Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.
observationobservation
EDVA70-2;20August2025proposed intervention.
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
ExhibitA/EDVA70-2 filed20August2025is labelled Proposed Complaint in Intervention of Fairwinds. It seeks$2,348,542plus interest from the int
ExhibitA/EDVA70-2 filed20August2025is labelled Proposed Complaint in Intervention of Fairwinds. It seeks$2,348,542plus interest from the interpleaded funds, signed electronically by Alexander N. Breckinridge V. This copy does not show leave to intervene or judgment granted.
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
claimallegation
Fairwinds describes itself as Maryland-organised, adopts HII party allegations on information/belief and accepts jurisdiction/venue allegati
Fairwinds describes itself as Maryland-organised, adopts HII party allegations on information/belief and accepts jurisdiction/venue allegations. It alleges an October3,2022teaming agreement under which it would either have prime-contractor opportunity or, if another party became prime,8%of the first1,000drones’ contract value; it alleges another party became prime.
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
claimallegation
It alleges a June7,2023Strategic Business Development, Service and Supply Teaming Contract fixed8%of the first1,000delivered drones, and tha
It alleges a June7,2023Strategic Business Development, Service and Supply Teaming Contract fixed8%of the first1,000delivered drones, and that Schmidt sent a July8,2025spreadsheet valuing the fee$2,348,542and confirming payment from HII funds. It alleges a July9invoice and complete nonpayment. The agreements, transmitting email and actual invoice are not attached; page5is an invoice summary/calculation.
Read the anchor · page 2
2
#104197055v2
3. Upon information and belief, the allegations regarding the parties as set forth in the
Plaintiff HII’s Complaint for Interpleader in paragraphs 3 through 11 accurately describe the
parties named in that complaint.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. Fairwinds accepts the allegations regarding jurisdiction and venue set forth in
Plaintiff HII’s Complaint for Interpleader in paragraphs 12 through 16.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
5. On or about October 3, 2022, Fairwinds and Cyberlux entered into a valid
enforceable Teaming Agreement (the “TA”) in which Fairwinds assisted Cyberlux in securing a
contract vehicle award for the shipment of Cyberlux’s Model K8 Aircraft (“Drones”).
6. As consideration for its services, Fairwinds would either: (i) be given the
opportunity to serve as prime contractor for any subsequent award; or, (ii) in the event that a party
other than Fairwinds was chosen to serve as the prime contractor for the subsequent award,
Fairwinds would receive eight percent (8%) of the contract value associated with the first one
thousand (1,000) Drones delivered.
7. A company other than Fairwinds was awarded the prime contract to deliver the
Drones.
8. Cyberlux and Fairwinds then entered into a valid and enforceable Strategic
Business Development, Service and Supply Teaming Contract (the “Contract”) on June 7, 2023.
9. Under the Contract, Cyberlux and Fairwinds agreed that Cyberlux would pay
Fairwinds a fee of eight percent (8%) of the value of the first one thousand (1,000) Drones
delivered.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 2 of 5 PageID# 773
claimallegation
The attached summary separates original392drones/$14,954,400 from closeout1,608drones/$43,759,160, totalling2,000/$58,713,560. It displays$2
The attached summary separates original392drones/$14,954,400 from closeout1,608drones/$43,759,160, totalling2,000/$58,713,560. It displays$29,357average per unit,$29,356,780for1,000units and$2,348,542at8%. Using the displayed unrounded1,000-unit basis yields$2,348,542.40; the claimed whole-dollar amount reflects rounding rather than an automatic material error.
The commission method averages the original and closeout values across all2,000units and halves total value, while the pleading says first1,
The commission method averages the original and closeout values across all2,000units and halves total value, while the pleading says first1,000delivered. That calculation requires contractual/transaction support; averaging is not automatically the actual value of the chronologically first1,000units.
CLIN0001closeout accounting totals$43,759,159.81less$22,776,605.40ToUSG/credit=$20,982,554.41due CYBL. Other due components are$2,757,254.39
CLIN0001closeout accounting totals$43,759,159.81less$22,776,605.40ToUSG/credit=$20,982,554.41due CYBL. Other due components are$2,757,254.39CLIN0002/0003cost,$1,615,972.07CLIN0004and$413,588.16profit, summing$25,769,369.03. Headline gross shipments, government credit and remaining company receivable are distinct figures.
The eight truck rows show invoice suffixes1014–1021and ship datesApril25,April28,May2,May5,May8,May12,May28andJune3,2025. The first five spl
The eight truck rows show invoice suffixes1014–1021and ship datesApril25,April28,May2,May5,May8,May12,May28andJune3,2025. The first five split gross/CYBL/USGcredit, truck6has zero credit, and right-side total/CYBL/credit cells for7–8are blank. These are spreadsheet dates and classifications, not attached delivery acceptance records.
Original-shipment rows list DD250identifiers endingAXX,BXX,andCXX, with CXX repeated for the final two-row block. Quantities sum392and amoun
Original-shipment rows list DD250identifiers endingAXX,BXX,andCXX, with CXX repeated for the final two-row block. Quantities sum392and amounts$14,954,400; no original DD250forms are attached. Repeated identifier may require correction/confirmation but does not prove duplicated physical deliveries.
The pleading initially calls funds proposed for deposit and later says funds were placed with the Court. It supplies no deposit receipt. The
The pleading initially calls funds proposed for deposit and later says funds were placed with the Court. It supplies no deposit receipt. The spreadsheet’s$25,769,369.03remaining receivable does not itself establish court custody, unencumbered ownership, Fairwinds priority or actual payment.
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
entityobservation
Fairwinds Technologies LLC
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
entityobservation
Cyberlux Corporation
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
entityobservation
HII Mission Technologies Corp.
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
entityobservation
Mark Schmidt
Read the anchor · page 3
3
#104197055v2
10. On July 8, 2025, Cyberlux’s Chief Executive Officer, Mark Schmidt, sent
Fairwinds a spreadsheet detailing the accounting breakdown of the value of the Drones and valued
the amount owed to Fairwinds as $2,348,542.00.1
11. On July 9, 2025, Fairwinds submitted an invoice for $2,348,542.00 to Cyberlux.
12. To date, Cyberlux has not paid Fairwinds any of the amounts due.
13. Mark Schmidt, CEO of Cyberlux, confirmed that Cyberlux would pay Fairwinds
out of the funds to be disbursed by HII Mission Technologies, Corp. (“HII”) when he valued the
amount owed as $2,348,542.00.
14. At the same time, HII initiated an interpleader action in which the funds in question
were placed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 3:25-cv-483).
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE: JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1335 AND 28 U.S.C. § 2361
15. Fairwinds incorporates all of the previous paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
16. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and 28 U.S.C. § 2361, the Court has authority to enter
judgment distributing the interpleaded funds as justice so demands.
17. Fairwinds is entitled to a judgment directing that, pursuant to Cyberlux’s
agreements with Fairwinds, the Court pay to Fairwinds $2,348,542.00, plus applicable interest, of
the ultimately interpleaded funds.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Fairwinds respectfully requests the following relief:
1
Exhibit 1, Invoice Summary.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 774
entityobservation
Alexander N. Breckinridge V
Read the anchor · page 4
4
#104197055v2
A. A judgment directing that $2,348,542.00, plus applicable interest, be paid out of
the interpleaded funds to Fairwinds; and
B. Such other relief as the Court deems just and reasonable.
August 20, 2025 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Alexander N. Breckinridge V
ALEXANDER N. BRECKINRIDGE V
(VSB #74708)
JONES WALKER LLP
1 M Street SE, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20003
Telephone: (202) 203-1021
Facsimile: (202) 203-0000
Email: abreckinridge@joneswalker.com
Counsel for Proposed Intervenor
Fairwinds Technologies, LLC
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 4 of 5 PageID# 775
eventattribution
Proposed intervention and summary exhibited.
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
eventattribution
Fairwinds attributes spreadsheet to Schmidt.
Read the anchor · page 3
3
#104197055v2
10. On July 8, 2025, Cyberlux’s Chief Executive Officer, Mark Schmidt, sent
Fairwinds a spreadsheet detailing the accounting breakdown of the value of the Drones and valued
the amount owed to Fairwinds as $2,348,542.00.1
11. On July 9, 2025, Fairwinds submitted an invoice for $2,348,542.00 to Cyberlux.
12. To date, Cyberlux has not paid Fairwinds any of the amounts due.
13. Mark Schmidt, CEO of Cyberlux, confirmed that Cyberlux would pay Fairwinds
out of the funds to be disbursed by HII Mission Technologies, Corp. (“HII”) when he valued the
amount owed as $2,348,542.00.
14. At the same time, HII initiated an interpleader action in which the funds in question
were placed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (Case No. 3:25-cv-483).
CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT ONE: JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1335 AND 28 U.S.C. § 2361
15. Fairwinds incorporates all of the previous paragraphs as if set forth fully herein.
16. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and 28 U.S.C. § 2361, the Court has authority to enter
judgment distributing the interpleaded funds as justice so demands.
17. Fairwinds is entitled to a judgment directing that, pursuant to Cyberlux’s
agreements with Fairwinds, the Court pay to Fairwinds $2,348,542.00, plus applicable interest, of
the ultimately interpleaded funds.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Fairwinds respectfully requests the following relief:
1
Exhibit 1, Invoice Summary.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 3 of 5 PageID# 774
inferenceinference
An average over2,000drones does not by itself establish the contractually compensable value of the first1,000; unit chronology and price mix
An average over2,000drones does not by itself establish the contractually compensable value of the first1,000; unit chronology and price mix matter.
inferenceinference
Spreadsheet receivable arithmetic can be internally checked without validating contract entitlement, court custody or creditor priority.
otherattribution
Complete supplied 5-page source reviewed at SHA-256 05ee149aa541f2eac9fd570e1c74c503c818468e77f7a454cfe6e75d414d3265. Source assertions, ori
Complete supplied 5-page source reviewed at SHA-256 05ee149aa541f2eac9fd570e1c74c503c818468e77f7a454cfe6e75d414d3265. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. Allfive native pages fully read; own images checked proposed/exhibit label, electronic signature and full landscape worksheet. Every visible worksheet row/column, split, blank and note compared with native text; no OCR or source repair required.
Read the anchor · page 1
#104197055v2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division
HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP.,
Interpleader Plaintiff
v.
CYBERLUX CORPORATION;
ATLANTIC WAVE HOLDINGS, LLC;
SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC;
LEGALIST SPV III, LP; UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA; ADVANCED
NAVIGATION AND POSITIONING
CORPORATION; ROBERT W.
BERLETH, solely in his capacity as
Receiver for Cyberlux Corporation, and
ASSURE GLOBAL, LLC d/b/a
WESHIELD,
Interpleader Defendants/Claimants
Civil Action No: 3:25-cv-483
[PROPOSED] COMPLAINT IN INTERVENTION OF
FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC
NOW INTO COURT, through undersigned counsel, comes Interpleader
Defendant/Claimant, Fairwinds Technologies LLC (“Fairwinds”).
1. Intervenor Fairwinds asserts through this complaint its interest in the funds that
plaintiff HII Mission Technologies Corp. (“HII”) has proposed to interplead in this case. Cyberlux
Corporation (“Cyberlux”) agreed to pay Fairwinds in connection with the payment from HII that
HII now proposes to deposit with the Court. Fairwinds has an interest in the interpleaded funds
and seeks a judgment and payment in satisfaction of that interest.
PARTIES
2. Claimant Fairwinds is a limited liability corporation organized under the laws of
the state of Maryland.
Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 70-2 Filed 08/20/25 Page 1 of 5 PageID# 772
questionquestion
Do the actual contract and modification authorise average-value commission rather than first-delivered unit pricing?
questionquestion
What source email, invoice, DD250s and receipt records authenticate authorship, dates, repeatedCXXidentifier and completion?
questionquestion
What deposit and priority records support payment from this fund rather than only a contractual claim against Cyberlux?
questionquestion
How is Fairwinds’ claimed commission calculated?
observation
CONNECT
Reviewed relationships
The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.
6 780$ 1000 units cybl 2 348 542$ 8% commission original contract shipments dd250s qty unit price amount pnwa9432056002axx k8 1 drone 24 $40 500 00 $972 000 00 notes k8 2 drone 48 $36 900 00 $1 771 200 00 clin 0001 is the shipping of drones in closeout modificationrelates to{"chapter":29,"exposure_lens":"Intermediary exposure depends on the actual service, compensation, disclosure, approval and actor-specific knowledge; a percentage fee is a question, not an offence by itself.","responsibility":"Legitimate services, fee disclosure, customer approval, registration and price treatment.","sequence":329,"unit_key":"CH29"}
The controlling book database maps the source supporting this allegation to Part III, Chapter 29. This is a reviewed source-to-publication link, not a name match.
6,780$ 1000 units CYBL 2,348,542$ 8% Commission Original Contract Shipments DD250s Qty Unit Price Amount PNWA9432056002AXX K8-1 Drone 24 $40,500.00 $972,000.00 Notes: K8-2 Drone 48 $36,900.00 $1,771,200.00 CLIN 0001 is the shipping of drones in closeout modification.supports6 780$ 1000 units cybl 2 348 542$ 8% commission original contract shipments dd250s qty unit price amount pnwa9432056002axx k8 1 drone 24 $40 500 00 $972 000 00 notes k8 2 drone 48 $36 900 00 $1 771 200 00 clin 0001 is the shipping of drones in closeout modification
This database-linked source passage is the reviewed documentary support mapped to the allegation in the controlling book version.
The commission method averages the original and closeout values across all2,000units and halves total value, while the pleading says first1,000delivered. That calculation requires contractual/transaction support; averaging is not automatically the actual value of the chronologically first1,000units.supportsDo the actual contract and modification authorise average-value commission rather than first-delivered unit pricing?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It alleges a June7,2023Strategic Business Development, Service and Supply Teaming Contract fixed8%of the first1,000delivered drones, and that Schmidt sent a July8,2025spreadsheet valuing the fee$2,348,542and confirming payment from HII funds. It alleges a July9invoice and complete nonpayment. The agreements, transmitting email and actual invoice are not attached; page5is an invoice summary/calculation.supportsHow is Fairwinds’ claimed commission calculated?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The pleading initially calls funds proposed for deposit and later says funds were placed with the Court. It supplies no deposit receipt. The spreadsheet’s$25,769,369.03remaining receivable does not itself establish court custody, unencumbered ownership, Fairwinds priority or actual payment.supportsSpreadsheet receivable arithmetic can be internally checked without validating contract entitlement, court custody or creditor priority.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The attached summary separates original392drones/$14,954,400 from closeout1,608drones/$43,759,160, totalling2,000/$58,713,560. It displays$29,357average per unit,$29,356,780for1,000units and$2,348,542at8%. Using the displayed unrounded1,000-unit basis yields$2,348,542.40; the claimed whole-dollar amount reflects rounding rather than an automatic material error.supportsAn average over2,000drones does not by itself establish the contractually compensable value of the first1,000; unit chronology and price mix matter.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It alleges a June7,2023Strategic Business Development, Service and Supply Teaming Contract fixed8%of the first1,000delivered drones, and that Schmidt sent a July8,2025spreadsheet valuing the fee$2,348,542and confirming payment from HII funds. It alleges a July9invoice and complete nonpayment. The agreements, transmitting email and actual invoice are not attached; page5is an invoice summary/calculation.supportsAn average over2,000drones does not by itself establish the contractually compensable value of the first1,000; unit chronology and price mix matter.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It alleges a June7,2023Strategic Business Development, Service and Supply Teaming Contract fixed8%of the first1,000delivered drones, and that Schmidt sent a July8,2025spreadsheet valuing the fee$2,348,542and confirming payment from HII funds. It alleges a July9invoice and complete nonpayment. The agreements, transmitting email and actual invoice are not attached; page5is an invoice summary/calculation.supportsDo the actual contract and modification authorise average-value commission rather than first-delivered unit pricing?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The attached summary separates original392drones/$14,954,400 from closeout1,608drones/$43,759,160, totalling2,000/$58,713,560. It displays$29,357average per unit,$29,356,780for1,000units and$2,348,542at8%. Using the displayed unrounded1,000-unit basis yields$2,348,542.40; the claimed whole-dollar amount reflects rounding rather than an automatic material error.supportsDo the actual contract and modification authorise average-value commission rather than first-delivered unit pricing?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The attached summary separates original392drones/$14,954,400 from closeout1,608drones/$43,759,160, totalling2,000/$58,713,560. It displays$29,357average per unit,$29,356,780for1,000units and$2,348,542at8%. Using the displayed unrounded1,000-unit basis yields$2,348,542.40; the claimed whole-dollar amount reflects rounding rather than an automatic material error.supportsHow is Fairwinds’ claimed commission calculated?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
CLIN0001closeout accounting totals$43,759,159.81less$22,776,605.40ToUSG/credit=$20,982,554.41due CYBL. Other due components are$2,757,254.39CLIN0002/0003cost,$1,615,972.07CLIN0004and$413,588.16profit, summing$25,769,369.03. Headline gross shipments, government credit and remaining company receivable are distinct figures.supportsSpreadsheet receivable arithmetic can be internally checked without validating contract entitlement, court custody or creditor priority.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The commission method averages the original and closeout values across all2,000units and halves total value, while the pleading says first1,000delivered. That calculation requires contractual/transaction support; averaging is not automatically the actual value of the chronologically first1,000units.supportsHow is Fairwinds’ claimed commission calculated?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
Original-shipment rows list DD250identifiers endingAXX,BXX,andCXX, with CXX repeated for the final two-row block. Quantities sum392and amounts$14,954,400; no original DD250forms are attached. Repeated identifier may require correction/confirmation but does not prove duplicated physical deliveries.supportsWhat source email, invoice, DD250s and receipt records authenticate authorship, dates, repeatedCXXidentifier and completion?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The eight truck rows show invoice suffixes1014–1021and ship datesApril25,April28,May2,May5,May8,May12,May28andJune3,2025. The first five split gross/CYBL/USGcredit, truck6has zero credit, and right-side total/CYBL/credit cells for7–8are blank. These are spreadsheet dates and classifications, not attached delivery acceptance records.supportsWhat source email, invoice, DD250s and receipt records authenticate authorship, dates, repeatedCXXidentifier and completion?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The commission method averages the original and closeout values across all2,000units and halves total value, while the pleading says first1,000delivered. That calculation requires contractual/transaction support; averaging is not automatically the actual value of the chronologically first1,000units.supportsAn average over2,000drones does not by itself establish the contractually compensable value of the first1,000; unit chronology and price mix matter.
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The pleading initially calls funds proposed for deposit and later says funds were placed with the Court. It supplies no deposit receipt. The spreadsheet’s$25,769,369.03remaining receivable does not itself establish court custody, unencumbered ownership, Fairwinds priority or actual payment.supportsWhat deposit and priority records support payment from this fund rather than only a contractual claim against Cyberlux?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
It alleges a June7,2023Strategic Business Development, Service and Supply Teaming Contract fixed8%of the first1,000delivered drones, and that Schmidt sent a July8,2025spreadsheet valuing the fee$2,348,542and confirming payment from HII funds. It alleges a July9invoice and complete nonpayment. The agreements, transmitting email and actual invoice are not attached; page5is an invoice summary/calculation.supportsWhat source email, invoice, DD250s and receipt records authenticate authorship, dates, repeatedCXXidentifier and completion?
Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.
The pleading initially calls funds proposed for deposit and later says funds were placed with the Court. It supplies no deposit receipt. The spreadsheet’s$25,769,369.03remaining receivable does not itself establish court custody, unencumbered ownership, Fairwinds priority or actual payment.supportsHow is Fairwinds’ claimed commission calculated?
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.