<<SLB and ERF are negotiating or in arbitration... whatever, one side thinks the other side did something wrong or is owed money for some reason... that is all I can conclude.>>
You're a lot smarter than you claim. "Negotiation" is what you do BEFORE you have a contract. You don't negotiate a contract AFTER it is in force. "Mediation" and "arbitration" are used to resolve a contract dispute or default. We're told that ERFW and SLB tried mediation with no result. Thus, they are now in binding arbitration (or soon will be). I'm sure that SLB has excellent in-house counsel and, no doubt, some of Houston's finest law firms and best litigators at its disposal. ERFW has...?
<<one side thinks the other side did something wrong or is owed money for some reason... that is all I can conclude.>>
Please reread the subject agreements. For services to be rendered, SLB was required to compensate ERFW. Money was to flow from SLB to ERFW. According to a post by MDB on this board, ERFW claims that SLB owes them money. This is a reasonable assumption given the nature of the agreements. However, for some reason, SLB doesn't think that they owe ERFW any money. Under the agreements, there is only one thing that could cause SLB to come to that conclusion, and that is a material default by ERFW. There is no other explanation.
<<If SLB was selling the division all along, my assumption is that they were bogging ERF down while they were finding a buyer... so does ERF owe them damages/money or does SLB owe ERF?>>
So your assumption is that SLB caused the default because they were looking for a buyer for their affected division? That is an EXTREMELY unlikely scenario. When a major corporation like SLB determines to sell a division, they put that division in the best light (condition) possible. I'm sure that the SLB/ERFW dispute was an embarrassment for SLB vis-a-vis prospective buyers, and no doubt took some explaining.
<<Could a "reputable" company like SLB orchestrate a plan to bury ERF in shorts and nearly zero revenues in order to avoid holding up to there end of a deal?>>
SLB entered into the ERFW agreements because it believed there was a significant benefit or benefits in doing so. Even if you are right that SLB is an organization of crooks, what changed SLB's opinion about the supposed benefit(s) to accrue under the agreements? Maybe, just maybe, ERFW didn't live up to its end of the bargain.
It's also possible, although doubtful because the timing is off, that SLB entered into the ERFW agreements because it believed that they (the agreements) would help to faciliate a sale of its communications division. If this were true, then the last thing that SLB would do is queer the agreements with nonpayment.
As an aside, there is an upside and downside to binding arbitration. The upside? Although still expensive, it will probably save ERFW millions in litigation costs. The downside? The arbitrator's decision is final, can be recorded, and cannot be appealed. I hope for ERFW's sake that they have excellent counsel (the very best that they can afford) representing them.
<<Is there a way that Harris has the contract now, but can't do anything with it until SLB and ERF settle their differences... it would make sense but I have no proof.>>
Harris is the successor in interest to the ERFW agreements, but only if the agreements survive arbitration. Yes, the agreements could be terminated by the arbitrator. In any case, you can be sure that SLB had to indemnify Harris against any liability arising out of SLB's dispute with ERFW. Further, it's just plain common sense that if SLB could have resolved the dispute in mediation, it absolutely would have - if for no other reason than to eliminate a roadblock to the Harris deal.
Since you have speculated about the Harris's interest in ERFW, let me do so also. Perhaps Harris doesn't like the SLB agreements and insisted that they be carved out of the sale. That would certainly help to explain why SLB didn't settle its dispute with ERFW in mediation.
Look, if I were an ERFW shareholder, I would be screaming for an explanation of how and why the SLB agreements went upside down. I certainly wouldn't invest any money in ERFW without a full explanation. Hmm, perhaps that is another reason why ERFW's share price is in the toilet....
See also http://www.regsho.com/faq/investorquestions.php which states in part: "Investors should always be cautious that issuers, promoters, or shareholders may be seeking to stimulate buying interest by making false, misleading or unfounded statements in internet chat rooms or other such forums about alleged large naked short positions in some smaller issuers, particularly those trading on the OTCBB or Pink Sheets. Some individuals may encourage other investors to buy these issuers' securities by claiming that there will be an imminent "short squeeze," in which the alleged naked short sellers will be forced to cover open short positions at increasing prices. These claims in fact may be false."
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
