All things are possible and who am I to question your normally...

All things are possible and who am I to question your normally outstanding logic, but the contrary argument is that UMG wouldn't publicise it unless it expected the situation to be irrecoverable.

While I understand that UMG presumably believes it must protect customer confidentiality, the 'hit' of A$16 million is such a large amount that I'd like the company to be named. Perhaps that would scare off other companies from dealing with UMG, or lead to civil court action?