Don't know how you can say this. Both companies operated...

Don't know how you can say this. Both companies operated essentially the same business model in the same industry - Sure Slater made a major stuff up whereas SHJ has had a recent major hiccup which won't be fatal.

Both companies accrue similiar assets namely - work in progress & expenses on behalf of class action matters - both auditied according to accounting principles and assessed to be recouped if and when an account is rendered.

PE acquired Slater as a going concern and continued to operate it in much the same way. What were they acquiring for their offfer price?
Answer: the right to continue the actionable matters upon which the said WIP and expenses met are the most valuable assets. I haven't got my figures in front of me, but I do recollect when i was repurchasing SHJ when in the 50's that it was way, way less than the last audited value of the WIP/client expenses and that is my point.

Sure, SHJ has had its brand savaged, but it is still a going entity AND it has a broader legal base than S&G - so this counts for something.
But to think a PE will pay anywhere near its BV of $1.57 is sheer lunacy. Alan Bond is dead and Santa Claus is a myth. PE's screw hard, that's s how they make their money.

I haven't sold yet because I think it is worth more than the current SP, but there is still smoke circling SHJ - notably the finance clauses and potential covenant default, further write downs and questions about the companies business model and conflicts between duties to clients and shareholders. Being a public ocmpany, the likes of Michael West Media will consrtantly scrutinise the legitimacy of any potential dividend payment.