I think we are still seeing it a bit differently; The...

I think we are still seeing it a bit differently;

The shareholders they believe might have a claim are holders on after the FY15 result, and prior to the Dec update. So it means the problem happened before the FY15 result, and was fixed in the Dec update.

They are claim the changes in accounting methods for 'pre-contracting costs' where NOT reflected in the FY15 result, but they should have been. The motive they are putting forward is that Spotless wanted to beat their prospectus forecast.

For that motive to make sense, it assumes that people at spotless considered changing to the current methods prior to the FY15 result, but they calculated it would make the result look bad, so they decided to defer the changes till some time after the result, and further decided not disclose to the market that they will be changing the accounting methods.

I think my explanation that there was a new boss and he wanted to do things in a way he thought is better is more plausible motive for the changes.