No, it was a long time ago. As for the Harvey Norman example,...

No, it was a long time ago. As for the Harvey Norman example, the main difference I see is that with Harvey Norman the customer accepts the product immediately. With BIG, the customer signed up for the product & financing, which is what allowed BIG to book the money as revenue, but the customer was able to accept (or reject) the product later, effectively allowing them to repudiate their previous intimation. So long as the number of customers repudiating their purchase was minimal, this shouldn't have affected BIG. I don't know what happened, or if/how this may have changed - e.g. BIG has pretty much said that wasn't a problem - but if enough customers repudiated their purchases, this could have caused problems for BIG, which I'm guessing is possibly along the lines of what happened. Even so, that doesn't mean their business practices we're fraudulent, but that they got their risk/reward equation wrong. To the extent that bad press by the likes of AFR contributed to their demise, it should be investigated. It's one thing to report on a market, it's another thing to undermine a stock by unbalanced reporting & manipulating a market through the power of influence. Que bono?