IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. )
)
Interpleader Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG
UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The United States of America submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
There is no dispute that the United States’ tax liens have priority to all other creditors in
this lawsuit, except one, Legalist SPV III, L.P., as to which the United States has partial priority.
Because the claims of the United States’ (just over $1.1 million) and Legalist (just over $13
million) can be fully paid from the interpleaded funds (over $23 million), and because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that the United States has priority as to all other creditors, the
United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s (“HII”) predecessor entered into a
subcontract with Cyberlux, which is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of
business in North Carolina. ECF 41, ¶¶ 4, 17, 18 . Under the subcontract, Cyberlux would
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 3887
claimallegation
The United States moves for summary judgment on tax-lien priority in the HII interpleader. It says HII’s Navy/GSA-related subcontract ended1
The United States moves for summary judgment on tax-lien priority in the HII interpleader. It says HII’s Navy/GSA-related subcontract ended17May2024,the court directed deposit$23,736,937.56 on20February2026,and HII deposited on6March and was dismissed. The motion citesECF41,150,153 and docket entries;it is not itself those orders or a disbursement record.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. )
)
Interpleader Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG
UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The United States of America submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
There is no dispute that the United States’ tax liens have priority to all other creditors in
this lawsuit, except one, Legalist SPV III, L.P., as to which the United States has partial priority.
Because the claims of the United States’ (just over $1.1 million) and Legalist (just over $13
million) can be fully paid from the interpleaded funds (over $23 million), and because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that the United States has priority as to all other creditors, the
United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s (“HII”) predecessor entered into a
subcontract with Cyberlux, which is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of
business in North Carolina. ECF 41, ¶¶ 4, 17, 18 . Under the subcontract, Cyberlux would
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 3887
claimallegation
Citing IRS officer Carol Davis,the United States claims$1,153,457 as of13April2026 plus later interest for unpaid assessments after notice/d
Citing IRS officer Carol Davis,the United States claims$1,153,457 as of13April2026 plus later interest for unpaid assessments after notice/demand. Table balances are941periodsJune2010$87,454,December2010$149,003,December2012$872,811,December2021$2,625;940December2022$321,December2023$361;and6721December2013penalty$40,882. NFTLdates are21August2017,10October2023 and30April2024,as allocated in the table.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
support HII’s work under a prime contract with the Department of the Navy and General
Services Administration. ECF 41, ¶ 18.
2. On May 17, 2024, HII terminated the subcontract with Cyberlux and, pursuant to
the subcontract, became obligated to pay Cyberlux “a percentage of the Subcontract price
corresponding with the percentage of the terminated work actually performed prior to the notice
of termination,” plus certain expenses. Id., ¶¶ 21-22.
3. HII commenced this action in interpleader, naming defendant Cyberlux
Corporation and Cyberlux’s creditors. Id., ¶ 1. HII sought to deposit certain sums owed to
Cyberlux and to which various Cyberlux creditors had made claims. Id., ¶ 2.
4. On February 20, 2026, this Court granted HII’s Motion for Interpleader Deposit
and directed HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 (the “Disputed Funds”) into the Court’s Registry
Investment System. ECF 150.
5. On March 6, 2026, HII interpleaded the Disputed Funds as directed and was
dismissed from this lawsuit. March 6, 2026, Docket Entry reflecting deposit; see also ECF 153
(order acknowledging the deposit and dismissing HII).
a. Facts relevant to the United States’ claim.
6. Cyberlux did not pay its taxes and, as a result, the United States has liens on
Cyberlux’s property, including the Disputed Funds, in the amount of $1,153,457, plus accruing
interest. See generally Declaration of IRS Revenue Officer Carol Davis (Ex. 1).
7. Specifically, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury assessed the following
unpaid tax liabilities (IRS Forms 940 and 941) and penalties (26 USC § 6721) against Cyberlux
Corporation:
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 3888
claimallegation
The motion says Legalist and Cyberlux signed a27March2024government-purchase-order financing agreement for$3million secured by all borrower
The motion says Legalist and Cyberlux signed a27March2024government-purchase-order financing agreement for$3million secured by all borrower assets,including contract rights/receivables,and perfected by NevadaUCCfiling1April2024. It says later amendments13July2024 and29April2025postdate all tax notices. The agreement,UCC and amendments are referenced as exhibits,not included in this13-page main filing.
Read the anchor · page 4
4
in the fourth column of paragraph 7. True and correct copies of those NFTLs are attached to
Revenue Officer Davis’s Declaration as Attachment B thereto.
11. By virtue of the unpaid assessments described in paragraph 7, above, as of April
13, 2026, Cyberlux Corporation is indebted to the United States in the amount of $1,153,457,
plus interest that will continue to accrue according to statute. Id., ¶ 9.
b. Facts relevant to Legalist’s claim
12. On March 27, 2024, Legalist and Cyberlux entered into a Government Purchase
Order Financing Agreement. Legalist Ans. to Interrogatory B (Ex. 2); Gov. Purchase Ord.
Financing Agr., Ex. 3 at LEGALIST000021.
4
13. In that agreement, Legalist agreed to provide Cyberlux a $3,000,000 line of credit.
Ex. 3 at LEGALIST000021. In exchange, Cyberlux conveyed to Legalist a “continuing lien on
and security interest in all assets of Borrower, including” contract rights and accounts receivable.
Id. at LEGALIST000022.
14. On April 1, 2024, Legalist perfected this security interest by filing a UCC Filing
Statement in Nevada, where Cyberlux is incorporated. Ex. 3, at LEGALIST000017. Legalist
did not provide the $3,000,000 at the time it signed the contract. Rather, Legalist disbursed the
following amounts on the following dates:
4
Legalist and Cyberlux amended the Government Purchase Order Financing Agreement on July
13, 2024, see Ex. 3 at LEGALIST000039, and on April 29, 2025. See Ex. 3 at
LEGALIST000007. Because both amendments occurred after all NFTLs, they are not relevant
to any priority dispute between Legalist and the United States.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 13 PageID# 3890
claimallegation
Legalist disbursements are recited as9April2024$1.8million,19April$500k,2May$500k,26June$142k,5July$53k,16July$2.5million,2August$650k,27Aug
Legalist disbursements are recited as9April2024$1.8million,19April$500k,2May$500k,26June$142k,5July$53k,16July$2.5million,2August$650k,27August$535k,3October$150k and$120k,3June2025$2,755,100.10 and9June2025printed$345,000.001. The motion attributes a total claim$13,204,742.88 as of9March2026 plus interest to Legalist’s interrogatory answer.
Read the anchor · page 5
5
4/9/2024: $1,800,000.00
4/19/2024: $500,000.00
4/30/2024: This is the date the final IRS NFTL was filed.
5/2/2024: $500,000.00
6/15/2024: This date is 46 days after the filing of all NFTLs. As explained below,
advances after this date are subordinate to the IRS tax liens.
6/26/2024: $142,000.00
7/5/2024: $53,000.00
7/16/2024: $2,500,000.00
8/2/2024: $650,000.00
8/27/2024: $535,000.00
10/3/2024: $150,000.00
10/3/2024: $120,000.00
6/3/2025: $2,755,100.10
6/9/2025: $345,000.001
Legalist Ans. to Interrogatory G (Ex. 2). Legalist asserts that, as of March 9, 2026, Cyberlux
owes it $13,204,742.88, plus interest accruing from that date. Id. at A.
c. Facts relevant to other Cyberlux creditor claims.
15. Aside from Legalist, no other creditor claims a secured interest or lien that rivals
the United States’ liens.
16. The Receiver claims a judicial lien as a result of an April 1, 2025, order
appointing a receiver. Ex. 4 at p. EX4000002, ¶ d & EX4000006, ¶ 10.
17. Thin Air Gear, LLC asserts a perfected lien as of August 29, 2025 or, “at worst,”
December 19, 2025. Ex. 4 at p. EX4000024.
18. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation claims a security interest
through its filing of a Writ of Fieri Facias on September 24, 2025 and an equitable lien arising
on December 30, 2024. Ex. 4 at p. EX4000026-27.
19. Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA
MGT LLC, and Michael Sinensky claim a perfected security interest as of October 23, 2025.
Ex. 4 at p. EX4000030.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 13 PageID# 3891
claimallegation
The government characterises other claimants’liens as later than its notices:receiver1April2025,ThinAirAugust/December2025,ANPCSeptember2025
The government characterises other claimants’liens as later than its notices:receiver1April2025,ThinAirAugust/December2025,ANPCSeptember2025writ/December2024equitablelien,WeShieldgroupOctober2025,and AW/SecureNevadafiling20March2026. It says AW/Secure do not contest federal priority,Fairwinds claims no security interest,and ARG initially disclaimed perfected security. A footnote records ARG’s14April2026changed answer asserting2022/2023priority but says no earlierUCCwas produced. These are the movant’s account of responses,not independent determinations.
Read the anchor · page 5
5
4/9/2024: $1,800,000.00
4/19/2024: $500,000.00
4/30/2024: This is the date the final IRS NFTL was filed.
5/2/2024: $500,000.00
6/15/2024: This date is 46 days after the filing of all NFTLs. As explained below,
advances after this date are subordinate to the IRS tax liens.
6/26/2024: $142,000.00
7/5/2024: $53,000.00
7/16/2024: $2,500,000.00
8/2/2024: $650,000.00
8/27/2024: $535,000.00
10/3/2024: $150,000.00
10/3/2024: $120,000.00
6/3/2025: $2,755,100.10
6/9/2025: $345,000.001
Legalist Ans. to Interrogatory G (Ex. 2). Legalist asserts that, as of March 9, 2026, Cyberlux
owes it $13,204,742.88, plus interest accruing from that date. Id. at A.
c. Facts relevant to other Cyberlux creditor claims.
15. Aside from Legalist, no other creditor claims a secured interest or lien that rivals
the United States’ liens.
16. The Receiver claims a judicial lien as a result of an April 1, 2025, order
appointing a receiver. Ex. 4 at p. EX4000002, ¶ d & EX4000006, ¶ 10.
17. Thin Air Gear, LLC asserts a perfected lien as of August 29, 2025 or, “at worst,”
December 19, 2025. Ex. 4 at p. EX4000024.
18. Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation claims a security interest
through its filing of a Writ of Fieri Facias on September 24, 2025 and an equitable lien arising
on December 30, 2024. Ex. 4 at p. EX4000026-27.
19. Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA
MGT LLC, and Michael Sinensky claim a perfected security interest as of October 23, 2025.
Ex. 4 at p. EX4000030.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 13 PageID# 3891
claimallegation
The government invokes Rule56,second-stage interpleader andIRC6321–6323. In response to the court’sECF158government-contracting inquiry,coun
The government invokes Rule56,second-stage interpleader andIRC6321–6323. In response to the court’sECF158government-contracting inquiry,counsel says tax-lien priority is governed by theIRC. It argues corporate personal-property NFTLs were correctly filed in NorthCarolina,the principal executive-office state. This limited priority position does not purport to audit or approve the underlying procurement.
Read the anchor · page 6
6
20. Atlantic Waive Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC, which has advised
undersigned counsel that it does not contest the United States’ priority, claims they perfected a
security interest through the filing of UCC Financing Statements, but the statement filed in
Nevada (the state of Cyberlux’s incorporation) was not filed until March 20, 2026. Ex. 4 at p.
EX4000031.
21. Fairwinds Technologies, LLC does not claim a security interest. Ex. 4 at p.
EX4000034, ¶ d.
22. The ARG Group, LLC “does not believe it has a perfected, secured security
interest in all or any portion of the proceeds.” Ex. 4 at p. EX4000036, ¶ d.5
III. LEGAL STANDARDS
Summary Judgment Standard
“Under Rule 56(a), summary judgment is appropriate ‘if the movant shows that there is
no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law.’ The relevant inquiry in a summary judgment analysis is ‘whether the evidence presents a
sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one
party must prevail as a matter of law.’” Moore-King v. Cnty. of Chesterfield, Va., 819 F. Supp.
2d 604, 610 (E.D. Va. 2011), aff'd, 708 F.3d 560 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a) and
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 251–52 (1986)).
5
On April 14, 2026, over five weeks after the deadline to serve interrogatory answers (ECF
149), ARG served new, inconsistent answers to this interrogatory, claiming a secured interest in
the Disputed Funds with a “priority date” of February 28, 2022 or, “at worst,” September 8,
2023. ARG does not allege it recorded any security interest, nor has it produced a UCC Filing
Statement that predates the NFTLs. Absent such perfection, ARG’s interest, if any, is
subordinate to the United States’. 26 U.S.C. § 6323.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 13 PageID# 3892
claimallegation
The United States says precise relative priority with Legalist is immaterial because the fund can pay both claims. Alternatively,it proposes
The United States says precise relative priority with Legalist is immaterial because the fund can pay both claims. Alternatively,it proposes first its2017/2023liens,then$2.8millionLegalistadvances,and then itsApril2024liens,arguing security exists only to money advanced and applying a45-day post-notice protection window. It places advances after15June2024behind its final notice and requests full federal payment before remaining creditors. These are requested legal outcomes,not adjudicated priorities.
Read the anchor · page 9
9
Here, aside from Legalist, no claimant holds a security interest or lien in the Disputed
Funds that was perfected prior to the NFTLs set forth in paragraph II.7, above. The Disputed
Funds total $23,736,937.56. As of March 9, 2026, Legalist claims it is owed $13,204,742.88,
plus interest. Legalist Ans. to Interrogatory G (Ex. 2). The United States is owed $1,153,457, as
of April 13, 2026, plus interest. Davis Decl. (Ex. 1), ¶ 5. The priority dispute between Legalist
and the United States is immaterial because there are sufficient interpleaded funds to pay both
creditors in full.
2. Should the priority of the United States’ and Legalist’s claim be put at issue,
the United States should be fully paid after Legalist is paid $2.8 million.
Should the priorty of the United States’ and Legalist’s interests be put at issue, the United
States asserts, for the reasons that follow, the following order of priority:
Priority Creditor Claim Amount
1 USA $40,882
2 USA $2,937.49
3 Legalist $2,800,000
4 USA $1,106,083.54
Section 6323 of the Internal Revenue Code governs the relative priority of the United
States and Legalist’s claims. Under 26 U.S.C. § 6323(a), a federal tax lien “shall not be valid as
against any purchaser, holder of a security interest, mechanic's lienor, or judgment lien creditor
until notice thereof which meets the requirements of subsection (f) has been filed by the
Secretary.” (emphasis added). The term “security interest” means, in pertinent part, “any interest
in property acquired by contract for the purpose of securing payment or performance of an
obligation or indemnifying against loss or liability. A security interest exists at any time …
[only] to the extent that, at such time, the holder has parted with money or money's worth.” 26
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 9 of 13 PageID# 3895
claimallegation
The alternative table onpage9 lists USA$40,882,$2,937.49 and$1,106,083.54,which sum$1,149,903.03 rather than the requested$1,153,457. Page3’
The alternative table onpage9 lists USA$40,882,$2,937.49 and$1,106,083.54,which sum$1,149,903.03 rather than the requested$1,153,457. Page3’sOctober2023-notice balances total$2,946 rather than$2,937.49;page11describes final-notice liabilities$1,109,629 rather than table$1,106,083.54. These internal amount differences are retained for reconciliation,not silently repaired.
Read the anchor · page 3
3
Assessment
Type
Tax Period
Ending
Assessment
Date
NFTL
Filing Date
Balance1
(as of
April 13, 2026)
IRS Form 9412
6/30/2010 5/13/2013 4/30/2024 $87,454
IRS Form 941 12/31/2010 4/11/2011 4/30/2024 $149,003
IRS Form 941 12/31/2012 4/01/2013 4/30/2024 $872,811
IRS Form 941 12/31/2021 9/5/2022 10/10/2023 $2,625
IRS Form 940 12/31/2022 2/27/2023 10/10/2023 $321
IRS Form 940 12/31/2023 2/26/2024 4/30/2024 $361
26 USC § 67213
12/31/2013 10/24/2016 8/21/2017 $40,882
TOTAL BALANCE $1,153,457.00
Id., ¶ 5.
8. True and correct copies of account transcripts memorializing these liabilities are
attached to Revenue Officer Davis’s Declaration as Attachment A thereto.
9. A delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury gave notice of these assessments to
Cyberlux Corporation and made demand upon it for payment of those assessments. Despite
notice and demand for payment, Cyberlux Corporation has failed or refused to pay the full
amounts due and owing for these assessments. As a result, under 26 U.S.C. § 6321, the unpaid
assessment amounts are a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to
property belonging to Cyberlux Corporation, including upon the interpleaded proceeds. Id., ¶ 7.
10. The IRS filed Notices of Federal Tax Lien (“NFTLs”) memorializing the liens
with the North Carolina Secretary of State. Id., ¶ 8. The NFTLs were filed on the dates set forth
1 This includes assessment amount plus accruals (interest and penalties) accruing through April
13, 2026.
2
IRS Forms 941 are used to report withheld employee income tax and withheld employee and
employer Social Security and Medicare tax. IRS Forms 940 are used to report an employer’s
Federal Unemployment Tax Act taxes.
3
These are penalties for failure to file returns.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 13 PageID# 3889
claimallegation
The15April2026conclusion requests$1,153,457 plus interest through disbursement. William J.Harrington and Jonathan H.Hambrick sign for the Un
The15April2026conclusion requests$1,153,457 plus interest through disbursement. William J.Harrington and Jonathan H.Hambrick sign for the United States;Harrington certifiesCM/ECFfiling/notification that date. No order granting summary judgment or payment appears in this main memorandum.
Read the anchor · page 12
12
V. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the United States requests that $1,153,457, as of April 13, 2026, plus
interest accruing until the date of disbursement, be paid to the United States from the Disputed
Funds.
Date: April 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
JOSHUA WU
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax
Litigation Branch
/s/ William J. Harrington
WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON
ELIZABETH PRUITT
Trial Attorneys, Civil Division
Tax Litigation Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 353-1882
Fax: (202) 514-6866
William.J.Harrington@usdoj.gov
Elizabeth.Pruitt@usdoj.gov
-andTODD BLANCHE
Acting Attorney General
/s/ Jonathan H. Hambrick
JONATHAN H. HAMBRICK
VSB NO. 37590
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 819-5400
Fax: (804) 771-2316
E-mail: jay.h.hambrick@usdoj.gov
Counsel to the United States
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 3898
entityobservation
United States of America
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. )
)
Interpleader Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG
UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The United States of America submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
There is no dispute that the United States’ tax liens have priority to all other creditors in
this lawsuit, except one, Legalist SPV III, L.P., as to which the United States has partial priority.
Because the claims of the United States’ (just over $1.1 million) and Legalist (just over $13
million) can be fully paid from the interpleaded funds (over $23 million), and because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that the United States has priority as to all other creditors, the
United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s (“HII”) predecessor entered into a
subcontract with Cyberlux, which is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of
business in North Carolina. ECF 41, ¶¶ 4, 17, 18 . Under the subcontract, Cyberlux would
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 3887
entityobservation
HII Mission Technologies Corp.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. )
)
Interpleader Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG
UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The United States of America submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
There is no dispute that the United States’ tax liens have priority to all other creditors in
this lawsuit, except one, Legalist SPV III, L.P., as to which the United States has partial priority.
Because the claims of the United States’ (just over $1.1 million) and Legalist (just over $13
million) can be fully paid from the interpleaded funds (over $23 million), and because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that the United States has priority as to all other creditors, the
United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s (“HII”) predecessor entered into a
subcontract with Cyberlux, which is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of
business in North Carolina. ECF 41, ¶¶ 4, 17, 18 . Under the subcontract, Cyberlux would
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 3887
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 2
2
support HII’s work under a prime contract with the Department of the Navy and General
Services Administration. ECF 41, ¶ 18.
2. On May 17, 2024, HII terminated the subcontract with Cyberlux and, pursuant to
the subcontract, became obligated to pay Cyberlux “a percentage of the Subcontract price
corresponding with the percentage of the terminated work actually performed prior to the notice
of termination,” plus certain expenses. Id., ¶¶ 21-22.
3. HII commenced this action in interpleader, naming defendant Cyberlux
Corporation and Cyberlux’s creditors. Id., ¶ 1. HII sought to deposit certain sums owed to
Cyberlux and to which various Cyberlux creditors had made claims. Id., ¶ 2.
4. On February 20, 2026, this Court granted HII’s Motion for Interpleader Deposit
and directed HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 (the “Disputed Funds”) into the Court’s Registry
Investment System. ECF 150.
5. On March 6, 2026, HII interpleaded the Disputed Funds as directed and was
dismissed from this lawsuit. March 6, 2026, Docket Entry reflecting deposit; see also ECF 153
(order acknowledging the deposit and dismissing HII).
a. Facts relevant to the United States’ claim.
6. Cyberlux did not pay its taxes and, as a result, the United States has liens on
Cyberlux’s property, including the Disputed Funds, in the amount of $1,153,457, plus accruing
interest. See generally Declaration of IRS Revenue Officer Carol Davis (Ex. 1).
7. Specifically, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury assessed the following
unpaid tax liabilities (IRS Forms 940 and 941) and penalties (26 USC § 6721) against Cyberlux
Corporation:
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 3888
entityobservation
Legalist SPV III, L.P.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. )
)
Interpleader Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG
UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The United States of America submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
There is no dispute that the United States’ tax liens have priority to all other creditors in
this lawsuit, except one, Legalist SPV III, L.P., as to which the United States has partial priority.
Because the claims of the United States’ (just over $1.1 million) and Legalist (just over $13
million) can be fully paid from the interpleaded funds (over $23 million), and because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that the United States has priority as to all other creditors, the
United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s (“HII”) predecessor entered into a
subcontract with Cyberlux, which is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of
business in North Carolina. ECF 41, ¶¶ 4, 17, 18 . Under the subcontract, Cyberlux would
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 3887
entityobservation
Carol Davis
Read the anchor · page 2
2
support HII’s work under a prime contract with the Department of the Navy and General
Services Administration. ECF 41, ¶ 18.
2. On May 17, 2024, HII terminated the subcontract with Cyberlux and, pursuant to
the subcontract, became obligated to pay Cyberlux “a percentage of the Subcontract price
corresponding with the percentage of the terminated work actually performed prior to the notice
of termination,” plus certain expenses. Id., ¶¶ 21-22.
3. HII commenced this action in interpleader, naming defendant Cyberlux
Corporation and Cyberlux’s creditors. Id., ¶ 1. HII sought to deposit certain sums owed to
Cyberlux and to which various Cyberlux creditors had made claims. Id., ¶ 2.
4. On February 20, 2026, this Court granted HII’s Motion for Interpleader Deposit
and directed HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 (the “Disputed Funds”) into the Court’s Registry
Investment System. ECF 150.
5. On March 6, 2026, HII interpleaded the Disputed Funds as directed and was
dismissed from this lawsuit. March 6, 2026, Docket Entry reflecting deposit; see also ECF 153
(order acknowledging the deposit and dismissing HII).
a. Facts relevant to the United States’ claim.
6. Cyberlux did not pay its taxes and, as a result, the United States has liens on
Cyberlux’s property, including the Disputed Funds, in the amount of $1,153,457, plus accruing
interest. See generally Declaration of IRS Revenue Officer Carol Davis (Ex. 1).
7. Specifically, a delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury assessed the following
unpaid tax liabilities (IRS Forms 940 and 941) and penalties (26 USC § 6721) against Cyberlux
Corporation:
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 3888
entityobservation
William J. Harrington
Read the anchor · page 12
12
V. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the United States requests that $1,153,457, as of April 13, 2026, plus
interest accruing until the date of disbursement, be paid to the United States from the Disputed
Funds.
Date: April 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
JOSHUA WU
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax
Litigation Branch
/s/ William J. Harrington
WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON
ELIZABETH PRUITT
Trial Attorneys, Civil Division
Tax Litigation Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 353-1882
Fax: (202) 514-6866
William.J.Harrington@usdoj.gov
Elizabeth.Pruitt@usdoj.gov
-andTODD BLANCHE
Acting Attorney General
/s/ Jonathan H. Hambrick
JONATHAN H. HAMBRICK
VSB NO. 37590
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 819-5400
Fax: (804) 771-2316
E-mail: jay.h.hambrick@usdoj.gov
Counsel to the United States
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 3898
entityobservation
Jonathan H. Hambrick
Read the anchor · page 12
12
V. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the United States requests that $1,153,457, as of April 13, 2026, plus
interest accruing until the date of disbursement, be paid to the United States from the Disputed
Funds.
Date: April 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
JOSHUA WU
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax
Litigation Branch
/s/ William J. Harrington
WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON
ELIZABETH PRUITT
Trial Attorneys, Civil Division
Tax Litigation Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 353-1882
Fax: (202) 514-6866
William.J.Harrington@usdoj.gov
Elizabeth.Pruitt@usdoj.gov
-andTODD BLANCHE
Acting Attorney General
/s/ Jonathan H. Hambrick
JONATHAN H. HAMBRICK
VSB NO. 37590
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 819-5400
Fax: (804) 771-2316
E-mail: jay.h.hambrick@usdoj.gov
Counsel to the United States
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 3898
eventattribution
United States files priority memorandum and service certificate.
Read the anchor · page 12
12
V. CONCLUSION
For these reasons, the United States requests that $1,153,457, as of April 13, 2026, plus
interest accruing until the date of disbursement, be paid to the United States from the Disputed
Funds.
Date: April 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
BRETT A. SHUMATE
Assistant Attorney General
JOSHUA WU
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax
Litigation Branch
/s/ William J. Harrington
WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON
ELIZABETH PRUITT
Trial Attorneys, Civil Division
Tax Litigation Branch
U.S. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 227
Washington, DC 20044
Tel: (202) 353-1882
Fax: (202) 514-6866
William.J.Harrington@usdoj.gov
Elizabeth.Pruitt@usdoj.gov
-andTODD BLANCHE
Acting Attorney General
/s/ Jonathan H. Hambrick
JONATHAN H. HAMBRICK
VSB NO. 37590
Assistant United States Attorney
Eastern District of Virginia
919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900
Richmond, VA 23219
Phone: (804) 819-5400
Fax: (804) 771-2316
E-mail: jay.h.hambrick@usdoj.gov
Counsel to the United States
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 3898
eventattribution
Requested tax balance stated asof thisdate.
Read the anchor · page 3
3
Assessment
Type
Tax Period
Ending
Assessment
Date
NFTL
Filing Date
Balance1
(as of
April 13, 2026)
IRS Form 9412
6/30/2010 5/13/2013 4/30/2024 $87,454
IRS Form 941 12/31/2010 4/11/2011 4/30/2024 $149,003
IRS Form 941 12/31/2012 4/01/2013 4/30/2024 $872,811
IRS Form 941 12/31/2021 9/5/2022 10/10/2023 $2,625
IRS Form 940 12/31/2022 2/27/2023 10/10/2023 $321
IRS Form 940 12/31/2023 2/26/2024 4/30/2024 $361
26 USC § 67213
12/31/2013 10/24/2016 8/21/2017 $40,882
TOTAL BALANCE $1,153,457.00
Id., ¶ 5.
8. True and correct copies of account transcripts memorializing these liabilities are
attached to Revenue Officer Davis’s Declaration as Attachment A thereto.
9. A delegate of the Secretary of the Treasury gave notice of these assessments to
Cyberlux Corporation and made demand upon it for payment of those assessments. Despite
notice and demand for payment, Cyberlux Corporation has failed or refused to pay the full
amounts due and owing for these assessments. As a result, under 26 U.S.C. § 6321, the unpaid
assessment amounts are a lien in favor of the United States upon all property and rights to
property belonging to Cyberlux Corporation, including upon the interpleaded proceeds. Id., ¶ 7.
10. The IRS filed Notices of Federal Tax Lien (“NFTLs”) memorializing the liens
with the North Carolina Secretary of State. Id., ¶ 8. The NFTLs were filed on the dates set forth
1 This includes assessment amount plus accruals (interest and penalties) accruing through April
13, 2026.
2
IRS Forms 941 are used to report withheld employee income tax and withheld employee and
employer Social Security and Medicare tax. IRS Forms 940 are used to report an employer’s
Federal Unemployment Tax Act taxes.
3
These are penalties for failure to file returns.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 13 PageID# 3889
inferenceinference
The government’s review of government-contracting statutes addresses tax-lien priority to the fund. It must not be represented as government
The government’s review of government-contracting statutes addresses tax-lien priority to the fund. It must not be represented as government certification of invoice allowability,contract performance or procurement legality.
inferenceinference
Perfection date alone does not describe the government’s full Legalist-priority theory:it separately tracks actual advance dates and a claim
Perfection date alone does not describe the government’s full Legalist-priority theory:it separately tracks actual advance dates and a claimed statutory window. Retain those components before assigning a single priority label to the entire Legalist balance.
inferenceinference
The principal request and alternative priority table contain different tax components;the total request should not silently overwrite the ta
The principal request and alternative priority table contain different tax components;the total request should not silently overwrite the table or vice versa. Underlying IRS schedules and any corrected submission are needed.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 13-page source reviewed at SHA-256 57fccba839a9d1b4a85220dbe7ea170d581046407c9a43d0138fc53bfbf497ad. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 13-page source reviewed at SHA-256 57fccba839a9d1b4a85220dbe7ea170d581046407c9a43d0138fc53bfbf497ad. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Read full native text of all13pages of registered57fccba8 PDF,including footnotes,advance repetitions,ARGchanged-answer footnote and service. Originalpages3,5,7,9,12,13checked the complete tax table,advance list,limited government-contracting paragraph,alternative priority table and signed filing/service details. Arithmetic comparison of the printed tax values flags a$3,553.97difference between alternative-table total and requested total;no value was substituted.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP. )
)
Interpleader Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
Case No. 3:25-cv-00483-JAG
UNITED STATES’ MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF ITS
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The United States of America submits this memorandum of law in support of its motion
for summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
There is no dispute that the United States’ tax liens have priority to all other creditors in
this lawsuit, except one, Legalist SPV III, L.P., as to which the United States has partial priority.
Because the claims of the United States’ (just over $1.1 million) and Legalist (just over $13
million) can be fully paid from the interpleaded funds (over $23 million), and because there is no
genuine dispute of material fact that the United States has priority as to all other creditors, the
United States is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. Plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp.’s (“HII”) predecessor entered into a
subcontract with Cyberlux, which is incorporated in Nevada and has its principal place of
business in North Carolina. ECF 41, ¶¶ 4, 17, 18 . Under the subcontract, Cyberlux would
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 183 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 3887
questionquestion
What Davis transcripts,NFTLs and corrected payoff schedule reconcile the tax components and accrued interest?
questionquestion
What operative financing provisions,advance records and priority ruling determine Legalist’s protected amount and treatment of later advance
What operative financing provisions,advance records and priority ruling determine Legalist’s protected amount and treatment of later advances?
questionquestion
What order resolved this motion and what sums were actually disbursed to the United States and Legalist?
questionquestion
What complete creditor interrogatories and ARGsupplement support or dispute the government’s characterisation of competing interests?
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.
The proposed waterfall pays USA $1,149,776.34, Legalist’sasserted22May2025 secured balance $7,313,627.17, then receiver fee $5,934,234.39, leaving $9,339,299.66. The receiver argues his fee is analogous to a bankruptcy administrative priority. He alternatively says if the court entrusts the whole or post-USA/Legalist remainder to him, he will take a pro-rata portion with the listed unsecured creditors. This conditional alternative is not the same as irrevocably waiving his priority claim.qualifiesCiting IRS officer Carol Davis,the United States claims$1,153,457 as of13April2026 plus later interest for unpaid assessments after notice/demand. Table balances are941periodsJune2010$87,454,December2010$149,003,December2012$872,811,December2021$2,625;940December2022$321,December2023$361;and6721December2013penalty$40,882. NFTLdates are21August2017,10October2023 and30April2024,as allocated in the table.
Legalist disbursements are recited as9April2024$1.8million,19April$500k,2May$500k,26June$142k,5July$53k,16July$2.5million,2August$650k,27August$535k,3October$150k and$120k,3June2025$2,755,100.10 and9June2025printed$345,000.001. The motion attributes a total claim$13,204,742.88 as of9March2026 plus interest to Legalist’s interrogatory answer.referencesProstok declares that Legalist transferred the described funds and they are currently held in his law firm’s trust account. The declaration contains no bank record or evidence that the receiver or judgment creditor has received them.
ListedJune2025advance can be compared with Prostok’sfunds-in-trust account;dates and actual destination still require primary records.
The United States says precise relative priority with Legalist is immaterial because the fund can pay both claims. Alternatively,it proposes first its2017/2023liens,then$2.8millionLegalistadvances,and then itsApril2024liens,arguing security exists only to money advanced and applying a45-day post-notice protection window. It places advances after15June2024behind its final notice and requests full federal payment before remaining creditors. These are requested legal outcomes,not adjudicated priorities.supportsWhat does the government seek,and what does it not decide here?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Citing IRS officer Carol Davis,the United States claims$1,153,457 as of13April2026 plus later interest for unpaid assessments after notice/demand. Table balances are941periodsJune2010$87,454,December2010$149,003,December2012$872,811,December2021$2,625;940December2022$321,December2023$361;and6721December2013penalty$40,882. NFTLdates are21August2017,10October2023 and30April2024,as allocated in the table.supportsWhat Davis transcripts,NFTLs and corrected payoff schedule reconcile the tax components and accrued interest?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Legalist disbursements are recited as9April2024$1.8million,19April$500k,2May$500k,26June$142k,5July$53k,16July$2.5million,2August$650k,27August$535k,3October$150k and$120k,3June2025$2,755,100.10 and9June2025printed$345,000.001. The motion attributes a total claim$13,204,742.88 as of9March2026 plus interest to Legalist’s interrogatory answer.supportsWhat operative financing provisions,advance records and priority ruling determine Legalist’s protected amount and treatment of later advances?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The15April2026conclusion requests$1,153,457 plus interest through disbursement. William J.Harrington and Jonathan H.Hambrick sign for the United States;Harrington certifiesCM/ECFfiling/notification that date. No order granting summary judgment or payment appears in this main memorandum.supportsWhat order resolved this motion and what sums were actually disbursed to the United States and Legalist?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The government invokes Rule56,second-stage interpleader andIRC6321–6323. In response to the court’sECF158government-contracting inquiry,counsel says tax-lien priority is governed by theIRC. It argues corporate personal-property NFTLs were correctly filed in NorthCarolina,the principal executive-office state. This limited priority position does not purport to audit or approve the underlying procurement.supportsThe government’s review of government-contracting statutes addresses tax-lien priority to the fund. It must not be represented as government certification of invoice allowability,contract performance or procurement legality.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion says Legalist and Cyberlux signed a27March2024government-purchase-order financing agreement for$3million secured by all borrower assets,including contract rights/receivables,and perfected by NevadaUCCfiling1April2024. It says later amendments13July2024 and29April2025postdate all tax notices. The agreement,UCC and amendments are referenced as exhibits,not included in this13-page main filing.supportsPerfection date alone does not describe the government’s full Legalist-priority theory:it separately tracks actual advance dates and a claimed statutory window. Retain those components before assigning a single priority label to the entire Legalist balance.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The alternative table onpage9 lists USA$40,882,$2,937.49 and$1,106,083.54,which sum$1,149,903.03 rather than the requested$1,153,457. Page3’sOctober2023-notice balances total$2,946 rather than$2,937.49;page11describes final-notice liabilities$1,109,629 rather than table$1,106,083.54. These internal amount differences are retained for reconciliation,not silently repaired.supportsWhat Davis transcripts,NFTLs and corrected payoff schedule reconcile the tax components and accrued interest?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The alternative table onpage9 lists USA$40,882,$2,937.49 and$1,106,083.54,which sum$1,149,903.03 rather than the requested$1,153,457. Page3’sOctober2023-notice balances total$2,946 rather than$2,937.49;page11describes final-notice liabilities$1,109,629 rather than table$1,106,083.54. These internal amount differences are retained for reconciliation,not silently repaired.supportsWhat does the government seek,and what does it not decide here?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The15April2026conclusion requests$1,153,457 plus interest through disbursement. William J.Harrington and Jonathan H.Hambrick sign for the United States;Harrington certifiesCM/ECFfiling/notification that date. No order granting summary judgment or payment appears in this main memorandum.supportsThe principal request and alternative priority table contain different tax components;the total request should not silently overwrite the table or vice versa. Underlying IRS schedules and any corrected submission are needed.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Citing IRS officer Carol Davis,the United States claims$1,153,457 as of13April2026 plus later interest for unpaid assessments after notice/demand. Table balances are941periodsJune2010$87,454,December2010$149,003,December2012$872,811,December2021$2,625;940December2022$321,December2023$361;and6721December2013penalty$40,882. NFTLdates are21August2017,10October2023 and30April2024,as allocated in the table.supportsThe principal request and alternative priority table contain different tax components;the total request should not silently overwrite the table or vice versa. Underlying IRS schedules and any corrected submission are needed.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The United States moves for summary judgment on tax-lien priority in the HII interpleader. It says HII’s Navy/GSA-related subcontract ended17May2024,the court directed deposit$23,736,937.56 on20February2026,and HII deposited on6March and was dismissed. The motion citesECF41,150,153 and docket entries;it is not itself those orders or a disbursement record.supportsThe government’s review of government-contracting statutes addresses tax-lien priority to the fund. It must not be represented as government certification of invoice allowability,contract performance or procurement legality.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Citing IRS officer Carol Davis,the United States claims$1,153,457 as of13April2026 plus later interest for unpaid assessments after notice/demand. Table balances are941periodsJune2010$87,454,December2010$149,003,December2012$872,811,December2021$2,625;940December2022$321,December2023$361;and6721December2013penalty$40,882. NFTLdates are21August2017,10October2023 and30April2024,as allocated in the table.supportsWhat does the government seek,and what does it not decide here?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Legalist disbursements are recited as9April2024$1.8million,19April$500k,2May$500k,26June$142k,5July$53k,16July$2.5million,2August$650k,27August$535k,3October$150k and$120k,3June2025$2,755,100.10 and9June2025printed$345,000.001. The motion attributes a total claim$13,204,742.88 as of9March2026 plus interest to Legalist’s interrogatory answer.supportsPerfection date alone does not describe the government’s full Legalist-priority theory:it separately tracks actual advance dates and a claimed statutory window. Retain those components before assigning a single priority label to the entire Legalist balance.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The15April2026conclusion requests$1,153,457 plus interest through disbursement. William J.Harrington and Jonathan H.Hambrick sign for the United States;Harrington certifiesCM/ECFfiling/notification that date. No order granting summary judgment or payment appears in this main memorandum.supportsThe government’s review of government-contracting statutes addresses tax-lien priority to the fund. It must not be represented as government certification of invoice allowability,contract performance or procurement legality.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The United States says precise relative priority with Legalist is immaterial because the fund can pay both claims. Alternatively,it proposes first its2017/2023liens,then$2.8millionLegalistadvances,and then itsApril2024liens,arguing security exists only to money advanced and applying a45-day post-notice protection window. It places advances after15June2024behind its final notice and requests full federal payment before remaining creditors. These are requested legal outcomes,not adjudicated priorities.supportsPerfection date alone does not describe the government’s full Legalist-priority theory:it separately tracks actual advance dates and a claimed statutory window. Retain those components before assigning a single priority label to the entire Legalist balance.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The alternative table onpage9 lists USA$40,882,$2,937.49 and$1,106,083.54,which sum$1,149,903.03 rather than the requested$1,153,457. Page3’sOctober2023-notice balances total$2,946 rather than$2,937.49;page11describes final-notice liabilities$1,109,629 rather than table$1,106,083.54. These internal amount differences are retained for reconciliation,not silently repaired.supportsThe principal request and alternative priority table contain different tax components;the total request should not silently overwrite the table or vice versa. Underlying IRS schedules and any corrected submission are needed.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The government invokes Rule56,second-stage interpleader andIRC6321–6323. In response to the court’sECF158government-contracting inquiry,counsel says tax-lien priority is governed by theIRC. It argues corporate personal-property NFTLs were correctly filed in NorthCarolina,the principal executive-office state. This limited priority position does not purport to audit or approve the underlying procurement.supportsWhat does the government seek,and what does it not decide here?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The15April2026conclusion requests$1,153,457 plus interest through disbursement. William J.Harrington and Jonathan H.Hambrick sign for the United States;Harrington certifiesCM/ECFfiling/notification that date. No order granting summary judgment or payment appears in this main memorandum.supportsWhat does the government seek,and what does it not decide here?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion says Legalist and Cyberlux signed a27March2024government-purchase-order financing agreement for$3million secured by all borrower assets,including contract rights/receivables,and perfected by NevadaUCCfiling1April2024. It says later amendments13July2024 and29April2025postdate all tax notices. The agreement,UCC and amendments are referenced as exhibits,not included in this13-page main filing.supportsWhat operative financing provisions,advance records and priority ruling determine Legalist’s protected amount and treatment of later advances?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The United States says precise relative priority with Legalist is immaterial because the fund can pay both claims. Alternatively,it proposes first its2017/2023liens,then$2.8millionLegalistadvances,and then itsApril2024liens,arguing security exists only to money advanced and applying a45-day post-notice protection window. It places advances after15June2024behind its final notice and requests full federal payment before remaining creditors. These are requested legal outcomes,not adjudicated priorities.supportsWhat operative financing provisions,advance records and priority ruling determine Legalist’s protected amount and treatment of later advances?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The United States says precise relative priority with Legalist is immaterial because the fund can pay both claims. Alternatively,it proposes first its2017/2023liens,then$2.8millionLegalistadvances,and then itsApril2024liens,arguing security exists only to money advanced and applying a45-day post-notice protection window. It places advances after15June2024behind its final notice and requests full federal payment before remaining creditors. These are requested legal outcomes,not adjudicated priorities.supportsWhat order resolved this motion and what sums were actually disbursed to the United States and Legalist?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The government characterises other claimants’liens as later than its notices:receiver1April2025,ThinAirAugust/December2025,ANPCSeptember2025writ/December2024equitablelien,WeShieldgroupOctober2025,and AW/SecureNevadafiling20March2026. It says AW/Secure do not contest federal priority,Fairwinds claims no security interest,and ARG initially disclaimed perfected security. A footnote records ARG’s14April2026changed answer asserting2022/2023priority but says no earlierUCCwas produced. These are the movant’s account of responses,not independent determinations.supportsWhat complete creditor interrogatories and ARGsupplement support or dispute the government’s characterisation of competing interests?
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.