ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[kingpindg]

I'm not a lawyer either, but the way I read the SEC's previous denial is that the division needed to address the sealing order in order to obtain a ruling for revocation based on a motion for a ruling on the pleadings as allowed under Rule of Practice 250(a). However, to get a ruling for revocation based on a motion for summary disposition under either Rule 250(b)or (c), the latest route the division is taking, they do not have to address it but, rather, ERHC would have to show, in a hearing, why the sealing order prevented them from making timely filings.


Unlike under Rule 250(a), where the non-movant’s [ERHC's] factual allegations [e.g. the sealing order agrument] must be accepted as true, under either Rule 250(b) or (c) the movant [the division] need only “show that there is no genuine issue with regard to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to summary disposition as a matter of law.” "The facts on summary disposition must be viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” But the party “opposing summary disposition [ERHC] ‘may not rely on bare allegations or denials but instead must present specific facts showing a genuine issue of material fact for resolution at a hearing.’”


https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2020/34-90517.pdf



.