger.supportsWhat bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Legalist’s 26 May 2026 payoff statement identifies borrower Cyberlux, Inc. and totals $13,997,282.46: principal $10,033,639.75, unpaid interest $3,176,212.23, commitment fee $112,500, forbearance fees $53,000, paid legal fees $411,743.60 and unpaid legal fees $210,186.88. Components reconcile. May per diem is $6,740.22. The lender includes already-paid legal fees in its receivable calculation; this is not proof that those costs were repaid by Cyberlux.supportsThe May 2026 payoff is a dated lender balance, not the receiver’s April litigation allocation. Its $10,033,639.75 principal equals $6.95 million plus the stated $3,083,639.75 protective advance, but the equality is arithmetic rather than bank tracing.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
On 26 June Berleth asks if Legalist will skip settlement and collect outside the receivership. Priddy says he was not told of a conference. On 27 June Berleth treats lack of collection instructions and balance information as a no; Priddy responds that Legalist is not a party, understands from the 12 June hearing that its wire satisfied the judgment, and seeks termination and payment of creditors while reserving rights if the landscape changes. This records divergent expectations, not a court finding of satisfaction.supportsThe sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later receiver brief asserts a much larger corpus-based fee. Payment purpose, satisfaction, authorised fee amount and entitlement to later receipts remain separate questions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver’s brief recites the August 2023 subcontract, May 2024 terminations, February 2025 Modification 4, May 28 payment of $2,757,254.39 and July 15 payment of $23,012,114.64. It alleges final inventory shipment on 30 May through his efforts. The resulting $25,769,369.03 remains expressly subject to setoff and recoupment; no receiving report is included here.supportsAttaching an opponent’s memorandum supplies evidence of that opponent’s position, not independent corroboration of the embedded procurement, causation or insider allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later receiver brief asserts a much larger corpus-based fee. Payment purpose, satisfaction, authorised fee amount and entitlement to later receipts remain separate questions.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit A-4 reproduces the receiver’s 15 April 2026 ECF 176 summary-judgment memorandum. He seeks the entire interpleaded corpus for distribution or at least $5,934,234.39, 25% of the remaining corpus, and claims his efforts were necessary to create the fund. This is adverse-party advocacy attached by Legalist, not Legalist’s endorsement or an award of fees.supportsAttaching an opponent’s memorandum supplies evidence of that opponent’s position, not independent corroboration of the embedded procurement, causation or insider allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
On 10 June 2025 Priddy asks Cyberlux to agree that, assuming Legalist pays that day, any surplus after the enforcement proceeding—including a reduced judgment or receiver fee—will return directly to Legalist. At 4:06pm Alex Pennetti answers “Cyberlux is agreed.” Earlier Pennetti describes a roughly two-year-old credit agreement and HII acknowledgement of assigned receivables; those are counsel’s statements, not attached instruments.supportsThe sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later receiver brief asserts a much larger corpus-based fee. Payment purpose, satisfaction, authorised fee amount and entitlement to later receipts remain separate questions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Brian Stout declares he has been Legalist’s Investment Lead of Government Receivables since February 2024, that a financing agreement was entered on 27 March 2024, and that advances beginning April included $3,083,639.75 wired to the receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership. He attests indebtedness of $13,997,282.46 as of 26 May 2026. The declaration is executed May 28 in New London, Connecticut; its Docusign completion certificate records signing at 8:23:08am Pacific. No bank confirmation is attached.supportsThe sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later receiver brief asserts a much larger corpus-based fee. Payment purpose, satisfaction, authorised fee amount and entitlement to later receipts remain separate questions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit A-4 reproduces the receiver’s 15 April 2026 ECF 176 summary-judgment memorandum. He seeks the entire interpleaded corpus for distribution or at least $5,934,234.39, 25% of the remaining corpus, and claims his efforts were necessary to create the fund. This is adverse-party advocacy attached by Legalist, not Legalist’s endorsement or an award of fees.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Brian Stout declares he has been Legalist’s Investment Lead of Government Receivables since February 2024, that a financing agreement was entered on 27 March 2024, and that advances beginning April included $3,083,639.75 wired to the receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership. He attests indebtedness of $13,997,282.46 as of 26 May 2026. The declaration is executed May 28 in New London, Connecticut; its Docusign completion certificate records signing at 8:23:08am Pacific. No bank confirmation is attached.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Nevada acknowledgement and stamped UCC-1 record filing 2024395945-0 on 1 April 2024 at 11:49am, naming CYBERLUX CORPORATION debtor and LEGALIST SPV III, LP secured party, collateral ALL ASSETS. Receipt records $30 filing and $0.75 service fee. Filing evidence does not by itself establish attachment, advance tracing or priority over every competing claim.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Legalist’s 26 May 2026 payoff statement identifies borrower Cyberlux, Inc. and totals $13,997,282.46: principal $10,033,639.75, unpaid interest $3,176,212.23, commitment fee $112,500, forbearance fees $53,000, paid legal fees $411,743.60 and unpaid legal fees $210,186.88. Components reconcile. May per diem is $6,740.22. The lender includes already-paid legal fees in its receivable calculation; this is not proof that those costs were repaid by Cyberlux.supportsWhat bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Brian Stout declares he has been Legalist’s Investment Lead of Government Receivables since February 2024, that a financing agreement was entered on 27 March 2024, and that advances beginning April included $3,083,639.75 wired to the receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership. He attests indebtedness of $13,997,282.46 as of 26 May 2026. The declaration is executed May 28 in New London, Connecticut; its Docusign completion certificate records signing at 8:23:08am Pacific. No bank confirmation is attached.supportsThe May 2026 payoff is a dated lender balance, not the receiver’s April litigation allocation. Its $10,033,639.75 principal equals $6.95 million plus the stated $3,083,639.75 protective advance, but the equality is arithmetic rather than bank tracing.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Nevada acknowledgement and stamped UCC-1 record filing 2024395945-0 on 1 April 2024 at 11:49am, naming CYBERLUX CORPORATION debtor and LEGALIST SPV III, LP secured party, collateral ALL ASSETS. Receipt records $30 filing and $0.75 service fee. Filing evidence does not by itself establish attachment, advance tracing or priority over every competing claim.supportsWhat bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver proposes ANPC $2,926,814.39, Thin Air Gear $1,385,489.46, Fairwinds $2,348,542, ARG reduced to $4.2 million and Catalyst/Tucker/Whiteley $2,676,378.58, plus identified non-parties if they intervene. His suggestion that Schmidt likely retains or retained Atlantic Wave ownership is expressly speculative; Cyberlux is placed last in his proposed distribution.supportsAttaching an opponent’s memorandum supplies evidence of that opponent’s position, not independent corroboration of the embedded procurement, causation or insider allegations.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver-supplied calculation as of 9 June 2025 totals $3,083,639.75: judgment $1,572,500 at 12%, pre-judgment $0, post-judgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady fees $21,677.50, Vargo fees $21,880 and Caudle fees $9,392.50. The listed monetary components sum to the stated total; the sheet supplies no underlying time or cost ledger.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Brian Stout declares he has been Legalist’s Investment Lead of Government Receivables since February 2024, that a financing agreement was entered on 27 March 2024, and that advances beginning April included $3,083,639.75 wired to the receiver to satisfy the judgment and terminate the receivership. He attests indebtedness of $13,997,282.46 as of 26 May 2026. The declaration is executed May 28 in New London, Connecticut; its Docusign completion certificate records signing at 8:23:08am Pacific. No bank confirmation is attached.supportsWhat bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver proposes first USA $1,149,776.34, then Legalist $7,313,627.17 as of May 22, 2025, then receiver $5,934,234.39, leaving $9,339,299.66 for proposed pro-rata claims. He would treat Legalist’s remaining $5,891,115.71 as post-receivership lending/interest and challenges unauthorised or insider claims. He also offers a conditional pro-rata receiver alternative if the corpus is entrusted to him.supportsThe May 2026 payoff is a dated lender balance, not the receiver’s April litigation allocation. Its $10,033,639.75 principal equals $6.95 million plus the stated $3,083,639.75 protective advance, but the equality is arithmetic rather than bank tracing.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Legalist’s 26 May 2026 payoff statement identifies borrower Cyberlux, Inc. and totals $13,997,282.46: principal $10,033,639.75, unpaid interest $3,176,212.23, commitment fee $112,500, forbearance fees $53,000, paid legal fees $411,743.60 and unpaid legal fees $210,186.88. Components reconcile. May per diem is $6,740.22. The lender includes already-paid legal fees in its receivable calculation; this is not proof that those costs were repaid by Cyberlux.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Austin Priddy declares under penalty of perjury that he is counsel for Legalist and authenticates copies of the receiver’s judgment calculation, counsel and receiver emails, the receiver’s Virginia summary-judgment brief, and Legalist’s Nevada UCC filing. He signs in Tarrant County on 29 May 2026; the Harris County filing stamp is that date. Authentication of a copied brief does not adopt its disputed arguments as true.supportsWhat does this exhibit record establish?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Exhibit A-4 reproduces the receiver’s 15 April 2026 ECF 176 summary-judgment memorandum. He seeks the entire interpleaded corpus for distribution or at least $5,934,234.39, 25% of the remaining corpus, and claims his efforts were necessary to create the fund. This is adverse-party advocacy attached by Legalist, not Legalist’s endorsement or an award of fees.supportsThe sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later receiver brief asserts a much larger corpus-based fee. Payment purpose, satisfaction, authorised fee amount and entitlement to later receipts remain separate questions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The receiver-supplied calculation as of 9 June 2025 totals $3,083,639.75: judgment $1,572,500 at 12%, pre-judgment $0, post-judgment $420,121.22, trial attorney fees $187,863.69, RO attorney fees $1,750, receiver fee $765,113.62, expenses $83,341.22, Grady fees $21,677.50, Vargo fees $21,880 and Caudle fees $9,392.50. The listed monetary components sum to the stated total; the sheet supplies no underlying time or cost ledger.supportsThe sworn wire account and June emails provide a concrete basis to test when the original judgment and fees were funded, while the later receiver brief asserts a much larger corpus-based fee. Payment purpose, satisfaction, authorised fee amount and entitlement to later receipts remain separate questions.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
On 10 June 2025 Priddy asks Cyberlux to agree that, assuming Legalist pays that day, any surplus after the enforcement proceeding—including a reduced judgment or receiver fee—will return directly to Legalist. At 4:06pm Alex Pennetti answers “Cyberlux is agreed.” Earlier Pennetti describes a roughly two-year-old credit agreement and HII acknowledgement of assigned receivables; those are counsel’s statements, not attached instruments.supportsWhat bank receipts, satisfaction and fee orders, complete credit documents and advance ledger reconcile the June protective payment, any refundable surplus and the May 2026 payoff with the receiver’s competing allocation?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
WEIGH
Explained weighting
A score appears only when its components and change threshold are published.
No published WEIGH run
The active Website Edition contains no applied score snapshot for this source or its connected objects. That means not assessed—not zero.