Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
quotationattribution
Defendants expressly relinquish challenges to the specified $873,849.02 fee disbursement within the stated legal limit.
Read the anchor · page 4
3
in two pending Virginia actions: (1) Case No. CL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, pending in
the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia (“Stock Case”); and (2) Case
No. 3:25-cv-00483, HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corp., et al., pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division,
(“Interpleader Action”).
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 31.002(e), Plaintiffs, as the
judgment-creditors, are “entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees” for
their efforts to obtain turnover relief in this Texas enforcement action. The Parties stipulate
that Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable under Section 31.002(e)
are $873,849.02.1
The Receivership Order provides that “Receiver’s fees and expenses are considered
costs of court” and the fee is “equal to 25% of … all recoveries and credits against the
[Underlying Judgment].” The Parties stipulate that Receiver’s fees and expenses are
$218,462.30—that is, 25% of the $873,849.02 recovery against the Underlying Judgment
to Plaintiffs.
The Parties therefore respectfully ask that this Court: (1) order Receiver to disburse
$873,849.02 to Plaintiffs within two business days of entry of this Court’s order; (2) permit
Receiver to retain $218,462.30, representing Receiver’s recoverable fees and expenses;
and (3) release $1,991,328.43 to Legalist SPV III, LP within two business days of entry of
the Court’s order. Furthermore, the Parties ask the Court to order Receiver to provide notice
1 Defendants waive and forever relinquish any right for reconsideration, appeal, or
bankruptcy relief on the disbursement of $873,849.02 in attorneys’ fees and costs to
Plaintiffs, as allowed to the fullest extent by law.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID#
2853
claimallegation
Federal Exhibit17 filed April15,2026 as EDVA175-19 contains a February26 joint motion and proposed order in Texas cause2024-48085. Pages6/10
Federal Exhibit17 filed April15,2026 as EDVA175-19 contains a February26 joint motion and proposed order in Texas cause2024-48085. Pages6/10 display William Welter signatures for both creditors, Mark D. Schmidt signatures for Cyberlux and himself, James Sadigh and Elizabeth G. Myers signatures. Page6 bears Alexander J. Pennetti’s /s/ service certification for February25, one day before the motion’s printed date. The proposed judge signature line on page9 is blank.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 17
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID#
2850
claimallegation
The motion recounts a June23,2023 Virginia $1,572,500 principal judgment, partial payments and May22,2025 Texas receivership. It says Novemb
The motion recounts a June23,2023 Virginia $1,572,500 principal judgment, partial payments and May22,2025 Texas receivership. It says November2025 Virginia payment was $1,140,004.66 but its listed components $952,601.71 and $187,399.95 total $1,140,001.66, a $3 discrepancy. The source leaves Texas enforcement costs outstanding.
Read the anchor · page 2
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditor §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
JOINT MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS, FOR SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, AND TO DISSOLVE RECEIVERSHIP
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC (“ Plaintiffs”) and Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Defendants”)
(collectively, the “Parties”), and file this Joint Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion for
Release of Funds, for Satisfaction of Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership. In support
thereof, the Parties state:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On June 23, 2023, a Virginia court presiding over Case No. CL22-3882-4,
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and
Mark D. Schmidt, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, entered
a judgment (“Underlying Judgment”) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, in the
principal sum of $1,572,500.00.
2. Following entry of the Underlying Judgment, Defendants made certain
partial payments towards the balance due on the Underlying Judgment.
3. On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Enforce the Underlying
Judgment in this Court, initiating this enforcement and collection action.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID#
2851
claimallegation
The parties expressly resolve remaining disputes in this Texas enforcement action only. They exclude the Virginia Stock Case CL24-3910 and f
The parties expressly resolve remaining disputes in this Texas enforcement action only. They exclude the Virginia Stock Case CL24-3910 and federal interpleader3:25-cv-00483 from the joint motion’s resolution. Its settlement language is not an omnibus resolution of those separate disputes.
Read the anchor · page 3
2
4. On May 22, 2025, pursuant to Section 31.002(b)(3) of the Texas Civil
Practice & Remedies Code, this Court appointed Robert W. Berleth (“Receiver”) “to take
possession of [Cyberlux] property, sell it, and pay the proceeds to [Plaintiffs] to the extent
required to satisfy the judgment.” The Receivership Order entitled Plaintiffs “to collect
post-judgment attorneys’ fees under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 31.002(e).”
5. On November 14, 2025, a Virginia court presiding over Case No. CL-2025-
3413, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation,
in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, State of Virginia, entered a final order (“Final
Order”) which, among other things, ordered the clerk of that court to disburse
(1) $952,601.71, representing the principal balance owed on the Underlying Judgment; and
(2) $187,399.95, representing Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in
the Virginia state court proceedings only. On November 18, 2025, $1,140,004.66 was
disbursed to Plaintiffs pursuant to the Final Order. The Final Order did not determine the
reasonable post-judgment attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in the
enforcement and collection of the Underlying Judgment in Texas.
6. On January 6, 2026, Plaintiffs filed their updated Second Amended Motion
for Distribution of Funds in this action seeking recovery of $873,849.02, representing the
updated reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiffs in the enforcement and
collection of the Underlying Judgment in Texas. Plaintiffs therein requested that the
$873,849.02 be paid from the $3,083,639.75 in non-exempt funds currently held by
Receiver under the Receivership Order.
II. ARGUMENT
This joint motion resolves all remaining disputes between Plaintiffs and Defendants
in this Texas enforcement action. This joint motion does not resolve the Parties’ disputes
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 10 PageID#
2852
claimallegation
The proposed allocation of $3,083,639.75 is $873,849.02 to the two judgment creditors, $218,462.30 to the receiver and $1,991,328.43 to Lega
The proposed allocation of $3,083,639.75 is $873,849.02 to the two judgment creditors, $218,462.30 to the receiver and $1,991,328.43 to Legalist. These three amounts sum exactly. The receiver figure is called25% of $873,849.02, whose exact quarter is $218,462.255; the displayed fee is4.5cents higher. The source does not explain this small percentage rounding difference.
Read the anchor · page 4
3
in two pending Virginia actions: (1) Case No. CL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, pending in
the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia (“Stock Case”); and (2) Case
No. 3:25-cv-00483, HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corp., et al., pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division,
(“Interpleader Action”).
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 31.002(e), Plaintiffs, as the
judgment-creditors, are “entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees” for
their efforts to obtain turnover relief in this Texas enforcement action. The Parties stipulate
that Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable under Section 31.002(e)
are $873,849.02.1
The Receivership Order provides that “Receiver’s fees and expenses are considered
costs of court” and the fee is “equal to 25% of … all recoveries and credits against the
[Underlying Judgment].” The Parties stipulate that Receiver’s fees and expenses are
$218,462.30—that is, 25% of the $873,849.02 recovery against the Underlying Judgment
to Plaintiffs.
The Parties therefore respectfully ask that this Court: (1) order Receiver to disburse
$873,849.02 to Plaintiffs within two business days of entry of this Court’s order; (2) permit
Receiver to retain $218,462.30, representing Receiver’s recoverable fees and expenses;
and (3) release $1,991,328.43 to Legalist SPV III, LP within two business days of entry of
the Court’s order. Furthermore, the Parties ask the Court to order Receiver to provide notice
1 Defendants waive and forever relinquish any right for reconsideration, appeal, or
bankruptcy relief on the disbursement of $873,849.02 in attorneys’ fees and costs to
Plaintiffs, as allowed to the fullest extent by law.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID#
2853
claimallegation
The parties ask for creditor and Legalist disbursement within two business days of a court order, together with documentation. Satisfaction
The parties ask for creditor and Legalist disbursement within two business days of a court order, together with documentation. Satisfaction and closure are requested upon the creditors’ receipt of $873,849.02; dismissal of Texas actions and termination of the receivership are tied to satisfaction. These requests and conditions do not establish completed transfers or an effective discharge.
Read the anchor · page 4
3
in two pending Virginia actions: (1) Case No. CL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, pending in
the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia (“Stock Case”); and (2) Case
No. 3:25-cv-00483, HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corp., et al., pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division,
(“Interpleader Action”).
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 31.002(e), Plaintiffs, as the
judgment-creditors, are “entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees” for
their efforts to obtain turnover relief in this Texas enforcement action. The Parties stipulate
that Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable under Section 31.002(e)
are $873,849.02.1
The Receivership Order provides that “Receiver’s fees and expenses are considered
costs of court” and the fee is “equal to 25% of … all recoveries and credits against the
[Underlying Judgment].” The Parties stipulate that Receiver’s fees and expenses are
$218,462.30—that is, 25% of the $873,849.02 recovery against the Underlying Judgment
to Plaintiffs.
The Parties therefore respectfully ask that this Court: (1) order Receiver to disburse
$873,849.02 to Plaintiffs within two business days of entry of this Court’s order; (2) permit
Receiver to retain $218,462.30, representing Receiver’s recoverable fees and expenses;
and (3) release $1,991,328.43 to Legalist SPV III, LP within two business days of entry of
the Court’s order. Furthermore, the Parties ask the Court to order Receiver to provide notice
1 Defendants waive and forever relinquish any right for reconsideration, appeal, or
bankruptcy relief on the disbursement of $873,849.02 in attorneys’ fees and costs to
Plaintiffs, as allowed to the fullest extent by law.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID#
2853
claimallegation
Footnote1 states defendants waive and forever relinquish reconsideration, appeal or bankruptcy relief on the $873,849.02 attorneys’ fee/cost
Footnote1 states defendants waive and forever relinquish reconsideration, appeal or bankruptcy relief on the $873,849.02 attorneys’ fee/cost disbursement to plaintiffs, to the fullest extent allowed by law. This is a narrowly stated waiver in the signed party agreement, not a ruling that every possible waiver is enforceable or that other disputes are released.
Read the anchor · page 4
3
in two pending Virginia actions: (1) Case No. CL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, pending in
the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia (“Stock Case”); and (2) Case
No. 3:25-cv-00483, HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corp., et al., pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division,
(“Interpleader Action”).
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 31.002(e), Plaintiffs, as the
judgment-creditors, are “entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees” for
their efforts to obtain turnover relief in this Texas enforcement action. The Parties stipulate
that Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable under Section 31.002(e)
are $873,849.02.1
The Receivership Order provides that “Receiver’s fees and expenses are considered
costs of court” and the fee is “equal to 25% of … all recoveries and credits against the
[Underlying Judgment].” The Parties stipulate that Receiver’s fees and expenses are
$218,462.30—that is, 25% of the $873,849.02 recovery against the Underlying Judgment
to Plaintiffs.
The Parties therefore respectfully ask that this Court: (1) order Receiver to disburse
$873,849.02 to Plaintiffs within two business days of entry of this Court’s order; (2) permit
Receiver to retain $218,462.30, representing Receiver’s recoverable fees and expenses;
and (3) release $1,991,328.43 to Legalist SPV III, LP within two business days of entry of
the Court’s order. Furthermore, the Parties ask the Court to order Receiver to provide notice
1 Defendants waive and forever relinquish any right for reconsideration, appeal, or
bankruptcy relief on the disbursement of $873,849.02 in attorneys’ fees and costs to
Plaintiffs, as allowed to the fullest extent by law.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID#
2853
claimallegation
The unsigned proposed order would find the fees recoverable, direct the three-way distribution, discharge the receiver and terminate the rec
The unsigned proposed order would find the fees recoverable, direct the three-way distribution, discharge the receiver and terminate the receivership. It also would stay other pending matters until reasonableness of receiver fees and expenses is determined, despite earlier stated findings allowing those fees. Both pieces of proposed text remain visible; neither is promoted to an issued order.
Read the anchor · page 7
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditor §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER ON JOINT MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS, FOR SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, AND TO DISSOLVE RECEIVERSHIP
BEFORE THE COURT IS the Joint Motion for Release of Funds, for Satisfaction of
Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership filed by Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and
Secure Community, LLC (“Plaintiffs”) and Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
(“Defendants”) (collectively, the “Parties”).
UPON CONSIDERATION of the pleadings, evidence, argument of counsel, consent of
the Parties, and for good cause shown, the Court:
FINDS THAT the disbursement of funds by the Circuit Court of Fairfax County, Virginia
under the terms of the Final Order in Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC
v. Cyberlux Corporation, Case No. CL-2025-3413 was made towards satisfaction of the judgment
underlying this enforcement action (“Underlying Judgment”).
FINDS THAT Plaintiffs are entitled to $873,849.02, which represents the reasonable costs
and attorneys’ fees to which Plaintiffs are entitled, including under Texas Civil Practice and
Remedies Code § 31.002(e), for their efforts to enforce the Underlying Judgment.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 7 of 10 PageID#
2856
claimallegation
Signature images identify assent to form and substance, including corporate and individual Schmidt roles. The repeated DocuSign envelope lab
Signature images identify assent to form and substance, including corporate and individual Schmidt roles. The repeated DocuSign envelope label and signature appearances do not independently verify certificate timing or cryptographic validity; no completion certificate accompanies this file.
Read the anchor · page 6
5
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
________________________________
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
________________________________
Secure Community, LLC
James Sadigh
Texas Bar No. 24129140
jamessadigh@aol.com
JAMES K. SADIGH, ATTORNEY AT
LAW
9777 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel. (310) 747-5919
David A. Walton
Texas Bar No. 24042120
dwalton@bellnunnally.com
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP
2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel. (214) 740-1445
Fax (214) 740-5745
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave
Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC
________________________________
Cyberlux Corporation
________________________________
Mark D. Schmidt
Elizabeth G. Myers
Texas Bar No. 24047767
emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
Douglas S. Lang
Texas Bar No. 11895500
dlang@thompsoncoburn.com
Alexander J. Pennetti
Texas Bar No. 24110208
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel. (972) 629-7100
Fax (972) 629-7171
Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all
counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on February 25, 2026.
/s/
Alexander J. Pennetti
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID#
2855
[Visual signature transcription: William Welter signs for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC; Mark D. Schmidt signs for Cyberlux Corporation and individually; James Sadigh and Elizabeth G. Myers signatures appear; /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti appears on service certificate.]
otherattribution
Parties agree promptly to dismiss Texas actions involving them upon satisfaction of the underlying judgment; this does not extend to express
Parties agree promptly to dismiss Texas actions involving them upon satisfaction of the underlying judgment; this does not extend to expressly excluded Virginia disputes.
Read the anchor · page 4
3
in two pending Virginia actions: (1) Case No. CL24-3910, Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt, pending in
the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia (“Stock Case”); and (2) Case
No. 3:25-cv-00483, HII Mission Technologies Corp. v. Cyberlux Corp., et al., pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Richmond Division,
(“Interpleader Action”).
Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section 31.002(e), Plaintiffs, as the
judgment-creditors, are “entitled to recover reasonable costs, including attorney’s fees” for
their efforts to obtain turnover relief in this Texas enforcement action. The Parties stipulate
that Plaintiffs’ reasonable costs and attorneys’ fees recoverable under Section 31.002(e)
are $873,849.02.1
The Receivership Order provides that “Receiver’s fees and expenses are considered
costs of court” and the fee is “equal to 25% of … all recoveries and credits against the
[Underlying Judgment].” The Parties stipulate that Receiver’s fees and expenses are
$218,462.30—that is, 25% of the $873,849.02 recovery against the Underlying Judgment
to Plaintiffs.
The Parties therefore respectfully ask that this Court: (1) order Receiver to disburse
$873,849.02 to Plaintiffs within two business days of entry of this Court’s order; (2) permit
Receiver to retain $218,462.30, representing Receiver’s recoverable fees and expenses;
and (3) release $1,991,328.43 to Legalist SPV III, LP within two business days of entry of
the Court’s order. Furthermore, the Parties ask the Court to order Receiver to provide notice
1 Defendants waive and forever relinquish any right for reconsideration, appeal, or
bankruptcy relief on the disbursement of $873,849.02 in attorneys’ fees and costs to
Plaintiffs, as allowed to the fullest extent by law.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 10 PageID#
2853
entityobservation
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditor §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
JOINT MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS, FOR SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, AND TO DISSOLVE RECEIVERSHIP
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC (“ Plaintiffs”) and Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Defendants”)
(collectively, the “Parties”), and file this Joint Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion for
Release of Funds, for Satisfaction of Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership. In support
thereof, the Parties state:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On June 23, 2023, a Virginia court presiding over Case No. CL22-3882-4,
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and
Mark D. Schmidt, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, entered
a judgment (“Underlying Judgment”) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, in the
principal sum of $1,572,500.00.
2. Following entry of the Underlying Judgment, Defendants made certain
partial payments towards the balance due on the Underlying Judgment.
3. On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Enforce the Underlying
Judgment in this Court, initiating this enforcement and collection action.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID#
2851
entityobservation
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC
Read the anchor · page 2
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditor §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
JOINT MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS, FOR SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, AND TO DISSOLVE RECEIVERSHIP
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC (“ Plaintiffs”) and Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Defendants”)
(collectively, the “Parties”), and file this Joint Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion for
Release of Funds, for Satisfaction of Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership. In support
thereof, the Parties state:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On June 23, 2023, a Virginia court presiding over Case No. CL22-3882-4,
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and
Mark D. Schmidt, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, entered
a judgment (“Underlying Judgment”) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, in the
principal sum of $1,572,500.00.
2. Following entry of the Underlying Judgment, Defendants made certain
partial payments towards the balance due on the Underlying Judgment.
3. On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Enforce the Underlying
Judgment in this Court, initiating this enforcement and collection action.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID#
2851
entityobservation
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
Read the anchor · page 2
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditor §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
JOINT MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS, FOR SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, AND TO DISSOLVE RECEIVERSHIP
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC (“ Plaintiffs”) and Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Defendants”)
(collectively, the “Parties”), and file this Joint Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion for
Release of Funds, for Satisfaction of Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership. In support
thereof, the Parties state:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On June 23, 2023, a Virginia court presiding over Case No. CL22-3882-4,
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and
Mark D. Schmidt, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, entered
a judgment (“Underlying Judgment”) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, in the
principal sum of $1,572,500.00.
2. Following entry of the Underlying Judgment, Defendants made certain
partial payments towards the balance due on the Underlying Judgment.
3. On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Enforce the Underlying
Judgment in this Court, initiating this enforcement and collection action.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID#
2851
entityobservation
MARK D. SCHMIDT
Read the anchor · page 2
1
CAUSE NO. 2024-48085
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC § IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
and SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, §
§
Plaintiffs/Judgment-Creditor §
§
v. § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
§
CYBERLUX CORPORATION and §
MARK D. SCHMIDT, Individually, §
§
Defendant/Judgment Debtors. § 129TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS’ AND DEFENDANTS’ JOINT NOTICE OF SETTLEMENT AND
JOINT MOTION FOR RELEASE OF FUNDS, FOR SATISFACTION OF
JUDGMENT, AND TO DISSOLVE RECEIVERSHIP
COME NOW, Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC (“ Plaintiffs”) and Cyberlux Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt (“Defendants”)
(collectively, the “Parties”), and file this Joint Notice of Settlement and Joint Motion for
Release of Funds, for Satisfaction of Judgment, and to Dissolve Receivership. In support
thereof, the Parties state:
I. INTRODUCTION
1. On June 23, 2023, a Virginia court presiding over Case No. CL22-3882-4,
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC v. Cyberlux Corporation and
Mark D. Schmidt, in the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond, State of Virginia, entered
a judgment (“Underlying Judgment”) in favor of Plaintiffs and against Defendants, in the
principal sum of $1,572,500.00.
2. Following entry of the Underlying Judgment, Defendants made certain
partial payments towards the balance due on the Underlying Judgment.
3. On July 30, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Petition to Enforce the Underlying
Judgment in this Court, initiating this enforcement and collection action.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 10 PageID#
2851
entityobservation
James Sadigh
Read the anchor · page 6
5
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
________________________________
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
________________________________
Secure Community, LLC
James Sadigh
Texas Bar No. 24129140
jamessadigh@aol.com
JAMES K. SADIGH, ATTORNEY AT
LAW
9777 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel. (310) 747-5919
David A. Walton
Texas Bar No. 24042120
dwalton@bellnunnally.com
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP
2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel. (214) 740-1445
Fax (214) 740-5745
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave
Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC
________________________________
Cyberlux Corporation
________________________________
Mark D. Schmidt
Elizabeth G. Myers
Texas Bar No. 24047767
emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
Douglas S. Lang
Texas Bar No. 11895500
dlang@thompsoncoburn.com
Alexander J. Pennetti
Texas Bar No. 24110208
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel. (972) 629-7100
Fax (972) 629-7171
Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all
counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on February 25, 2026.
/s/
Alexander J. Pennetti
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID#
2855
[Visual signature transcription: William Welter signs for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC; Mark D. Schmidt signs for Cyberlux Corporation and individually; James Sadigh and Elizabeth G. Myers signatures appear; /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti appears on service certificate.]
entityobservation
Elizabeth G. Myers
Read the anchor · page 6
5
AGREED AS TO FORM AND SUBSTANCE:
________________________________
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
________________________________
Secure Community, LLC
James Sadigh
Texas Bar No. 24129140
jamessadigh@aol.com
JAMES K. SADIGH, ATTORNEY AT
LAW
9777 Wilshire Blvd, Ste 400
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Tel. (310) 747-5919
David A. Walton
Texas Bar No. 24042120
dwalton@bellnunnally.com
BELL NUNNALLY & MARTIN LLP
2323 Ross Avenue, Suite 1900
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel. (214) 740-1445
Fax (214) 740-5745
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Atlantic Wave
Holdings, LLC, and Secure Community,
LLC
________________________________
Cyberlux Corporation
________________________________
Mark D. Schmidt
Elizabeth G. Myers
Texas Bar No. 24047767
emyers@thompsoncoburn.com
Douglas S. Lang
Texas Bar No. 11895500
dlang@thompsoncoburn.com
Alexander J. Pennetti
Texas Bar No. 24110208
apennetti@thompsoncoburn.com
THOMPSON COBURN LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 3200
Dallas, TX 75201
Tel. (972) 629-7100
Fax (972) 629-7171
Attorneys for Defendants Cyberlux
Corporation and Mark D. Schmidt
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument was served on all
counsel pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure on February 25, 2026.
/s/
Alexander J. Pennetti
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 10 PageID#
2855
[Visual signature transcription: William Welter signs for Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC; Mark D. Schmidt signs for Cyberlux Corporation and individually; James Sadigh and Elizabeth G. Myers signatures appear; /s/ Alexander J. Pennetti appears on service certificate.]
inferenceinference
Party assent supports the requested settlement arrangement but the blank judicial line prevents this copy from establishing receivership ter
Party assent supports the requested settlement arrangement but the blank judicial line prevents this copy from establishing receivership termination.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 10-page source reviewed at SHA-256 82382b29595b40b8f12cbd72fec3ac408c129cd3fe4dba504c36d3c85d667773. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 10-page source reviewed at SHA-256 82382b29595b40b8f12cbd72fec3ac408c129cd3fe4dba504c36d3c85d667773. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Exact version_be62aa36fcbc4292babe169c227c48a8; SHA256 82382b29595b40b8f12cbd72fec3ac408c129cd3fe4dba504c36d3c85d667773. All10pages read; material signature, conditions, allocation and blank judicial-line images checked. Signature-image text expressly supplemented while original extraction retained.
Read the anchor · page 1
EXHIBIT 17
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 175-19 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 10 PageID#
2850
questionquestion
What signed order and disbursement records establish which proposed terms were granted, when funds arrived and whether satisfaction or disch
What signed order and disbursement records establish which proposed terms were granted, when funds arrived and whether satisfaction or discharge occurred?
questionquestion
How do the actual Virginia receipt and fee calculation reconcile the $3 payment-component discrepancy and receiver percentage rounding?
distillateallegation
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 parties ask for creditor and Legalist disbursement within two business days of a court order, together with documentation. Satisfaction and closure are requested upon the creditors’ receipt of $873,849.02; dismissal of Texas actions and termination of the receivership are tied to satisfaction. These requests and conditions do not establish completed transfers or an effective discharge.referencesThe order grants the judgment creditors’ second amended distribution motion and directs Robert W. Berleth and Berleth & Associates, PLLC to disburse $873,849.02 from non-exempt funds held under the receivership order to Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC within two business days of signing. The exact instruction is a creditor disbursement, not merely a court deposit.
Later signed distribution order commands the same creditor sum; it must be read for its own scope rather than treated as adopting this entire proposed three-way allocation and discharge.
The parties expressly resolve remaining disputes in this Texas enforcement action only. They exclude the Virginia Stock Case CL24-3910 and federal interpleader3:25-cv-00483 from the joint motion’s resolution. Its settlement language is not an omnibus resolution of those separate disputes.referencesThe order dismisses Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community LLC’s claims to collect and enforce the underlying judgment in this proceeding against Cyberlux Corporation and Mark Schmidt. Its express scope is this collection/enforcement proceeding; it does not say the underlying judgment is vacated, identify a settlement release, or declare all debt paid.
Later nonsuit dismisses this enforcement proceeding, not the expressly excluded disputes.
The unsigned proposed order would find the fees recoverable, direct the three-way distribution, discharge the receiver and terminate the receivership. It also would stay other pending matters until reasonableness of receiver fees and expenses is determined, despite earlier stated findings allowing those fees. Both pieces of proposed text remain visible; neither is promoted to an issued order.supportsParty assent supports the requested settlement arrangement but the blank judicial line prevents this copy from establishing receivership termination.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed allocation of $3,083,639.75 is $873,849.02 to the two judgment creditors, $218,462.30 to the receiver and $1,991,328.43 to Legalist. These three amounts sum exactly. The receiver figure is called25% of $873,849.02, whose exact quarter is $218,462.255; the displayed fee is4.5cents higher. The source does not explain this small percentage rounding difference.supportsHow do the actual Virginia receipt and fee calculation reconcile the $3 payment-component discrepancy and receiver percentage rounding?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The parties ask for creditor and Legalist disbursement within two business days of a court order, together with documentation. Satisfaction and closure are requested upon the creditors’ receipt of $873,849.02; dismissal of Texas actions and termination of the receivership are tied to satisfaction. These requests and conditions do not establish completed transfers or an effective discharge.supportsWhat signed order and disbursement records establish which proposed terms were granted, when funds arrived and whether satisfaction or discharge occurred?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The parties ask for creditor and Legalist disbursement within two business days of a court order, together with documentation. Satisfaction and closure are requested upon the creditors’ receipt of $873,849.02; dismissal of Texas actions and termination of the receivership are tied to satisfaction. These requests and conditions do not establish completed transfers or an effective discharge.supportsParty assent supports the requested settlement arrangement but the blank judicial line prevents this copy from establishing receivership termination.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Federal Exhibit17 filed April15,2026 as EDVA175-19 contains a February26 joint motion and proposed order in Texas cause2024-48085. Pages6/10 display William Welter signatures for both creditors, Mark D. Schmidt signatures for Cyberlux and himself, James Sadigh and Elizabeth G. Myers signatures. Page6 bears Alexander J. Pennetti’s /s/ service certification for February25, one day before the motion’s printed date. The proposed judge signature line on page9 is blank.supportsParty assent supports the requested settlement arrangement but the blank judicial line prevents this copy from establishing receivership termination.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed allocation of $3,083,639.75 is $873,849.02 to the two judgment creditors, $218,462.30 to the receiver and $1,991,328.43 to Legalist. These three amounts sum exactly. The receiver figure is called25% of $873,849.02, whose exact quarter is $218,462.255; the displayed fee is4.5cents higher. The source does not explain this small percentage rounding difference.supportsWhat signed order and disbursement records establish which proposed terms were granted, when funds arrived and whether satisfaction or discharge occurred?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Federal Exhibit17 filed April15,2026 as EDVA175-19 contains a February26 joint motion and proposed order in Texas cause2024-48085. Pages6/10 display William Welter signatures for both creditors, Mark D. Schmidt signatures for Cyberlux and himself, James Sadigh and Elizabeth G. Myers signatures. Page6 bears Alexander J. Pennetti’s /s/ service certification for February25, one day before the motion’s printed date. The proposed judge signature line on page9 is blank.supportsDoes this copy establish that the receiver was discharged?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The unsigned proposed order would find the fees recoverable, direct the three-way distribution, discharge the receiver and terminate the receivership. It also would stay other pending matters until reasonableness of receiver fees and expenses is determined, despite earlier stated findings allowing those fees. Both pieces of proposed text remain visible; neither is promoted to an issued order.supportsDoes this copy establish that the receiver was discharged?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The unsigned proposed order would find the fees recoverable, direct the three-way distribution, discharge the receiver and terminate the receivership. It also would stay other pending matters until reasonableness of receiver fees and expenses is determined, despite earlier stated findings allowing those fees. Both pieces of proposed text remain visible; neither is promoted to an issued order.supportsWhat signed order and disbursement records establish which proposed terms were granted, when funds arrived and whether satisfaction or discharge occurred?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The motion recounts a June23,2023 Virginia $1,572,500 principal judgment, partial payments and May22,2025 Texas receivership. It says November2025 Virginia payment was $1,140,004.66 but its listed components $952,601.71 and $187,399.95 total $1,140,001.66, a $3 discrepancy. The source leaves Texas enforcement costs outstanding.supportsHow do the actual Virginia receipt and fee calculation reconcile the $3 payment-component discrepancy and receiver percentage rounding?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The parties ask for creditor and Legalist disbursement within two business days of a court order, together with documentation. Satisfaction and closure are requested upon the creditors’ receipt of $873,849.02; dismissal of Texas actions and termination of the receivership are tied to satisfaction. These requests and conditions do not establish completed transfers or an effective discharge.supportsDoes this copy establish that the receiver was discharged?
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.