Replies to post #44231 on ERHC Energy Inc (ERHE)

[Meridian]

I could not agree less. I would have considered the PA with NBL material. May be NBL prevented ERHC from making it public. As far as I know NBL did not make it public either. On the other side disclosing a material event is a legal obligation, so a confidentiality clause could never have prevented them from disclosing.

Please note that the block 4 monies were received in feb 2006. Nevertheless the full amount should have been reported as a receivable in the accounts in the 10q for the first quarter.

[kobiashi2000]

I don't think this had to be disclosed, only if the 9% came from our original 25% which it did not. It came from NBL's awarded percentage and was not material to the company since we never owned that 9%. I also don't see why ERHC would have to file that Addax's check cleared, its not necessary, and its not ordinary procedure in corporate America to file with the SEC when the check for an asset sold is collected, the original material event alerting the shareholders that the event has occured or will occur in the future is enough, only if the money had not been received and the deal fell through would ERHC have had to file with the SEC to let us know.

[Platina]

BB, I'm off to bed, momentarily, BUT, regarding:

I have always liked the concept and potential of this company but their route of sharing news accurately or at all with its shareholders is pathetic IMHO.

We're on the OTC, lol,......let's just wait it out, at least fm now; I'm going to BED and Staying there, especially since I've ''managed to complete my IRS tax Documentation'', quite a hazzle......damn, they are SUPPOSED TO BE , Civil Servants; and to Help normal people; but in fact they are, A BIG F'''ing OBSTICALE.......Oh, well, No Brains, glad ''some'' make a working place; at least they pay taxes LOL

C U tomorrow.......