Its not a lie, or deception unless they knew better and deliberately withheld that information.
They explained in the conference call for the downgrade that it wasnt a straight forward contract as you describe, and payment terms and structure of the contract dictates what the delivery terms are, and therefore the timeframe over which the money is recognised.
If they knew they couldnt claim it all in FY16 and said they could, then yes they have a case, but how can they prove intent in that situation ?
If it was a straight forward contract over 24 months as you describe it could be argued that it was negligence rather than deception or a lie, but AFAIK the details of the changes to the contract are not known, so we arent in a position to judge, we just know what they told us, which is that 'it was not a straightforward contract'.
The FY reports have all sorts of disclaimers on them, the outlook and forward guidance arent supposed to be taken as gospel, there are no guarantee's.
I cant see how the suit can have any legitimacy, and its foolish to think S&G has your best interests at heart.
The share price hit a peak of $9.40 in May 16, since then the whole telco sector has dropped in half, mostly due to earnings concern from NBN revenue, mistakes in guidance have had a negligible effect in comparison to that.
There are risks in investing, if you dont like it, dont do it.
Expand
