Black|RudderGossamer Thread
Sources/GT-S-618438754529

Context source · GT-S-618438754529

ECF 246 — Joint Status Report, 21 August 2026

Original sourcedocument
Open full document ↗
SHA-256 618438754529f1c744c8…8 pages · 228 KB

DISTILLATES

What the source contains

Each card carries the governed distillate name from the database. Open the quoted anchor before relying on the interpretation.

observationobservation

EDVA ECF 246 filed 21 August 2026; motion ECF 232 remains the requested next decision in this source.

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
claimallegation

The eight-page joint status report is filed 21 August 2026 as EDVA ECF 246 in 3:25-cv-483-JAG in response to the 27 July order. It names the

The eight-page joint status report is filed 21 August 2026 as EDVA ECF 246 in 3:25-cv-483-JAG in response to the 27 July order. It names the Jointly Acting Parties and expressly says Cyberlux and the United States join the report. Its footnote distinguishes their concurrence here from not having been Nevada motion filers; party alignment is specific to the stated filing and issue.

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
claimallegation

The report recounts the 17 July involuntary petition, EDVA orders/briefing, 10 August Nevada motion, 11 August expedited schedule, 14 August

The report recounts the 17 July involuntary petition, EDVA orders/briefing, 10 August Nevada motion, 11 August expedited schedule, 14 August opposition, 17 August reply and 18 August hearing. These are counsel’s procedural account. The text identifies the bankruptcy brief as ECF 244 but cites ECF 243 for quoted language; the cited original filings are needed before silently repairing the reference.

Read the anchor · page 2
2 1. As this Court is aware, on July 17, 2026, an Involuntary Petition Against a Non - Individual, Form 205 was filed against Cyberlux Corporation (“Cyberlux”) in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada (“Bankruptcy Court”). See In re Cyberlux Corp., Case No. 26-50721 (Bankr. D. Nev. Filed July 17, 2026), ECF No. 1 (the “Bankruptcy Case”). 2. In response to this Court’s Order dated July 20, 2026 (ECF No. 243), Legalist filed a Brief Regarding Effect of Involuntary Bankruptcy Petition (“EDV A Bankruptcy Brief,” ECF No. 244), in which the other Jointly Acting Parties joined, among other parties. In that submission, the Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government noted that “[t]here is authority…that interpleader actions are not covered by a bankruptcy sta y originating from a claimant’s bankruptcy.” ECF 243 at 2 (citations omitted). Despite this, “out of an abundance of caution,” the Jointly Acting Parties stated their intention to “expeditiously present this issue to the Nevada Bankruptcy Court and request that it determine whether the stay applies to this interpleader under its authority to adjudicate the reach and scope of the automatic stay.” Id. at 3. 3. In furtherance of the representations made in the EDV A Bankruptcy Brief, on August 10, 2026, the Jointly Acting Parties filed a Motion to Confirm Inapplicability of the Automatic Stay or, in the Alternative, Motion to Abstain Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 305 (the “Bankruptcy Motion”).1 4. Contemporaneously with the Bankruptcy Motion, the Jointly Acting Parties filed an Ex Parte Application for Order Shortening Time and Notice of Hearing on Interpleader Parties’ 1 For reasons not relevant here, Cyberlux and Interpleader Defendant/Claimant the United States Government were not among the Jointly Acting Parties that filed the Nevada Motion. Notwithstanding, the Jointly Acting Parties have provided both Cyberlux and co unsel for the United States Government with a copy of this Joint Status Report and represent to the Court that they concur in the contents herein. And as stated above, Cyberlux and the United States Government join in this Joint Status Report. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 2 of 8 PageID# 5030
claimallegation

Counsel characterise Judge Barnes as rejecting petitioners’ arguments and agreeing that the stay does not forestall distribution under the s

Counsel characterise Judge Barnes as rejecting petitioners’ arguments and agreeing that the stay does not forestall distribution under the settlement. They report a comfort order allowing the interpleader to proceed and identify the written 20 August order as Exhibit A. This eight-page file does not itself contain the exhibit; the separately held four-page ECF 246-1 supplies it. Counsel’s description of oral reasoning must not replace the actual operative order or absent transcript.

Read the anchor · page 3
3 Motion, requesting that the Bankruptcy Court expedite briefing on the Bankruptcy Motion and have it heard at a status conference before Judge Hilary L. Barnes scheduled to occur on August 18, 2026, in the Bankruptcy Case. The Bankruptcy Court granted this request on August 11, 2026, providing notice that it would hear the Bankruptcy Motion on August 18, 2026. Further, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that any opposition must be filed by noon on Friday, August 14, 2026, and any reply must be filed by noon on Monday, August 17, 2026. 5. On August 14, 2026, petitioners Bilal Maadarani, Christopher Spangler, Phillip R. Tucker, and Neill Whiteley (“Petitioners”) filed an opposition to the Bankruptcy Motion. 6. On August 17, 2026, the Jointly Acting Parties filed a reply in support of the Bankruptcy Motion. 7. On August 18, 2026, Judge Barnes heard argument on the Bankruptcy Motion. During the hearing, Judge Barnes took judicial notice of the record before this Court. She rejected the arguments that the Petitioners advance d and agreed that the automatic stay does not apply to forestall the distribution of funds by this Court pursuant to the settlement agreement . At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Barnes granted a comfort order finding that the automatic stay does not apply and the Interpleader Action in this Court may proceed.2 8. On August 20, 2026, Judge Barnes entered a written Order Granting Motion Determining the Automatic Stay is Inapplicable, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 During the hearing, Judge Barnes also raised a question as to why a duplicative involuntary bankruptcy petition had also been filed by the same petitioners in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas Division. In re Cyberlux Corp. , Case No. 26 -50797 (Bankr. D. Nev. Filed August 11, 2026). Counsel for the petitioners suggested that the second filing was a mistake and that the subsequently filed case could be dismissed, and Judge Barnes indicated it would be. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 5031
claimallegation

Footnote 2 describes a second Nevada petition, case 26-50797 filed 11 August, as duplicative and recounts counsel saying it was a mistake an

Footnote 2 describes a second Nevada petition, case 26-50797 filed 11 August, as duplicative and recounts counsel saying it was a mistake and the judge indicating it would be dismissed. That is a report of statements and an indicated future disposition, not the dismissal order itself or proof of intent by the petitioners.

Read the anchor · page 3
3 Motion, requesting that the Bankruptcy Court expedite briefing on the Bankruptcy Motion and have it heard at a status conference before Judge Hilary L. Barnes scheduled to occur on August 18, 2026, in the Bankruptcy Case. The Bankruptcy Court granted this request on August 11, 2026, providing notice that it would hear the Bankruptcy Motion on August 18, 2026. Further, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that any opposition must be filed by noon on Friday, August 14, 2026, and any reply must be filed by noon on Monday, August 17, 2026. 5. On August 14, 2026, petitioners Bilal Maadarani, Christopher Spangler, Phillip R. Tucker, and Neill Whiteley (“Petitioners”) filed an opposition to the Bankruptcy Motion. 6. On August 17, 2026, the Jointly Acting Parties filed a reply in support of the Bankruptcy Motion. 7. On August 18, 2026, Judge Barnes heard argument on the Bankruptcy Motion. During the hearing, Judge Barnes took judicial notice of the record before this Court. She rejected the arguments that the Petitioners advance d and agreed that the automatic stay does not apply to forestall the distribution of funds by this Court pursuant to the settlement agreement . At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Barnes granted a comfort order finding that the automatic stay does not apply and the Interpleader Action in this Court may proceed.2 8. On August 20, 2026, Judge Barnes entered a written Order Granting Motion Determining the Automatic Stay is Inapplicable, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 2 During the hearing, Judge Barnes also raised a question as to why a duplicative involuntary bankruptcy petition had also been filed by the same petitioners in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Nevada, Las Vegas Division. In re Cyberlux Corp. , Case No. 26 -50797 (Bankr. D. Nev. Filed August 11, 2026). Counsel for the petitioners suggested that the second filing was a mistake and that the subsequently filed case could be dismissed, and Judge Barnes indicated it would be. Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 3 of 8 PageID# 5031
claimallegation

The concluding request asks the district court to rule on revised distribution motion ECF 232 and disburse accordingly. It is requested next

The concluding request asks the district court to rule on revised distribution motion ECF 232 and disburse accordingly. It is requested next action, not an entered distribution order, an approved amount or a bank confirmation. The wherefore clause names Jointly Acting Parties and Cyberlux; the broader joining statement and Government signature material must be read separately rather than erased.

Read the anchor · page 4
4 WHEREFORE, the Jointly Acting Parties and Cyberlux respectfully submit that , in accordance with the Order Granting Motion Determining the Automatic Stay is Inapplicable, this Court may proceed to rule on the pending Revised Joint Motion for Distribution of Interpleaded Funds (ECF No. 232) and disburse the proceeds accordingly. Dated: August 21, 2026 Respectfully Submitted: /s/ Christopher W. Bascom Timothy G. Moore (VSB No. 41730) tmoore@spottsfain.com John M. Erbach (VSB No. 76695) jerbach@spottsfain.com Christopher W. Bascom (VSB No. 87302) cbascom@spottsfain.com Spotts Fain, P.C. 411 E. Franklin Street, Suite 600 Richmond, V A 23219 (804) 697-2065 (804) 697-2165 Fax Jeff. P Prostok (admitted pro hac vice) Jeff.Prostok@vhh.law Austin N. Priddy (admitted pro hac vice) austin.priddy@vhh.law Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP 301 Commerce Street, Suite 2200 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Tel. (817) 214-4990 Fax (817) 214-4988 ATTORNEYS FOR LEGALIST SPV III, L.P. /s/ William D. Bayliss William Delaney Bayliss Joseph Earl Blackburn , III Williams Mullen 200 South 10th Street, Suite 1600 PO Box 1320 Richmond, V A 23219 (804) 420-6459 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 5032
claimallegation

Signature blocks identify counsel for Legalist, Atlantic Wave/Secure, ANPC, Assure/WeShield/Roman/MAS/Sinensky, Fairwinds and Thin Air/ARG.

Signature blocks identify counsel for Legalist, Atlantic Wave/Secure, ANPC, Assure/WeShield/Roman/MAS/Sinensky, Fairwinds and Thin Air/ARG. Those client groupings establish the filing’s expressed representation roles, not universal authority to settle, bind unnamed parties or receive every distribution. Repeated allegations by aligned counsel are not independent verification of the underlying transaction.

Read the anchor · page 4
4 WHEREFORE, the Jointly Acting Parties and Cyberlux respectfully submit that , in accordance with the Order Granting Motion Determining the Automatic Stay is Inapplicable, this Court may proceed to rule on the pending Revised Joint Motion for Distribution of Interpleaded Funds (ECF No. 232) and disburse the proceeds accordingly. Dated: August 21, 2026 Respectfully Submitted: /s/ Christopher W. Bascom Timothy G. Moore (VSB No. 41730) tmoore@spottsfain.com John M. Erbach (VSB No. 76695) jerbach@spottsfain.com Christopher W. Bascom (VSB No. 87302) cbascom@spottsfain.com Spotts Fain, P.C. 411 E. Franklin Street, Suite 600 Richmond, V A 23219 (804) 697-2065 (804) 697-2165 Fax Jeff. P Prostok (admitted pro hac vice) Jeff.Prostok@vhh.law Austin N. Priddy (admitted pro hac vice) austin.priddy@vhh.law Vartabedian Hester & Haynes LLP 301 Commerce Street, Suite 2200 Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Tel. (817) 214-4990 Fax (817) 214-4988 ATTORNEYS FOR LEGALIST SPV III, L.P. /s/ William D. Bayliss William Delaney Bayliss Joseph Earl Blackburn , III Williams Mullen 200 South 10th Street, Suite 1600 PO Box 1320 Richmond, V A 23219 (804) 420-6459 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 4 of 8 PageID# 5032
claimallegation

Page 7 shows Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.’s signature block expressly for Cyberlux and William J. Harrington’s signature within the Government blo

Page 7 shows Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.’s signature block expressly for Cyberlux and William J. Harrington’s signature within the Government block, with other named government lawyers. Page 8 repeats Robinson’s details immediately above Attorneys for the United States of America. That visible grouping inconsistency is preserved; it does not establish that Cyberlux’s lawyer represented the Government. The actual appearances and corrected/original filing are needed. Printed official titles are source labels, not a current-office verification.

Read the anchor · page 7
7 /s/ Jimmy F . Robinson, Jr. Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. (VSB # 43622) jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com OGLETREE DEAKINS Riverfront Plaza – West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 Richmond, V A 23219 Tel.: 804-663-2336 Fax: 804-225-8641 ATTORNEYS FOR CYBERLUX CORP. BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA WU Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Litigation Branch /s/ William J. Harrington WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON ELIZABETH W. PRUITT Trial Attorneys, Tax Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 227 Washington, DC 2004 Tel: (202) 353-1882 Fax: (202) 514-6866 william.j.harrington@usdoj.gov elizabeth.pruitt@usdoj.gov -and- TODD BLANCHE Attorney General JOHNATHAN H. HAMBRICK VSB NO. 37590 Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Virginia 919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900 Richmond, V A 23219 Phone: (804) 819-5400 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 5035 [Analyst visual review note: Robinson signature expressly for Cyberlux; Harrington signature in Government block.]
claimallegation

The report is evidence of an expressed coalition’s procedural position and request at a particular date. It does not certify the merits of a

The report is evidence of an expressed coalition’s procedural position and request at a particular date. It does not certify the merits of all claims, cure all caption/signature issues, supply the hearing transcript, or prove distribution has occurred. The order, motions, actual appearances and later docket remain separately traceable dependencies.

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
entityobservation

CYBERLUX CORPORATION

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
entityobservation

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
entityobservation

LEGALIST SPV III

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
entityobservation

Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.

Read the anchor · page 7
7 /s/ Jimmy F . Robinson, Jr. Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. (VSB # 43622) jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com OGLETREE DEAKINS Riverfront Plaza – West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 Richmond, V A 23219 Tel.: 804-663-2336 Fax: 804-225-8641 ATTORNEYS FOR CYBERLUX CORP. BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA WU Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Litigation Branch /s/ William J. Harrington WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON ELIZABETH W. PRUITT Trial Attorneys, Tax Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 227 Washington, DC 2004 Tel: (202) 353-1882 Fax: (202) 514-6866 william.j.harrington@usdoj.gov elizabeth.pruitt@usdoj.gov -and- TODD BLANCHE Attorney General JOHNATHAN H. HAMBRICK VSB NO. 37590 Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Virginia 919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900 Richmond, V A 23219 Phone: (804) 819-5400 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 5035 [Analyst visual review note: Robinson signature expressly for Cyberlux; Harrington signature in Government block.]
entityobservation

WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON

Read the anchor · page 7
7 /s/ Jimmy F . Robinson, Jr. Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr. (VSB # 43622) jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com OGLETREE DEAKINS Riverfront Plaza – West Tower 901 East Byrd Street, Suite 1300 Richmond, V A 23219 Tel.: 804-663-2336 Fax: 804-225-8641 ATTORNEYS FOR CYBERLUX CORP. BRETT A. SHUMATE Assistant Attorney General JOSHUA WU Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Tax Litigation Branch /s/ William J. Harrington WILLIAM J. HARRINGTON ELIZABETH W. PRUITT Trial Attorneys, Tax Litigation Branch U.S. Department of Justice Post Office Box 227 Washington, DC 2004 Tel: (202) 353-1882 Fax: (202) 514-6866 william.j.harrington@usdoj.gov elizabeth.pruitt@usdoj.gov -and- TODD BLANCHE Attorney General JOHNATHAN H. HAMBRICK VSB NO. 37590 Assistant United States Attorney Eastern District of Virginia 919 E. Main Street, Suite 1900 Richmond, V A 23219 Phone: (804) 819-5400 Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 7 of 8 PageID# 5035 [Analyst visual review note: Robinson signature expressly for Cyberlux; Harrington signature in Government block.]
eventattribution

EDVA docket wrapper records the joint report and its requested next action.

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
inferenceinference

Participation in the status report, filing the Nevada motion, describing a hearing and obtaining a distribution order are different acts. Th

Participation in the status report, filing the Nevada motion, describing a hearing and obtaining a distribution order are different acts. The record supports issue-specific alignment without proving all underlying rights or completed payment.

inferenceinference

The duplicate Robinson block and ECF-reference inconsistency require source correction or appearances evidence; neither justifies inventing

The duplicate Robinson block and ECF-reference inconsistency require source correction or appearances evidence; neither justifies inventing dual representation or dismissing the separately signed order.

otherattribution

Complete supplied 8-page source reviewed at SHA-256 618438754529f1c744c8e1baa03ae6bf8ec9c4a16698b0cea91b9a8c523bdc58. Source assertions, ori

Complete supplied 8-page source reviewed at SHA-256 618438754529f1c744c8e1baa03ae6bf8ec9c4a16698b0cea91b9a8c523bdc58. Source assertions, original visual features, filing/communication context and identified missing attachments are retained. No unexamined later court outcome is inferred.

Read the anchor · page 1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA RICHMOND DIVISION HII MISSION TECHNOLOGIES CORP., Interpleader Plaintiff, v. CYBERLUX CORPORATION, ATLANTIC WA VE HOLDINGS, LLC SECURE COMMUNITY, LLC, LEGALIST SPV III, L.P., UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ADV ANCED NA VIGATION AND POSITIONING CORPORATION, ASSURE GLOBAL LLC D/B/A WESHIELD, ROMAN INVESTMENTS PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, MICHAEL SINENSKY, FAIRWINDS TECHNOLOGIES LLC, THIN AIR GEAR, LLC, and THE ARG GROUP, LLC, Interpleader Defendants/Claimants. Civil Action No. 3:25-cv-483-JAG JOINT STATUS REPORT Interpleader Defendant s/Claimants Legalist SPV III, L.P. (“Legalist”), Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC, Secure Community, LLC, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, and Intervenors Fairwinds Technologies LLC , Assure Global LLC d/b/a WeShield, Roman Investments PR LLC, MAS USA MGT LLC, Michael Sinensky, Thin Air Gear, LLC, and The ARG Group, LLC (collectively the “Jointly Acting Parties”), by counsel, file this Joint Status Report in response to the Court ’s July 27, 2026 , Order (“Order,” ECF No. 2 45). Cyberlux Corporation and the United States Government also join in this Joint Status Report. The Jointly Acting Parties, Cyberlux, and the United States Government report as follows: Case 3:25-cv-00483-JAG Document 246 Filed 08/21/26 Page 1 of 8 PageID# 5029
questionquestion

What transcript, ECF 232 disposition and payment records establish the oral rationale and actual distribution after this report?

questionquestion

Which original appearances or corrected filing resolve the duplicate Robinson block and ECF 243/244 citation?

questionquestion

What actual dismissal order and docket identify the disposition of the second Nevada petition?

allegation

CONNECT

Reviewed relationships

The canvas follows the database: source to DISTIL record, DISTIL record to knowledge object, then reviewed relationship. Position alone means nothing.

Counsel characterise Judge Barnes as rejecting petitioners’ arguments and agreeing that the stay does not forestall distribution under the settlement. They report a comfort order allowing the interpleader to proceed and identify the written 20 August order as Exhibit A. This eight-page file does not itself contain the exhibit; the separately held four-page ECF 246-1 supplies it. Counsel’s description of oral reasoning must not replace the actual operative order or absent transcript.referencesThis four-page copy visibly bears Judge Hilary L. Barnes’s signature/seal and overlapping docket wrappers: Nevada ECF 53 entered 20 August 2026 at 16:39:17 and EDVA ECF 246-1 filed 21 August. It follows the 18 August hearing and grants the motion in part. The operative text says the automatic stay does not apply to HII Mission Technologies Corp. v Cyberlux Corp., EDVA 3:25-cv-483-JAG, which may proceed unabated. This is an entered order, not an unsigned proposal.

The report references Exhibit A, supplied separately as ECF246-1. Preserve one judicial act and distinct filing wrappers.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The concluding request asks the district court to rule on revised distribution motion ECF 232 and disburse accordingly. It is requested next action, not an entered distribution order, an approved amount or a bank confirmation. The wherefore clause names Jointly Acting Parties and Cyberlux; the broader joining statement and Government signature material must be read separately rather than erased.referencesThe order expressly incorporates oral findings and conclusions from the hearing. Those reasons are not transcribed in these four pages. The operative provision permits the specified interpleader to proceed; it does not itself state distribution amounts, approve a payment schedule, enter a merits ruling on each claim or prove that cash was disbursed.

The requested ECF232 decision is not the same act as allowing the interpleader to proceed; neither proves disbursement.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The concluding request asks the district court to rule on revised distribution motion ECF 232 and disburse accordingly. It is requested next action, not an entered distribution order, an approved amount or a bank confirmation. The wherefore clause names Jointly Acting Parties and Cyberlux; the broader joining statement and Government signature material must be read separately rather than erased.supportsDoes this joint report itself prove that the settlement proceeds were distributed?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Counsel characterise Judge Barnes as rejecting petitioners’ arguments and agreeing that the stay does not forestall distribution under the settlement. They report a comfort order allowing the interpleader to proceed and identify the written 20 August order as Exhibit A. This eight-page file does not itself contain the exhibit; the separately held four-page ECF 246-1 supplies it. Counsel’s description of oral reasoning must not replace the actual operative order or absent transcript.supportsWhat transcript, ECF 232 disposition and payment records establish the oral rationale and actual distribution after this report?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The concluding request asks the district court to rule on revised distribution motion ECF 232 and disburse accordingly. It is requested next action, not an entered distribution order, an approved amount or a bank confirmation. The wherefore clause names Jointly Acting Parties and Cyberlux; the broader joining statement and Government signature material must be read separately rather than erased.supportsParticipation in the status report, filing the Nevada motion, describing a hearing and obtaining a distribution order are different acts. The record supports issue-specific alignment without proving all underlying rights or completed payment.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The report is evidence of an expressed coalition’s procedural position and request at a particular date. It does not certify the merits of all claims, cure all caption/signature issues, supply the hearing transcript, or prove distribution has occurred. The order, motions, actual appearances and later docket remain separately traceable dependencies.supportsParticipation in the status report, filing the Nevada motion, describing a hearing and obtaining a distribution order are different acts. The record supports issue-specific alignment without proving all underlying rights or completed payment.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The concluding request asks the district court to rule on revised distribution motion ECF 232 and disburse accordingly. It is requested next action, not an entered distribution order, an approved amount or a bank confirmation. The wherefore clause names Jointly Acting Parties and Cyberlux; the broader joining statement and Government signature material must be read separately rather than erased.supportsWhat transcript, ECF 232 disposition and payment records establish the oral rationale and actual distribution after this report?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The report recounts the 17 July involuntary petition, EDVA orders/briefing, 10 August Nevada motion, 11 August expedited schedule, 14 August opposition, 17 August reply and 18 August hearing. These are counsel’s procedural account. The text identifies the bankruptcy brief as ECF 244 but cites ECF 243 for quoted language; the cited original filings are needed before silently repairing the reference.supportsThe duplicate Robinson block and ECF-reference inconsistency require source correction or appearances evidence; neither justifies inventing dual representation or dismissing the separately signed order.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Page 7 shows Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.’s signature block expressly for Cyberlux and William J. Harrington’s signature within the Government block, with other named government lawyers. Page 8 repeats Robinson’s details immediately above Attorneys for the United States of America. That visible grouping inconsistency is preserved; it does not establish that Cyberlux’s lawyer represented the Government. The actual appearances and corrected/original filing are needed. Printed official titles are source labels, not a current-office verification.supportsWhich original appearances or corrected filing resolve the duplicate Robinson block and ECF 243/244 citation?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Page 7 shows Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.’s signature block expressly for Cyberlux and William J. Harrington’s signature within the Government block, with other named government lawyers. Page 8 repeats Robinson’s details immediately above Attorneys for the United States of America. That visible grouping inconsistency is preserved; it does not establish that Cyberlux’s lawyer represented the Government. The actual appearances and corrected/original filing are needed. Printed official titles are source labels, not a current-office verification.supportsThe duplicate Robinson block and ECF-reference inconsistency require source correction or appearances evidence; neither justifies inventing dual representation or dismissing the separately signed order.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The eight-page joint status report is filed 21 August 2026 as EDVA ECF 246 in 3:25-cv-483-JAG in response to the 27 July order. It names the Jointly Acting Parties and expressly says Cyberlux and the United States join the report. Its footnote distinguishes their concurrence here from not having been Nevada motion filers; party alignment is specific to the stated filing and issue.supportsParticipation in the status report, filing the Nevada motion, describing a hearing and obtaining a distribution order are different acts. The record supports issue-specific alignment without proving all underlying rights or completed payment.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Footnote 2 describes a second Nevada petition, case 26-50797 filed 11 August, as duplicative and recounts counsel saying it was a mistake and the judge indicating it would be dismissed. That is a report of statements and an indicated future disposition, not the dismissal order itself or proof of intent by the petitioners.supportsWhat actual dismissal order and docket identify the disposition of the second Nevada petition?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The report is evidence of an expressed coalition’s procedural position and request at a particular date. It does not certify the merits of all claims, cure all caption/signature issues, supply the hearing transcript, or prove distribution has occurred. The order, motions, actual appearances and later docket remain separately traceable dependencies.supportsDoes this joint report itself prove that the settlement proceeds were distributed?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Counsel characterise Judge Barnes as rejecting petitioners’ arguments and agreeing that the stay does not forestall distribution under the settlement. They report a comfort order allowing the interpleader to proceed and identify the written 20 August order as Exhibit A. This eight-page file does not itself contain the exhibit; the separately held four-page ECF 246-1 supplies it. Counsel’s description of oral reasoning must not replace the actual operative order or absent transcript.supportsParticipation in the status report, filing the Nevada motion, describing a hearing and obtaining a distribution order are different acts. The record supports issue-specific alignment without proving all underlying rights or completed payment.

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
The report recounts the 17 July involuntary petition, EDVA orders/briefing, 10 August Nevada motion, 11 August expedited schedule, 14 August opposition, 17 August reply and 18 August hearing. These are counsel’s procedural account. The text identifies the bankruptcy brief as ECF 244 but cites ECF 243 for quoted language; the cited original filings are needed before silently repairing the reference.supportsWhich original appearances or corrected filing resolve the duplicate Robinson block and ECF 243/244 citation?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Counsel characterise Judge Barnes as rejecting petitioners’ arguments and agreeing that the stay does not forestall distribution under the settlement. They report a comfort order allowing the interpleader to proceed and identify the written 20 August order as Exhibit A. This eight-page file does not itself contain the exhibit; the separately held four-page ECF 246-1 supplies it. Counsel’s description of oral reasoning must not replace the actual operative order or absent transcript.supportsDoes this joint report itself prove that the settlement proceeds were distributed?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%
Page 7 shows Jimmy F. Robinson, Jr.’s signature block expressly for Cyberlux and William J. Harrington’s signature within the Government block, with other named government lawyers. Page 8 repeats Robinson’s details immediately above Attorneys for the United States of America. That visible grouping inconsistency is preserved; it does not establish that Cyberlux’s lawyer represented the Government. The actual appearances and corrected/original filing are needed. Printed official titles are source labels, not a current-office verification.supportsDoes this joint report itself prove that the settlement proceeds were distributed?

Specifically named source propositions support the bounded distinction or question.

50%
Confidence 75%Link weight 50%

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.