Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
Cyberlux summary-judgment memorandum on disputed funds, ECF 188, 15 April 2026
Read the anchor · page 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et. al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00483
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE DISPUTED FUNDS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux) respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of its motion for summary judgment regarding the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux recognizes
that it occupies an unusual posture in this proceeding, a debtor moving for summary judgment in
an interpleader action. But Cyberlux's position is not unusual when viewed in the proper light.
Cyberlux is not merely a passive debtor awaiting distribution. It is the party that invested more
than $4 million of its own capital to perform a government defense contract, the party whose
accounts receivable constitute the very res before this Court, and a party with a direct and
cognizable entitlement to the Disputed Funds.
Had HII Mission Technologies Corp. (HII) simply paid Cyberlux in the ordinary course
upon completion of its contractual obligations, as the Subcontract and Modification No. 4
contemplated, Cyberlux would have managed its creditor obligations itself, paid its secured
creditors, satisfied its debts, and continued operating its defense technology business without the
intervention of this Court. Instead, HII elected to interplead approximately $23,736,937.56 into
this Court, stripping Cyberlux of its ability to manage its financial obligations and exposing it to
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 4155
quotationattribution
Cyberlux acknowledges Legalist as the only creditor with a facially perfected secured interest in the specific receivables.
Read the anchor · page 12
12
retain a portion of the Disputed Funds as operating capital, it can execute on this backlog and
generate the revenue necessary to pay its non-nexus creditors in an orderly fashion. Draining the
res to satisfy every claimant, regardless of the claim's connection to the underlying contract, would
destroy Cyberlux's ability to operate, fulfill pending government orders, and satisfy any creditor
at all.
D. Analysis of Each Creditor's Claim, Priority, and Entitlement
In accordance with the Court's Order (ECF No. 145), Cyberlux addresses each claimant's
position, priority, and entitlement to the Disputed Funds as follows:
1. Legalist SPV III, LP.
Legalist claims a perfected security interest in Cyberlux's accounts receivable from HII
pursuant to an Instrument of Assignment and supporting agreements, with a priority date of April
1, 2024. Cyberlux acknowledges that Legalist holds the only facially perfected, secured claim to
the specific res. However, Legalist's total claim of $13,650,513.94 includes $2,653,970.84 in
interest, of which approximately $1,999,676.16 has accrued since the interpleader was filed.
Legalist provided financing to Cyberlux in connection with its operations, and to the extent that
financing supported Cyberlux's performance of the HII Subcontract, Legalist's claim bears a nexus
to the res. Nevertheless, the post-interpleader interest accrual is excessive and should be limited.
Cyberlux proposes that Legalist's recovery be reduced by $1,000,000 in post-interpleader interest,
resulting in an adjusted claim of approximately $12,650,513.94.
2. WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Michael Sinensky (the Assure
Global Claimants).
The Assure Global Claimants assert a combined claim of $5,007,138.41, consisting of
$3,739,461.10 in principal and $1,267,677.31 in interest, with a priority date of October 23, 2025.
Notably, this represents a 43% increase over the original settlement amount negotiated with
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 19 PageID# 4166
claimallegation
Cyberlux claims direct beneficial entitlement to receivables from HII subcontract P000043846 and Modification 4 effective 26 February 2025.
Cyberlux claims direct beneficial entitlement to receivables from HII subcontract P000043846 and Modification 4 effective 26 February 2025. It reports government payment to HII of $25,769,369.03 and interpleader funds $23,736,937.56, attributing financial harm to HII’s choice to interplead rather than pay. No performance acceptance or cost ledger is attached.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et. al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00483
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE DISPUTED FUNDS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux) respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of its motion for summary judgment regarding the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux recognizes
that it occupies an unusual posture in this proceeding, a debtor moving for summary judgment in
an interpleader action. But Cyberlux's position is not unusual when viewed in the proper light.
Cyberlux is not merely a passive debtor awaiting distribution. It is the party that invested more
than $4 million of its own capital to perform a government defense contract, the party whose
accounts receivable constitute the very res before this Court, and a party with a direct and
cognizable entitlement to the Disputed Funds.
Had HII Mission Technologies Corp. (HII) simply paid Cyberlux in the ordinary course
upon completion of its contractual obligations, as the Subcontract and Modification No. 4
contemplated, Cyberlux would have managed its creditor obligations itself, paid its secured
creditors, satisfied its debts, and continued operating its defense technology business without the
intervention of this Court. Instead, HII elected to interplead approximately $23,736,937.56 into
this Court, stripping Cyberlux of its ability to manage its financial obligations and exposing it to
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 4155
claimallegation
It proposes cutting Assure claimants’ interest by $600,000 to $4,407,138.41 and calls for scrutiny of contract nexus. The claimed 43% increa
It proposes cutting Assure claimants’ interest by $600,000 to $4,407,138.41 and calls for scrutiny of contract nexus. The claimed 43% increase references an original settlement amount not separately identified here; the listed interest divided by listed principal is approximately 33.9%.
Read the anchor · page 12
12
retain a portion of the Disputed Funds as operating capital, it can execute on this backlog and
generate the revenue necessary to pay its non-nexus creditors in an orderly fashion. Draining the
res to satisfy every claimant, regardless of the claim's connection to the underlying contract, would
destroy Cyberlux's ability to operate, fulfill pending government orders, and satisfy any creditor
at all.
D. Analysis of Each Creditor's Claim, Priority, and Entitlement
In accordance with the Court's Order (ECF No. 145), Cyberlux addresses each claimant's
position, priority, and entitlement to the Disputed Funds as follows:
1. Legalist SPV III, LP.
Legalist claims a perfected security interest in Cyberlux's accounts receivable from HII
pursuant to an Instrument of Assignment and supporting agreements, with a priority date of April
1, 2024. Cyberlux acknowledges that Legalist holds the only facially perfected, secured claim to
the specific res. However, Legalist's total claim of $13,650,513.94 includes $2,653,970.84 in
interest, of which approximately $1,999,676.16 has accrued since the interpleader was filed.
Legalist provided financing to Cyberlux in connection with its operations, and to the extent that
financing supported Cyberlux's performance of the HII Subcontract, Legalist's claim bears a nexus
to the res. Nevertheless, the post-interpleader interest accrual is excessive and should be limited.
Cyberlux proposes that Legalist's recovery be reduced by $1,000,000 in post-interpleader interest,
resulting in an adjusted claim of approximately $12,650,513.94.
2. WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Michael Sinensky (the Assure
Global Claimants).
The Assure Global Claimants assert a combined claim of $5,007,138.41, consisting of
$3,739,461.10 in principal and $1,267,677.31 in interest, with a priority date of October 23, 2025.
Notably, this represents a 43% increase over the original settlement amount negotiated with
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 19 PageID# 4166
claimallegation
It leaves ANPC at $3,087,878.86 subject to lien scrutiny and calls the amount above principal primarily attorney fees despite earlier intere
It leaves ANPC at $3,087,878.86 subject to lien scrutiny and calls the amount above principal primarily attorney fees despite earlier interest labelling. TAG is to be reduced by $600,000 to an estimated $785,489.46, while narrative text calls for principal plus reasonable non-trebled interest. IRS is reduced by $250,000 to $899,776.34 for asserted parity despite acknowledged possible federal tax priority.
Read the anchor · page 13
13
Cyberlux. The Court should scrutinize whether these claimants' underlying transactions bear a
sufficient nexus to the government contract to warrant participation in the distribution. Moreover,
the interest claimed is disproportionate to the underlying obligations and has been inflated by the
delay caused by the interpleader. Cyberlux proposes a $600,000 reduction in claimed interest,
resulting in an adjusted claim of approximately $4,407,138.41.
3. ANPC (Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation).
ANPC asserts a claim of $3,087,878.86, consisting of $2,830,050.00 in principal and
$257,828.86 in interest, with a priority date of December 30, 2024 (equitable lien) or September
24, 2025 (perfected lien). ANPC's interest claim consists primarily of attorney's fees. ANPC claims
an equitable lien under North Carolina law based on a judgment it domesticated in Virginia. To
the extent ANPC's underlying claim arises from services or products related to Cyberlux's defense
technology operations, it may bear a nexus to the res. The Court should examine whether ANPC's
claimed equitable lien is properly perfected and whether the attorney's fees component is
reasonable.
4. TAG (Thin Air Gear).
Thin Air Gear's claim presents one of the most troubling examples of interest inflation in
this proceeding. TAG asserts a total claim of $1,385,489.46, of which $450,000 represents the
principal amount and $935,489.46 represents claimed interest, more than double the underlying
debt. This inflated interest figure is based on treble damages that were agreed to by the Texas
Receiver, Robert Berleth, whose authority over Cyberlux's assets is contested and whose actions
have been subject to appellate review. The treble damages were not the product of arm's-length
negotiation by Cyberlux but rather were imposed through a receivership process that Cyberlux
disputes. The Court should decline to honor treble damages agreed to by a receiver of questionable
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 13 of 19 PageID# 4167
claimallegation
Fairwinds is excluded as unsecured, with an ordinary-course payment plan proposed but not specified. ARG is excluded as lacking an adjudicat
Fairwinds is excluded as unsecured, with an ordinary-course payment plan proposed but not specified. ARG is excluded as lacking an adjudicated secured claim. The requested excluded group also includes Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and receiver Robert Berleth. These are sought dispositions, not awarded outcomes.
Read the anchor · page 15
15
amount from the Disputed Funds. Atlantic Wave's claim bears no nexus to the government
contract, it arises from a separate commercial dispute entirely unrelated to Cyberlux's drone
manufacturing program. Its inclusion in the distribution would artificially inflate the deficit,
prejudice legitimate creditors, and distort the equitable allocation.
Secure Community's claim is derivative of Atlantic Wave's position and fails for the same
reasons. Secure Community has no independent, perfected claim to the Disputed Funds.
7. Fairwinds Technologies.
Fairwinds Technologies asserts a claim of $2,348,542, but holds no secured interest in the
Disputed Funds. As an unsecured creditor, Fairwinds should not share in the distribution of the
res. Cyberlux proposes to address Fairwinds' claim through a payment plan in the ordinary course
of business, outside the scope of this interpleader proceeding.
8. ARG (Intervenor).
ARG filed a motion to intervene but does not have an adjudicated claim against Cyberlux.
Without an adjudicated, secured interest in the specific res, ARG should not participate in the
distribution. As with other unsecured or unadjudicated claims, Cyberlux should be permitted to
address ARG's claim, if any, in the ordinary course.
E. Proposed Order of Priority
Based on the foregoing analysis, Cyberlux respectfully submits that the Court should
establish the following order of priority for distribution of the Disputed Funds:
First Priority: Cyberlux Corporation, recovery of $2,450,000 representing its direct
capital investment in contract performance and the aggregate interest reductions from other
creditors' claims, to be used as operating capital to execute its defense contract backlog and
generate cash flow for payment of unsecured creditors.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 15 of 19 PageID# 4169
claimallegation
The proposed waterfall is Cyberlux $2,450,000, Legalist $12,650,513.94, Assure $4,407,138.41, ANPC $3,087,878.86, TAG $785,489.46 and IRS $8
The proposed waterfall is Cyberlux $2,450,000, Legalist $12,650,513.94, Assure $4,407,138.41, ANPC $3,087,878.86, TAG $785,489.46 and IRS $899,776.34. The four proposed creditor reductions total $2,450,000, all redirected to Cyberlux rather than reducing aggregate requested distributions.
Read the anchor · page 10
10
4. Proposed Interest Reductions.
Cyberlux proposes the following interest reductions, which represent a reasonable exercise
of the Court's equitable authority:
• Legalist: Reduction of $1,000,000 in post-interpleader interest and fees.
• Assure Global Claimants (WeShield / Roman / MAS / Sinensky): Reduction of
$600,000 in post-interpleader interest.
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): Reduction of $600,000, reflecting the elimination of treble
damages improperly agreed to by the Texas Receiver.
• United States (IRS): Reduction of $250,000 for purposes of parity with other creditors'
interest reductions.
These reductions total $2,450,000, which Cyberlux requests be returned to Cyberlux as
operating capital to fund its existing defense contract backlog and generate the cash flow necessary
to satisfy unsecured creditors in the ordinary course of business.
C. The Government Contract Origin of the Funds Requires a Nexus-Based
Distribution
The Disputed Funds are not general corporate assets. They are payments derived from a
United States Government defense contract, Subcontract No. P000043846, under which Cyberlux
manufactured and delivered unmanned aerial systems for Department of Defense operations. This
origin matters for purposes of both priority and entitlement.
1. The Nature of Government Contract Funds.
Government contract payments are subject to a distinct regulatory framework, including
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Assignment of Claims Act, 41 U.S.C. § 6305.
These provisions reflect a strong federal policy that government contract funds should be used for
the purpose for which they were appropriated, in this case, the development and production of
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 10 of 19 PageID# 4164
claimallegation
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. certifies personal verification of every legal citation and quotation, signs for Cyberlux, and certifies CM/ECF filin
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. certifies personal verification of every legal citation and quotation, signs for Cyberlux, and certifies CM/ECF filing and expected notification to counsel on 15 April 2026. This records counsel’s certification; this source review does not independently validate the cited authorities.
Read the anchor · page 18
18
damages imposed by the Texas Receiver on the Thin Air Gear claim; (4) grant Cyberlux recovery
of $2,450,000 from the Disputed Funds to fund its defense contract backlog and enable it to satisfy
unsecured creditors in the ordinary course; and (5) establish a priority of distribution that reflects
the equitable realities of this case and the federal policies governing government contract funds.
An outcome that strips Cyberlux of all remaining resources will not create more value, it
will simply redistribute loss while increasing costs and delay. It will impair a functioning defense
technology company, jeopardize pending government orders, and ultimately reduce recoveries for
all creditors. By contrast, a measured, equitable distribution allows Cyberlux to meet its
obligations in part now, while preserving its ability to meet additional obligations in the future and
to continue supporting national defense priorities.
WHEREFORE, Defendant Cyberlux Corporation respectfully requests that this Court
grant its Motion for Summary Judgment and enter an Order: (a) limiting interest accrual on all
claims to the date of the interpleader filing; (b) excluding Atlantic Wave, Secure Community,
Fairwinds Technologies, ARG, and the Texas Receiver from the distribution of the Disputed
Funds; (c) recognizing Cyberlux's entitlement to recover $2,450,000 from the Disputed Funds; (d)
establishing the priority of distribution set forth herein; and (e) granting such other and further
relief as the Court deems just and equitable.
CERTIFICATION OF COUNSEL REGARDING VERIFICATION OF CITATIONS
Pursuant to the Court's Order, the undersigned counsel, Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr., Esq., hereby
certifies that he has personally verified every citation to authority contained in this submission,
including every quotation attributed to authority, and that all such citations and quotations are
accurate and correctly stated.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 18 of 19 PageID# 4172
claimallegation
Its asserted own-capital contribution is described as more than $4 million and then at least $4,786,814.62. It offers compromise recovery of
Its asserted own-capital contribution is described as more than $4 million and then at least $4,786,814.62. It offers compromise recovery of $2,450,000 to support operations, without an itemised reconciliation of these investment figures.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
the compounding harm of accumulating interest, fees, and penalties that grow with each passing
month.
Cyberlux files this brief to bring before the Court three central propositions. First, the Court
should exercise its equitable authority to limit the interest that secured creditors may claim against
the Disputed Funds to the amounts accrued as of the filing and service of the interpleader action
on or about June 24, 2025. The interpleader froze Cyberlux's ability to pay its debts; the creditors
should not be permitted to profit from that freeze through the relentless accumulation of interest
against a finite res that Cyberlux can no longer access. Second, because the Disputed Funds
originated exclusively from a United States Government defense contract for the manufacture and
deployment of unmanned aerial systems, only those creditors whose claims bear a direct nexus to
that contract performance should be entitled to participate in the distribution. Claims arising
outside the scope of that government contract work should not deplete a res generated by, and
intended for, defense manufacturing purposes. Third, Cyberlux is entitled to recover from the
Disputed Funds its initial capital investment of at least $4 million, funds Cyberlux expended in
direct performance of the HII Subcontract, and should not be punished because HII chose to
interplead rather than pay in the ordinary course.
II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. HII and Cyberlux entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 in August 2023, subsequently
modified by Modification No. 4, effective February 26, 2025 (Mod. 4). Under the Subcontract,
Cyberlux was to design, manufacture, and deliver unmanned aerial systems (drones) and related
defense technologies to support United States Department of Defense operations.
2. HII received a total of $25,769,369.03 from the United States Government in connection
with the terminated Subcontract.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 19 PageID# 4156
claimallegation
The listed secured claims total $24,280,797.01: Legalist $13,650,513.94 ($10,996,543.10 principal and $2,653,970.84 interest); Assure Global
The listed secured claims total $24,280,797.01: Legalist $13,650,513.94 ($10,996,543.10 principal and $2,653,970.84 interest); Assure Global claimants $5,007,138.41 ($3,739,461.10 principal and $1,267,677.31 interest); ANPC $3,087,878.86 ($2,830,050 principal and $257,828.86 interest); Thin Air Gear $1,385,489.46 ($450,000 principal and $935,489.46 interest); IRS $1,149,776.34. These are Cyberlux’s descriptions, not adjudicated classifications.
Read the anchor · page 3
3
3. HII interpleaded $23,736,937.56 into this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The
interpleader action was filed on or about June 24, 2025.1
4. Cyberlux invested more than $4 million of its own capital in direct performance of its
obligations under the HII Subcontract, with the expectation that it would be paid in the ordinary
course upon completion of its obligations.
5. The following parties have asserted claims against the Disputed Funds, with total secured
claims of approximately $24,280,797.01, which exceeds the available fund:
• Legalist SPV III, LP: $13,650,513.94 total ($10,996,543.10 principal; $2,653,970.84
interest), with a priority date of April 1, 2024, and approximately $1,999,676.16 in fees
and interest accrued since the interpleader was filed.
• WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Sinensky (collectively, the Assure
Global Claimants): $5,007,138.41 total ($3,739,461.10 principal; $1,267,677.31 interest),
with a priority date of October 23, 2025, representing a 43% increase over the original
Cyberlux settlement amount.
• ANPC: $3,087,878.86 total ($2,830,050.00 principal; $257,828.86 interest), with a priority
date of December 30, 2024 (equitable) or September 24, 2025 (lien).
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): $1,385,489.46 total ($450,000 principal; $935,489.46 interest),
with a priority date of August 29, 2025, based on treble damages agreed to by the Texas
Receiver.
• United States (IRS): $1,149,776.34, with priority dates spanning 2011-2024.
6. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC assert claims of approximately
1 The First Amended Interpleader Complaint was filed and served on or about August 4, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 4157
claimallegation
The proposed interest cutoff varies within the brief: June 24, 2025 in the introduction and facts, July 24, 2025 on page 9 as the supposed f
The proposed interest cutoff varies within the brief: June 24, 2025 in the introduction and facts, July 24, 2025 on page 9 as the supposed filing/service date, August 4, 2025 for TAG on page 16, and June 24 or no later than August 4 in the conclusion. The footnote identifies August 4 as the amended complaint filing/service date. No single consistent cutoff is selected throughout.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
the compounding harm of accumulating interest, fees, and penalties that grow with each passing
month.
Cyberlux files this brief to bring before the Court three central propositions. First, the Court
should exercise its equitable authority to limit the interest that secured creditors may claim against
the Disputed Funds to the amounts accrued as of the filing and service of the interpleader action
on or about June 24, 2025. The interpleader froze Cyberlux's ability to pay its debts; the creditors
should not be permitted to profit from that freeze through the relentless accumulation of interest
against a finite res that Cyberlux can no longer access. Second, because the Disputed Funds
originated exclusively from a United States Government defense contract for the manufacture and
deployment of unmanned aerial systems, only those creditors whose claims bear a direct nexus to
that contract performance should be entitled to participate in the distribution. Claims arising
outside the scope of that government contract work should not deplete a res generated by, and
intended for, defense manufacturing purposes. Third, Cyberlux is entitled to recover from the
Disputed Funds its initial capital investment of at least $4 million, funds Cyberlux expended in
direct performance of the HII Subcontract, and should not be punished because HII chose to
interplead rather than pay in the ordinary course.
II. STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS
1. HII and Cyberlux entered into Subcontract No. P000043846 in August 2023, subsequently
modified by Modification No. 4, effective February 26, 2025 (Mod. 4). Under the Subcontract,
Cyberlux was to design, manufacture, and deliver unmanned aerial systems (drones) and related
defense technologies to support United States Department of Defense operations.
2. HII received a total of $25,769,369.03 from the United States Government in connection
with the terminated Subcontract.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 2 of 19 PageID# 4156
claimallegation
Cyberlux argues the interpleader removed its ability to pay and equitable power should stop creditor interest; it cites about $1,999,676.16
Cyberlux argues the interpleader removed its ability to pay and equitable power should stop creditor interest; it cites about $1,999,676.16 Legalist post-filing fees/interest, characterises Assure’s increase as 43% over the original settlement, and objects to TAG’s treble-damages component as improperly agreed by the receiver. It also claims approximately twenty months without earnings access; this is not reconciled with the brief’s own interpleader dates.
Read the anchor · page 6
6
The Court should recognize Cyberlux's claim to recover at minimum $4,786,814.62
representing its direct capital investment in contract performance, reduced by Cyberlux's
willingness to compromise to $2,450,000 in the interest of achieving a global resolution. This
recovery is essential not only as a matter of equity but as a matter of practical necessity: Cyberlux
requires this capital to execute its existing $26 million backlog pipeline, which will generate
approximately $17 million in cash flow that Cyberlux can use to satisfy its remaining unsecured
creditors in the ordinary course of business.
B. The Court Should Limit Interest Accrual to the Date of the Interpleader Filing
The single most consequential equitable issue before this Court is whether secured
creditors should be permitted to continue accruing interest, fees, and penalties against the Disputed
Funds after those funds were interpleaded and removed from Cyberlux's control. Cyberlux
respectfully submits that they should not.
1. The Equitable Basis for Limiting Interest.
Once funds are withheld and threatened to be deposited into the registry of the Court
through the mechanism of filing an interpleader action, the debtor loses all ability to use, invest,
or apply those funds to reduce its obligations. The interpleader, in effect, freezes the debtor's
financial position while simultaneously allowing creditors' claims to continue growing. This
creates an inherently inequitable dynamic: Cyberlux is deprived of the very funds it needs to pay
its creditors, yet those same creditors are permitted to charge ever-increasing interest on debts that
Cyberlux cannot satisfy precisely because the funds are being held by HII who petitioned and
ultimately succeeded in locking those funds in this Court's registry.
The Court's equitable authority to limit interest in interpleader proceedings is well
established. Courts have long recognized that when a fund is interpleaded, the equitable
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 6 of 19 PageID# 4160
claimallegation
Business necessity assertions include a $17 million backlog and pending $8.8 million CECOM order on page 4, a $26 million backlog/pipeline a
Business necessity assertions include a $17 million backlog and pending $8.8 million CECOM order on page 4, a $26 million backlog/pipeline and projected $17 million cash flow on pages 6/11, nearly 100% emergency finance, lost orders and a 52% share-price decline. It also claims DX/DO-rated orders involving General Dynamics, BAE and allied customers. No order list, ratings instruments, cash model or price series accompanies the brief.
Read the anchor · page 4
4
$6,025,000 but have already received or positioned themselves to receive substantial recoveries
through a Fairfax County garnishment order ($1,444,543.11) and a Texas receivership
($3,083,639.75).
7. Fairwinds Technologies asserts a claim of $2,348,542 but holds no secured interest in the
Disputed Funds.
8. Cyberlux is a U.S.-based defense technology company that designs, manufactures, and
deploys mission-critical technologies, including unmanned aerial systems, tactical
communications platforms, and advanced defense solutions for the Department of Defense and
allied partners. Cyberlux has an order backlog of approximately $17 million and a pending U.S.
CECOM order for $8.8 million that it cannot fulfill due to the capital restrictions caused by the
interpleader.
9. Since the interpleader was filed, Cyberlux has been unable to secure capital through
traditional financing, has been forced into predatory payday-loan financing at interest rates
approaching 100%, has lost critical government orders, and its share price has declined by
approximately 52%.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In the second stage
of an interpleader action, the Court adjudicates the competing claims to the interpleaded fund. At
this stage, any party with a cognizable interest in the fund, including the debtor whose receivables
constitute the res, may move for summary judgment on its entitlement and the relative priority of
competing claims. See generally Commerce Funding Corp. v. Southern Financial Bank, 80 F.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 19 PageID# 4158
claimallegation
Cyberlux attacks Atlantic Wave’s parallel Fairfax garnishment and Texas receivership as the cause of interpleader and proposed duplicative r
Cyberlux attacks Atlantic Wave’s parallel Fairfax garnishment and Texas receivership as the cause of interpleader and proposed duplicative recovery. It cites $1,444,543.11 garnishment and $3,083,639.75 receiver amounts, sometimes describing them as received or positioned to receive, and alleges a July 17 levy demand despite a stay. It seeks exclusion of Atlantic Wave and Secure Community; the source does not trace actual satisfaction allocations or provide the underlying orders.
Read the anchor · page 8
8
The record makes clear what drove HII to interplead rather than pay Cyberlux: the
aggressive, multi-jurisdictional collection campaign waged by Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC.
HII's own Complaint details how Atlantic Wave systematically weaponized the courts to seize
Cyberlux's receivables before they could be paid in the ordinary course. On March 11, 2025,
Atlantic Wave served HII with a Garnishment Summons in the Circuit Court of Fairfax County
(Case No. CL25-3413), seeking to garnish any monies owed to Cyberlux based on a June 28, 2023
Richmond Circuit Court judgment. The total balance claimed on the Garnishment Summons was
$1,444,543.11 as of March 7, 2025. On July 18, 2025, the Fairfax Circuit Court held a hearing on
the Garnishment Summons and Atlantic Wave's Motion for Entry of an Order of Payment, and on
July 22, 2025, the Fairfax Circuit Court entered an order directing HII to interplead $1,444,543.11
into the Fairfax Circuit Court within 30 days.
But Atlantic Wave was not content with the Virginia garnishment. It simultaneously
pursued a second front in Texas, domesticating its judgment in the 129th Judicial District Court
for Harris County and commencing Cause No. 2024-48085. On May 22, 2025, the Texas court
appointed Robert W. Berleth as a limited Receiver for Cyberlux with authority to collect on the
general debt, pursuant to Tex. Prac. & Rem. Code § 31.002. The Receiver came into possession
of $3,083,639.75, which amount was intended to satisfy the same judgment Atlantic Wave was
simultaneously seeking to enforce through the Virginia garnishment. Atlantic Wave was thus
pursuing the same judgment in two states at the same time, seeking full recovery from each.
On July 17, 2025, the Receiver sent a formal levy demand letter directly to HII, demanding
that HII immediately seize and forward to the Receiver's offices any funds held for the benefit of
or payable to Cyberlux, even though the Texas Court of Appeals had already stayed the
receivership order. Faced with Atlantic Wave's competing garnishment in Virginia, a receiver in
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 8 of 19 PageID# 4162
claimallegation
It argues that government-contract origin, FAR/Assignment of Claims Act policies and rated-order obligations favour creditors with a nexus t
It argues that government-contract origin, FAR/Assignment of Claims Act policies and rated-order obligations favour creditors with a nexus to contract performance and protect operating capital. This is Cyberlux’s proposed legal theory; the memorandum does not itself establish that procurement policy overrides perfected liens or tax priority.
Read the anchor · page 10
10
4. Proposed Interest Reductions.
Cyberlux proposes the following interest reductions, which represent a reasonable exercise
of the Court's equitable authority:
• Legalist: Reduction of $1,000,000 in post-interpleader interest and fees.
• Assure Global Claimants (WeShield / Roman / MAS / Sinensky): Reduction of
$600,000 in post-interpleader interest.
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): Reduction of $600,000, reflecting the elimination of treble
damages improperly agreed to by the Texas Receiver.
• United States (IRS): Reduction of $250,000 for purposes of parity with other creditors'
interest reductions.
These reductions total $2,450,000, which Cyberlux requests be returned to Cyberlux as
operating capital to fund its existing defense contract backlog and generate the cash flow necessary
to satisfy unsecured creditors in the ordinary course of business.
C. The Government Contract Origin of the Funds Requires a Nexus-Based
Distribution
The Disputed Funds are not general corporate assets. They are payments derived from a
United States Government defense contract, Subcontract No. P000043846, under which Cyberlux
manufactured and delivered unmanned aerial systems for Department of Defense operations. This
origin matters for purposes of both priority and entitlement.
1. The Nature of Government Contract Funds.
Government contract payments are subject to a distinct regulatory framework, including
the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and the Assignment of Claims Act, 41 U.S.C. § 6305.
These provisions reflect a strong federal policy that government contract funds should be used for
the purpose for which they were appropriated, in this case, the development and production of
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 10 of 19 PageID# 4164
claimallegation
Cyberlux acknowledges Legalist as the only creditor with a facially perfected secured interest in the specific receivables, while proposing
Cyberlux acknowledges Legalist as the only creditor with a facially perfected secured interest in the specific receivables, while proposing a $1 million reduction to $12,650,513.94 and subordinating it to Cyberlux’s $2.45 million first-priority recovery.
Read the anchor · page 12
12
retain a portion of the Disputed Funds as operating capital, it can execute on this backlog and
generate the revenue necessary to pay its non-nexus creditors in an orderly fashion. Draining the
res to satisfy every claimant, regardless of the claim's connection to the underlying contract, would
destroy Cyberlux's ability to operate, fulfill pending government orders, and satisfy any creditor
at all.
D. Analysis of Each Creditor's Claim, Priority, and Entitlement
In accordance with the Court's Order (ECF No. 145), Cyberlux addresses each claimant's
position, priority, and entitlement to the Disputed Funds as follows:
1. Legalist SPV III, LP.
Legalist claims a perfected security interest in Cyberlux's accounts receivable from HII
pursuant to an Instrument of Assignment and supporting agreements, with a priority date of April
1, 2024. Cyberlux acknowledges that Legalist holds the only facially perfected, secured claim to
the specific res. However, Legalist's total claim of $13,650,513.94 includes $2,653,970.84 in
interest, of which approximately $1,999,676.16 has accrued since the interpleader was filed.
Legalist provided financing to Cyberlux in connection with its operations, and to the extent that
financing supported Cyberlux's performance of the HII Subcontract, Legalist's claim bears a nexus
to the res. Nevertheless, the post-interpleader interest accrual is excessive and should be limited.
Cyberlux proposes that Legalist's recovery be reduced by $1,000,000 in post-interpleader interest,
resulting in an adjusted claim of approximately $12,650,513.94.
2. WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Michael Sinensky (the Assure
Global Claimants).
The Assure Global Claimants assert a combined claim of $5,007,138.41, consisting of
$3,739,461.10 in principal and $1,267,677.31 in interest, with a priority date of October 23, 2025.
Notably, this represents a 43% increase over the original settlement amount negotiated with
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 19 PageID# 4166
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et. al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00483
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE DISPUTED FUNDS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux) respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of its motion for summary judgment regarding the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux recognizes
that it occupies an unusual posture in this proceeding, a debtor moving for summary judgment in
an interpleader action. But Cyberlux's position is not unusual when viewed in the proper light.
Cyberlux is not merely a passive debtor awaiting distribution. It is the party that invested more
than $4 million of its own capital to perform a government defense contract, the party whose
accounts receivable constitute the very res before this Court, and a party with a direct and
cognizable entitlement to the Disputed Funds.
Had HII Mission Technologies Corp. (HII) simply paid Cyberlux in the ordinary course
upon completion of its contractual obligations, as the Subcontract and Modification No. 4
contemplated, Cyberlux would have managed its creditor obligations itself, paid its secured
creditors, satisfied its debts, and continued operating its defense technology business without the
intervention of this Court. Instead, HII elected to interplead approximately $23,736,937.56 into
this Court, stripping Cyberlux of its ability to manage its financial obligations and exposing it to
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 4155
entityobservation
Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC
Read the anchor · page 3
3
3. HII interpleaded $23,736,937.56 into this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The
interpleader action was filed on or about June 24, 2025.1
4. Cyberlux invested more than $4 million of its own capital in direct performance of its
obligations under the HII Subcontract, with the expectation that it would be paid in the ordinary
course upon completion of its obligations.
5. The following parties have asserted claims against the Disputed Funds, with total secured
claims of approximately $24,280,797.01, which exceeds the available fund:
• Legalist SPV III, LP: $13,650,513.94 total ($10,996,543.10 principal; $2,653,970.84
interest), with a priority date of April 1, 2024, and approximately $1,999,676.16 in fees
and interest accrued since the interpleader was filed.
• WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Sinensky (collectively, the Assure
Global Claimants): $5,007,138.41 total ($3,739,461.10 principal; $1,267,677.31 interest),
with a priority date of October 23, 2025, representing a 43% increase over the original
Cyberlux settlement amount.
• ANPC: $3,087,878.86 total ($2,830,050.00 principal; $257,828.86 interest), with a priority
date of December 30, 2024 (equitable) or September 24, 2025 (lien).
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): $1,385,489.46 total ($450,000 principal; $935,489.46 interest),
with a priority date of August 29, 2025, based on treble damages agreed to by the Texas
Receiver.
• United States (IRS): $1,149,776.34, with priority dates spanning 2011-2024.
6. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC assert claims of approximately
1 The First Amended Interpleader Complaint was filed and served on or about August 4, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 4157
entityobservation
Secure Community, LLC
Read the anchor · page 3
3
3. HII interpleaded $23,736,937.56 into this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The
interpleader action was filed on or about June 24, 2025.1
4. Cyberlux invested more than $4 million of its own capital in direct performance of its
obligations under the HII Subcontract, with the expectation that it would be paid in the ordinary
course upon completion of its obligations.
5. The following parties have asserted claims against the Disputed Funds, with total secured
claims of approximately $24,280,797.01, which exceeds the available fund:
• Legalist SPV III, LP: $13,650,513.94 total ($10,996,543.10 principal; $2,653,970.84
interest), with a priority date of April 1, 2024, and approximately $1,999,676.16 in fees
and interest accrued since the interpleader was filed.
• WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Sinensky (collectively, the Assure
Global Claimants): $5,007,138.41 total ($3,739,461.10 principal; $1,267,677.31 interest),
with a priority date of October 23, 2025, representing a 43% increase over the original
Cyberlux settlement amount.
• ANPC: $3,087,878.86 total ($2,830,050.00 principal; $257,828.86 interest), with a priority
date of December 30, 2024 (equitable) or September 24, 2025 (lien).
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): $1,385,489.46 total ($450,000 principal; $935,489.46 interest),
with a priority date of August 29, 2025, based on treble damages agreed to by the Texas
Receiver.
• United States (IRS): $1,149,776.34, with priority dates spanning 2011-2024.
6. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC assert claims of approximately
1 The First Amended Interpleader Complaint was filed and served on or about August 4, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 4157
entityobservation
Fairwinds Technologies
Read the anchor · page 4
4
$6,025,000 but have already received or positioned themselves to receive substantial recoveries
through a Fairfax County garnishment order ($1,444,543.11) and a Texas receivership
($3,083,639.75).
7. Fairwinds Technologies asserts a claim of $2,348,542 but holds no secured interest in the
Disputed Funds.
8. Cyberlux is a U.S.-based defense technology company that designs, manufactures, and
deploys mission-critical technologies, including unmanned aerial systems, tactical
communications platforms, and advanced defense solutions for the Department of Defense and
allied partners. Cyberlux has an order backlog of approximately $17 million and a pending U.S.
CECOM order for $8.8 million that it cannot fulfill due to the capital restrictions caused by the
interpleader.
9. Since the interpleader was filed, Cyberlux has been unable to secure capital through
traditional financing, has been forced into predatory payday-loan financing at interest rates
approaching 100%, has lost critical government orders, and its share price has declined by
approximately 52%.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact
and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). In the second stage
of an interpleader action, the Court adjudicates the competing claims to the interpleaded fund. At
this stage, any party with a cognizable interest in the fund, including the debtor whose receivables
constitute the res, may move for summary judgment on its entitlement and the relative priority of
competing claims. See generally Commerce Funding Corp. v. Southern Financial Bank, 80 F.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 4 of 19 PageID# 4158
entityobservation
ARG
Read the anchor · page 15
15
amount from the Disputed Funds. Atlantic Wave's claim bears no nexus to the government
contract, it arises from a separate commercial dispute entirely unrelated to Cyberlux's drone
manufacturing program. Its inclusion in the distribution would artificially inflate the deficit,
prejudice legitimate creditors, and distort the equitable allocation.
Secure Community's claim is derivative of Atlantic Wave's position and fails for the same
reasons. Secure Community has no independent, perfected claim to the Disputed Funds.
7. Fairwinds Technologies.
Fairwinds Technologies asserts a claim of $2,348,542, but holds no secured interest in the
Disputed Funds. As an unsecured creditor, Fairwinds should not share in the distribution of the
res. Cyberlux proposes to address Fairwinds' claim through a payment plan in the ordinary course
of business, outside the scope of this interpleader proceeding.
8. ARG (Intervenor).
ARG filed a motion to intervene but does not have an adjudicated claim against Cyberlux.
Without an adjudicated, secured interest in the specific res, ARG should not participate in the
distribution. As with other unsecured or unadjudicated claims, Cyberlux should be permitted to
address ARG's claim, if any, in the ordinary course.
E. Proposed Order of Priority
Based on the foregoing analysis, Cyberlux respectfully submits that the Court should
establish the following order of priority for distribution of the Disputed Funds:
First Priority: Cyberlux Corporation, recovery of $2,450,000 representing its direct
capital investment in contract performance and the aggregate interest reductions from other
creditors' claims, to be used as operating capital to execute its defense contract backlog and
generate cash flow for payment of unsecured creditors.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 15 of 19 PageID# 4169
entityobservation
Robert Berleth
Read the anchor · page 16
16
Second Priority: Legalist SPV III, LP, as the only creditor with a facially perfected,
secured interest in the specific res, with an adjusted claim of approximately $12,650,513.94 (after
$1,000,000 interest reduction).
Third Priority: Assure Global Claimants (WeShield / Roman / MAS / Sinensky), with an
adjusted claim of approximately $4,407,138.41 (after $600,000 interest reduction).
Fourth Priority: ANPC, $3,087,878.86, subject to verification of the claimed equitable
lien.
Fifth Priority: TAG (Thin Air Gear), limited to principal plus reasonable interest accrued
through August 4, 2025, with treble damages disallowed, resulting in a significantly reduced claim
(estimated adjusted claim of approximately $785,489.46 after $600,000 reduction).
Sixth Priority: United States (IRS), $899,776.34 (after $250,000 reduction).
Excluded: Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC; Secure Community, LLC; Fairwinds
Technologies; ARG; and the Texas Receiver, Robert Berleth.
F. The Effect of Government Contracting Statutes and Regulations
The Court's Order directs the parties to address the effect of government contracting
statutes or regulations on priority, entitlement, or payment due. This issue is central to Cyberlux's
position.
The Disputed Funds originated from a government defense contract under which Cyberlux
manufactured unmanned aerial systems for the United States Department of Defense. The
Assignment of Claims Act, 41 U.S.C. § 6305, strictly limits the assignment of claims against the
United States and reflects a strong federal policy that government contract funds should flow to
the performing contractor. While the Assignment of Claims Act permits certain assignments to
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 16 of 19 PageID# 4170
entityobservation
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.
Read the anchor · page 19
19
Dated: April 15, 2026 Respectfully submitted,
CYBERLUX CORPORATION
By: /s/ Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.
Virginia State Bar Number 43622
jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com
Counsel for the Defendant
OGLETREE DEAKINS
Riverfront Plaza - West Tower
901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300
Richmond, VA 23219
Telephone: 804-663-2336
Facsimile: 804-225-8641
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that on this 15th day of April 2026, a true and correct copy of the foregoing has
been filed with the Clerk of Court using the Court’s CM/ECF filing system, which will then send
notification of such filing (NEF) to all counsel of record.
/s/ Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.
Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 19 of 19 PageID# 4173
entityobservation
HII Mission Technologies Corp.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et. al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00483
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE DISPUTED FUNDS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux) respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of its motion for summary judgment regarding the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux recognizes
that it occupies an unusual posture in this proceeding, a debtor moving for summary judgment in
an interpleader action. But Cyberlux's position is not unusual when viewed in the proper light.
Cyberlux is not merely a passive debtor awaiting distribution. It is the party that invested more
than $4 million of its own capital to perform a government defense contract, the party whose
accounts receivable constitute the very res before this Court, and a party with a direct and
cognizable entitlement to the Disputed Funds.
Had HII Mission Technologies Corp. (HII) simply paid Cyberlux in the ordinary course
upon completion of its contractual obligations, as the Subcontract and Modification No. 4
contemplated, Cyberlux would have managed its creditor obligations itself, paid its secured
creditors, satisfied its debts, and continued operating its defense technology business without the
intervention of this Court. Instead, HII elected to interplead approximately $23,736,937.56 into
this Court, stripping Cyberlux of its ability to manage its financial obligations and exposing it to
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 4155
entityobservation
Legalist SPV III, LP
Read the anchor · page 3
3
3. HII interpleaded $23,736,937.56 into this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The
interpleader action was filed on or about June 24, 2025.1
4. Cyberlux invested more than $4 million of its own capital in direct performance of its
obligations under the HII Subcontract, with the expectation that it would be paid in the ordinary
course upon completion of its obligations.
5. The following parties have asserted claims against the Disputed Funds, with total secured
claims of approximately $24,280,797.01, which exceeds the available fund:
• Legalist SPV III, LP: $13,650,513.94 total ($10,996,543.10 principal; $2,653,970.84
interest), with a priority date of April 1, 2024, and approximately $1,999,676.16 in fees
and interest accrued since the interpleader was filed.
• WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Sinensky (collectively, the Assure
Global Claimants): $5,007,138.41 total ($3,739,461.10 principal; $1,267,677.31 interest),
with a priority date of October 23, 2025, representing a 43% increase over the original
Cyberlux settlement amount.
• ANPC: $3,087,878.86 total ($2,830,050.00 principal; $257,828.86 interest), with a priority
date of December 30, 2024 (equitable) or September 24, 2025 (lien).
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): $1,385,489.46 total ($450,000 principal; $935,489.46 interest),
with a priority date of August 29, 2025, based on treble damages agreed to by the Texas
Receiver.
• United States (IRS): $1,149,776.34, with priority dates spanning 2011-2024.
6. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC assert claims of approximately
1 The First Amended Interpleader Complaint was filed and served on or about August 4, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 4157
entityobservation
WeShield
Read the anchor · page 3
3
3. HII interpleaded $23,736,937.56 into this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The
interpleader action was filed on or about June 24, 2025.1
4. Cyberlux invested more than $4 million of its own capital in direct performance of its
obligations under the HII Subcontract, with the expectation that it would be paid in the ordinary
course upon completion of its obligations.
5. The following parties have asserted claims against the Disputed Funds, with total secured
claims of approximately $24,280,797.01, which exceeds the available fund:
• Legalist SPV III, LP: $13,650,513.94 total ($10,996,543.10 principal; $2,653,970.84
interest), with a priority date of April 1, 2024, and approximately $1,999,676.16 in fees
and interest accrued since the interpleader was filed.
• WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Sinensky (collectively, the Assure
Global Claimants): $5,007,138.41 total ($3,739,461.10 principal; $1,267,677.31 interest),
with a priority date of October 23, 2025, representing a 43% increase over the original
Cyberlux settlement amount.
• ANPC: $3,087,878.86 total ($2,830,050.00 principal; $257,828.86 interest), with a priority
date of December 30, 2024 (equitable) or September 24, 2025 (lien).
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): $1,385,489.46 total ($450,000 principal; $935,489.46 interest),
with a priority date of August 29, 2025, based on treble damages agreed to by the Texas
Receiver.
• United States (IRS): $1,149,776.34, with priority dates spanning 2011-2024.
6. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC assert claims of approximately
1 The First Amended Interpleader Complaint was filed and served on or about August 4, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 4157
entityobservation
Roman Investments
Read the anchor · page 3
3
3. HII interpleaded $23,736,937.56 into this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The
interpleader action was filed on or about June 24, 2025.1
4. Cyberlux invested more than $4 million of its own capital in direct performance of its
obligations under the HII Subcontract, with the expectation that it would be paid in the ordinary
course upon completion of its obligations.
5. The following parties have asserted claims against the Disputed Funds, with total secured
claims of approximately $24,280,797.01, which exceeds the available fund:
• Legalist SPV III, LP: $13,650,513.94 total ($10,996,543.10 principal; $2,653,970.84
interest), with a priority date of April 1, 2024, and approximately $1,999,676.16 in fees
and interest accrued since the interpleader was filed.
• WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Sinensky (collectively, the Assure
Global Claimants): $5,007,138.41 total ($3,739,461.10 principal; $1,267,677.31 interest),
with a priority date of October 23, 2025, representing a 43% increase over the original
Cyberlux settlement amount.
• ANPC: $3,087,878.86 total ($2,830,050.00 principal; $257,828.86 interest), with a priority
date of December 30, 2024 (equitable) or September 24, 2025 (lien).
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): $1,385,489.46 total ($450,000 principal; $935,489.46 interest),
with a priority date of August 29, 2025, based on treble damages agreed to by the Texas
Receiver.
• United States (IRS): $1,149,776.34, with priority dates spanning 2011-2024.
6. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC assert claims of approximately
1 The First Amended Interpleader Complaint was filed and served on or about August 4, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 4157
entityobservation
MAS USA
Read the anchor · page 3
3
3. HII interpleaded $23,736,937.56 into this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The
interpleader action was filed on or about June 24, 2025.1
4. Cyberlux invested more than $4 million of its own capital in direct performance of its
obligations under the HII Subcontract, with the expectation that it would be paid in the ordinary
course upon completion of its obligations.
5. The following parties have asserted claims against the Disputed Funds, with total secured
claims of approximately $24,280,797.01, which exceeds the available fund:
• Legalist SPV III, LP: $13,650,513.94 total ($10,996,543.10 principal; $2,653,970.84
interest), with a priority date of April 1, 2024, and approximately $1,999,676.16 in fees
and interest accrued since the interpleader was filed.
• WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Sinensky (collectively, the Assure
Global Claimants): $5,007,138.41 total ($3,739,461.10 principal; $1,267,677.31 interest),
with a priority date of October 23, 2025, representing a 43% increase over the original
Cyberlux settlement amount.
• ANPC: $3,087,878.86 total ($2,830,050.00 principal; $257,828.86 interest), with a priority
date of December 30, 2024 (equitable) or September 24, 2025 (lien).
• TAG (Thin Air Gear): $1,385,489.46 total ($450,000 principal; $935,489.46 interest),
with a priority date of August 29, 2025, based on treble damages agreed to by the Texas
Receiver.
• United States (IRS): $1,149,776.34, with priority dates spanning 2011-2024.
6. Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC assert claims of approximately
1 The First Amended Interpleader Complaint was filed and served on or about August 4, 2025.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 3 of 19 PageID# 4157
entityobservation
Michael Sinensky
Read the anchor · page 12
12
retain a portion of the Disputed Funds as operating capital, it can execute on this backlog and
generate the revenue necessary to pay its non-nexus creditors in an orderly fashion. Draining the
res to satisfy every claimant, regardless of the claim's connection to the underlying contract, would
destroy Cyberlux's ability to operate, fulfill pending government orders, and satisfy any creditor
at all.
D. Analysis of Each Creditor's Claim, Priority, and Entitlement
In accordance with the Court's Order (ECF No. 145), Cyberlux addresses each claimant's
position, priority, and entitlement to the Disputed Funds as follows:
1. Legalist SPV III, LP.
Legalist claims a perfected security interest in Cyberlux's accounts receivable from HII
pursuant to an Instrument of Assignment and supporting agreements, with a priority date of April
1, 2024. Cyberlux acknowledges that Legalist holds the only facially perfected, secured claim to
the specific res. However, Legalist's total claim of $13,650,513.94 includes $2,653,970.84 in
interest, of which approximately $1,999,676.16 has accrued since the interpleader was filed.
Legalist provided financing to Cyberlux in connection with its operations, and to the extent that
financing supported Cyberlux's performance of the HII Subcontract, Legalist's claim bears a nexus
to the res. Nevertheless, the post-interpleader interest accrual is excessive and should be limited.
Cyberlux proposes that Legalist's recovery be reduced by $1,000,000 in post-interpleader interest,
resulting in an adjusted claim of approximately $12,650,513.94.
2. WeShield / Roman Investments / MAS USA / Michael Sinensky (the Assure
Global Claimants).
The Assure Global Claimants assert a combined claim of $5,007,138.41, consisting of
$3,739,461.10 in principal and $1,267,677.31 in interest, with a priority date of October 23, 2025.
Notably, this represents a 43% increase over the original settlement amount negotiated with
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 12 of 19 PageID# 4166
entityobservation
Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation
Read the anchor · page 13
13
Cyberlux. The Court should scrutinize whether these claimants' underlying transactions bear a
sufficient nexus to the government contract to warrant participation in the distribution. Moreover,
the interest claimed is disproportionate to the underlying obligations and has been inflated by the
delay caused by the interpleader. Cyberlux proposes a $600,000 reduction in claimed interest,
resulting in an adjusted claim of approximately $4,407,138.41.
3. ANPC (Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation).
ANPC asserts a claim of $3,087,878.86, consisting of $2,830,050.00 in principal and
$257,828.86 in interest, with a priority date of December 30, 2024 (equitable lien) or September
24, 2025 (perfected lien). ANPC's interest claim consists primarily of attorney's fees. ANPC claims
an equitable lien under North Carolina law based on a judgment it domesticated in Virginia. To
the extent ANPC's underlying claim arises from services or products related to Cyberlux's defense
technology operations, it may bear a nexus to the res. The Court should examine whether ANPC's
claimed equitable lien is properly perfected and whether the attorney's fees component is
reasonable.
4. TAG (Thin Air Gear).
Thin Air Gear's claim presents one of the most troubling examples of interest inflation in
this proceeding. TAG asserts a total claim of $1,385,489.46, of which $450,000 represents the
principal amount and $935,489.46 represents claimed interest, more than double the underlying
debt. This inflated interest figure is based on treble damages that were agreed to by the Texas
Receiver, Robert Berleth, whose authority over Cyberlux's assets is contested and whose actions
have been subject to appellate review. The treble damages were not the product of arm's-length
negotiation by Cyberlux but rather were imposed through a receivership process that Cyberlux
disputes. The Court should decline to honor treble damages agreed to by a receiver of questionable
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 13 of 19 PageID# 4167
entityobservation
Thin Air Gear
Read the anchor · page 13
13
Cyberlux. The Court should scrutinize whether these claimants' underlying transactions bear a
sufficient nexus to the government contract to warrant participation in the distribution. Moreover,
the interest claimed is disproportionate to the underlying obligations and has been inflated by the
delay caused by the interpleader. Cyberlux proposes a $600,000 reduction in claimed interest,
resulting in an adjusted claim of approximately $4,407,138.41.
3. ANPC (Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation).
ANPC asserts a claim of $3,087,878.86, consisting of $2,830,050.00 in principal and
$257,828.86 in interest, with a priority date of December 30, 2024 (equitable lien) or September
24, 2025 (perfected lien). ANPC's interest claim consists primarily of attorney's fees. ANPC claims
an equitable lien under North Carolina law based on a judgment it domesticated in Virginia. To
the extent ANPC's underlying claim arises from services or products related to Cyberlux's defense
technology operations, it may bear a nexus to the res. The Court should examine whether ANPC's
claimed equitable lien is properly perfected and whether the attorney's fees component is
reasonable.
4. TAG (Thin Air Gear).
Thin Air Gear's claim presents one of the most troubling examples of interest inflation in
this proceeding. TAG asserts a total claim of $1,385,489.46, of which $450,000 represents the
principal amount and $935,489.46 represents claimed interest, more than double the underlying
debt. This inflated interest figure is based on treble damages that were agreed to by the Texas
Receiver, Robert Berleth, whose authority over Cyberlux's assets is contested and whose actions
have been subject to appellate review. The treble damages were not the product of arm's-length
negotiation by Cyberlux but rather were imposed through a receivership process that Cyberlux
disputes. The Court should decline to honor treble damages agreed to by a receiver of questionable
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 13 of 19 PageID# 4167
eventattribution
Cyberlux files ECF 188 memorandum and counsel certificate.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et. al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00483
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE DISPUTED FUNDS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux) respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of its motion for summary judgment regarding the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux recognizes
that it occupies an unusual posture in this proceeding, a debtor moving for summary judgment in
an interpleader action. But Cyberlux's position is not unusual when viewed in the proper light.
Cyberlux is not merely a passive debtor awaiting distribution. It is the party that invested more
than $4 million of its own capital to perform a government defense contract, the party whose
accounts receivable constitute the very res before this Court, and a party with a direct and
cognizable entitlement to the Disputed Funds.
Had HII Mission Technologies Corp. (HII) simply paid Cyberlux in the ordinary course
upon completion of its contractual obligations, as the Subcontract and Modification No. 4
contemplated, Cyberlux would have managed its creditor obligations itself, paid its secured
creditors, satisfied its debts, and continued operating its defense technology business without the
intervention of this Court. Instead, HII elected to interplead approximately $23,736,937.56 into
this Court, stripping Cyberlux of its ability to manage its financial obligations and exposing it to
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 4155
inferenceinference
Both the original listed claims and the proposed waterfall including Cyberlux sum to $24,280,797.01, exceeding the stated fund by $543,859.4
Both the original listed claims and the proposed waterfall including Cyberlux sum to $24,280,797.01, exceeding the stated fund by $543,859.45. Moving $2.45 million from creditor allocations to Cyberlux leaves this aggregate shortfall intact; the brief does not identify a further adjustment that funds the entire proposed waterfall.
inferenceinference
The brief’s date variations prevent treating its proposed interest cap as one settled calculation. Likewise, the stated 43% increase cannot
The brief’s date variations prevent treating its proposed interest cap as one settled calculation. Likewise, the stated 43% increase cannot be reproduced from the listed principal and interest alone; a different original settlement denominator may exist but is not supplied.
inferenceinference
A garnishment order, funds held by a receiver and amounts actually credited against a judgment are different states. The brief’s received-or
A garnishment order, funds held by a receiver and amounts actually credited against a judgment are different states. The brief’s received-or-positioned wording and untraced amounts do not alone prove double recovery.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 19-page source reviewed at SHA-256 ee94eaa33b4aaf5e2d4841e2023965a1b09183372a4e307279d1c35f3edf7cb8. Source assertions, or
Complete supplied 19-page source reviewed at SHA-256 ee94eaa33b4aaf5e2d4841e2023965a1b09183372a4e307279d1c35f3edf7cb8. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. All nineteen pages of the registered ECF188 memorandum read in full. Own renders checked on pages1,2,3,10,16,19, including all original claim and final waterfall amounts, relief, filing and signature. Decimal arithmetic independently recomputed from the displayed figures. Other pages were read in full native text; no attached ledger or cited authority was treated as present.
Read the anchor · page 1
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION, et. al.
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 3:25-cv-00483
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF CYBERLUX CORPORATION'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT REGARDING THE DISPUTED FUNDS
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendant Cyberlux Corporation (Cyberlux) respectfully submits this memorandum in
support of its motion for summary judgment regarding the Disputed Funds. Cyberlux recognizes
that it occupies an unusual posture in this proceeding, a debtor moving for summary judgment in
an interpleader action. But Cyberlux's position is not unusual when viewed in the proper light.
Cyberlux is not merely a passive debtor awaiting distribution. It is the party that invested more
than $4 million of its own capital to perform a government defense contract, the party whose
accounts receivable constitute the very res before this Court, and a party with a direct and
cognizable entitlement to the Disputed Funds.
Had HII Mission Technologies Corp. (HII) simply paid Cyberlux in the ordinary course
upon completion of its contractual obligations, as the Subcontract and Modification No. 4
contemplated, Cyberlux would have managed its creditor obligations itself, paid its secured
creditors, satisfied its debts, and continued operating its defense technology business without the
intervention of this Court. Instead, HII elected to interplead approximately $23,736,937.56 into
this Court, stripping Cyberlux of its ability to manage its financial obligations and exposing it to
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 188 Filed 04/15/26 Page 1 of 19 PageID# 4155
questionquestion
Which cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the
Which cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
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 listed secured claims total $24,280,797.01: Legalist $13,650,513.94 ($10,996,543.10 principal and $2,653,970.84 interest); Assure Global claimants $5,007,138.41 ($3,739,461.10 principal and $1,267,677.31 interest); ANPC $3,087,878.86 ($2,830,050 principal and $257,828.86 interest); Thin Air Gear $1,385,489.46 ($450,000 principal and $935,489.46 interest); IRS $1,149,776.34. These are Cyberlux’s descriptions, not adjudicated classifications.supportsBoth the original listed claims and the proposed waterfall including Cyberlux sum to $24,280,797.01, exceeding the stated fund by $543,859.45. Moving $2.45 million from creditor allocations to Cyberlux leaves this aggregate shortfall intact; the brief does not identify a further adjustment that funds the entire proposed waterfall.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux attacks Atlantic Wave’s parallel Fairfax garnishment and Texas receivership as the cause of interpleader and proposed duplicative recovery. It cites $1,444,543.11 garnishment and $3,083,639.75 receiver amounts, sometimes describing them as received or positioned to receive, and alleges a July 17 levy demand despite a stay. It seeks exclusion of Atlantic Wave and Secure Community; the source does not trace actual satisfaction allocations or provide the underlying orders.supportsA garnishment order, funds held by a receiver and amounts actually credited against a judgment are different states. The brief’s received-or-positioned wording and untraced amounts do not alone prove double recovery.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It proposes cutting Assure claimants’ interest by $600,000 to $4,407,138.41 and calls for scrutiny of contract nexus. The claimed 43% increase references an original settlement amount not separately identified here; the listed interest divided by listed principal is approximately 33.9%.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
A garnishment order, funds held by a receiver and amounts actually credited against a judgment are different states. The brief’s received-or-positioned wording and untraced amounts do not alone prove double recovery.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed waterfall is Cyberlux $2,450,000, Legalist $12,650,513.94, Assure $4,407,138.41, ANPC $3,087,878.86, TAG $785,489.46 and IRS $899,776.34. The four proposed creditor reductions total $2,450,000, all redirected to Cyberlux rather than reducing aggregate requested distributions.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux attacks Atlantic Wave’s parallel Fairfax garnishment and Texas receivership as the cause of interpleader and proposed duplicative recovery. It cites $1,444,543.11 garnishment and $3,083,639.75 receiver amounts, sometimes describing them as received or positioned to receive, and alleges a July 17 levy demand despite a stay. It seeks exclusion of Atlantic Wave and Secure Community; the source does not trace actual satisfaction allocations or provide the underlying orders.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed interest cutoff varies within the brief: June 24, 2025 in the introduction and facts, July 24, 2025 on page 9 as the supposed filing/service date, August 4, 2025 for TAG on page 16, and June 24 or no later than August 4 in the conclusion. The footnote identifies August 4 as the amended complaint filing/service date. No single consistent cutoff is selected throughout.supportsThe brief’s date variations prevent treating its proposed interest cap as one settled calculation. Likewise, the stated 43% increase cannot be reproduced from the listed principal and interest alone; a different original settlement denominator may exist but is not supplied.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It argues that government-contract origin, FAR/Assignment of Claims Act policies and rated-order obligations favour creditors with a nexus to contract performance and protect operating capital. This is Cyberlux’s proposed legal theory; the memorandum does not itself establish that procurement policy overrides perfected liens or tax priority.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed waterfall is Cyberlux $2,450,000, Legalist $12,650,513.94, Assure $4,407,138.41, ANPC $3,087,878.86, TAG $785,489.46 and IRS $899,776.34. The four proposed creditor reductions total $2,450,000, all redirected to Cyberlux rather than reducing aggregate requested distributions.supportsBoth the original listed claims and the proposed waterfall including Cyberlux sum to $24,280,797.01, exceeding the stated fund by $543,859.45. Moving $2.45 million from creditor allocations to Cyberlux leaves this aggregate shortfall intact; the brief does not identify a further adjustment that funds the entire proposed waterfall.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux acknowledges Legalist as the only creditor with a facially perfected secured interest in the specific receivables, while proposing a $1 million reduction to $12,650,513.94 and subordinating it to Cyberlux’s $2.45 million first-priority recovery.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux claims direct beneficial entitlement to receivables from HII subcontract P000043846 and Modification 4 effective 26 February 2025. It reports government payment to HII of $25,769,369.03 and interpleader funds $23,736,937.56, attributing financial harm to HII’s choice to interplead rather than pay. No performance acceptance or cost ledger is attached.supportsBoth the original listed claims and the proposed waterfall including Cyberlux sum to $24,280,797.01, exceeding the stated fund by $543,859.45. Moving $2.45 million from creditor allocations to Cyberlux leaves this aggregate shortfall intact; the brief does not identify a further adjustment that funds the entire proposed waterfall.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux acknowledges Legalist as the only creditor with a facially perfected secured interest in the specific receivables, while proposing a $1 million reduction to $12,650,513.94 and subordinating it to Cyberlux’s $2.45 million first-priority recovery.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed interest cutoff varies within the brief: June 24, 2025 in the introduction and facts, July 24, 2025 on page 9 as the supposed filing/service date, August 4, 2025 for TAG on page 16, and June 24 or no later than August 4 in the conclusion. The footnote identifies August 4 as the amended complaint filing/service date. No single consistent cutoff is selected throughout.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Business necessity assertions include a $17 million backlog and pending $8.8 million CECOM order on page 4, a $26 million backlog/pipeline and projected $17 million cash flow on pages 6/11, nearly 100% emergency finance, lost orders and a 52% share-price decline. It also claims DX/DO-rated orders involving General Dynamics, BAE and allied customers. No order list, ratings instruments, cash model or price series accompanies the brief.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed interest cutoff varies within the brief: June 24, 2025 in the introduction and facts, July 24, 2025 on page 9 as the supposed filing/service date, August 4, 2025 for TAG on page 16, and June 24 or no later than August 4 in the conclusion. The footnote identifies August 4 as the amended complaint filing/service date. No single consistent cutoff is selected throughout.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It leaves ANPC at $3,087,878.86 subject to lien scrutiny and calls the amount above principal primarily attorney fees despite earlier interest labelling. TAG is to be reduced by $600,000 to an estimated $785,489.46, while narrative text calls for principal plus reasonable non-trebled interest. IRS is reduced by $250,000 to $899,776.34 for asserted parity despite acknowledged possible federal tax priority.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It proposes cutting Assure claimants’ interest by $600,000 to $4,407,138.41 and calls for scrutiny of contract nexus. The claimed 43% increase references an original settlement amount not separately identified here; the listed interest divided by listed principal is approximately 33.9%.supportsThe brief’s date variations prevent treating its proposed interest cap as one settled calculation. Likewise, the stated 43% increase cannot be reproduced from the listed principal and interest alone; a different original settlement denominator may exist but is not supplied.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The proposed waterfall is Cyberlux $2,450,000, Legalist $12,650,513.94, Assure $4,407,138.41, ANPC $3,087,878.86, TAG $785,489.46 and IRS $899,776.34. The four proposed creditor reductions total $2,450,000, all redirected to Cyberlux rather than reducing aggregate requested distributions.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Both the original listed claims and the proposed waterfall including Cyberlux sum to $24,280,797.01, exceeding the stated fund by $543,859.45. Moving $2.45 million from creditor allocations to Cyberlux leaves this aggregate shortfall intact; the brief does not identify a further adjustment that funds the entire proposed waterfall.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It argues that government-contract origin, FAR/Assignment of Claims Act policies and rated-order obligations favour creditors with a nexus to contract performance and protect operating capital. This is Cyberlux’s proposed legal theory; the memorandum does not itself establish that procurement policy overrides perfected liens or tax priority.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Its asserted own-capital contribution is described as more than $4 million and then at least $4,786,814.62. It offers compromise recovery of $2,450,000 to support operations, without an itemised reconciliation of these investment figures.supportsWhich cost ledger, reconciled waterfall, cutoff-date interest schedules, satisfaction allocations and rated-order documents substantiate the proposed priority departures and capital request?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The brief’s date variations prevent treating its proposed interest cap as one settled calculation. Likewise, the stated 43% increase cannot be reproduced from the listed principal and interest alone; a different original settlement denominator may exist but is not supplied.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Cyberlux argues the interpleader removed its ability to pay and equitable power should stop creditor interest; it cites about $1,999,676.16 Legalist post-filing fees/interest, characterises Assure’s increase as 43% over the original settlement, and objects to TAG’s treble-damages component as improperly agreed by the receiver. It also claims approximately twenty months without earnings access; this is not reconciled with the brief’s own interpleader dates.supportsThe brief’s date variations prevent treating its proposed interest cap as one settled calculation. Likewise, the stated 43% increase cannot be reproduced from the listed principal and interest alone; a different original settlement denominator may exist but is not supplied.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Fairwinds is excluded as unsecured, with an ordinary-course payment plan proposed but not specified. ARG is excluded as lacking an adjudicated secured claim. The requested excluded group also includes Atlantic Wave, Secure Community and receiver Robert Berleth. These are sought dispositions, not awarded outcomes.supportsWhat is Cyberlux requesting and does the proposed arithmetic close?
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.