I may be talking from a place where the sun doesn't shine but I...

I may be talking from a place where the sun doesn't shine but I would like to share my theory about SFR's litigation.

It seems to me that big fish swallow smaller fish by churning, accumulating shares and establishing a base line share price from which to make a take over at a bargain basement price having secured a position where in is impracticable for another party to out bid them. This seems to happen a lot with a great deal of success at the expense of the mums and dads true believers.

The modus operandi is so wide spread and similar it could be straight out of a text book. The first thing you do is obtain the services of a share trading guru and provide a bunch of cash and instructions of what to want to achieve. The core of the plan is to churn a lot of shares skillfully suppressive SP while accumulating the maximum position to lodge a take over. With most average assets that are not the flavor of the day this works.

In SFR / ADT because of the quality of the asset, its management and the surge in PM prices this got away from SFR and they couldn't keep a lid on it. They started burning shares rather than accumulating them. Now SFR simply does not have the resources to take over ADT and the litigation is sign that SFR has accepted this. It makes no sense annoy other share holders by litigation over a few shares if you intend to bat on.

This makes SFR's share holding in ADT simply an asset that they will sell at an opportune time and walk away with a serious profit to put into some other project. In this case why not litigate on the off chance you will get more shares at the right price. Perhaps sour grapes has played a part as well.

Personally, it surprised me that SFR didn't make a take over play in March when the shares were trading around one dollar. Perhaps, like me they didn't anticipate the dramatic V shaped recovery.