ANPC July 21 letter and default judgment — debt award, asserted equitable claim to HII funds
Original sourceMixed source: signed advocacy letter, default money judgment, verified complaint and invoice. Debt award distinguished from asserted equitable assignment and fund priority.
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
claimallegation
Thirteen-page EDVA41-15 Exhibit15 filed August4,2025 comprises Clodfelter’s signed July21 letter to Belote, Durham’s July21 default judgment
Thirteen-page EDVA41-15 Exhibit15 filed August4,2025 comprises Clodfelter’s signed July21 letter to Belote, Durham’s July21 default judgment, June5 verified complaint and December20 invoice. These layers have different authors, dates and authority; the letter’s claimed interpleader entitlement is not itself adjudicated by the attached debt judgment.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 15
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 636
claimallegation
The letter says ANPC is domesticating its judgment and pursuing garnishment in Virginia, and alternatively will ask for an equitable lien on
The letter says ANPC is domesticating its judgment and pursuing garnishment in Virginia, and alternatively will ask for an equitable lien on the disputed funds. It interprets a ten-business-day pay-after-customer-receipt term as an assignment and invokes unjust enrichment. It alleges other use of customer funds on information and belief and seeks extension to HII funds as well; no bank tracing or order imposing that equitable lien is attached.
Read the anchor · page 2
Catherine G. Clodfelter
Partner
t: 919.835.4036
f: 919.834.4564
catherineclodfelter@parkerpoe.com
Atlanta, GA
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Greenville, SC
Raleigh, NC
Spartanburg, SC
Washington, DC
PPAB 12597398v1
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP PNC Plaza 301 Fayetteville Street Suite 1400 Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
t 919.828.0564 f 919.834.4564 www.parkerpoe.com
July 21, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 West Main Street
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
clark.belote@kaufcan.com
Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Request for Confirmation of Interest in Payment Receivable
Dear Mr. Belote,
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interplead ed
amounts (the “Disputed Funds”). ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds,
as opposed to a general unsecured claim.
As an initial matter, ANPC filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Cyberlux in North
Carolina, to which Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear, and ANPC obtained a default
judgment (the “Judgment”). We are including a copy of both the Complaint and Judgment with
this letter.1 ANPC is domesticating the Judgment in Virginia and pursuing a garnishment. Those
actions alone provide ANPC with a claim to the Disputed Funds beyond that of an unsecured
creditor.
1 ANPC is providing the Complaint and Judgment along with this letter. Because the parties have a
confidentiality agreement which may include information set out in the Purchase Agreement, we will
describe the provisions that are relevant and not confidential but will not provide you with a copy of the
Purchase Agreement itself.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 637
claimallegation
Footnote1 deliberately withholds the purchase agreement because of confidentiality, offering described non-confidential provisions instead.
Footnote1 deliberately withholds the purchase agreement because of confidentiality, offering described non-confidential provisions instead. The letter quotes selected payment language and claims North Carolina governing law. The source therefore cannot independently establish the complete contract, exceptions, assignment restrictions or contractual fund identity.
Read the anchor · page 2
Catherine G. Clodfelter
Partner
t: 919.835.4036
f: 919.834.4564
catherineclodfelter@parkerpoe.com
Atlanta, GA
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Greenville, SC
Raleigh, NC
Spartanburg, SC
Washington, DC
PPAB 12597398v1
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP PNC Plaza 301 Fayetteville Street Suite 1400 Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
t 919.828.0564 f 919.834.4564 www.parkerpoe.com
July 21, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 West Main Street
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
clark.belote@kaufcan.com
Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Request for Confirmation of Interest in Payment Receivable
Dear Mr. Belote,
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interplead ed
amounts (the “Disputed Funds”). ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds,
as opposed to a general unsecured claim.
As an initial matter, ANPC filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Cyberlux in North
Carolina, to which Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear, and ANPC obtained a default
judgment (the “Judgment”). We are including a copy of both the Complaint and Judgment with
this letter.1 ANPC is domesticating the Judgment in Virginia and pursuing a garnishment. Those
actions alone provide ANPC with a claim to the Disputed Funds beyond that of an unsecured
creditor.
1 ANPC is providing the Complaint and Judgment along with this letter. Because the parties have a
confidentiality agreement which may include information set out in the Purchase Agreement, we will
describe the provisions that are relevant and not confidential but will not provide you with a copy of the
Purchase Agreement itself.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 637
claimallegation
The signed assistant-clerk default judgment, filed July21,2025 at2:45:28PM, grants $2,926,814.39 against Cyberlux: $2,830,050 invoice princi
The signed assistant-clerk default judgment, filed July21,2025 at2:45:28PM, grants $2,926,814.39 against Cyberlux: $2,830,050 invoice principal plus $96,764.39 interest stated as of July15. It references eight-percent interest and further postjudgment interest as allowed by law. The copy records a default following failure to plead or defend; it does not award particular HII proceeds or decide interpleader priority.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15
Filed 08/04/25 Page 5 of 13 PagelD# 640
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM
DATE: July 21, 2025 25-CVS-005686-310
TIME: 2:45:28 PM
Advanced Navigation & Positioning
DURHAM COUNTY
Corporation
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
BY: Strickland, Lisa
Plaintiff,
)
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
-V-
Cyberlux Corporation
Defendant.
THIS CAUSE coming before the undersigned, upon Motion of Advanced Navigation &
Positioning Corporation ("ANPC") for Default Judgment against Cyberlux Corporation
(Defendant) on a breach of contract claim filed by Verified Complaint. Defendant has failed to
plead or otherwise defend in this action and a default has been entered.
Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
The Motion is GRANTED; and
Judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of $2,926,814.39,
as set out in the Verified Complaint, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and
(2) interest accruing at the legal rate of 8% on the principal amount until the judgment is satisfied,
which is $96,764.39 as of July 15, 2025; and
3. This Judgment shall accrue post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
This the 21 day of July
→ 2025.
Lisa P. Strickland
Clerk, Durham County Superior Court
X Assistant Clerk
claimallegation
The June5 complaint alleges an October11,2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, guidance units, trailer
The June5 complaint alleges an October11,2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, guidance units, trailer and services, with five milestones. It acknowledges Cyberlux paid the first three milestones and alleges the final $2,830,050 December20 invoice remained unpaid. Customer payment sufficient by December20 and breach by December30 are allegations on information and belief; the exact receipt date and ten-business-day computation are not demonstrated.
Read the anchor · page 6
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15
Filed 08/04/25 Page 6 of 13 PagelD# 641
25CV005686-310
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM
25-CVS-
Advanced Navigation & Positioning
Corporation
Plaintiff,
-V-
VERIFIED COMPLAINT
Cyberlux Corporation
Defendant.
Plaintiff, complaining of the Defendant, alleges:
PARTIES
The Plaintiff Advanced Navigation & Positioning Corporation, ('Plaintiff or
"ANPC") is a Delaware corporation in good standing with a legal existence and the capacity to
sue, with its principal place of business located at 489 North gih Street, Suite 203, Hood River,
Oregon, 97031.
2. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux Corporation ("Defendant or
"Cyberlux') is a Nevada corporation with its principal place of business in Durham County
located at 800 Park Offices Drive, Suite 3209 Research Triangle, North Carolina, 27709 and can
be served with process upon its registered agent, CT Corporation System, located at 160 Mine
Lake Ct Ste 200, Raleigh, North Carolina 27615.
This Court has jurisdiction over the parties to this action pursuant to N.C. General
Statute §1-75.4 and other applicable bases for jurisdiction.
4. Venue is proper pursuant to N.C. General Statute §1-82 and other applicable
bases for venue.
PR
Electronically Filed Date: 6/5/2025 4:37 PM Durham Superior Court County Clerk of Superior Court
claimallegation
The complaint alleges May15 notice to the CEO by FedEx and email, a14-calendar-day management referral period and no response by filing. It
The complaint alleges May15 notice to the CEO by FedEx and email, a14-calendar-day management referral period and no response by filing. It calls $96,764.39 interest through the June5 complaint; the later judgment repeats that amount but labels it as of July15. It also describes postjudgment interest from complaint through judgment. These inconsistent temporal descriptions require the actual calculation and controlling order; this review does not silently recompute a legal award.
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 8 of 13 PagelD# 643
14.
Pursuant to the Purchase Agreement, Cyberlux was required to pay the Final
Invoice within ten days business days of Cyberlux's receipt of payment from Cyberlux's
customer.
15. Upon information and belief, Cyberlux had received payment from Cyberlux's
customer as of December 20, 2024 sufficient to pay the Final Invoice by December 30, 2024.
16.
Cyberlux breached the Purchase Agreement when it failed to make a payment on
the Final Invoice on or before December 30, 2024.
17. According to the Purchase Agreement, all disputes arising under the Purchase
Agreement must be initially referred to the parties' senior management for resolution. The
parties agreed to wait fourteen calendar days following referral to senior management before
bringing to court any action arising out of or related to the Purchase Agreement.
18.
Upon Cyberlux's failure to pay the Final Invoice in a timely manner, ANPC, by
and through its attorney, gave notice to the Buyer's CEO of Cyberlux's failure to make timely
payments on May 15, 2025 (the "Payment Dispute Letter").
19.
The Payment Dispute Letter was sent to Cyberlux's CEO via Federal Express and
email.
20. As of the date of this Verified Complaint, Cyberlux has not responded to the
Payment Dispute Letter.
21.
It has been more than fourteen days since ANPC sent the Payment Dispute Letter
to Cyberlux.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Breach of Contract-Purchase Agreement)
22.
ANPC incorporates the prior allegations of the Complaint by reference.
23.
The Purchase Agreement is a valid and enforceable contract.
24.
ANPC has performed all of its obligations under the Purchase Agreement.
3
claimallegation
Tim Arbogast verifies as CFO from personal knowledge except matters stated on information and belief. His signature and Emily Joyce’s Oregon
Tim Arbogast verifies as CFO from personal knowledge except matters stated on information and belief. His signature and Emily Joyce’s Oregon/Hood River notarisation dated June5,2025 appear. The alternative identification-evidence wording is visibly crossed out, leaving personal knowledge; this attestation is not an adverse-interest admission or independent proof of every allegation.
Read the anchor · page 11
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 11 of 13 PagelD# 646
VERIFICATION
Tim Arbogast, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the CFO of
Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and, as such,
he is authorized to make this oath; that he has read the foregoing and attached Verified
Complaint, and that the same is true of his own personal knowledge except those matters
stated upon information and belief, which he believes to be true.
Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation
OFFICIAL STAMP
Emily Joyce
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
By: Tim Arbogast
— CFO
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
HoOd RIDer
Personally appeared before me, Tim Arbogast, either being personally known to
me or proven by satisfactory evidence (said evidence being
), and acknowledged that he signed the foregoing document.
This the
5
_ day of June
→ 2025.
OFFICIAL STAMP
Notary Public
Emily Joyce
(Type or Print Name)
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 1058184
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 13, 2029
My commission expires:.
May 13, 2029
(Notary Seal)
[Visual notarisation supplement: State of Oregon, County of Hood River; June5,2025; Tim Arbogast and Emily Joyce signatures present. Alternative wording beginning or proven by satisfactory evidence is crossed out, leaving personal knowledge.]
claimallegation
Invoice0000696-IN dated December20,2024, order0000261 dated October8, customer14-CYB001, lists $2,830,050 for Milestone4:20% of contract due
Invoice0000696-IN dated December20,2024, order0000261 dated October8, customer14-CYB001, lists $2,830,050 for Milestone4:20% of contract due upon SAT. One unit is marked ordered/shipped, backorder zero; discount, freight and tax zero, total $2,830,050. It prints CCC Agreement106703.105 and Terms Prepaid; those labels do not independently resolve the letter’s conditional payment wording or prove actual SAT, customer acceptance or payment. Tim Arbogast’s signature appearance carries December20,2024 07:16:42-08:00.
Read the anchor · page 12
ExhibitA
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 12 of 13 PageID# 647
entityobservation
Catherine G. Clodfelter
Read the anchor · page 2
Catherine G. Clodfelter
Partner
t: 919.835.4036
f: 919.834.4564
catherineclodfelter@parkerpoe.com
Atlanta, GA
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Greenville, SC
Raleigh, NC
Spartanburg, SC
Washington, DC
PPAB 12597398v1
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP PNC Plaza 301 Fayetteville Street Suite 1400 Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
t 919.828.0564 f 919.834.4564 www.parkerpoe.com
July 21, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 West Main Street
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
clark.belote@kaufcan.com
Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Request for Confirmation of Interest in Payment Receivable
Dear Mr. Belote,
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interplead ed
amounts (the “Disputed Funds”). ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds,
as opposed to a general unsecured claim.
As an initial matter, ANPC filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Cyberlux in North
Carolina, to which Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear, and ANPC obtained a default
judgment (the “Judgment”). We are including a copy of both the Complaint and Judgment with
this letter.1 ANPC is domesticating the Judgment in Virginia and pursuing a garnishment. Those
actions alone provide ANPC with a claim to the Disputed Funds beyond that of an unsecured
creditor.
1 ANPC is providing the Complaint and Judgment along with this letter. Because the parties have a
confidentiality agreement which may include information set out in the Purchase Agreement, we will
describe the provisions that are relevant and not confidential but will not provide you with a copy of the
Purchase Agreement itself.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 637
entityobservation
Clark J. Belote
Read the anchor · page 2
Catherine G. Clodfelter
Partner
t: 919.835.4036
f: 919.834.4564
catherineclodfelter@parkerpoe.com
Atlanta, GA
Charleston, SC
Charlotte, NC
Columbia, SC
Greenville, SC
Raleigh, NC
Spartanburg, SC
Washington, DC
PPAB 12597398v1
Parker Poe Adams & Bernstein LLP PNC Plaza 301 Fayetteville Street Suite 1400 Raleigh, NC 27602-0389
t 919.828.0564 f 919.834.4564 www.parkerpoe.com
July 21, 2025
VIA EMAIL
Clark J. Belote
Kaufman & Canoles, P.C.
150 West Main Street
Suite 2100
Norfolk, VA 23510
clark.belote@kaufcan.com
Re: HII Mission Technologies v. Cyberlux Corporation, et al.
Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Request for Confirmation of Interest in Payment Receivable
Dear Mr. Belote,
Thank you for your letter and the opportunity to discuss our claim to the interplead ed
amounts (the “Disputed Funds”). ANPC does claim that it has an interest in the Disputed Funds,
as opposed to a general unsecured claim.
As an initial matter, ANPC filed a complaint (the “Complaint”) against Cyberlux in North
Carolina, to which Cyberlux did not answer or otherwise appear, and ANPC obtained a default
judgment (the “Judgment”). We are including a copy of both the Complaint and Judgment with
this letter.1 ANPC is domesticating the Judgment in Virginia and pursuing a garnishment. Those
actions alone provide ANPC with a claim to the Disputed Funds beyond that of an unsecured
creditor.
1 ANPC is providing the Complaint and Judgment along with this letter. Because the parties have a
confidentiality agreement which may include information set out in the Purchase Agreement, we will
describe the provisions that are relevant and not confidential but will not provide you with a copy of the
Purchase Agreement itself.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 2 of 13 PageID# 637
entityobservation
Advanced Navigation & Positioning
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15
Filed 08/04/25 Page 5 of 13 PagelD# 640
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM
DATE: July 21, 2025 25-CVS-005686-310
TIME: 2:45:28 PM
Advanced Navigation & Positioning
DURHAM COUNTY
Corporation
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
BY: Strickland, Lisa
Plaintiff,
)
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
-V-
Cyberlux Corporation
Defendant.
THIS CAUSE coming before the undersigned, upon Motion of Advanced Navigation &
Positioning Corporation ("ANPC") for Default Judgment against Cyberlux Corporation
(Defendant) on a breach of contract claim filed by Verified Complaint. Defendant has failed to
plead or otherwise defend in this action and a default has been entered.
Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
The Motion is GRANTED; and
Judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of $2,926,814.39,
as set out in the Verified Complaint, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and
(2) interest accruing at the legal rate of 8% on the principal amount until the judgment is satisfied,
which is $96,764.39 as of July 15, 2025; and
3. This Judgment shall accrue post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
This the 21 day of July
→ 2025.
Lisa P. Strickland
Clerk, Durham County Superior Court
X Assistant Clerk
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15
Filed 08/04/25 Page 5 of 13 PagelD# 640
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
FILED
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
COUNTY OF DURHAM
DATE: July 21, 2025 25-CVS-005686-310
TIME: 2:45:28 PM
Advanced Navigation & Positioning
DURHAM COUNTY
Corporation
CLERK OF SUPERIOR COURT
BY: Strickland, Lisa
Plaintiff,
)
DEFAULT JUDGMENT
-V-
Cyberlux Corporation
Defendant.
THIS CAUSE coming before the undersigned, upon Motion of Advanced Navigation &
Positioning Corporation ("ANPC") for Default Judgment against Cyberlux Corporation
(Defendant) on a breach of contract claim filed by Verified Complaint. Defendant has failed to
plead or otherwise defend in this action and a default has been entered.
Therefore, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that:
The Motion is GRANTED; and
Judgment in favor of ANPC and against Cyberlux in the amount of $2,926,814.39,
as set out in the Verified Complaint, which includes: (1) $2,830,050.00 for the Final Invoice and
(2) interest accruing at the legal rate of 8% on the principal amount until the judgment is satisfied,
which is $96,764.39 as of July 15, 2025; and
3. This Judgment shall accrue post-judgment interest as allowed by law.
This the 21 day of July
→ 2025.
Lisa P. Strickland
Clerk, Durham County Superior Court
X Assistant Clerk
entityobservation
Tim Arbogast
Read the anchor · page 11
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 11 of 13 PagelD# 646
VERIFICATION
Tim Arbogast, being first duly sworn, deposes and says that he is the CFO of
Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, a Delaware corporation, and, as such,
he is authorized to make this oath; that he has read the foregoing and attached Verified
Complaint, and that the same is true of his own personal knowledge except those matters
stated upon information and belief, which he believes to be true.
Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation
OFFICIAL STAMP
Emily Joyce
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
By: Tim Arbogast
— CFO
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
HoOd RIDer
Personally appeared before me, Tim Arbogast, either being personally known to
me or proven by satisfactory evidence (said evidence being
), and acknowledged that he signed the foregoing document.
This the
5
_ day of June
→ 2025.
OFFICIAL STAMP
Notary Public
Emily Joyce
(Type or Print Name)
NOTARY PUBLIC - OREGON
COMMISSION NO. 1058184
MY COMMISSION EXPIRES MAY 13, 2029
My commission expires:.
May 13, 2029
(Notary Seal)
[Visual notarisation supplement: State of Oregon, County of Hood River; June5,2025; Tim Arbogast and Emily Joyce signatures present. Alternative wording beginning or proven by satisfactory evidence is crossed out, leaving personal knowledge.]
inferenceinference
The supplied judgment establishes a default debt award; the asserted assignment or equitable lien to HII proceeds remains a separate claimed
The supplied judgment establishes a default debt award; the asserted assignment or equitable lien to HII proceeds remains a separate claimed route requiring fund-specific evidence and adjudication.
inferenceinference
The same interest amount is attached to different cutoff descriptions in complaint and judgment; a current balance cannot be reconstructed b
The same interest amount is attached to different cutoff descriptions in complaint and judgment; a current balance cannot be reconstructed by choosing one date silently.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 13-page source reviewed at SHA-256 69381b5632ed5ef8a6d7893f81e443b464b933c41cbc838a6891dc45653ada3e. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 13-page source reviewed at SHA-256 69381b5632ed5ef8a6d7893f81e443b464b933c41cbc838a6891dc45653ada3e. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Exact version_5b6bec8c312b472db947c69a4fa3e6a3; SHA256 69381b5632ed5ef8a6d7893f81e443b464b933c41cbc838a6891dc45653ada3e. All13pages read. Material letter, judgment, complaint chronology, notarisation and invoice images inspected. Original source and extraction preserved; legal arguments attributed, not adopted.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 15
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 41-15 Filed 08/04/25 Page 1 of 13 PageID# 636
questionquestion
What operative purchase agreement, customer receipts, SAT records and traceable fund path support the claimed equitable interest in HII proc
What operative purchase agreement, customer receipts, SAT records and traceable fund path support the claimed equitable interest in HII proceeds?
questionquestion
What interest worksheet and subsequent orders or payments reconcile June5 versus July15 descriptions and establish the remaining enforceable
What interest worksheet and subsequent orders or payments reconcile June5 versus July15 descriptions and establish the remaining enforceable balance?
distillateobservation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
ANPC claims $257,828.86 interest, described as accruing from July21,2025 at8% on principal until satisfaction. No principal figure, day-count calculation or accrual cutoff is specified in that answer. The $3,087,878.86 total less $257,828.86 equals $2,830,050, whereas the separately stated judgment is $2,926,814.39. Adding the interest to that judgment would instead give $3,184,643.25. The $96,764.39 difference requires the underlying interest ledger, not silent double counting.referencesThe signed assistant-clerk default judgment, filed July21,2025 at2:45:28PM, grants $2,926,814.39 against Cyberlux: $2,830,050 invoice principal plus $96,764.39 interest stated as of July15. It references eight-percent interest and further postjudgment interest as allowed by law. The copy records a default following failure to plead or defend; it does not award particular HII proceeds or decide interpleader priority.
Earlier supplied judgment separates $2,830,050 and $96,764.39 interest; this response requires reconciliation of those components with its later total.
Footnote1 deliberately withholds the purchase agreement because of confidentiality, offering described non-confidential provisions instead. The letter quotes selected payment language and claims North Carolina governing law. The source therefore cannot independently establish the complete contract, exceptions, assignment restrictions or contractual fund identity.supportsWhat operative purchase agreement, customer receipts, SAT records and traceable fund path support the claimed equitable interest in HII proceeds?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The signed assistant-clerk default judgment, filed July21,2025 at2:45:28PM, grants $2,926,814.39 against Cyberlux: $2,830,050 invoice principal plus $96,764.39 interest stated as of July15. It references eight-percent interest and further postjudgment interest as allowed by law. The copy records a default following failure to plead or defend; it does not award particular HII proceeds or decide interpleader priority.supportsWhat interest worksheet and subsequent orders or payments reconcile June5 versus July15 descriptions and establish the remaining enforceable balance?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Invoice0000696-IN dated December20,2024, order0000261 dated October8, customer14-CYB001, lists $2,830,050 for Milestone4:20% of contract due upon SAT. One unit is marked ordered/shipped, backorder zero; discount, freight and tax zero, total $2,830,050. It prints CCC Agreement106703.105 and Terms Prepaid; those labels do not independently resolve the letter’s conditional payment wording or prove actual SAT, customer acceptance or payment. Tim Arbogast’s signature appearance carries December20,2024 07:16:42-08:00.supportsWhat operative purchase agreement, customer receipts, SAT records and traceable fund path support the claimed equitable interest in HII proceeds?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The signed assistant-clerk default judgment, filed July21,2025 at2:45:28PM, grants $2,926,814.39 against Cyberlux: $2,830,050 invoice principal plus $96,764.39 interest stated as of July15. It references eight-percent interest and further postjudgment interest as allowed by law. The copy records a default following failure to plead or defend; it does not award particular HII proceeds or decide interpleader priority.supportsDid the attached default judgment award ANPC a lien on HII funds?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The letter says ANPC is domesticating its judgment and pursuing garnishment in Virginia, and alternatively will ask for an equitable lien on the disputed funds. It interprets a ten-business-day pay-after-customer-receipt term as an assignment and invokes unjust enrichment. It alleges other use of customer funds on information and belief and seeks extension to HII funds as well; no bank tracing or order imposing that equitable lien is attached.supportsWhat operative purchase agreement, customer receipts, SAT records and traceable fund path support the claimed equitable interest in HII proceeds?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The complaint alleges May15 notice to the CEO by FedEx and email, a14-calendar-day management referral period and no response by filing. It calls $96,764.39 interest through the June5 complaint; the later judgment repeats that amount but labels it as of July15. It also describes postjudgment interest from complaint through judgment. These inconsistent temporal descriptions require the actual calculation and controlling order; this review does not silently recompute a legal award.supportsThe same interest amount is attached to different cutoff descriptions in complaint and judgment; a current balance cannot be reconstructed by choosing one date silently.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The signed assistant-clerk default judgment, filed July21,2025 at2:45:28PM, grants $2,926,814.39 against Cyberlux: $2,830,050 invoice principal plus $96,764.39 interest stated as of July15. It references eight-percent interest and further postjudgment interest as allowed by law. The copy records a default following failure to plead or defend; it does not award particular HII proceeds or decide interpleader priority.supportsThe same interest amount is attached to different cutoff descriptions in complaint and judgment; a current balance cannot be reconstructed by choosing one date silently.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The June5 complaint alleges an October11,2024 purchase agreement for two transportable transponder landing systems, guidance units, trailer and services, with five milestones. It acknowledges Cyberlux paid the first three milestones and alleges the final $2,830,050 December20 invoice remained unpaid. Customer payment sufficient by December20 and breach by December30 are allegations on information and belief; the exact receipt date and ten-business-day computation are not demonstrated.supportsWhat operative purchase agreement, customer receipts, SAT records and traceable fund path support the claimed equitable interest in HII proceeds?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The complaint alleges May15 notice to the CEO by FedEx and email, a14-calendar-day management referral period and no response by filing. It calls $96,764.39 interest through the June5 complaint; the later judgment repeats that amount but labels it as of July15. It also describes postjudgment interest from complaint through judgment. These inconsistent temporal descriptions require the actual calculation and controlling order; this review does not silently recompute a legal award.supportsWhat interest worksheet and subsequent orders or payments reconcile June5 versus July15 descriptions and establish the remaining enforceable balance?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Footnote1 deliberately withholds the purchase agreement because of confidentiality, offering described non-confidential provisions instead. The letter quotes selected payment language and claims North Carolina governing law. The source therefore cannot independently establish the complete contract, exceptions, assignment restrictions or contractual fund identity.supportsThe supplied judgment establishes a default debt award; the asserted assignment or equitable lien to HII proceeds remains a separate claimed route requiring fund-specific evidence and adjudication.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The letter says ANPC is domesticating its judgment and pursuing garnishment in Virginia, and alternatively will ask for an equitable lien on the disputed funds. It interprets a ten-business-day pay-after-customer-receipt term as an assignment and invokes unjust enrichment. It alleges other use of customer funds on information and belief and seeks extension to HII funds as well; no bank tracing or order imposing that equitable lien is attached.supportsThe supplied judgment establishes a default debt award; the asserted assignment or equitable lien to HII proceeds remains a separate claimed route requiring fund-specific evidence and adjudication.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The signed assistant-clerk default judgment, filed July21,2025 at2:45:28PM, grants $2,926,814.39 against Cyberlux: $2,830,050 invoice principal plus $96,764.39 interest stated as of July15. It references eight-percent interest and further postjudgment interest as allowed by law. The copy records a default following failure to plead or defend; it does not award particular HII proceeds or decide interpleader priority.supportsThe supplied judgment establishes a default debt award; the asserted assignment or equitable lien to HII proceeds remains a separate claimed route requiring fund-specific evidence and adjudication.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The letter says ANPC is domesticating its judgment and pursuing garnishment in Virginia, and alternatively will ask for an equitable lien on the disputed funds. It interprets a ten-business-day pay-after-customer-receipt term as an assignment and invokes unjust enrichment. It alleges other use of customer funds on information and belief and seeks extension to HII funds as well; no bank tracing or order imposing that equitable lien is attached.supportsDid the attached default judgment award ANPC a lien on HII funds?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Footnote1 deliberately withholds the purchase agreement because of confidentiality, offering described non-confidential provisions instead. The letter quotes selected payment language and claims North Carolina governing law. The source therefore cannot independently establish the complete contract, exceptions, assignment restrictions or contractual fund identity.supportsDid the attached default judgment award ANPC a lien on HII funds?
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.