http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/companies/gaming-giants-...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...n/news-story/1c028898d13e6aa11b15bafb67647e27

Article says that TTS has to repay original amount. The article also says that costs have been dealt with. Also this case won't interfere with divs.

“As a result of the Victorian government’s decision in 2008 that Tabcorp was not entitled to the payment, Tabcorp incurred charges against its earnings in previous financial years. Tabcorp has therefore dealt with the original announcement in its financial accounts.”

Opposed ? to this is ...

"Tatts said would now have to repay Victoria $540m, plus interest yet to be determined, and legal costs. The amount to be repaid had been treated in Tatts’ accounts as unearned income and a current liability."