Original sourceCounsel-signed supplemental interrogatory response, certificate March 24, 2026, exhibited April 15; claimant account with internal inconsistencies and missing cited instruments.
Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
quotationattribution
Claimants state remaining Texas collection fees have been satisfied and revise their claim to omit those amounts.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 8 PagelD# 2768
18. Berleth, as part of his duties as Receiver, evaluated the Stock Claim advanced by
AWH and SC and compromised the figure with AWH and SC to a reduced liquidated figure of
$6,000,000.00, plus attorney fees and cost.
19. Berleth and AWH entered a Settlement Agreement (the "Receiver Agreement) to
be produced as Exhibit D.
20. The Receiver Agreement provided for entry of a Consent Judgment in CL 24-3910
which was entered by the Richmond Circuit Court on December 18, 2025, providing for
judgment in the principal amount of $6,000,000, attorney's fees of $25,250.50 costs, and 6%
interest from the date of judgment (the "Consent Order"). To be produced as Exhibit E.
21.
The Consent Order ratified the Settlement Agreement as valid, and further ruled
that the Order of Receivership had been properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without
objection.
22.
In Fairfax, HII, as garnishee had implead the sum of $1,444,543.11 based upon
AWH's garnishment referred to herein at paragraph 9.
23.
The Fairfax Court ordered the payment of $952,601.71 to AWH as principal and
attorney's fees for the Virginia judgment but ruled that it had no jurisdiction to determine fees
for collection activity outside of Virginia as provided by the Settlement Agreement.
24.
Accordingly, the claim advanced by AWH and SC against the Disputed Funds are
as follows:
Remaining collection fees in enforcing the Settlement Agreement in Texas, California and
at paragraph 19 of $938,884.88 Summary and Declarations produced as F.
Reasonable Attorney's fees necessitated by this Interpleader pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement at paragraph 19.
The Consent Judgment principal amount $6,000,000
$25,250.50 attorney fees
$352.92 costs
Per diem interest in the amount of 986.30/day beginning February 5, 2026.
claimallegation
AWH and Secure Community present a joint supplemental response signed by Charles A. Gavin. AWH states it solely owns Secure Community and th
AWH and Secure Community present a joint supplemental response signed by Charles A. Gavin. AWH states it solely owns Secure Community and that they assert the same claims without independent double recovery. The certificate says March 24, 2026; the federal exhibit filing is April 15. No separate corporate oath or verification appears.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 8
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 2764
claimallegation
The response traces the claim to a 2021 acquisition, June 15, 2023 settlement, HII-related acceleration and all-assets security provision, a
The response traces the claim to a 2021 acquisition, June 15, 2023 settlement, HII-related acceleration and all-assets security provision, and a June 28, 2023 $1,572,500 judgment. It reports filings in North Carolina, Virginia and Texas on July 6, 2023, California October 20, 2023 and Nevada March 20, 2026. It asserts July 6, 2023 priority, rather than proving it through attached instruments.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 2765
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TEHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
V.
Case Number: 3:25cv483
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6
Comes now your Interpleader Defendants, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC, (jointly as "A WH") and in Response to Interpleader Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's (CYBLI) Interrogatory number 6 under the Joint Discovery Plan, hereby answers
as follows:
Interrogatory:
6(a). Explain the nature of your claim to any of the proceeds that are the subject of this
interpleader, including an explanation of (a) the amount of the proceeds that you claim;
1.
AWH is a Virginia limited liability company AWH is the sole owner of your Co
Interpleader Defendant, Secure Community, LLC (SCI). Accordingly, while each a party, AWH
and SC have the same claims and are not independent of one another seeking a double recovery.
2.
AWH and SC initiated a claim against CYBL and Mark Schmidt, individually, in
the Richmond Circuit Court as CL22-3882 based CYBL's breach of an acquisition agreement,
requiring CYBL to 1) pay AWH certain monetary sums and 2) to provide "Marketable Trading"
CYBL stock.
Following extended litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("the
Settlement Agreement") dated June 15, 2023, in which CYBL and Schmidt agreed inter alia to
make a series of payments to AWH and SC and, notably, to bring the CYBL stock marketable
by a certain date. The Settlement Agreement is produced as Exhibit A.
claimallegation
Claimants state Berleth used receiver authority to compromise the stock claim at $6 million plus fees and costs, and report a December 18, 2
Claimants state Berleth used receiver authority to compromise the stock claim at $6 million plus fees and costs, and report a December 18, 2025 consent judgment and later reaffirmation. They describe consent-order validation of settlement and recording of receiver authority. Those orders and agreements are cited but not reproduced here.
Read the anchor · page 4
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 8 PagelD# 2767
against CYBL as the judgment debtor and HII Mission Technologies Corp as Garnishee, as CL
2025-3413.
10. The Garnishment in Fairfax is referred to by HII as, in part, a basis for this
Interpleader. See First Amended Complaint, paragraphs 50-55.
11. AWH and SC also domesticated the Virginia judgment (CL22-3882) in Harris
County Texas where Cyberlux had a drone assembly facility.
12. Upon the domestication of the Virginia Judgment in Texas, Robert Berleth, Esquire was
appointed as a Receiver for Cyberlux by Order entered in Harris County TX in Cause No.
202448085. The Order of Receivership is attached as Exhibit 11 to the First Amended
Complaint.
13. The Order of Appointment granted broad powers to Berleth including the grant of
power over all causes of action. See First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 11, Order, Paragraph
25(1).
14. Meanwhile, CYBL also failed to provide "Marketable Trading" stock as required,
and as required by paragraph 2(e) of the Settlement Agreement (the "Stock Claim").
15.
CYBL stock, if it had been properly administered as required by the Settlement
Agreement, would have had significant value on or before October 2021, and was additional
consideration for the Settlement Agreement.
16.
Paragraph 2(e) of the Settlement Agreement reserved the right in AWH and SC to
re-file a Complaint to enforce its rights under the Stock Claim upon breach.
17.
Based on the breach, A WH and SC filed a Complaint to enforce its rights under the
Stock Claim in Richmond Circuit Court which is pending and is filed as CL 24-3910.
claimallegation
The response reports $1,444,543.11 deposited in Fairfax and $952,601.71 ordered paid to AWH as principal and Virginia fees. Its supplement s
The response reports $1,444,543.11 deposited in Fairfax and $952,601.71 ordered paid to AWH as principal and Virginia fees. Its supplement says remaining Texas collection fees have been satisfied and the Texas case non-suited, replacing the earlier collection-fee claim with $6 million principal, $25,250.50 attorney fees, $352.92 costs, $986.30 daily interest from February 5, 2026 and reasonable interpleader fees. The fixed components sum to $6,025,603.42.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 8 PagelD# 2768
18. Berleth, as part of his duties as Receiver, evaluated the Stock Claim advanced by
AWH and SC and compromised the figure with AWH and SC to a reduced liquidated figure of
$6,000,000.00, plus attorney fees and cost.
19. Berleth and AWH entered a Settlement Agreement (the "Receiver Agreement) to
be produced as Exhibit D.
20. The Receiver Agreement provided for entry of a Consent Judgment in CL 24-3910
which was entered by the Richmond Circuit Court on December 18, 2025, providing for
judgment in the principal amount of $6,000,000, attorney's fees of $25,250.50 costs, and 6%
interest from the date of judgment (the "Consent Order"). To be produced as Exhibit E.
21.
The Consent Order ratified the Settlement Agreement as valid, and further ruled
that the Order of Receivership had been properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without
objection.
22.
In Fairfax, HII, as garnishee had implead the sum of $1,444,543.11 based upon
AWH's garnishment referred to herein at paragraph 9.
23.
The Fairfax Court ordered the payment of $952,601.71 to AWH as principal and
attorney's fees for the Virginia judgment but ruled that it had no jurisdiction to determine fees
for collection activity outside of Virginia as provided by the Settlement Agreement.
24.
Accordingly, the claim advanced by AWH and SC against the Disputed Funds are
as follows:
Remaining collection fees in enforcing the Settlement Agreement in Texas, California and
at paragraph 19 of $938,884.88 Summary and Declarations produced as F.
Reasonable Attorney's fees necessitated by this Interpleader pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement at paragraph 19.
The Consent Judgment principal amount $6,000,000
$25,250.50 attorney fees
$352.92 costs
Per diem interest in the amount of 986.30/day beginning February 5, 2026.
claimallegation
The earlier amount paragraph includes $938,884.88 collection fees; the later unsupplemented fee answer still includes $938,884 non-Virginia
The earlier amount paragraph includes $938,884.88 collection fees; the later unsupplemented fee answer still includes $938,884 non-Virginia fees even though the supplement removes remaining Texas collection fees. The source does not reconcile any California component or residual fee claim. Do not add the earlier figure to the revised principal automatically.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 8 PagelD# 2768
18. Berleth, as part of his duties as Receiver, evaluated the Stock Claim advanced by
AWH and SC and compromised the figure with AWH and SC to a reduced liquidated figure of
$6,000,000.00, plus attorney fees and cost.
19. Berleth and AWH entered a Settlement Agreement (the "Receiver Agreement) to
be produced as Exhibit D.
20. The Receiver Agreement provided for entry of a Consent Judgment in CL 24-3910
which was entered by the Richmond Circuit Court on December 18, 2025, providing for
judgment in the principal amount of $6,000,000, attorney's fees of $25,250.50 costs, and 6%
interest from the date of judgment (the "Consent Order"). To be produced as Exhibit E.
21.
The Consent Order ratified the Settlement Agreement as valid, and further ruled
that the Order of Receivership had been properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without
objection.
22.
In Fairfax, HII, as garnishee had implead the sum of $1,444,543.11 based upon
AWH's garnishment referred to herein at paragraph 9.
23.
The Fairfax Court ordered the payment of $952,601.71 to AWH as principal and
attorney's fees for the Virginia judgment but ruled that it had no jurisdiction to determine fees
for collection activity outside of Virginia as provided by the Settlement Agreement.
24.
Accordingly, the claim advanced by AWH and SC against the Disputed Funds are
as follows:
Remaining collection fees in enforcing the Settlement Agreement in Texas, California and
at paragraph 19 of $938,884.88 Summary and Declarations produced as F.
Reasonable Attorney's fees necessitated by this Interpleader pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement at paragraph 19.
The Consent Judgment principal amount $6,000,000
$25,250.50 attorney fees
$352.92 costs
Per diem interest in the amount of 986.30/day beginning February 5, 2026.
claimallegation
Pages 5 and 7 date the stock consent judgment December 18, 2025, but page 6 visibly says liquidation December 18, 2023; the latter is preser
Pages 5 and 7 date the stock consent judgment December 18, 2025, but page 6 visibly says liquidation December 18, 2023; the latter is preserved as an internal date inconsistency. Page 5 reports 6% interest from judgment, while the revised schedule states $986.30 daily beginning February 5, 2026. That daily figure approximates 6% on $6 million over 365 days; the change in starting date requires the cited orders.
Read the anchor · page 5
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 5 of 8 PagelD# 2768
18. Berleth, as part of his duties as Receiver, evaluated the Stock Claim advanced by
AWH and SC and compromised the figure with AWH and SC to a reduced liquidated figure of
$6,000,000.00, plus attorney fees and cost.
19. Berleth and AWH entered a Settlement Agreement (the "Receiver Agreement) to
be produced as Exhibit D.
20. The Receiver Agreement provided for entry of a Consent Judgment in CL 24-3910
which was entered by the Richmond Circuit Court on December 18, 2025, providing for
judgment in the principal amount of $6,000,000, attorney's fees of $25,250.50 costs, and 6%
interest from the date of judgment (the "Consent Order"). To be produced as Exhibit E.
21.
The Consent Order ratified the Settlement Agreement as valid, and further ruled
that the Order of Receivership had been properly recorded in the City of Richmond, without
objection.
22.
In Fairfax, HII, as garnishee had implead the sum of $1,444,543.11 based upon
AWH's garnishment referred to herein at paragraph 9.
23.
The Fairfax Court ordered the payment of $952,601.71 to AWH as principal and
attorney's fees for the Virginia judgment but ruled that it had no jurisdiction to determine fees
for collection activity outside of Virginia as provided by the Settlement Agreement.
24.
Accordingly, the claim advanced by AWH and SC against the Disputed Funds are
as follows:
Remaining collection fees in enforcing the Settlement Agreement in Texas, California and
at paragraph 19 of $938,884.88 Summary and Declarations produced as F.
Reasonable Attorney's fees necessitated by this Interpleader pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement at paragraph 19.
The Consent Judgment principal amount $6,000,000
$25,250.50 attorney fees
$352.92 costs
Per diem interest in the amount of 986.30/day beginning February 5, 2026.
claimallegation
The response attributes the original advance to 2021 intellectual-property transfer and security consideration to settlement performance. It
The response attributes the original advance to 2021 intellectual-property transfer and security consideration to settlement performance. It references Exhibits A–G, including the Nevada UCC, but this eight-page file ends at counsel’s signature/certificate without those attachments. Original litigation numbers also vary: CL22-3882 on page 2 versus CL22-2882 on page 3.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 2765
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TEHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
V.
Case Number: 3:25cv483
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6
Comes now your Interpleader Defendants, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC, (jointly as "A WH") and in Response to Interpleader Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's (CYBLI) Interrogatory number 6 under the Joint Discovery Plan, hereby answers
as follows:
Interrogatory:
6(a). Explain the nature of your claim to any of the proceeds that are the subject of this
interpleader, including an explanation of (a) the amount of the proceeds that you claim;
1.
AWH is a Virginia limited liability company AWH is the sole owner of your Co
Interpleader Defendant, Secure Community, LLC (SCI). Accordingly, while each a party, AWH
and SC have the same claims and are not independent of one another seeking a double recovery.
2.
AWH and SC initiated a claim against CYBL and Mark Schmidt, individually, in
the Richmond Circuit Court as CL22-3882 based CYBL's breach of an acquisition agreement,
requiring CYBL to 1) pay AWH certain monetary sums and 2) to provide "Marketable Trading"
CYBL stock.
Following extended litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("the
Settlement Agreement") dated June 15, 2023, in which CYBL and Schmidt agreed inter alia to
make a series of payments to AWH and SC and, notably, to bring the CYBL stock marketable
by a certain date. The Settlement Agreement is produced as Exhibit A.
entityobservation
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 2765
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TEHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
V.
Case Number: 3:25cv483
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6
Comes now your Interpleader Defendants, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC, (jointly as "A WH") and in Response to Interpleader Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's (CYBLI) Interrogatory number 6 under the Joint Discovery Plan, hereby answers
as follows:
Interrogatory:
6(a). Explain the nature of your claim to any of the proceeds that are the subject of this
interpleader, including an explanation of (a) the amount of the proceeds that you claim;
1.
AWH is a Virginia limited liability company AWH is the sole owner of your Co
Interpleader Defendant, Secure Community, LLC (SCI). Accordingly, while each a party, AWH
and SC have the same claims and are not independent of one another seeking a double recovery.
2.
AWH and SC initiated a claim against CYBL and Mark Schmidt, individually, in
the Richmond Circuit Court as CL22-3882 based CYBL's breach of an acquisition agreement,
requiring CYBL to 1) pay AWH certain monetary sums and 2) to provide "Marketable Trading"
CYBL stock.
Following extended litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("the
Settlement Agreement") dated June 15, 2023, in which CYBL and Schmidt agreed inter alia to
make a series of payments to AWH and SC and, notably, to bring the CYBL stock marketable
by a certain date. The Settlement Agreement is produced as Exhibit A.
entityobservation
Secure Community, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 2765
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TEHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
V.
Case Number: 3:25cv483
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6
Comes now your Interpleader Defendants, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC, (jointly as "A WH") and in Response to Interpleader Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's (CYBLI) Interrogatory number 6 under the Joint Discovery Plan, hereby answers
as follows:
Interrogatory:
6(a). Explain the nature of your claim to any of the proceeds that are the subject of this
interpleader, including an explanation of (a) the amount of the proceeds that you claim;
1.
AWH is a Virginia limited liability company AWH is the sole owner of your Co
Interpleader Defendant, Secure Community, LLC (SCI). Accordingly, while each a party, AWH
and SC have the same claims and are not independent of one another seeking a double recovery.
2.
AWH and SC initiated a claim against CYBL and Mark Schmidt, individually, in
the Richmond Circuit Court as CL22-3882 based CYBL's breach of an acquisition agreement,
requiring CYBL to 1) pay AWH certain monetary sums and 2) to provide "Marketable Trading"
CYBL stock.
Following extended litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("the
Settlement Agreement") dated June 15, 2023, in which CYBL and Schmidt agreed inter alia to
make a series of payments to AWH and SC and, notably, to bring the CYBL stock marketable
by a certain date. The Settlement Agreement is produced as Exhibit A.
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 2765
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TEHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
V.
Case Number: 3:25cv483
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6
Comes now your Interpleader Defendants, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC, (jointly as "A WH") and in Response to Interpleader Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's (CYBLI) Interrogatory number 6 under the Joint Discovery Plan, hereby answers
as follows:
Interrogatory:
6(a). Explain the nature of your claim to any of the proceeds that are the subject of this
interpleader, including an explanation of (a) the amount of the proceeds that you claim;
1.
AWH is a Virginia limited liability company AWH is the sole owner of your Co
Interpleader Defendant, Secure Community, LLC (SCI). Accordingly, while each a party, AWH
and SC have the same claims and are not independent of one another seeking a double recovery.
2.
AWH and SC initiated a claim against CYBL and Mark Schmidt, individually, in
the Richmond Circuit Court as CL22-3882 based CYBL's breach of an acquisition agreement,
requiring CYBL to 1) pay AWH certain monetary sums and 2) to provide "Marketable Trading"
CYBL stock.
Following extended litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("the
Settlement Agreement") dated June 15, 2023, in which CYBL and Schmidt agreed inter alia to
make a series of payments to AWH and SC and, notably, to bring the CYBL stock marketable
by a certain date. The Settlement Agreement is produced as Exhibit A.
entityobservation
Robert Berleth
Read the anchor · page 4
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 8 PagelD# 2767
against CYBL as the judgment debtor and HII Mission Technologies Corp as Garnishee, as CL
2025-3413.
10. The Garnishment in Fairfax is referred to by HII as, in part, a basis for this
Interpleader. See First Amended Complaint, paragraphs 50-55.
11. AWH and SC also domesticated the Virginia judgment (CL22-3882) in Harris
County Texas where Cyberlux had a drone assembly facility.
12. Upon the domestication of the Virginia Judgment in Texas, Robert Berleth, Esquire was
appointed as a Receiver for Cyberlux by Order entered in Harris County TX in Cause No.
202448085. The Order of Receivership is attached as Exhibit 11 to the First Amended
Complaint.
13. The Order of Appointment granted broad powers to Berleth including the grant of
power over all causes of action. See First Amended Complaint, Exhibit 11, Order, Paragraph
25(1).
14. Meanwhile, CYBL also failed to provide "Marketable Trading" stock as required,
and as required by paragraph 2(e) of the Settlement Agreement (the "Stock Claim").
15.
CYBL stock, if it had been properly administered as required by the Settlement
Agreement, would have had significant value on or before October 2021, and was additional
consideration for the Settlement Agreement.
16.
Paragraph 2(e) of the Settlement Agreement reserved the right in AWH and SC to
re-file a Complaint to enforce its rights under the Stock Claim upon breach.
17.
Based on the breach, A WH and SC filed a Complaint to enforce its rights under the
Stock Claim in Richmond Circuit Court which is pending and is filed as CL 24-3910.
entityobservation
Charles A. Gavin
Read the anchor · page 8
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 8 of 8 PagelD# 2771
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE:
1.
See attached UCC lien filed March 20, 2026 in Nevada
iI.
See attached UCC lien filed March 20, 2026 in Nevada.
Respectfully Submitted
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC AND
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
BY:
Charles A. Gavin,
SB#3139
Gavin Law, PLC
14321 Winter Breeze Dr., Suite 136
Midlothian, Virginia 23113
(804) 606-7702
(804) 606-7704 Facsimile
cgavin@gavinlawplc.com
CERTIFICATE
I hereby certify that I have electronically filed and sent a copy of the foregoing to counsel
of record electronically through ECF this 24ại day of March, 2026.
Charles A. Gavin, VSB#31391
Gavin Law, PLC
14321 Winter Breeze Dr., Suite 136
Midlothian, Virginia 23113
(804) 606-7702
(804) 606-7704 Facsimile
cgavin@gavinlawplc.com
inferenceinference
The supplement materially narrows the debt presentation but leaves stale fee and date text in place. A usable claim ledger must preserve the
The supplement materially narrows the debt presentation but leaves stale fee and date text in place. A usable claim ledger must preserve the revised amount and flag the unreconciled residual passages rather than mechanically aggregate every number.
omissiongap
The cited settlement, UCC notices, judgments, fee declarations and reaffirmation order are absent from this file despite attachment referenc
The cited settlement, UCC notices, judgments, fee declarations and reaffirmation order are absent from this file despite attachment references.
Read the anchor · page 2
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10
Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 8 PagelD# 2765
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TEHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
V.
Case Number: 3:25cv483
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants.
SUPPLEMENTAL RESPONSE TO INTERROGATORY NUMBER 6
Comes now your Interpleader Defendants, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure
Community, LLC, (jointly as "A WH") and in Response to Interpleader Defendant Cyberlux
Corporation's (CYBLI) Interrogatory number 6 under the Joint Discovery Plan, hereby answers
as follows:
Interrogatory:
6(a). Explain the nature of your claim to any of the proceeds that are the subject of this
interpleader, including an explanation of (a) the amount of the proceeds that you claim;
1.
AWH is a Virginia limited liability company AWH is the sole owner of your Co
Interpleader Defendant, Secure Community, LLC (SCI). Accordingly, while each a party, AWH
and SC have the same claims and are not independent of one another seeking a double recovery.
2.
AWH and SC initiated a claim against CYBL and Mark Schmidt, individually, in
the Richmond Circuit Court as CL22-3882 based CYBL's breach of an acquisition agreement,
requiring CYBL to 1) pay AWH certain monetary sums and 2) to provide "Marketable Trading"
CYBL stock.
Following extended litigation, the parties entered into a settlement agreement ("the
Settlement Agreement") dated June 15, 2023, in which CYBL and Schmidt agreed inter alia to
make a series of payments to AWH and SC and, notably, to bring the CYBL stock marketable
by a certain date. The Settlement Agreement is produced as Exhibit A.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 8-page source reviewed at SHA-256 7dafaf04346327a5d0039536d975c34663ac1c59e1d907aff44c5bcb83452289. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 8-page source reviewed at SHA-256 7dafaf04346327a5d0039536d975c34663ac1c59e1d907aff44c5bcb83452289. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Exact version_96c32387c5c04ba7add48b9a77da3da8; SHA256 7dafaf04346327a5d0039536d975c34663ac1c59e1d907aff44c5bcb83452289. All eight pages read; revised figures, signature and date inconsistency visually checked. Source typos and original extraction preserved.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 8
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-10 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 2764
questionquestion
Which consent and reaffirmation orders, payment records and fee reconciliation establish the remaining principal, interest start, residual f
Which consent and reaffirmation orders, payment records and fee reconciliation establish the remaining principal, interest start, residual fees and priority?
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.
The response reports $1,444,543.11 deposited in Fairfax and $952,601.71 ordered paid to AWH as principal and Virginia fees. Its supplement says remaining Texas collection fees have been satisfied and the Texas case non-suited, replacing the earlier collection-fee claim with $6 million principal, $25,250.50 attorney fees, $352.92 costs, $986.30 daily interest from February 5, 2026 and reasonable interpleader fees. The fixed components sum to $6,025,603.42.supportsThe table labels confessed-judgment claimants secured October23,2025: WeShield$3,905,541.64, Roman$576,436.03, MAS$215,062.95 and Sinensky$310,097.79. It labels ANPC secured October24,2025 but prints malformed amount$3,087,878,86; intended decimal punctuation requires the primary claim. Atlantic Wave / Secured Community is labelled secured March20,2026 for$6,025,603.42; the source spelling Secured is retained rather than silently replacing it with Secure.
Revised fixed components equal table amount $6,025,603.42; table classification/date is separate from claimant July2023 priority assertion.
Claimants state Berleth used receiver authority to compromise the stock claim at $6 million plus fees and costs, and report a December 18, 2025 consent judgment and later reaffirmation. They describe consent-order validation of settlement and recording of receiver authority. Those orders and agreements are cited but not reproduced here.supportsThe possession and access provisions encompass nonexempt property, IP, records, accounts, contract rights and receivables. They permit access to premises, changing locks, reasonable destructive entry and property surveillance, and disabling or removing property. The same text disclaims specified maintenance, insurance, lease and tax duties unless specifically ordered. Authority to act does not establish an actual entry, seizure or ownership determination.
Order includes causes-of-action control; that text alone does not validate this particular compromise or later judgment.
The stock reservation permits plaintiffs at their discretion to file a new complaint if Pink Current status and removal of Caveat Emptor restriction are not achieved by December 31, 2023, without res judicata or collateral-estoppel defence. Plaintiffs must consider extension on credible evidence of delay without fault, with period at their reasonable discretion. This preserves a remedy; it is not a guaranteed stock valuation or automatic damages award.supportsClaimants state Berleth used receiver authority to compromise the stock claim at $6 million plus fees and costs, and report a December 18, 2025 consent judgment and later reaffirmation. They describe consent-order validation of settlement and recording of receiver authority. Those orders and agreements are cited but not reproduced here.
Stock-remedy reservation supplies underlying contractual context, not proof of later settlement authority or $6m damages.
Claimants state Berleth used receiver authority to compromise the stock claim at $6 million plus fees and costs, and report a December 18, 2025 consent judgment and later reaffirmation. They describe consent-order validation of settlement and recording of receiver authority. Those orders and agreements are cited but not reproduced here.supportsThe cited settlement, UCC notices, judgments, fee declarations and reaffirmation order are absent from this file despite attachment references.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Pages 5 and 7 date the stock consent judgment December 18, 2025, but page 6 visibly says liquidation December 18, 2023; the latter is preserved as an internal date inconsistency. Page 5 reports 6% interest from judgment, while the revised schedule states $986.30 daily beginning February 5, 2026. That daily figure approximates 6% on $6 million over 365 days; the change in starting date requires the cited orders.supportsWhat is the revised fixed claim before accruing interest and interpleader fees?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The response traces the claim to a 2021 acquisition, June 15, 2023 settlement, HII-related acceleration and all-assets security provision, and a June 28, 2023 $1,572,500 judgment. It reports filings in North Carolina, Virginia and Texas on July 6, 2023, California October 20, 2023 and Nevada March 20, 2026. It asserts July 6, 2023 priority, rather than proving it through attached instruments.supportsWhich consent and reaffirmation orders, payment records and fee reconciliation establish the remaining principal, interest start, residual fees and priority?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The earlier amount paragraph includes $938,884.88 collection fees; the later unsupplemented fee answer still includes $938,884 non-Virginia fees even though the supplement removes remaining Texas collection fees. The source does not reconcile any California component or residual fee claim. Do not add the earlier figure to the revised principal automatically.supportsWhich consent and reaffirmation orders, payment records and fee reconciliation establish the remaining principal, interest start, residual fees and priority?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Pages 5 and 7 date the stock consent judgment December 18, 2025, but page 6 visibly says liquidation December 18, 2023; the latter is preserved as an internal date inconsistency. Page 5 reports 6% interest from judgment, while the revised schedule states $986.30 daily beginning February 5, 2026. That daily figure approximates 6% on $6 million over 365 days; the change in starting date requires the cited orders.supportsWhich consent and reaffirmation orders, payment records and fee reconciliation establish the remaining principal, interest start, residual fees and priority?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The earlier amount paragraph includes $938,884.88 collection fees; the later unsupplemented fee answer still includes $938,884 non-Virginia fees even though the supplement removes remaining Texas collection fees. The source does not reconcile any California component or residual fee claim. Do not add the earlier figure to the revised principal automatically.supportsWhat is the revised fixed claim before accruing interest and interpleader fees?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The response reports $1,444,543.11 deposited in Fairfax and $952,601.71 ordered paid to AWH as principal and Virginia fees. Its supplement says remaining Texas collection fees have been satisfied and the Texas case non-suited, replacing the earlier collection-fee claim with $6 million principal, $25,250.50 attorney fees, $352.92 costs, $986.30 daily interest from February 5, 2026 and reasonable interpleader fees. The fixed components sum to $6,025,603.42.supportsThe supplement materially narrows the debt presentation but leaves stale fee and date text in place. A usable claim ledger must preserve the revised amount and flag the unreconciled residual passages rather than mechanically aggregate every number.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The response traces the claim to a 2021 acquisition, June 15, 2023 settlement, HII-related acceleration and all-assets security provision, and a June 28, 2023 $1,572,500 judgment. It reports filings in North Carolina, Virginia and Texas on July 6, 2023, California October 20, 2023 and Nevada March 20, 2026. It asserts July 6, 2023 priority, rather than proving it through attached instruments.supportsThe cited settlement, UCC notices, judgments, fee declarations and reaffirmation order are absent from this file despite attachment references.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Pages 5 and 7 date the stock consent judgment December 18, 2025, but page 6 visibly says liquidation December 18, 2023; the latter is preserved as an internal date inconsistency. Page 5 reports 6% interest from judgment, while the revised schedule states $986.30 daily beginning February 5, 2026. That daily figure approximates 6% on $6 million over 365 days; the change in starting date requires the cited orders.supportsThe supplement materially narrows the debt presentation but leaves stale fee and date text in place. A usable claim ledger must preserve the revised amount and flag the unreconciled residual passages rather than mechanically aggregate every number.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The response attributes the original advance to 2021 intellectual-property transfer and security consideration to settlement performance. It references Exhibits A–G, including the Nevada UCC, but this eight-page file ends at counsel’s signature/certificate without those attachments. Original litigation numbers also vary: CL22-3882 on page 2 versus CL22-2882 on page 3.supportsThe cited settlement, UCC notices, judgments, fee declarations and reaffirmation order are absent from this file despite attachment references.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The earlier amount paragraph includes $938,884.88 collection fees; the later unsupplemented fee answer still includes $938,884 non-Virginia fees even though the supplement removes remaining Texas collection fees. The source does not reconcile any California component or residual fee claim. Do not add the earlier figure to the revised principal automatically.supportsThe supplement materially narrows the debt presentation but leaves stale fee and date text in place. A usable claim ledger must preserve the revised amount and flag the unreconciled residual passages rather than mechanically aggregate every number.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Claimants state Berleth used receiver authority to compromise the stock claim at $6 million plus fees and costs, and report a December 18, 2025 consent judgment and later reaffirmation. They describe consent-order validation of settlement and recording of receiver authority. Those orders and agreements are cited but not reproduced here.supportsWhich consent and reaffirmation orders, payment records and fee reconciliation establish the remaining principal, interest start, residual fees and priority?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The response reports $1,444,543.11 deposited in Fairfax and $952,601.71 ordered paid to AWH as principal and Virginia fees. Its supplement says remaining Texas collection fees have been satisfied and the Texas case non-suited, replacing the earlier collection-fee claim with $6 million principal, $25,250.50 attorney fees, $352.92 costs, $986.30 daily interest from February 5, 2026 and reasonable interpleader fees. The fixed components sum to $6,025,603.42.supportsWhich consent and reaffirmation orders, payment records and fee reconciliation establish the remaining principal, interest start, residual fees and priority?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The response reports $1,444,543.11 deposited in Fairfax and $952,601.71 ordered paid to AWH as principal and Virginia fees. Its supplement says remaining Texas collection fees have been satisfied and the Texas case non-suited, replacing the earlier collection-fee claim with $6 million principal, $25,250.50 attorney fees, $352.92 costs, $986.30 daily interest from February 5, 2026 and reasonable interpleader fees. The fixed components sum to $6,025,603.42.supportsWhat is the revised fixed claim before accruing interest and interpleader fees?
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.