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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.