ssc
11 hours ago
You have never seen the contents of the gag order. You do not know if it is still in effect or when it stopped being in effect or even what type of information it would have gagged. It was issued during legal actions that have long since been "ended with finality". Everyone has seen information released by erhc via 8-K's over the last few years. Your selective use of gag order excuse whenever it fits your latest narrative while other times saying it's probably not still in effect is desperate and deceitful. The 400 page document is 6 years old and like the gag order, you have no idea whether it is still in effect. The most important parts of it remain redacted so, also like the gag order, you have no idea what it says.
At least in your twisting, squirming way you admit all of your baseless claims, false rumors and outright lies are pure speculation. In spite of years of hyping things like done deals, dollars/share, billions of shorted erhe shares, epic short squeeze, you finally admit none of that is based in reality. Amazingly, in spite of owning close to 400 million shares and leading a group that owns more than half the erhe shares, you remain completely in the dark regarding erhc operations for the last 5 years and going forward, which is apparently exactly the way erhc insiders want it.
How's that count of non-voting shares by erhc coming along? Or was that more of your "speculation"? lmao.
More of your erhc management misconduct allegations:
it's better (for erhc management) to follow the new paradigm and keep good news silent... until such time that the backstop, aka the Kraken, can be released. Not releasing an 8k as needed results in ZERO consequences now that the stock revocation case has been dismissed.
Dirty business to "speculate" about. Of course true to dickran form, I suspect none of it is true.
Krombacher
12 hours ago
I don't see any allegation in anything you quoted.
Of course, the information about a merger during an active gag order can be withheld!
That's not an allegation. That's just fact.
The 400 page document clearly alludes to a gag order (in fact two of them if you include London). And the order was issued just after the Starcrest MOU. So the timing coincides and corroborate with the evidence in the 400 pages.
You left this quote out:
Is this how a public company should operate? Of course not. However, the gag orders provided enough legal cover for the company to remain silent. The SEC's attempt to revoke ERHC shares was dismissed in ERHC's favor, partly due to a control deficiency at the SEC. With no immediate threat of revocation, ERHC has been able to withhold information, even about positive developments, much to the frustration of short sellers. These short sellers often interpret silence as bad news and double down on their positions.
You're always taking things out of context. The additional quote says that the gag order is the legal cover.
Hence, no allegation was made.
And using words like "if" "might" or "likely" simply indicates that I'm speculating which is what speculators do with speculative investments like ERHC.
Krombacher
ssc
12 hours ago
Asking for links to your own posts yet again. Must be difficult keeping track of all your own lies since there are thousands of them. Unfortunately for you, everyone has read them and IHUB has documented them. Does this ring a bell:
But ERHC, led by Nigerian management, follows a different approach—one where even positive developments, such as a merger, can be withheld. ERHC has been able to withhold information, even about positive developments, much to the frustration of short sellers.
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=174990821
And there are many more, all designed to support the most ridiculous "backstop" nonsense. mba, cpa, cfa, and you come up with the "backstop" by the end of time? And implicate Shell Oil, Offor, STP, erhc, Total in it? lmao. It's all out there. So let's focus on this latest display of twisting, squirming, hedging stuck long bullshit:
if a starcrest merger occurred
we don't know for a fact
it might still be
The merger with Starcrest, if it happened,
likely solved
So many dodges in such a short post. And you didn't even mention "not based in reality" or "sometime between now and the end of time" lmao.
Before you deny saying those things (just a few minutes ago), here's a link:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=175106996
Krombacher
13 hours ago
You have yet to produce a link of alleged allegations, lol. You just like taking quotes out of context to further a short seller narrative.
That said, the reason I'm focusing on the gag order has to do with the fact that if a starcrest merger occurred, it would have occurred during the time when the gag order was still in effect, and we don't know for a fact that the gag order has expired; it might still be in effect.
The merger with Starcrest, if it happened, likely solved much of the dire financial circumstances arising from the lengthy and resource draining litigation with Kosmos and allows for Peter to travel in private jets and pay for his very fashionable Hermes Eyewear he likely had on while at the conference, because Peter has good taste afforded by the salaries indicated were paid in the PPP Care Act funds, which can only be possible from revenue that ERHC must have to secure PPP funds in the first place.
Krombacher
ssc
13 hours ago
Twisting, squirming, lying dickran at it again. Just can't control him/herself. Far too words filled with if's, may's, even if's and based completely on the dickran manufactured falsehoods about short sellers he/she can't prove exist and a gag order he/she has never seen. dickran's self-destructive greed and hubris just won't allow the lies to end.
Why this sudden, renewed focus on the worn out gag order excuse? Could it be dickran has recognized the absurdity and potential liabilities of continuing to circulate his/her allegations of conspiracy by Shell OIL, Total, STP officials, Offor and erhc to hide material information worth billions of dollars from erhe shareholders? All to try and justify the new, asinine "backstop" bullshit. Oh what a tangled web dickran weaves...
Krombacher
20 hours ago
The short seller’s argument about the inevitability of lawsuits is flawed for several reasons, particularly when you account for legal nuances, financial realities, and market behavior. Let’s break it down:
1) Gag Order/Restraining Order and the 10th Amendment (State's Rights)
If a Houston County court judge has issued a gag order or restraining order, that court order takes precedence over SEC regulations under the 10th Amendment. This amendment affirms states' rights to manage certain legal matters, including judicial orders. Here’s why:
Court orders have primacy: In this scenario, the company cannot legally disclose information if a gag order or restraining order prevents it from doing so. This judicial action protects the company from violating federal regulations, as the SEC would have no legal ground to punish a company for complying with a state court order.
Dismissal of SEC revocation case: The fact that a court case related to the revocation of ERHC’s shares was dismissed, albeit due to a control deficiency, strengthens the argument that legal precedent may favor the company in this context, protecting it from SEC litigation or further regulatory penalties.
2) Short Sellers' Inability to Fund a Lawsuit After a Short Squeeze
After a short squeeze, the short sellers who took significant losses may no longer have the financial resources to pursue complex, multi-jurisdictional lawsuits involving legal systems in both Canada and the U.S.:
Financial devastation: Given the potential magnitude of the short squeeze, many short sellers may face devastating losses that leave them unable to fund litigation, particularly given the high costs involved in hiring attorneys for a complex cross-border lawsuit.
Uncertainty of recovery: Even if they were to initiate lawsuits, the costs and uncertainty of any potential recovery would likely deter most short sellers from pursuing legal action. They would need to prove that the company withheld information deliberately to harm their short position—a difficult and expensive claim to substantiate.
3) Fraud Exposure of Short Sellers
If a short seller who publicly claimed on message boards that there were "no short sellers" then turns around and admits in a lawsuit that they were short all along, they would be admitting to fraud:
Self-incrimination: By initiating a lawsuit, these short sellers would have to reveal their own fraudulent behavior—namely, that they intentionally misled other investors by claiming no short positions existed. This would expose them to legal action themselves, making it highly unlikely they would pursue litigation.
Fear of prosecution: Short sellers involved in such a lawsuit would be exposing themselves to potential criminal prosecution for fraud. This is a powerful deterrent, as no rational short seller would risk outing themselves in this manner.
4) Market Speculation and Assumed Risk
It’s critical to remember that market speculation and rumors about mergers, buyouts, and dividends have been widely discussed on message boards for an extended period. As a result:
Informed risk: Any investor—including short sellers—who has been following the stock should have been aware of these speculative risks and the possibility of withheld information, whether related to mergers, buyouts, or dividends. If they chose to ignore these discussions and proceeded with their short positions, then the responsibility for their losses lies squarely with them.
Assumed risk: The short sellers assumed the risk of the stock moving against them, even without company confirmation of rumors. In markets, participants are responsible for managing risk based on available information, which includes speculation. Therefore, they cannot claim to be blindsided if the speculation turns out to be true.
5) No Legal Basis for Claiming Withheld Information
Even if certain information was withheld due to legal orders (such as a gag order), it would not constitute a violation of securities laws:
Legal protection under court order: The existence of a gag or restraining order provides legal cover for the company to refrain from releasing sensitive information. The company cannot be held liable for not disclosing information under such legal constraints, and any lawsuit claiming otherwise would likely fail.
Market dynamics: Furthermore, the fluctuations in share price due to speculation or lack of information is a normal part of market behavior. Companies routinely withhold information for legitimate reasons, such as pending deals or court orders. This does not automatically open the door to shareholder lawsuits unless there is proven misconduct, which in this case does not exist.
6) Limited Precedent for Such Lawsuits
There are limited examples of successful shareholder lawsuits in situations like this. The burden of proof would be on the short sellers to demonstrate:
That the company intentionally withheld information to manipulate the share price;
That they were harmed by that withholding, and not by their own speculative positions;
That their short positions were somehow protected from the normal risk inherent in shorting a stock.
Given these challenges, it is very unlikely that any lawsuit would succeed.
Conclusion
In sum, the short seller’s argument fails to hold up under scrutiny for several reasons: the potential gag order takes precedence over SEC rules, short sellers are unlikely to have the financial means or incentive to sue post-squeeze, their fraudulent claims on message boards expose them to legal risks, and they assumed the risk when entering their short positions. Add to that the fact that speculation about withheld information has been widely discussed, and any lawsuit would be extremely difficult to win.
Krombacher
iwondertoo
1 day ago
You do know that a publicly traded company is required by law to publicly disseminate information pertinent to share price. So, if, by some strange, illogical, unrealistic, illegal act there are truly shorts out (which I simply cannot conceive) Any information given out that would show that they are going to be hurt by an increase in share price due to withheld information, would destroy the company even more completely than it has already been denuded of value. ERHE would be impacted by lawsuits by, not only any nonexistent shorts, but by every other shareholder that sold because no information was out.
ssc
1 day ago
True to form liar guerguerian dickran blaming Russians, Canadians, African Queens, fake Harris County lawsuits, sketched headed short sellers - anything and everything as long as it is far away from the truth. Latest nonsense about a "backstop" with Shell OIl, Total, STP officials and erhc insiders conspiring to hide billions of dollars of deals from erhe shareholders. Of course the twisting, squirming largest erhe shareholder qualifies it all with the dickran disclaimer that something good will happen for erhe "sometime between now and the end of time". His/her bullshit is an ongoing, many years old pathetic joke.
The truth is that dickran and his group of small investors who own close to 2 billion erhe shares don't have any idea what has been going on at erhc for the last 5 years. They don't know what if any assets erhc has, what if any revenues or cash erhc has, how much erhc insiders have been compensated, anything about any deals or partnerships, in short they are completely in the dark. Their sources of information are gossip at a women's oil conference, a switchboard operator, and proven liar and largest shareholder dickran. With all those shares, the controlling interest in erhc, they remain completely in the dark.
What has dickran taught everyone with his/her baseless claims, false rumors and outright lies (thousands of them)? After all these years what do stuck erhe shareholders have other than dickran bullshit like "not based in reality", "share price doesn't matter", and "it's not a lie if you say you believe it"? erhe shares that are on the Caveat Emptor list, trade on the Expert Market, carry OTC skull and crossbones rating, and a company so discredited that most U.S. brokers will not allow their customers to purchase erhe shares. And of course, a share price that has remained near zero through all the dickran bullshit for years and years.
Yes, dickran has been warning about the $8 epic short squeeze since day 1. And he/she has been wrong every day that followed. Unequivocally, embarrassingly, shamefully, pathetically wrong
Krombacher
1 day ago
Links please to any accusations I've made. I think all I said was that the universe was conspiring against the shorts.
That said, you are right that no one is buying the stock, because if they possess insider information they simply cannot buy the stock.
You seem to be angry.
Try to calm down, you were warned from Day One, so none of this is really news for you. As a chess master, I'm courteous that way...I telegraph my moves before beating my opponent. It's more satisfying that way.
I telegraphed every move before I made it... so you had fair warning all along.
But you dig the hole deeper with your motivating posts. Strange behavior you have.
Krombacher
ssc
2 days ago
Delusional liar guerguerian dickran thinks he/she can fool people with his latest asinine bullish concoction he/she calls "the backstop". No surprise - no one is buying it or erhe stock. Desperate dickran is now going so far as to accuse Shell Oil, Total, STP officials, Offor, and erhc management of conspiring to keep a deal dickran claims is worth billions of dollars hidden from erhe shareholders.
How deep is the dickran bullshit? He/she says the reason for this conspiracy is to teach short sellers a lesson (the short sellers dickran can't even prove exist) and destroy the Canadian financial system. Despicable, deceitful, desperate belly laugh nonsense of the African Queen, dollars/share, $8/share epic short squeeze, "not based in reality" variety dickran's greed and hubris force him/her to spew out.
ssc
2 days ago
More lightweight bullshit, parroting dickran delusional crap. The success of Ntephe has absolutely nothing to do with stuck erhe shareholders. Same thing for Offors billions. EEZ block 4 is gone, any income over the last 5 years or more has been distributed, and any done deals, mergers or partnerships have done nothing to move the share price away from its near zero home.
erhc in the winners circle? Maybe, maybe not - no one knows because the company refuses to provide transparency as honest, ethical, responsible public companies do. But what is clear is that erhe common stock shareholders are anywhere but the winners circle as they continue to fantasize about a stock that has been stuck near zero for over 6 years. The most bizarre thing is that an organized group that controls more than 1/2 the erhe shares, led by known liar and largest erhe shareholder guerguerian dickran, sit quietly and do nothing about it.
Krombacher
2 days ago
It doesn't make strategic sense for him or me to inform anyone of anything until the backstop is in place.
I still don't think you fully grasp the backstop concept based on your recent post where you think I'm trying to get people to hold their shares while I allegedly unload.
If you truly understood the backstop concept you wouldn't bother even suggesting that.
To address the short seller’s misunderstanding, it’s important to clarify the role of a backstop in a short squeeze scenario and why it would prevent me from selling my shares prematurely. Here's a structured response to clear up the confusion:
---
Response:
It seems there’s a fundamental misunderstanding of how a backstop functions in the context of a short squeeze and why it would inhibit the behavior you're suggesting.
1. What is a Backstop?
A backstop acts as a guaranteed minimum price level, often secured through offering a dividend, or buyout offers ensuring that shares cannot be sold below a certain price. The concept of a backstop creates a floor price that effectively anchors expectations for investors.
2. How the Backstop Prevents Premature Selling:
If I know that there is a backstop in place, I have no incentive to sell my shares below that guaranteed price, even leading up to day T+3. Here’s why:
Guaranteed Price Protection: If the backstop guarantees, for example, a minimum price of $X, it would be illogical for me to sell shares at any price below $X because I would be assured that, at the very least, I could sell at that price later.
Patience Until Forced Liquidation: Knowing that the short seller’s broker will be forced to liquidate the short position by day T+3 at any price, it makes sense to hold until the forced liquidation pushes prices higher. Selling prematurely at lower prices would mean missing out on potential gains, which is irrational for a shareholder with a backstop in place.
3. T+3 and Forced Liquidation:
On day T+3, when the broker of the short seller is forced to cover their short positions, the demand for shares will spike as the broker has no choice but to buy back shares at any price. This is a key point in a short squeeze, where prices can rise significantly as the broker scrambles to fulfill the covering requirement.
Thus, it is in my best interest as a shareholder to hold my shares until this event happens because the forced buying will likely drive prices up, far beyond the backstop price. Selling early would not only go against the logic of holding for maximum gain but would also undercut the very premise of benefitting from the squeeze.
4. Incentive Alignment:
My incentive is aligned with waiting for the forced liquidation event (day T+3) to allow the maximum upward pressure on the stock price. If I were to sell early, I’d effectively undermine my own position and leave money on the table, which, again, is irrational when a backstop guarantees I can sell for a minimum price. Therefore, any suggestion that I would try to offload shares prematurely is contradictory to the fundamental principles of a short squeeze and the protective nature of a backstop.
5. Short Seller’s Confusion:
The misunderstanding seems to stem from thinking that I have a reason to sell shares before day T+3. However, with a backstop in place and the anticipation of a forced cover event on T+3, I would logically hold onto my shares until the market reaches that tipping point, maximizing my return. Selling before T+3 would only benefit the short sellers, not myself or other investors holding long positions.
---
In conclusion, the backstop ensures that I, and other investors, have a price floor that we will not breach before the short sellers are forced to cover their positions. The structure of the backstop prevents any premature selling, and waiting until the forced liquidation on day T+3 is the most logical course of action to maximize potential gains. Therefore, your assumption that I would offload shares early does not align with the realities of how a backstop operates or how investors act in a short squeeze scenario.
Krombacher
Krombacher
2 days ago
In the video, Peter could've introduced himself as director of Elcrest, which he is a director of Elcrest and that wouldn't be lying... if he were embarrassed about a bankrupt ERHC.
Yet he proudly introduces himself as CEO of ERHC Energy and brags about the investment made in Kenya.
They're definitely not acting like they're about to lose all their blocks and go bankrupt.
And that video was taken weeks ago and not yesterday when the share price fell, lol. It was taken in the UK... quite an expense for a supposedly bankrupt company. He probably flew there in a private jet.
On top of that, he encourages the minister of Uganda to increase the ability to invest in that country from 6 months to 30 days, as if ERHC is about to come into a bunch of capital it can use to invest (and pay dividends) with.
Krombacher
ssc
3 days ago
guerguerian dickran simply cannot stop the lies. No where on that video does Ntephe say erhc still has interests in Kenya. The fact is erhc has publicly stated it surrendered its Kenya asset. I guess when it gets to the pathological level, the lying is uncontrollable, hence the African Queen, the thousand oflies about erhe short selling, the dividends, the done deal buyout, the conspiracy with Shell OIl, Total, STP and erhc to hide billion dollar deals from shareholders, and now this latest false quote that "erhc is still in Kenya". Top it off with this "backstop" nonsense that's supposed to happen "sometime between now and the end of time", and everyone can see how delusional and desperate dickran has become.
iwondertoo
3 days ago
I don't know that knowing that he still represents ERHE would be of comfort to me..........but, knowing that he is still connected to ERHE does validate my selling when I did. I wish I had been as astute with other stocks. LOL
BTW...that LOL is pointed at myself, not those who are still holding here, or those who have found some way to buy, I wish you luck, but don't have much hope for it....
News
Market Data
Register for streaming realtime charts, analysis tools, and prices.
Ask ADVFN Intelligence (AI)
BearRickPunch
4 hours ago
