There is no conflict of interest on Blair with respect to Eland (IMO). This is actually quite simple. Blair is NOT an employee of ERHE NOR does he have the responsibility of new business regardless of what that business is.
A Board of Directors is meant to oversee the actions that occurred of the company. It is NOT the responsibility of any board of director to bring potential business to any company (other than their own). If there was any conflict as in Blair being a competitor, then ERHE should remove him from the Board. I see no problem whatsoever with the Eland deal.
I haven't examined the details of that deal so I can't comment on it yet.
There is always a potential for conflicts of interest when one has insider information due to being an executive or director.
Each company is responsible for examining such issues to make sure those with privileged information are following their fiduciary obligations.
In general, I feel very comfortable with ERHC because they have a CEO with three law degrees, have emerged from major scrutiny by the SEC et. al. with full clearance without fines or sanctions, which is quite unusual IMO, and has a board of directors that is quite experienced.
But as I say, I've not looked at this particular deal so I can only speak in general. I tend to look at these claims with great scepticism at this point, as there have been so many, many of them, and none of them have ever been substantiated.
I have commented on the interplay of ERHC's affiliates, and the extended web of companies doing business with each other. Also the tie in with the LCA 2010 and the pending PIB. I find this full of opportunities, and mutual benefits for the several entities. I wrote about that here and here.
But there are also fiduciary obligations for each to address potential conflicts of interest, important to all, but especially important with the public companies. As a shareholder, I fully expect ERHC to be diligent in this regard.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
