I would like to hear your take/rebuttal with regard to the Eland deal. amj could be correct in her assessment of a potential conflict of interest in the governance of the company.
I am not saying it wasnt handled properly...what I will outline instead is ehat "proper" means to me.
It is the fiduciary responsibility of any board member of any company not to engage in self dealing at the expense of the company one is a board member of. In reality, it is not always an ideal world (e.g. Google's CEO sat on the board of Apple and shortly after the Iphone was introduced...Google switched gears from search to Android phones...did they steal? Was there a conflict of interest? We will never really know...except to say that fom outwardly appearances something smelled there)
That example is a good analogy for ERHC as well.
For it to have heen done properly, Blair should have put ERHC ahead of any deal which could benefit ERHC giving ERHC the right of first refusal.
If that did not occur then in my opinion it was not proper. BUT if ERHC did get right of first refusal then that begs the second question of why did PN turn it down? In as much as PN refused due to subjecive influence by OFFOR then it is improper. If PN turned it down for some objective legitimate reason then that reason not only should be communicated to us but also fully justified.
Finally, if Blair approached ERHC to participate with Eland, then such a proposal, ideally should have been brought to a shareholder vote for the sake of transparency and integrity.
Instead, it does appear at least that something sinks just like in the case of Apple and Google.
The above may be wrong
Krombacher
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
