opes had no right to assign, page-7

The only thing that is clear it seems is that nothing is clear.

Now no-one seem to know if ANZ are substantial holders or not...

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23480860-30538,00.html

part of the article quoted as follows........

THE ever-widening Opes Prime collapse has spilled over to the Takeovers Panel with yesterday's application by BioProspect for a declaration of unacceptable circumstances.

In response to an ASX query, BioProspect said ANZ Bank had taken possession of 26 per cent of the company's capital. While BioProspect understood that the margin loans relating to those shares had been cancelled, ANZ maintained that title to the securities passed to it "free of all other interests" and that it therefore owned those shares.

The panel said BioProspect submitted that ANZ had not lodged a substantial shareholder notice concerning the shares, and that the bank would dispose of the shares other than in accordance with the principles of section 602 of the Corporations Act -- that the acquisition of control of shares in the company should take place in an "efficient, competitive and informed" market.

BioProspect is seeking orders to restrain ANZ from disposing of, transferring or charging any of the shares and that any agreement to do so with a third party be declared void and unenforceable.

It's debatable whether ANZ is required to lodge a substantial shareholding notice. Section 609 (the moneylenders exemption) provides that a person doesn't have a relevant interest in securities merely because of a mortgage, charge or security taken in the ordinary course of the person's business in providing financial accommodation on commercial terms.