Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
EDVA February 20, 2026 HII interpleader deposit, release and partial final judgment order
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 3:25cv483
CYBERLUX CORP., etal.
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on an unopposed motion for interpleader deposit (the
“Motion”) filed by the plaintiff, HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 143.)
Upon due consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
Background of the Cyberlux Receivable
1. Effective August 29, 2023, HIFs predecessor in interest and Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the “Subcontract”).
2. In accordance with the Subcontract’s applicable terms and conditions, on May 17, 2024, HII
terminated for convenience the Subcontract.
3. Subsequently, HII and Cyberlux executed Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846
to Effectuate a Termination Settlement (“Mod. 4”), effective February 26,2025, which governs
the parties’ respective duties and obligations on and after that effective date.
4. Under Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
damages, expenses, liabilities, and losses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1969
claimallegation
Document150 in HII v Cyberlux,3:25-cv-00483, grants HII’s unopposed deposit motionECF143 under28USC1335/2361 and Rule67. It identifies Augus
Document150 in HII v Cyberlux,3:25-cv-00483, grants HII’s unopposed deposit motionECF143 under28USC1335/2361 and Rule67. It identifies August29,2023 subcontractP000043846, May17,2024 termination for convenience and Modification4 effectiveFebruary26,2025.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 3:25cv483
CYBERLUX CORP., etal.
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on an unopposed motion for interpleader deposit (the
“Motion”) filed by the plaintiff, HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 143.)
Upon due consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
Background of the Cyberlux Receivable
1. Effective August 29, 2023, HIFs predecessor in interest and Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the “Subcontract”).
2. In accordance with the Subcontract’s applicable terms and conditions, on May 17, 2024, HII
terminated for convenience the Subcontract.
3. Subsequently, HII and Cyberlux executed Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846
to Effectuate a Termination Settlement (“Mod. 4”), effective February 26,2025, which governs
the parties’ respective duties and obligations on and after that effective date.
4. Under Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
damages, expenses, liabilities, and losses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1969
claimallegation
The order finds Modification4 Section7 requires Cyberlux to indemnify HII for creditor-related costs, including disputed claims. Its Governm
The order finds Modification4 Section7 requires Cyberlux to indemnify HII for creditor-related costs, including disputed claims. Its Government definition encompasses Navy,GSA,FEDSIM and the Federal Acquisition Service assisted acquisition organisation; this definition is not a separate finding of each agency’s conduct.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 3:25cv483
CYBERLUX CORP., etal.
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on an unopposed motion for interpleader deposit (the
“Motion”) filed by the plaintiff, HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 143.)
Upon due consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
Background of the Cyberlux Receivable
1. Effective August 29, 2023, HIFs predecessor in interest and Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the “Subcontract”).
2. In accordance with the Subcontract’s applicable terms and conditions, on May 17, 2024, HII
terminated for convenience the Subcontract.
3. Subsequently, HII and Cyberlux executed Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846
to Effectuate a Termination Settlement (“Mod. 4”), effective February 26,2025, which governs
the parties’ respective duties and obligations on and after that effective date.
4. Under Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
damages, expenses, liabilities, and losses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1969
claimallegation
Findings state HII received Government payments of $2,757,254.39 on May28,2025 and $23,012,114.64 on July15,2025, totalling $25,769,369.03 R
Findings state HII received Government payments of $2,757,254.39 on May28,2025 and $23,012,114.64 on July15,2025, totalling $25,769,369.03 Received Funds.
Read the anchor · page 2
expenses, incurred by HII in connection with threatened, pending, or completed inquiries,
claims, actions, suits, or proceedings relating to Cyberlux’s liabilities to its creditors, even if
Cyberlux disputes such liabilities.
5. On May 28, 2025, HII received a partial payment from the Government' in the amount of
$2,757,254.39 related to termination and stop work costs under Mod. 4.
6. On July 15, 2025, HII received final payment from the Government as relevant to Cyberlux in
the amount of $23,012,114.64.
7. As a result, HII has received a total of $25,769,369.03 from the Government related to the
Subcontract (the “Received Funds”).
Fairfax Garnishment Deposit
8. On March 11, 2025, HII was served with a garnishment summons by Atlantic Wave Holdings,
LLC (“Atlantic Wave”) and Secure Community, LLC (“Secure”) (the “Garnishment
Summons”) in case number CL25-3413 in the Fairfax Circuit Court, seeking to garnish “[a]ny
monies owed to” Cyberlux based on a judgment entered in favor of Atlantic Wave and Secure
and against Cyberlux and Mark Schmidt by the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond on June
28,2023.
9. Pursuant to the Orders of the Fairfax Circuit Court entered on July 22, 2025, and August 15,
2025, HII deposited the sum of $1,444,543.11 of the Received Funds into the Fairfax Circuit
Court on August 15, 2025 (the “Fairfax Garnishment Deposit”).
' The parties define “the Government” as the Department of the Navy and the General
Services Administration (“GSA”), Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, which is
part of the GSA Federal Acquisition Service, Office of Assisted Acquisition Services.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 1970
claimallegation
The order records the March11 Fairfax garnishmentCL25-3413 tied to the June28,2023 Richmond judgment and HII’s August15,2025 Fairfax deposit
The order records the March11 Fairfax garnishmentCL25-3413 tied to the June28,2023 Richmond judgment and HII’s August15,2025 Fairfax deposit of $1,444,543.11 under July22/August15 orders. This is the judicial finding of a prior deposit, distinct from the new federal deposit directed here.
Read the anchor · page 2
expenses, incurred by HII in connection with threatened, pending, or completed inquiries,
claims, actions, suits, or proceedings relating to Cyberlux’s liabilities to its creditors, even if
Cyberlux disputes such liabilities.
5. On May 28, 2025, HII received a partial payment from the Government' in the amount of
$2,757,254.39 related to termination and stop work costs under Mod. 4.
6. On July 15, 2025, HII received final payment from the Government as relevant to Cyberlux in
the amount of $23,012,114.64.
7. As a result, HII has received a total of $25,769,369.03 from the Government related to the
Subcontract (the “Received Funds”).
Fairfax Garnishment Deposit
8. On March 11, 2025, HII was served with a garnishment summons by Atlantic Wave Holdings,
LLC (“Atlantic Wave”) and Secure Community, LLC (“Secure”) (the “Garnishment
Summons”) in case number CL25-3413 in the Fairfax Circuit Court, seeking to garnish “[a]ny
monies owed to” Cyberlux based on a judgment entered in favor of Atlantic Wave and Secure
and against Cyberlux and Mark Schmidt by the Circuit Court of the City of Richmond on June
28,2023.
9. Pursuant to the Orders of the Fairfax Circuit Court entered on July 22, 2025, and August 15,
2025, HII deposited the sum of $1,444,543.11 of the Received Funds into the Fairfax Circuit
Court on August 15, 2025 (the “Fairfax Garnishment Deposit”).
' The parties define “the Government” as the Department of the Navy and the General
Services Administration (“GSA”), Federal Systems Integration and Management Center, which is
part of the GSA Federal Acquisition Service, Office of Assisted Acquisition Services.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 2 of 6 PageID# 1970
claimallegation
It finds HII incurred $587,888.36 in fees/costs since Modification4 and asserted contractual/equitable recoupment. It lists competing claima
It finds HII incurred $587,888.36 in fees/costs since Modification4 and asserted contractual/equitable recoupment. It lists competing claimants including Cyberlux,Legalist,Berleth,ANPC,Atlantic Wave,Secure,United States,Assure/WeShield,Roman,MAS,Sinensky,Fairwinds and Thin Air; the list does not decide their priority.
Read the anchor · page 3
HII Recoupment
10. HII asserts that it is entitled to recoup, under Section 7 of Mod. 4 and equitable principles of
interpleader, its attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in connection with Cyberlux’s competing
creditor claims and disposition of the Received Funds.
11. HII has incurred $587,888.36 in such attorneys’ fees and costs since the execution of Mod. 4.
Competing Claims
12. HII is in receipt of, and/or on notice of, multiple competing claims to and alleged interests in
the Received Funds, including: Cyberlux; Legalist SPV III, LP; Robert W. Berleth, solely in
his capacity as receiver for Cyberlux; Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation;
Atlantic Wave; Secure; the United States; Assure Global, LLC d/b/a WeShield; Roman
Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, and Michael Sinensky; Fairwinds Technologies
LLC; and Thin Air Gear, LLC (collectively, the “Cyberlux Creditors”).
13. HII is uncertain as to priority, payment, and the validity of the alleged claims to and interests
in the Received Funds and lacks sufficient present knowledge, information, and belief to make
such a determination.
14. As such, HII seeks to interplead and deposit into a Disputed Ownership Fund within this
Court’s Registry Investment System, pursuant to Rule 67(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and the Court’s April 1, 2017, Standing Order re: Deposit and Investment of
Registry Funds, for disbursement as the Court may direct, the amount of $23,736,937.56 (the
“Disputed Funds”), with the Disputed Funds being calculated as follows:
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 3 of 6 PageID# 1971
claimallegation
The ordered net fund is $23,736,937.56: $25,769,369.03 less $1,444,543.11 Fairfax deposit and $587,888.36 fees/costs. The arithmetic reconci
The ordered net fund is $23,736,937.56: $25,769,369.03 less $1,444,543.11 Fairfax deposit and $587,888.36 fees/costs. The arithmetic reconciles exactly. Conclusions find statutory jurisdiction and interpleader entitlement and treat creditor rights as subject to Cyberlux’s contract and HII recoupment; the printed statutory citation is retained as printed rather than independently revised.
Read the anchor · page 4
$25,769,369.03 Received Funds
Less $1,444,543.11 Fairfax Circuit Court Garnishment Deposit
Less $587,888.36 HII Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
$23,736,937.56 Disputed Funds
Conclusions of Law
15. Based on the foregoing and the evidence and filings before the Court, the Court has jurisdiction
over this action and each party pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The amount in dispute exceeds
$500 and there are two or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship.
16. HII is entitled to interpleader relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335 and 2361.
17. Pursuant to Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
and against any and all expenses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket expenses
incurred or suffered by HII in connection with any inquiry, claim, action, suit, or proceeding
arising out of or relating to Cyberlux’s liabilities to its creditors, even if Cyberlux disputes such
liabilities.
18. The rights of the creditors of Cyberlux can rise no higher than the rights of Cyberlux. See
generally Va. Code Ann. § 8.9-404(a) (the rights of an assignee of an account receivable “are
subject to all terms of the agreement between the account debtor [HII] and assignor [Cyberluxj
and any defense or claim in recoupment arising from the transaction that gave rise to the
contract”).
19. As a result, Mil’s right to recoup attorneys’ fees and costs under Mod. 4 reduces the amount
otherwise payable to Cyberlux, and, therefore, reduces the amount otherwise reachable by the
creditors of Cyberlux, including the Cyberlux Creditors.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 4 of 6 PageID# 1972
claimallegation
Paragraph20 directs HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 into the court registry by Friday March6,2026, with court instructions. Paragraph21 makes
Paragraph20 directs HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 into the court registry by Friday March6,2026, with court instructions. Paragraph21 makes release from liability to Cyberlux,creditors,later-joined and related claimants arising from Received Funds conditional upon that deposit.
Read the anchor · page 5
20. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for interpleader deposit, (ECF No. 143), and
DIRECTS HO to deposit the amount of $23,736,937.56, the Disputed Funds, into a Disputed
Ownership Fund within this Court’s Registry Investment System by Friday, March 6, 2026.
The Court shall contact HII with further instructions to make this deposit.
21. Upon HITs deposit of the Disputed Funds into the registry of the Court, HII SHALL be
discharged and released from any and all liability to Cyberlux, its creditors (including each of
the Cyberlux Creditors and anyone later joined as a party to this action), and each of their
respective agents, employees, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors,
assigns, or anyone acting directly or indirectly on their behalf, related to or arising out of the
Received Funds.
22. HII, including its agents, parent, affiliates, employees, representatives, trustees, predecessors.
successors, and assigns, SHALL be released, discharged, and exculpated from and against any
and all liabilities, claims, security interests, liens, writs, trusts, suits, debts, judgments, dues,
sums, and/or causes of action, whether at law or in equity, related to or arising from the
Received Funds.
23. All parties to this action and their privities other than HII, and each of their respective agents,
employees, officers, attorneys, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors,
assigns, or anyone acting directly or indirectly on their behalf, and any other persons who are
in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing, are PERMANENTLY
RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from instituting, maintaining and/or prosecuting any suit,
civil action, summons, writ, civil proceeding, petition, or arbitration in any state, federal or
other court, tribunal, or forum against HII asserting any claims arising from or related to the
Received Funds or any interest therein, to the fullest extent of the law.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 1973
claimallegation
Paragraph22 provides release/discharge/exculpation for HII and associated persons/entities regarding Received Funds. Paragraph23 permanently
Paragraph22 provides release/discharge/exculpation for HII and associated persons/entities regarding Received Funds. Paragraph23 permanently restrains/enjoins parties and persons in privity or active concert, as specified, from actions against HII concerning Received Funds to the fullest lawful extent. Neither provision is a general determination that all underlying creditor claims lack merit.
Read the anchor · page 5
20. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the motion for interpleader deposit, (ECF No. 143), and
DIRECTS HO to deposit the amount of $23,736,937.56, the Disputed Funds, into a Disputed
Ownership Fund within this Court’s Registry Investment System by Friday, March 6, 2026.
The Court shall contact HII with further instructions to make this deposit.
21. Upon HITs deposit of the Disputed Funds into the registry of the Court, HII SHALL be
discharged and released from any and all liability to Cyberlux, its creditors (including each of
the Cyberlux Creditors and anyone later joined as a party to this action), and each of their
respective agents, employees, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors,
assigns, or anyone acting directly or indirectly on their behalf, related to or arising out of the
Received Funds.
22. HII, including its agents, parent, affiliates, employees, representatives, trustees, predecessors.
successors, and assigns, SHALL be released, discharged, and exculpated from and against any
and all liabilities, claims, security interests, liens, writs, trusts, suits, debts, judgments, dues,
sums, and/or causes of action, whether at law or in equity, related to or arising from the
Received Funds.
23. All parties to this action and their privities other than HII, and each of their respective agents,
employees, officers, attorneys, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, successors, predecessors,
assigns, or anyone acting directly or indirectly on their behalf, and any other persons who are
in active concert or participation with any of the foregoing, are PERMANENTLY
RESTRAINED AND ENJOINED from instituting, maintaining and/or prosecuting any suit,
civil action, summons, writ, civil proceeding, petition, or arbitration in any state, federal or
other court, tribunal, or forum against HII asserting any claims arising from or related to the
Received Funds or any interest therein, to the fullest extent of the law.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 5 of 6 PageID# 1973
claimallegation
Paragraph24 dismisses HII with prejudice upon proper deposit under20/21. Paragraph25 makes the judgment final underRule54(b) solely as to HI
Paragraph24 dismisses HII with prejudice upon proper deposit under20/21. Paragraph25 makes the judgment final underRule54(b) solely as to HII. The page displays JohnA.GibneyJr’s judicial signature designation and initials with February20,2026 date, matching the filing date. No registry receipt or final allocation among competing creditors is appended.
Read the anchor · page 6
24. Upon proper deposit of the Disputed Funds pursuant to Sections 20 and 21 of this Order, HII
shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from this action.
25. This Order is a final judgment solely as to HII pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
It is so ORDERED.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
Isl Date: ^ February 2026
Richmond, VA
John A. Gibney, Jr. /
Senior United States 'is/rict Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 1974
entityobservation
HII Mission Technologies Corp.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 3:25cv483
CYBERLUX CORP., etal.
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on an unopposed motion for interpleader deposit (the
“Motion”) filed by the plaintiff, HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 143.)
Upon due consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
Background of the Cyberlux Receivable
1. Effective August 29, 2023, HIFs predecessor in interest and Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the “Subcontract”).
2. In accordance with the Subcontract’s applicable terms and conditions, on May 17, 2024, HII
terminated for convenience the Subcontract.
3. Subsequently, HII and Cyberlux executed Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846
to Effectuate a Termination Settlement (“Mod. 4”), effective February 26,2025, which governs
the parties’ respective duties and obligations on and after that effective date.
4. Under Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
damages, expenses, liabilities, and losses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1969
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 3:25cv483
CYBERLUX CORP., etal.
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on an unopposed motion for interpleader deposit (the
“Motion”) filed by the plaintiff, HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 143.)
Upon due consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
Background of the Cyberlux Receivable
1. Effective August 29, 2023, HIFs predecessor in interest and Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the “Subcontract”).
2. In accordance with the Subcontract’s applicable terms and conditions, on May 17, 2024, HII
terminated for convenience the Subcontract.
3. Subsequently, HII and Cyberlux executed Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846
to Effectuate a Termination Settlement (“Mod. 4”), effective February 26,2025, which governs
the parties’ respective duties and obligations on and after that effective date.
4. Under Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
damages, expenses, liabilities, and losses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1969
entityobservation
John A. Gibney, Jr.
Read the anchor · page 6
24. Upon proper deposit of the Disputed Funds pursuant to Sections 20 and 21 of this Order, HII
shall be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE from this action.
25. This Order is a final judgment solely as to HII pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
It is so ORDERED.
Let the Clerk send a copy of this Order to all counsel of record.
Isl Date: ^ February 2026
Richmond, VA
John A. Gibney, Jr. /
Senior United States 'is/rict Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 6 of 6 PageID# 1974
eventattribution
HII deposit and conditional dismissal order entered.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 3:25cv483
CYBERLUX CORP., etal.
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on an unopposed motion for interpleader deposit (the
“Motion”) filed by the plaintiff, HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 143.)
Upon due consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
Background of the Cyberlux Receivable
1. Effective August 29, 2023, HIFs predecessor in interest and Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the “Subcontract”).
2. In accordance with the Subcontract’s applicable terms and conditions, on May 17, 2024, HII
terminated for convenience the Subcontract.
3. Subsequently, HII and Cyberlux executed Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846
to Effectuate a Termination Settlement (“Mod. 4”), effective February 26,2025, which governs
the parties’ respective duties and obligations on and after that effective date.
4. Under Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
damages, expenses, liabilities, and losses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1969
inferenceinference
The order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguish
The order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 be62d18532276dfc72f3f4fe6346a3101b3eeadf26c32805af44e3bc655c2486. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 6-page source reviewed at SHA-256 be62d18532276dfc72f3f4fe6346a3101b3eeadf26c32805af44e3bc655c2486. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Own complete native text read, all 6 pages; material page images 4,5,6 checked. Exact source identity retained; signature observation does not independently authenticate execution.
Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Plaintiff,
V. Civil Action No. 3:25cv483
CYBERLUX CORP., etal.
Defendants.
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on an unopposed motion for interpleader deposit (the
“Motion”) filed by the plaintiff, HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”), pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335, 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 143.)
Upon due consideration of the Motion, and for good cause shown, the Court makes the following
findings of fact and conclusions of law:
Findings of Fact
Background of the Cyberlux Receivable
1. Effective August 29, 2023, HIFs predecessor in interest and Cyberlux Corporation
(“Cyberlux”) entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 (the “Subcontract”).
2. In accordance with the Subcontract’s applicable terms and conditions, on May 17, 2024, HII
terminated for convenience the Subcontract.
3. Subsequently, HII and Cyberlux executed Modification No. 4 to Subcontract No. P000043846
to Effectuate a Termination Settlement (“Mod. 4”), effective February 26,2025, which governs
the parties’ respective duties and obligations on and after that effective date.
4. Under Section 7 of Mod. 4, Cyberlux agreed to indemnify and hold HII harmless from
damages, expenses, liabilities, and losses, including attorneys’ fees and other out-of-pocket
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 150 Filed 02/20/26 Page 1 of 6 PageID# 1969
questionquestion
What registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor
What registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
distillateattribution
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
Document150 in HII v Cyberlux,3:25-cv-00483, grants HII’s unopposed deposit motionECF143 under28USC1335/2361 and Rule67. It identifies August29,2023 subcontractP000043846, May17,2024 termination for convenience and Modification4 effectiveFebruary26,2025.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph22 provides release/discharge/exculpation for HII and associated persons/entities regarding Received Funds. Paragraph23 permanently restrains/enjoins parties and persons in privity or active concert, as specified, from actions against HII concerning Received Funds to the fullest lawful extent. Neither provision is a general determination that all underlying creditor claims lack merit.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph22 provides release/discharge/exculpation for HII and associated persons/entities regarding Received Funds. Paragraph23 permanently restrains/enjoins parties and persons in privity or active concert, as specified, from actions against HII concerning Received Funds to the fullest lawful extent. Neither provision is a general determination that all underlying creditor claims lack merit.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph24 dismisses HII with prejudice upon proper deposit under20/21. Paragraph25 makes the judgment final underRule54(b) solely as to HII. The page displays JohnA.GibneyJr’s judicial signature designation and initials with February20,2026 date, matching the filing date. No registry receipt or final allocation among competing creditors is appended.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It finds HII incurred $587,888.36 in fees/costs since Modification4 and asserted contractual/equitable recoupment. It lists competing claimants including Cyberlux,Legalist,Berleth,ANPC,Atlantic Wave,Secure,United States,Assure/WeShield,Roman,MAS,Sinensky,Fairwinds and Thin Air; the list does not decide their priority.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The ordered net fund is $23,736,937.56: $25,769,369.03 less $1,444,543.11 Fairfax deposit and $587,888.36 fees/costs. The arithmetic reconciles exactly. Conclusions find statutory jurisdiction and interpleader entitlement and treat creditor rights as subject to Cyberlux’s contract and HII recoupment; the printed statutory citation is retained as printed rather than independently revised.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph20 directs HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 into the court registry by Friday March6,2026, with court instructions. Paragraph21 makes release from liability to Cyberlux,creditors,later-joined and related claimants arising from Received Funds conditional upon that deposit.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order finds Modification4 Section7 requires Cyberlux to indemnify HII for creditor-related costs, including disputed claims. Its Government definition encompasses Navy,GSA,FEDSIM and the Federal Acquisition Service assisted acquisition organisation; this definition is not a separate finding of each agency’s conduct.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph24 dismisses HII with prejudice upon proper deposit under20/21. Paragraph25 makes the judgment final underRule54(b) solely as to HII. The page displays JohnA.GibneyJr’s judicial signature designation and initials with February20,2026 date, matching the filing date. No registry receipt or final allocation among competing creditors is appended.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It finds HII incurred $587,888.36 in fees/costs since Modification4 and asserted contractual/equitable recoupment. It lists competing claimants including Cyberlux,Legalist,Berleth,ANPC,Atlantic Wave,Secure,United States,Assure/WeShield,Roman,MAS,Sinensky,Fairwinds and Thin Air; the list does not decide their priority.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order records the March11 Fairfax garnishmentCL25-3413 tied to the June28,2023 Richmond judgment and HII’s August15,2025 Fairfax deposit of $1,444,543.11 under July22/August15 orders. This is the judicial finding of a prior deposit, distinct from the new federal deposit directed here.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Document150 in HII v Cyberlux,3:25-cv-00483, grants HII’s unopposed deposit motionECF143 under28USC1335/2361 and Rule67. It identifies August29,2023 subcontractP000043846, May17,2024 termination for convenience and Modification4 effectiveFebruary26,2025.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Document150 in HII v Cyberlux,3:25-cv-00483, grants HII’s unopposed deposit motionECF143 under28USC1335/2361 and Rule67. It identifies August29,2023 subcontractP000043846, May17,2024 termination for convenience and Modification4 effectiveFebruary26,2025.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Findings state HII received Government payments of $2,757,254.39 on May28,2025 and $23,012,114.64 on July15,2025, totalling $25,769,369.03 Received Funds.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Findings state HII received Government payments of $2,757,254.39 on May28,2025 and $23,012,114.64 on July15,2025, totalling $25,769,369.03 Received Funds.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph20 directs HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 into the court registry by Friday March6,2026, with court instructions. Paragraph21 makes release from liability to Cyberlux,creditors,later-joined and related claimants arising from Received Funds conditional upon that deposit.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order finds Modification4 Section7 requires Cyberlux to indemnify HII for creditor-related costs, including disputed claims. Its Government definition encompasses Navy,GSA,FEDSIM and the Federal Acquisition Service assisted acquisition organisation; this definition is not a separate finding of each agency’s conduct.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It finds HII incurred $587,888.36 in fees/costs since Modification4 and asserted contractual/equitable recoupment. It lists competing claimants including Cyberlux,Legalist,Berleth,ANPC,Atlantic Wave,Secure,United States,Assure/WeShield,Roman,MAS,Sinensky,Fairwinds and Thin Air; the list does not decide their priority.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order finds Modification4 Section7 requires Cyberlux to indemnify HII for creditor-related costs, including disputed claims. Its Government definition encompasses Navy,GSA,FEDSIM and the Federal Acquisition Service assisted acquisition organisation; this definition is not a separate finding of each agency’s conduct.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph20 directs HII to deposit $23,736,937.56 into the court registry by Friday March6,2026, with court instructions. Paragraph21 makes release from liability to Cyberlux,creditors,later-joined and related claimants arising from Received Funds conditional upon that deposit.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order records the March11 Fairfax garnishmentCL25-3413 tied to the June28,2023 Richmond judgment and HII’s August15,2025 Fairfax deposit of $1,444,543.11 under July22/August15 orders. This is the judicial finding of a prior deposit, distinct from the new federal deposit directed here.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph22 provides release/discharge/exculpation for HII and associated persons/entities regarding Received Funds. Paragraph23 permanently restrains/enjoins parties and persons in privity or active concert, as specified, from actions against HII concerning Received Funds to the fullest lawful extent. Neither provision is a general determination that all underlying creditor claims lack merit.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Paragraph24 dismisses HII with prejudice upon proper deposit under20/21. Paragraph25 makes the judgment final underRule54(b) solely as to HII. The page displays JohnA.GibneyJr’s judicial signature designation and initials with February20,2026 date, matching the filing date. No registry receipt or final allocation among competing creditors is appended.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The ordered net fund is $23,736,937.56: $25,769,369.03 less $1,444,543.11 Fairfax deposit and $587,888.36 fees/costs. The arithmetic reconciles exactly. Conclusions find statutory jurisdiction and interpleader entitlement and treat creditor rights as subject to Cyberlux’s contract and HII recoupment; the printed statutory citation is retained as printed rather than independently revised.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The order records the March11 Fairfax garnishmentCL25-3413 tied to the June28,2023 Richmond judgment and HII’s August15,2025 Fairfax deposit of $1,444,543.11 under July22/August15 orders. This is the judicial finding of a prior deposit, distinct from the new federal deposit directed here.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The ordered net fund is $23,736,937.56: $25,769,369.03 less $1,444,543.11 Fairfax deposit and $587,888.36 fees/costs. The arithmetic reconciles exactly. Conclusions find statutory jurisdiction and interpleader entitlement and treat creditor rights as subject to Cyberlux’s contract and HII recoupment; the printed statutory citation is retained as printed rather than independently revised.supportsWhat registry receipt establishes compliance with the March6 deposit direction, and what subsequent orders determine the remaining creditor priorities?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Findings state HII received Government payments of $2,757,254.39 on May28,2025 and $23,012,114.64 on July15,2025, totalling $25,769,369.03 Received Funds.supportsThe order fixes the permitted net deposit and HII’s route out of the interpleader, but its conditional dismissal/release must be distinguished from proof that the deposit occurred and from adjudication of the remaining fund’s creditor priorities.
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.