Cyberlux Corporation, the Durham, North Carolina defense drone and military communications company that trades on the OTC Pink market under ticker CYBL, is defending at least five separate lawsuits filed since 2024 in federal and state courts across California, Texas, Virginia, and Colorado. The Cyberlux lawsuit docket includes creditor enforcement actions, a convertible-note dispute headed toward default judgment, an unpaid-compensation claim from two former executives, a supplier’s breach-of-contract case, and a multi-party interpleader in which more than a dozen claimants are competing for the same pool of funds. The largest fight — over a Virginia judgment the company says was already settled — produced a court-appointed receivership and a $3.1 million asset transfer in mid-2025 before an appellate stay froze further collection.1GovInfo. Tucker et al v Cyberlux Corporation, Memorandum and Recommendation
Atlantic Wave Holdings and Secure Community
The most consequential case involves Atlantic Wave Holdings, LLC and Secure Community, LLC, two creditors that hold a Virginia judgment against Cyberlux originally totaling about $1.15 million. They filed it as a sister-state judgment in San Diego Superior Court on March 5, 2024.2CaseMine. Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC v Cyberlux Corporation The parties had reached a consensual settlement in June 2023 to resolve the judgment, but the creditors later claimed Cyberlux breached the settlement terms. Cyberlux maintains it had substantially complied and was current on payments when the new enforcement effort began.3Cyberlux Corporation. Litigation Q&A Updates
In California, the creditors got a writ of execution in June 2024, but the federal court quashed it and stayed proceedings while Cyberlux moved to vacate the judgment.2CaseMine. Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC v Cyberlux Corporation An earlier related federal case (No. 3:24-cv-00196) was dismissed in July 2024.4CourtListener. Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC v Cyberlux Corporation
The creditors then moved to Texas. On May 22, 2025, the 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County appointed Robert W. Berleth as a limited turnover receiver to collect on the debt, which had grown to roughly $2.1 million outstanding. By June 11, 2025, $3.1 million had been transferred to the receiver, an amount Cyberlux says exceeded what was owed under the 2023 consent judgment.5OTC Markets. Cyberlux Corporation Annual Report
Cyberlux petitioned the Texas Court of Appeals for the First District in Houston for a writ of mandamus. On June 30, 2025, the court granted an interim stay barring the receiver from taking further action under the May 22 order. A separate appeal filed June 20, 2025 (No. 01-25-00454-CV) asks the court to reverse the trial court, declare the sister-state judgment satisfied, and end the proceedings. As of December 2025, the appellate court had ordered Atlantic Wave and Secure Community to respond, and no final ruling had been issued.6Leagle. Cyberlux Corporation v Atlantic Wave Holdings LLC
RB Capital Partners Convertible Note Case
RB Capital Partners, Inc. sued Cyberlux in August 2024 in the Southern District of California (No. 3:24-cv-01434) over a series of convertible promissory notes issued between October 2021 and July 2022. The original principal totaled $3.75 million, and outstanding balances had grown to more than $4.4 million. The central dispute is whether the notes must be repaid in cash or converted into shares, and at what price. Potential conversion rates in play run from $0.005 to $0.25 per share.7OTC Markets. Cyberlux Corporation Financial Report
Judge Anthony J. Battaglia partially granted Cyberlux’s motion to compel arbitration in January 2025.8PACER Monitor. RB Capital Partners Inc v Cyberlux Corporation et al The parties initially reached an agreement in principle: Cyberlux would repay two notes in cash, issue 290,357,500 shares to cancel a third, amend the conversion rate on a fourth, and receive an additional $1.5 million loan plus access to $2 million more in operational funding.7OTC Markets. Cyberlux Corporation Financial Report That settlement collapsed. Cyberlux’s attorneys withdrew in February 2026, and in April 2026 the court struck Cyberlux’s answer and directed the clerk to enter default. A hearing on RB Capital’s motion for default judgment was set for July 9, 2026.
Tucker and Whiteley Compensation Claims
Phillip Tucker and Neill Whiteley co-founded Catalyst Machineworks, LLC, the Texas drone hardware maker Cyberlux acquired in 2022. Whiteley became Cyberlux’s Director of Engineering and CTO; Tucker became Director of Operations and COO of the UAS division.9Yahoo Finance. Cyberlux Corporation Announces Acquisition of Catalyst Machineworks They later sued Cyberlux in the Southern District of Texas (No. 4:25-cv-02770), alleging the company failed to pay promised salary, bonuses, and incentive compensation, including 12.5 million incentive shares. They seek $1,860,017.08 in damages.1GovInfo. Tucker et al v Cyberlux Corporation, Memorandum and Recommendation
The court denied their request for an emergency temporary restraining order, noting they had not yet obtained a judgment and had not shown grounds for emergency relief. It granted Cyberlux’s motion to transfer the case to the Middle District of North Carolina under a mandatory forum-selection clause in the parties’ purchase agreement. As of August 2025 the transfer was stayed pending resolution of remaining procedural motions.1GovInfo. Tucker et al v Cyberlux Corporation, Memorandum and Recommendation
Thin Air Gear Supplier Suit
Thin Air Gear, LLC, a Colorado supplier, sued Cyberlux Corporation (doing business as Catalyst Machineworks, LLC) in the District of Colorado (No. 1:25-cv-00805) for breach of contract.10GovInfo. Thin Air Gear LLC v Cyberlux Corporation The complaint alleges Cyberlux failed to pay for 2,100 wheeled drone kit bags under a purchase agreement. As of April 2025, Thin Air Gear had delivered 1,722 units to a Cyberlux warehouse in Texas and was holding the remaining 378. The outstanding balance was $406,946.18 plus a 1.5% monthly late fee. Thin Air Gear also brought unjust enrichment and civil theft claims, seeking treble damages under Colorado law and attorneys’ fees.11CaseMine. Thin Air Gear LLC v Cyberlux Corporation
HII Mission Technologies Interpleader
Defense contractor HII Mission Technologies Corp. filed an interpleader action on June 24, 2025, in the Eastern District of Virginia (No. 3:25-cv-00483). Interpleader is a procedure a company uses when it holds funds multiple parties are claiming, asking the court to decide who gets paid. The case is categorized as recovery of overpayment and enforcement of judgments.12PACER Monitor. HII Mission Technologies Corp v Cyberlux Corporation et al
The list of parties claiming a stake shows how tangled Cyberlux’s obligations have become. Named defendants and intervenors include Atlantic Wave Holdings, Secure Community, RB Capital Partners, Thin Air Gear, Aerotek, ARG Group, Advanced Navigation and Positioning Corporation, Legalist SPV III (which asserted secured creditor status), Fairwinds Technologies, the receiver Robert Berleth, Tucker and Whiteley, and the United States through the Department of Justice’s Tax Division.13CourtListener. HII Mission Technologies Corp v Cyberlux Corporation The receiver tried to compel the deposit of funds into the court registry, but the Virginia court denied that motion without prejudice in August 2025.1GovInfo. Tucker et al v Cyberlux Corporation, Memorandum and Recommendation
As of late May 2026, multiple parties had filed motions for summary judgment, and a hearing was held on May 27, 2026, before Judge John A. Gibney Jr. In December 2025, the court ordered Cyberlux’s counsel to show cause regarding potential Rule 11(b) violations relating to fabricated citations in filings.14Justia. HII Mission Technologies Corp v Cyberlux Corporation et al
Claims That Have Settled or Gone Quiet
Not every dispute is still active. Cyberlux said in February 2025 that it had reached an agreement with Aerotek, Inc. “not to pursue litigation at this time,” with the parties communicating through counsel.3Cyberlux Corporation. Litigation Q&A Updates In March 2026, Cyberlux settled claims from note holder Bilal Maadarani (whose notes had been transferred to an entity called Eris Cali) by issuing 260 million shares of common stock, roughly 3.6% of the company’s then-outstanding shares.5OTC Markets. Cyberlux Corporation Annual Report
Financial and Operational Impact
The litigation has hit Cyberlux’s core business. The company disclosed that shipments from its order backlog and the deployment of Palantir Technologies’ “Warp Speed Operating System” manufacturing platform were “negatively impacted by cash-flow constraints of the legal matters the Company is now resolving.”5OTC Markets. Cyberlux Corporation Annual Report For the quarter ending September 30, 2025, Cyberlux reported that legal matters combined with a U.S. government shutdown affected roughly $9 million in shipments.7OTC Markets. Cyberlux Corporation Financial Report
Settling debts through large stock issuances has produced significant dilution. The 260 million shares issued to Maadarani/Eris Cali and the proposed 290,357,500 shares tied to the failed RB Capital settlement are two examples. As of March 31, 2026, Cyberlux had more than 7.17 billion shares of common stock outstanding. The company has acknowledged that cash-flow constraints from litigation “necessitated the settlement of debt and claims through the issuance of large blocks of common stock, often at prices at a discount to market.”5OTC Markets. Cyberlux Corporation Annual Report
Where things stand in mid-2026: the Atlantic Wave appeal is still pending in Texas, the RB Capital case is headed toward default judgment in California, the Tucker and Whiteley dispute is awaiting transfer to North Carolina, and the HII interpleader action in Virginia continues with summary judgment motions before Judge Gibney.