Fact Finder
Top 20
I do not agree. I do not intend to debate this it is an offence to fail to publish once you go above 5%. It is a strict liability offence.Hey Fact Finder, my reading is they don’t have to file as they are nominee holdings and relevant interest is taken by the beneficiaries- see s609(2). Link below.
Nominees and other trustees
(2) A person who would otherwise have a relevant interest in securities as a bare trustee does not have a relevant interest in the securities if a beneficiary under the trust has a relevant interest in the securities because of a presently enforceable and unconditional right of the kind referred to in subsection 608(8).
Note: This subsection will often apply to a person who holds securities as a nominee.
Ref: http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/num_act/ca2001172/s609.html
Definition of substantial holdings seems to require a relevant interest.
But let us assume for the moment you are correct and it is not an offence and it is as simple as you are stating.
Firstly why would the ASX state that on its face it appeared to be a breach?
Secondly if it is so obviously not an offence why would the ASIC accept the complaint and not simply just write back and say sorry nominee account not covered?
Thirdly why would Macquarie Nominees and others file these notices as a matter of course for their holdings in other companies?
My opinion only DYOR
FF
AKIDA BALLISTA