The Great Unwinding: Cyberlux’s 2024 Annual Report Is Here—and It’s a Mess
By the end of Q3, Cyberlux Corporation was presenting a confident—if not carefully choreographed—narrative. On paper, they had booked over $63 million in revenue, posted a net income of $21 million, and boasted a growing defense portfolio.
But numbers are funny things. If you squint hard enough, they can look like momentum. Blink, and they vanish.
That’s exactly what happened between the Q3 glow-up and the 2024 annual report.
Let’s start with the big one: $37.3 million in reversed revenue, directly tied to the now-confirmed termination of the company’s K8 drone contract via Huntington Ingalls Industries. This wasn’t a dispute. It wasn’t a misunderstanding. The government pulled the plug, and Cyberlux was forced to admit—in a March 2025 filing—that what looked like revenue was actually just wishful thinking dressed in invoice drag.
The result? Year-end revenue cratered to just $48.4 million, turning their full-year net income into a $4.3 million loss. Q4 revenue didn’t just slow down—it went negative: $(14.7) million. Yes, negative revenue. That’s not a pivot. That’s an implosion.
Meanwhile, the balance sheet paints a picture of damage control:
- Accounts receivable dropped from $37.8M to $4.9M, exposing how much of Q3’s “income” was never real to begin with.
- Customer deposits vanished, from $23.9M to $1.9M.
- Inventory more than doubled, suggesting they’re sitting on unsold or unusable K8 units.
And here’s where the math really gets interesting: back in Q3, I suggested Cyberlux was simply moving money from deposits to revenue—not earning it, just reclassifying it. The annual report makes that undeniable. What looked like growth was really just a premature reshuffling of government funds. They booked revenue without fully performing, and when the plug got pulled, they had no choice but to reverse the illusion.
They also tout a $48.5 million backlog, which now reads like a PR fire extinguisher. After just reversing $37 million in overcounted revenue, it’s hard to take their pipeline at face value. The report gives no detail—no line items, no contract terms, no execution timelines. Just a big round number that lands like déjà vu.
And perhaps the most glaring omission of all: in this latest filing, Cyberlux admits they received the Stop Work Order on December 22, 2023. That’s more than three months before their 2023 annual report was released, and months before they filed updates for Q1, Q2, and Q3 of 2024—none of which disclosed the order.
It wasn’t until Q3, when public records made the termination of the K8 contract impossible to ignore, that Cyberlux began acknowledging the reality. And even then, the story they told was incomplete.
This isn’t just about a missed disclosure. It’s about deliberate opacity. Cyberlux knew the Stop Work Order existed. They chose not to tell shareholders. They chose not to update the market. They filed their 2023 annual report at the end of March 2024—more than three months after receiving the Stop Work Order—and followed it with Q1, Q2, and Q3 filings that pretended nothing had changed.
That’s not prudent. That’s not strategic. That’s not transparent.
It’s hard to read this latest report as anything other than a reluctant admission—one made only after the facts were already on record elsewhere.
And yet, throughout the entire 46-page filing—filed with OTC Markets on March 31, 2025—there’s not a single reference to the federal court remands that sent the Atlantic Wave litigation back to state courts in both Texas and California. That’s not just a strategic omission. That’s a deliberate effort to dodge the implications of losing two removal attempts—and the corresponding exposure to state court discovery, depositions, and (eventually) enforcement.
Speaking of depositions, the annual report is once again silent on Mark Schmidt’s months-long avoidance of being deposed. A CEO ducking sworn testimony since last summer should raise alarms. Instead, we get boilerplate language about consulting agreements, advisory boards, and a pipeline of optimism.
The report does confirm one key trend: Cyberlux continues to convert debt into shares, effectively diluting its own equity to stay afloat. And with over 1.1 billion shares potentially issuable via existing convertibles—not to mention unresolved preferred stock conversions—they’re staring down a dilution time bomb.
Perhaps the most damning revelation in the annual report is how it contradicts Cyberlux’s own legal filings. For months, the company has cited the “forthcoming resolution” of the HII contract as a shield—insisting that revenue was real, the contract was intact, and the inventory belonged to the government.
But the annual report tells a different story.
They now admit the contract was terminated for convenience. They reversed the revenue. And they still list the K8 drones as inventory on their books—not the government’s. In other words, the legal posture they’ve used in court has been undone by their own financial disclosures.
It’s a material contradiction, and one that may carry real consequences in the courtroom.
This wasn’t just a disappointing quarter. It was a reckoning.
Cyberlux didn’t pivot. They reversed. And what they didn’t say in this report may matter just as much as what they did.
And the saddest part of this whole episode? The pumpers keep pumping—clinging to headlines, hashtags, and hopium. Meanwhile, taxpayers are still being blocked from knowing what happened to their money. The contract is gone, the drones are grounded, and the story is still being spun. Not in the courtroom. Not in the filings. But online, where narrative always outruns accountability.
Watch this space.
Disclaimer
All posts, articles, and op-eds about Cyberlux Corporation are grounded entirely in information sourced from publicly available court records, government documents, and financial disclosures filed with OTC Markets. This content is intended for informational purposes only—it’s not legal advice, it’s not financial guidance, and it’s definitely not an invitation to dive headfirst into investment decisions. Our interpretations, opinions, and conclusions stem exclusively from these accessible resources. Ultimate adjudication of legal matters rests with the courts and qualified legal professionals. As always, you’re encouraged to verify independently because, let’s face it, trust but verify is a motto that never goes out of style. If you believe there is an error in our reporting and have verifiable proof, we encourage you to present it, and we will promptly review and address any inaccuracies.