Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
If we back calculate from the estimated $1.6 million of revenue needed to cover annual payroll and when we realize that PPP caps individual payroll reimbursement to $100k when annualized, that suggests that you need at least 16 employees, assuming they all made $100k and obviously many of them make less than that so we're estimating far in excess of 16 employees.
That means many employees don't have LinkedIn profiles or have their profiles hidden... and the number of employees at ERHC is greater than just 8 employees as depicted by LinkedIn.
The above of course is speculation but again as always is based on a fact pattern and with the use of logical reasoning and deduction clearly presented above.
Nevertheless, it's remarkable that not one of the 8 employees on LinkedIn bothered to update their profile to new employment given the short seller's narrative that the company is about to go broke as it potentially loses all of its assets. Clearly, therefore, the short seller narrative is flawed.
Krombacher
A LinkedIn search reveals 8 employees, but mind you that not everyone that works for ERHC, particularly in Nigeria or Sao Tome, will have a LinkedIn profile. I was only able to locate one Nigerian employee currently in an Africa office, an assistant manager in Nigeria, who works for ERHC.
Krombacher
If you look at the LinkedIn profile of Michael Shafie, ERHC's geophysicist, you'll see that he left ERHC in 2012, back when ERHC was struggling with money and went to work for Shell International E&P for a year, and then came back to work for ERHC Energy, and obviously ERHC had the revenue to cover his payroll as we know from PPP funding. He's been working for ERHC to present day.
It makes logical and speculative sense that he would be on and possibly even head a speculative ERHC/Shell joint task force at ERHC's offices in Sao Tome for block 4 given that he was an "inside man" at Shell.
This relationship implies that ERHC and Shell are more likely "friendly" and not "adversarial" over block 4.
If ERHC were losing all of its assets by the end of the month, surely ERHC employees would've started looking for other jobs and updated their LinkedIn profile by now to reflect those new job positions. But they're all still working for ERHC... so I guess ERHC doesn't go bankrupt at the end of the month then, huh?
Krombacher
I see.
So I take it then that you're going for the "humiliated short seller" movie role with mustache?
Am I hearing you correctly? I'm still casting, so you still have a chance at it. I would consider it because it might be the only saving income that keeps you from living under a Canadian bridge.
Who knows you might become famous from it.
Krombacher
I'll tell you what boys,
When all this comes to an end, and I become a billionaire, and the shorts lose everything and are humiliated in the courts as proven cowards as payback for 18 years of verbally abusing me, I am *considering* offering the shorts a role in the epic movie of ERHC's story that resulted in the permanent end to naked short selling and the iconoclastic destruction of Canadian institutions called "the rise of DICKran"
I do require, however, that the shorts grow out an evil looking "pornstache" type of mustache because that's how I envision them to look like.
Lol
Krombacher
Badog and SSC,
It seems you're not quite grasping the game I'm playing with you two.
You dismiss my speculation because you believe it’s just bullshit, and that’s largely due to your lack of confidence in my ability to read the tea leaves and accurately predict the future. Fair enough. But let’s flip the script for a moment: what if my speculation turns out to be true?
If you were short sellers, you’d find yourselves in a devastating position, kicking yourselves for not having orchestrated a premature short squeeze when there was still no backstop in place. Waiting for that backstop to materialize will only increase the pain for shorts when it finally hits. The longer you wait, the more overwhelming the consequences will be.
But I understand your hesitation. For you to be motivated to initiate a premature squeeze, if you were short sellers, you need certainty—some advance knowledge that my speculation will indeed become fact. And that’s where the real game begins.
If you knew my speculation was a guaranteed outcome, then where’s the challenge in that? There’s no courage in reacting only after the fact, when everything’s clear. That’s not how the market works; it rewards those with the guts to move before everyone else.
So ultimately, this is a test of your cowardice. Do you have the courage to act now, or will you wait until it's too late?
Come and play my game,
Krombacher
Let's do a hypothetical conversation between ERHC and PPP.
PPP: So how much revenue do you make? Please note that by revenue we mean funds from stuff you actually sell to customers. It cannot be a loan or other forms of capital.
ERHC: last year we made revenues of $ 100 million bazillion.
PPP: That's very interesting. And how much of the $ 100 million bazillion was used to cover your payroll and payroll related expenses?
ERHC: we used approximately $1.6 million annually to cover payroll and payroll related expenses.
PPP: very good, so if we take that figure and apply it to the "covered period", you get a sum of $X in the form of PPP funding. Nice doing business with you.
The above is hypothetical.
Krombacher
Of course, I speculate—there's no denying that. But my speculation is grounded in logical deduction and induction, pointing toward potential truths. When we analyze available information, my reasoning stems from tangible data, such as ERHC's assets, industry valuations, and the structure of government programs like PPP. On the other hand, your argument seems to rely heavily on personal attacks rather than engaging with the facts and logic that I present.
Let’s address the $1.6 million in revenue you referred to. This is the minimum threshold required to qualify for PPP funds, which are meant to cover payroll and other business essentials. If ERHC qualified for this amount, it logically follows that their total revenue must be significantly higher, as companies don’t use 100% of their revenue solely for payroll. The $1.6 million is just a baseline and suggests that ERHC’s revenues are far beyond that number.
Regarding the status of Block 4: You’re right that we don’t have definitive public information due to the gag order. But again, my speculation about the block's value is informed by past industry valuations, like Kosmos’ estimate of 17 cents per share and Oranto’s 20 cents for a neighboring block. This is logical deduction based on available evidence, not "wild speculation."
Your dismissal of these numbers and refusal to consider their significance is itself speculative, based only on skepticism, not logic. Also, when you question whether anyone ever paid these amounts, the fact remains: these valuations come from industry experts and stakeholders, which adds weight to them.
As for the gag order, it’s precisely because of its secrecy that the lack of information could imply undisclosed deals or developments. While you accuse me of being speculative, your skepticism ignores the possibility that ERHC might have pursued other ventures or mergers (e.g., Starcrest). My speculation is rooted in patterns and logical connections; yours seems to rely purely on dismissal.
In conclusion, yes, I speculate, but I do so based on logical inference and available data, while you rely on ad hominem attacks rather than addressing the underlying facts. If you're going to critique my reasoning, at least engage with the facts and logic I’m presenting instead of resorting to personal insults.
There are several logical reasons why a merger between ERHC and Starcrest could have occurred, and why the CEO of ERHC, as well as another board member of ERHC, are also board members of Elcrest, a joint venture between Starcrest and Eland. Here's the breakdown:
1. Shared Leadership Indicates Strategic Alignment: The fact that the CEO of ERHC and another board member of ERHC also sit on the board of Elcrest is a strong indicator of strategic alignment between the companies. It’s common in the corporate world for leadership to overlap when companies are pursuing partnerships, mergers, or joint ventures. In this case, the overlap suggests that ERHC and Starcrest could have significant shared interests, possibly leading to a merger or deep collaboration.
2. Mutual Ownership by Offor: Both ERHC and Starcrest are associated with Emeka Offor, and it's unlikely that two companies under the same ownership umbrella would operate in isolation. It’s logically consistent to assume that a merger or close cooperation between these entities would streamline operations and maximize efficiency, particularly if they’re both focused on similar goals within the oil and gas industry. A merger could help consolidate assets, reduce costs, and improve their market position.
3. Revenue and Operational Continuity: ERHC claimed $1.6 million in annual revenue to qualify for PPP funds, but without significant existing revenues on its books, this figure strongly suggests it could be pulling revenues from a related entity. Given the leadership and ownership ties to Starcrest, it’s logical to conclude that the revenue figure could be derived from joint operations, possibly via a merger or significant partnership with Starcrest, which would allow ERHC to access Starcrest’s revenues or assets.
4. Elcrest as a Joint Venture Between Starcrest and Eland: Elcrest, a joint venture between Starcrest and Eland, indicates that Starcrest is an active player in oil and gas operations. If ERHC were to merge with Starcrest, ERHC could gain access to Elcrest’s assets and operations, which would instantly increase its revenues, production capacity, and exploration opportunities. It would make business sense for ERHC to merge with Starcrest to tap into Elcrest’s operations and boost its overall value and market prospects.
5. MOU Between ERHC and Starcrest: ERHC previously announced a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), and while the details of this agreement were not disclosed due to the gag order, the timing and nature of this announcement strongly suggest that ERHC and Starcrest could be working toward a merger. Given that Offor owns both companies, it’s highly likely that the MOU was intended to facilitate closer operational ties or even a full merger. This would enable ERHC to enhance its asset portfolio and revenue base significantly.
6. Maximizing Shareholder Value: A merger between ERHC and Starcrest would be a logical move to increase shareholder value for both companies. By combining their resources, they can consolidate their oil and gas assets, expand their exploration footprint, and streamline operations, ultimately making them more competitive in the industry. This would directly benefit ERHC shareholders, who are currently dealing with the uncertainty surrounding the company's future and Block 4.
In summary, the overlapping leadership, shared ownership under Offor, revenue implications, and existing joint ventures (Elcrest) all point toward a merger as a logical conclusion. The CEO’s role in both ERHC and Elcrest suggests that the companies are more integrated than they may appear on the surface, and this could explain the $1.6 million revenue figure as well as the strategic direction of ERHC.
Krombacher
Badog's valuation of ERHC at half a penny could only come from the perspective of a short seller, consider the following:
1. Lack of Fundamental Justification: Badog's suggestion of half a penny doesn't align with the actual data surrounding ERHC’s assets and potential value. Kosmos valued Block 4 at 17 cents per share, and adjacent Block 3 is valued at 20 cents by Oranto and Xrimlinger.com. This shows that industry insiders believe the assets are worth significantly more, and this is before even factoring in the latest seismic surveys confirming the presence of "source oil."
2. Short Seller Incentives: For a short seller, a valuation at half a penny would be a low, artificially pessimistic price, designed to drive down investor sentiment and suppress the stock's price. Short sellers profit when the price declines, and by pushing a narrative that the stock is only worth half a penny, Badog might be attempting to keep the price low or even provoke panic selling.
3. Short Squeeze Fear: Prices "much above half a penny" could cause problems for short sellers, especially if there's a substantial rise in the stock price. This could lead to margin calls and force them to cover their positions, triggering a short squeeze. Badog could be downplaying the potential value of ERHC to avoid this scenario.
4. Selective Negativity: Badog's post focuses exclusively on the negatives, such as the cost of drilling and the risks involved, while ignoring the positive developments, such as potential block buyouts, ERHC's existing assets, or any undisclosed deals (e.g., a possible merger with Starcrest). This one-sided argument supports the idea that his motives align with those of a short seller who benefits from fear-mongering.
5. Undisclosed Developments: If ERHC has indeed merged with Starcrest or made significant moves under a gag order, Badog’s valuation ignores these possibilities entirely. The estimated $1.6 million annual revenue that ERHC filed for PPP funding also suggests ongoing operations, which conflicts with the idea that the company is worth just a fraction of a penny.
In conclusion, only someone with a vested interest in keeping the price low—like a short seller—would argue for such an implausibly low valuation of half a penny. The valuation ignores asset-backed estimates from credible industry players and potential undisclosed developments that could substantially increase the company’s value.
Again, I did not lie.
Your conclusions are false.
I suggest you go back and read my last post on the topic and focus on the word "unanimous".
As an example, if there were a hypothetical document which required unanimous agreement and only 69 out of 70 participants signed and agreed to the document, then the agreement is still not agreed upon UNANIMOUSLY. It doesn't mean there's no agreement. It doesn't mean that there are no signatures. It means a few may have dissented and so we couldn't move forward with a big investor who required it.
There was no lie.
Krombacher
I did not lie.
But to this day you still have problems reading.
Krombacher
Well, there, bud, I think ya missed the ol' maple leaf on this one, eh? You see, when you're out here on the message board shouting, ‘There are no shorts in the grey market!’—well, gosh, you’re kinda makin’ yourself the Timbit at the hockey rink, aren't ya? Here’s the thing, eh: by loudly claimin’ there’s no shorts, you're pretty much sayin' you're not a short seller. Which, ya know, wouldn’t look too good later if you turn around tryin' to file a lawsuit sayin’ you were short, eh?
Now, lemme lay it out for ya like we’re playin' a nice game of curling. If you’re publically claiming there’s no shorts, and then later you show up in a lawsuit as a short seller, well, that’s like throwin' a double-handled stone, eh? You’re basically admitting you’ve been fibbin’ the whole time! That’s what we call fraud, and I don’t think anyone’s servin' double-doubles in jail, ya know?
So, ya might wanna rethink how you’re puttin' the ol' pucks on the ice, pal. Can’t be sayin’ there’s no shorts and then showin’ up later like, ‘Whoopsie-doodle, guess I was short after all!’ That's a one-way ticket to lookin' like a real hosier in front of the judge—and probably some time in the penalty box, eh?
Krombacher
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:
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
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
I think that's your biggest problem... you see my writing as gibberish.
I cannot help you if that is the case.
I can only teach so much... the student must make an effort too.
Maybe Ponzi can explain it to you?
I heard that Russians love chess.
Krombacher
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
It is simply not strategic for you to receive the information that you are requesting, prior to the deployment of a backstop.
Instead, I recommend that you pretend that you are a deer and continue staring at the share price as if the share price is a pair of headlights. Enjoy.
I think if you do this you will get exactly what you deserve.
Krombacher
You said
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
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
Our fearless leader speaks...
You said:
You seem to think you're entitled to answers to those questions.
But you're not.
You're going to have to use your brain instead... and if you use it well, you'll notice, there's no way out for you.
I'll wait until it sinks in.
Krombacher
You don't have much of a case if your 60,000 shares end up making you a ton of money as I'm confident they will...
... too bad the millions of shares you shorted, if any, will have losses that far eclipse the gains on your 60,000 long shares.
You sure you want to claim there are no shorts, while potentially being short yourself? Not wise, if true.
Krombacher
This scenario—where a short seller knowingly lies about the existence of short selling and denies their own short position—constitutes fraudulent misrepresentation, a serious violation of securities law. Here’s how we can make the case:
1. Intentional Deception:
If a short seller knowingly denies short positions while actively holding them, this is a deliberate attempt to deceive other investors. This deception is designed to create a false perception of the market for that stock. By falsely claiming there are no short sellers, the individual aims to mislead investors into believing the stock is not being manipulated and that there is no potential for a short squeeze. This type of manipulative behavior undermines fair market practices and harms investors who rely on accurate market information.
2. Impact on Investors:
The actions of such a short seller could lead investors to make misguided decisions. Investors might believe that the stock's price movements are purely based on supply and demand, rather than being artificially suppressed by short sellers. As a result, some investors may sell their shares prematurely or refrain from purchasing additional shares based on false information. This manipulation distorts the true value of the stock and prevents investors from making informed decisions.
3. Fraudulent Misrepresentation:
In legal terms, this conduct would be categorized as fraudulent misrepresentation, which requires the following elements:
A false statement of material fact: The short seller’s claim that there are no short positions, when in fact they are aware of the opposite, is a clear false statement.
Knowledge of falsity: The short seller knows they are providing false information because they hold a short position.
Intent to deceive: The short seller’s goal is to mislead other investors into believing there is no short selling, which could result in price suppression and protect their position.
Reliance by the victim: Investors who rely on the short seller’s false statements and make trading decisions based on this misinformation are directly harmed.
Damages: Investors suffer financial losses by acting on the false premise that the stock is not being manipulated by short sellers.
4. Legal Precedent:
Cases involving fraudulent misrepresentation in the stock market, including manipulation of information on message boards, have been prosecuted before. Here are some relevant cases:
U.S. v. Regan (2001): In this case, stock promoters were convicted for manipulating share prices by spreading false information in public forums, deceiving investors about the true nature of the stock. The court found that intentional misrepresentation of market conditions constitutes securities fraud under U.S. law.
SEC v. Curshen (2011): The SEC brought charges against traders who manipulated stocks by spreading false information through online platforms. The court held that using false information to distort stock prices is a violation of federal securities law.
SEC v. Cuban (2009): While not specifically about short selling, this case is relevant because it involved misrepresentation in the financial markets. The SEC alleged that Mark Cuban engaged in insider trading, and his public denials of wrongdoing were part of a strategy to manipulate the market and mislead investors. Though Cuban was ultimately not convicted, the case shows the SEC’s willingness to pursue manipulative behaviors tied to misinformation in the markets.
U.S. v. Homm (2014): Florian Homm, a hedge fund manager, was indicted for market manipulation involving naked short selling. Homm’s fund took short positions in microcap stocks, while he misrepresented the true nature of his trading activity. Homm’s case illustrates how misrepresentations regarding short positions can lead to serious criminal charges, even when the fraud extends over years.
5. International Implications:
Even if the short seller is in another country, like Canada, they are not immune from prosecution. Securities fraud can have cross-border implications due to international regulatory cooperation. For example:
The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) collaborates with foreign regulators under International Organization of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) agreements to investigate and prosecute fraudulent market behavior across borders.
Canada’s Ontario Securities Commission (OSC) has worked closely with the SEC in prosecuting cross-border fraud cases. If fraudulent misrepresentations made by Canadian-based traders affect U.S. investors or companies listed on U.S. exchanges, they could still face significant legal consequences.
6. Conclusion: Fraud and Consequences
By knowingly making false statements about the existence of short positions, the short seller engages in securities fraud. They are not simply guessing about market conditions—they are lying with the intent to deceive investors, and their false statements could lead investors to make decisions that result in financial loss. Such actions are clearly illegal under U.S. and Canadian law, and as cases like U.S. v. Regan and SEC v. Curshen have shown, spreading false information in the markets can lead to criminal prosecution and imprisonment.
Short sellers who attempt to manipulate markets by making false representations—whether on message boards or through other means—are committing fraud and could face serious legal consequences, including prison time, especially when investors suffer as a result of their deceptive tactics.
Krombacher
Addressing the Short Seller’s Deflection and Misleading Assertions
It’s no surprise that the same short seller who’s been distorting facts about ERHC for over a decade has now resorted to deflection and name-calling instead of addressing the very real concerns raised about their short positions and fraudulent practices.
Let’s break down their response, as it's a textbook case of dodging the issue:
1. On Emeka Offor’s Ownership: The short seller claims there’s no clarity on Emeka Offor’s potential ownership of over 90% of ERHC shares. Yet, the reality is that much of this information has been withheld due to legal reasons, as mentioned in previous discussions. If a gag order or restraining order prevents public disclosure, that would explain the absence of certain filings. The short seller conveniently ignores the historical fact that Offor was a majority shareholder prior to the dilution and would logically still hold a significant position post-dilution.
The short seller has no answer to this and instead resorts to personal attacks because addressing Offor’s influence directly would weaken their position.
2. On Short Positions: It’s ironic that the short seller continuously demands “proof” of short positions while simultaneously denying the possibility of a short squeeze. This circular argument is designed to confuse the issue, but the facts remain:
The absence of transparency from certain brokers and regulatory bodies doesn’t negate the existence of short positions, especially naked shorts, which can be hidden through tactics like synthetic positions.
ERHC has experienced significant price suppression for years, and one of the primary ways this occurs is through aggressive short selling. The short seller’s insistence that there are no substantial short positions is directly contradicted by market behavior and price movements over time.
They are quick to dismiss any mention of naked shorting or potential failure to deliver, likely because they know how devastating a real short squeeze could be to their positions.
3. On Legal Consequences: The short seller mocks the idea that they could face prison time, but the fact is, securities fraud—including naked short selling and market manipulation—is a serious crime. The Sedona Corp. case and other legal precedents make it clear that short sellers who engage in fraudulent practices are subject to prosecution. Whether the short seller is in the U.S. or Canada, cross-border regulations and international cooperation can still lead to legal consequences.
In reality, it’s the short sellers who should be worried. If ERHC’s assets are proven to be worth billions and a backstop materializes, the resulting short squeeze could expose a decade-long manipulation scheme. If naked shorting has occurred, those responsible will be held accountable for fraud.
4. On Long-Term Tactics: The short seller's attempt to mock the strategy of maintaining uncertainty until the appropriate time for a squeeze is a transparent attempt to rush investors into premature action. By calling for transparency prematurely, short sellers hope to gain information that would allow them to better manage their short positions and avoid the catastrophic losses they could face if a backstop or takeover is announced.
The reason for withholding certain details from an AGM, as mentioned previously, is to ensure that the shorts remain in the dark long enough for them to become trapped. This strategy benefits long investors, and the shorts know it—that’s why they are desperately pushing for forced disclosures.
5. The Real Desperation: Finally, the short seller's attacks on me personally and the repeated use of terms like "delusional" and "demented" are tactics meant to distract from their own panic. When someone relies on insults instead of factual rebuttals, it’s clear they have no real argument.
After a decade of suppression, it's clear that the short sellers' true fear is exposure—both of their positions and of their fraudulent actions. It’s telling that they’ve spent so much time and energy trying to discredit me and any talk of a short squeeze. If they were confident in their position, they wouldn’t be so desperate to undermine every single post with misinformation and baseless accusations.
Conclusion: Beware of Short Seller Manipulation
The real question investors need to ask themselves is: why would someone who has been shorting the stock for over a decade go to such lengths to discredit the possibility of a short squeeze, deny the existence of any large short positions, and mock long investors who see value in ERHC’s assets?
The answer is simple: they are scared. Scared that the value in ERHC will eventually be realized, scared that they will be caught in a massive short squeeze, and scared that they might face legal consequences for their fraudulent actions.
Don’t be fooled by their rhetoric. Stay informed, and remember that the game they are playing is about keeping you in the dark and manipulating the market to their advantage. The truth, as always, will come out in time.
Krombacher
You said:
Clarifying Emeka Offor's Potential Ownership and Implications for Short Sellers
It is widely believed that Emeka Offor, a Nigerian billionaire and one of the principal architects behind the Joint Development Zone (JDZ) and the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), likely holds over 90% of the outstanding shares of ERHC. Offor’s involvement with ERHC, Nigeria, and São Tomé has been pivotal in securing the company's major assets. Given that Offor was a significant or majority shareholder prior to the dilution event and played a key role in the company’s deals, it stands to reason that after the dilution and a possible judge-imposed gag order, his ownership was not only restored but likely increased.
If a gag order or restraining order prevented the disclosure of this ownership, it would explain why such a large holding has not been publicly confirmed. However, based on his role in negotiating ERHC's key deals and his long-standing involvement, the logical conclusion is that Offor's ownership likely remained intact and perhaps even grew over time.
The Implications for Short Sellers: "Failure to Deliver" and Potential Fraud
In a scenario where Offor controls such a large percentage of shares, a "failure to deliver" event could be triggered in the event of a short squeeze. A "failure to deliver" happens when short sellers are unable to procure shares to cover their short positions. Given that Offor’s shares might be pledged or earmarked for a major takeover by Shell or Total, he may not be in a position to sell them to cover short sellers’ needs.
This puts short sellers in a precarious situation. If Offor cannot provide the shares to cover their shorts, and other shareholders are unwilling to sell, the shorts will be forced to buy shares at increasingly higher prices, potentially resulting in an extreme short squeeze. More importantly, if the shares sold short were “naked shorted” – meaning they were sold without the seller actually borrowing the shares or having the ability to deliver them – then the situation becomes even more legally problematic.
Fraudulent Representation and Legal Consequences for Short Sellers
When short sellers sell shares they do not own and have not borrowed, they make a representation that they are delivering real shares to buyers. If it turns out that they sold naked shorted shares – and investors, in turn, hold these false shares believing they are genuine – this constitutes fraud. Investors have held these shares for decades under the assumption they were real, but if they are naked shorted shares, the short sellers have engaged in a massive fraudulent scheme.
There is legal precedent for holding short sellers accountable for naked short selling and fraudulently selling non-existent shares. In the United States, Regulation SHO was implemented to crack down on abusive naked short selling, and brokers who engage in such practices can face severe penalties, including prison time. Even if the short sellers involved in ERHC are based in Canada, they are not immune to prosecution. Cross-border securities fraud is taken seriously by regulatory bodies, and international cooperation can lead to extradition and prosecution.
For example, in the case of Sedona Corp. vs. Ladenburg Thalmann & Co., the plaintiffs alleged a short-selling scheme that manipulated the company's stock price through naked short selling. This case set a precedent for pursuing legal action against those involved in naked short selling, leading to substantial financial penalties and criminal consequences.
Short sellers should be aware that engaging in naked shorting, especially on the scale being speculated in ERHC, is not just a market violation—it is a serious crime. With substantial stakes involved and the possibility of a large-scale fraud being exposed, those responsible could face prison sentences, especially if they misrepresented the nature of the shares they sold.
Conclusion: Shorts Face an Uncertain and Dangerous Future
To sum up, the likelihood that Emeka Offor controls a significant portion of ERHC shares and that those shares are tied up in major deals creates a potential "failure to deliver" event that could ignite an explosive short squeeze. In the event that short sellers have sold naked shares, they face the very real possibility of being unable to cover, and the fraudulent nature of these transactions opens them up to both civil and criminal liabilities.
For those short sellers, the legal risks extend far beyond financial losses. They could be facing fraud charges, and if convicted, could spend time behind bars. Even those operating out of Canada are not safe, as cross-border enforcement of securities laws has led to the prosecution of similar cases.
The shorts' narrative of downplaying the situation is nothing but an attempt to escape the harsh realities they face. The tables are turning, and soon it may be the short sellers who are cornered—both financially and legally.
Krombacher
Naked shorts aren't borrowed and carry no vote.
You're taking quotes out of context and not providing links.
Keep motivating me ssc... and I keep taking it to the next level.
Krombacher
Response to the Stock Message Board: Addressing Short Seller Misinformation
To all the investors monitoring this message board, it’s time to clarify the ongoing misinformation and the motives behind these statements by short sellers, particularly regarding ERHC Energy and the current state of affairs.
First, let's address the claim that I, or the largest shareholders, have encouraged a "quiet" stance while ERHC's value supposedly vanishes. This is a gross misrepresentation. The reality is that the largest shareholders, holding over 30% of shares, along with others controlling 55% of the outstanding shares, have a strategic reason for not pushing for a premature AGM (Annual General Meeting) at this time.
The Real Strategy Behind Not Requesting an AGM
The short sellers are trying to manipulate shareholders into demanding an AGM because they want to force management into disclosing sensitive information that would benefit them, not the long investors. By obtaining this information prematurely, they could better manage their short positions and potentially initiate an early short squeeze at a time that suits them, when no backstop—such as a dividend or a buyout—is in place to maximize shareholder value.
A backstop, as previously explained, ensures that shorts are cornered. Whether it’s a dividend or a deal with a significant payout, it forces shorts to buy back shares at whatever price we command. Without this backstop, initiating a short squeeze too early would only allow short sellers to cover their positions at a minimal cost, taking advantage of any market volatility without real financial consequences.
The truth is, short sellers are terrified of the potential deals on the table—whether it's Block 4, a partnership with Shell or Total, or other developments that management is working on behind the scenes. They know that once these deals are finalized and publicly announced, the short squeeze will happen naturally, with the full force of a backstop behind it. That's why they are trying to rush things now, hoping to manage the situation before it spirals out of their control.
Why Pushing for an AGM Would Be a Strategic Mistake
Many of the largest shareholders agree that calling for an AGM right now could be a distraction for management at a time when crucial deals are being finalized. More importantly, holding an AGM would give short sellers the very information they crave to better time and mitigate their exposure to a short squeeze. It’s not in the best interest of long investors to hand over this advantage on a silver platter.
Furthermore, there is uncertainty as to whether the shares owned by this group (55% of the outstanding shares) are voting shares or non-voting shorted shares. If they are non-voting shares, we may not even have the voting power to call an AGM under ERHC's bylaws. But whether or not we have that power is irrelevant in the bigger picture. The key issue is strategy. Shorts are trying to bait long shareholders into doing their dirty work for them by forcing disclosures that would allow them to cover prematurely—before the real value of ERHC is unleashed.
The Shorts Are No Longer in Control
For decades, shorts have toyed with longs, posting on message boards and spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt. But the tables have turned. Long investors now hold the cards, and shorts are the ones trapped in indecision, knowing that they could face massive losses if a backstop is put in place. By withholding information and refusing to call an AGM at this moment, we are ensuring that shorts stay on the hook, and that the true value of ERHC is realized when management is ready to make announcements in its own time.
Conclusion: Stay the Course
In closing, the strategy is clear: maintain uncertainty, let the shorts continue their desperate attempts to provoke action, and hold firm until the time is right. By doing so, we maximize the pressure on short sellers and ensure that when a backstop is announced—whether through a dividend or a buyout—they will be forced to cover at prices we dictate. This is the only path that ensures the long-term value of ERHC for shareholders who have been patiently invested in this company.
To the shorts: Your games are coming to an end. It's time for you to realize that the power has shifted. You are no longer in control of this narrative, and when the deals are done and the backstop is in place, your manipulation will only hasten your downfall.
Sincerely,
A Collective Group of Long ERHC Investors
What makes you think that *any* long would suddenly take a tax loss now in Sept when they had the opportunity to take one pretty much all year at maximum losses? You seem to be grasping at straws now.
If some longs really think that we lost block 4 and the JDZ blocks, then they can simply wait for confirmation of that and sell at that point much to the joy of shorts everywhere.
But, here's the problem with that...I don't think we simply lost block 4 without a deal with Shell. That short seller wishful thinking doesn't pass the common sense test. Just like the desire for a revocation but seldom the mention that the revocation case was dismissed due to a control deficiency is just more short seller wishful thinking. Your post fails to mention the revocation case dismissal... why? Is it more cognitive dissonance on your part?
So that leaves shorts WITH A DECISION TO MAKE.
And no decision is still a decision to wait for the backstop... which is perfectly fine.
But let's not play pretend with short seller propaganda.
Krombacher
Ask yourself this question:
If longs are truly stuck as you claim, then how do shorts cover? How do shorts get the longs unstuck? There's only one way, to offer a higher price that results in a premature short squeeze.
Not willing to offer a higher price?
That's fine, then allow the longs to remain stuck until we get our backstop.
There's no point in any long taking a loss except for taxes, as ssc admitted. But that didn't happen in December either when longs could've taken their maximum loss at $.000001.
See how this works? No one is going to sell. A year of zero volume should tell you that.
Krombacher
It's always a new propaganda with you. That's your only tool in your tool belt. Hasn't worked in years or else you wouldn't still be here. A one trick pony you are. But you don't control the narrative on other social media.
YOU HAVE A DECISION TO MAKE. Suck it up and make it.
I'm going to enjoy the ass that's going to be handed to the shorts.
Krombacher
Disobedience to the rules of the game and a disrespectful attitude by short sellers will be met with severe financial punishment to the short sellers.
You think anyone will sell based on your nonsense today? Is that the strategy now? Run the clock down to the window closing by trying to get some longs to sell? Nope, they're all loyal to me. No one will sell. A year's worth of zero volume days hasn't taught you that?!?!
You're going to have to make the decision. Shorts should stop cowering under their desks. It's time to pay the piper for calling our management "Nigerian scammers".
As for shareholders having a say, you forget that most of the shares longs hold are shorted shares that have no vote.
Krombacher
Your little $.000001 stunt cost you very precious time as the window continues to close shut.
Krombacher
You seem to be trying to manipulate people into giving you information that's not "lightweight", but you don't seem to understand how this works.
What's so courageous about having the necessary information needed to initiate a premature short squeeze before the backstop is ready? It's not, that's still cowardice.
That's not how we're playing this game, and I'm in charge of how we play the game, I'm afraid.
You have to DECIDE without having the information. No information will be provided by anyone, including those who you deem to be minions. You have to show courage.
Otherwise, simply wait for the backstop... when the backstop is ready, all the information will be provided.
Krombacher
You keep posting over and over again despite that you're "tired", so what does Einstein say about you especially in light of the fact that no amount of posting has allowed shorts to cover.
The GOAL of short sellers is ultimately to cover... especially when there's no chance of revocation or bankruptcy.
How are the shorts going to achieve that goal if posting has zero effect and only makes things worse by proving that shorts exist? The more shorts post the more they prove they exist.
Krombacher
You basically only have one move before I checkmate you.
You can either "do something" by initiating the premature short squeeze, or you can resign the game.
That's all that's available to you.
You lose either way.
You keep forgetting that this is not poker, this is chess. There's no bluffing in chess.
Krombacher
You've done nothing but make the short sellers position worse. You've made it clear to every long that shorts exist every time you post. You've allowed longs to come together and form a coalition. Shorts are supposed to eventually cover their positions not grow them. You've made it all but impossible to avoid a short squeeze.
If you call that doing something, it's been HIGHLY ineffective.
Krombacher