ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[Krombacher]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2020/34-90517.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjF3d_uv5D4AhW6bDABHbUpD44QFnoECAsQAQ&usg=AOvVaw2hEM2B6kFG8plh0QZyDXJN

The Division of Enforcement moves for a ruling on the pleadings revoking the registration of each class of the securities of ERHC Energy, Inc. (“ERHC”) that is registered with the Commission pursuant to Section 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.1 We deny the Division’s motion because it has not established that it is entitled to a ruling on the pleadings.

Applying these principles, we deny the Division’s motion for a ruling on the pleadings for two reasons. First, the Division does not cite or apply the controlling standard. A movant must show that “even accepting all of the non-movant’s factual allegations as true and drawing all reasonable inferences in the non-movant’s favor, the movant is entitled to a ruling as a matter of law.”34 The Division does not identify and cite to undisputed allegations of the OIP and assert that they entitle it to the relief it seeks, as it must.35 ERHC averred in its answer that it had “duly and timeously [sic] filed its periodic reports for over 10 years,” and cited pending litigation subject to a state court “sealing order” as “restraining any disclosure” and “depriving [ERHC] of the resources to meet certain regulatory obligations.” The Division focuses only on ERHC’s concession that its Form 10-Q is delinquent and does not address the substance of its answer. Second, the record is insufficient for us to determine the public interest at this time. As explained above, Section 12(j) proceedings are often resolved based on motions for summary disposition. But because the Division filed a motion for a ruling on the pleadings under Rule 250(a), none of the additional materials beyond the pleadings that we would consider under Rule 250(b) are before us now.36 And we will not convert the Division’s motion into a motion for summary disposition for the reasons explained above. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Division of Enforcement’s motion for a ruling on the pleadings against ERHC Energy, Inc., is denied.

And look at the footnote of this document which revokes an unrelated company IDriven but the footnote says ERHC is not being revoked!!!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2021/34-90870.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjF3d_uv5D4AhW6bDABHbUpD44QFnoECA4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw0qSyKNGmn8fJ_EYvkosE1S

ERHC Energy, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 86880, 2019 WL 4242449 (Sept. 5, 2019). The OIP also initiated proceedings against respondent ERHC Energy, Inc. (“ERHC”). The Division of Enforcement moved for a ruling on the pleadings as to ERHC. This order does not apply to ERHC as the Commission denied the Division’s motion in a separate order. ERHC Energy, Inc., Exchange Act Release No. 90517 (Nov. 24, 2020), https://www.sec.gov/litigation/opinions/2020/34-90517.pdf.

Looks like ERHC is free and clear of any revocation!!!!

Krombacher