"Maybe it allows them to use the NPT as more of holding trust for their BBX investment"
It comes down to the legal definition of "relevant interest" under the corporation law and the "basic rule" under section 608(1).
On the same day that NPT declared it became a substantial holder of 196,250,000 shares in BBX, Drake announced that it ceased to be a substantial holder in those shares, ie that it ceased to have a relevant interest in the shares under the corporations law.
You can read about the relevant interest concept and basic rule below.
Drake no longer have a relevant interest in the shares. For example, in the remote chance a TO was launched for BBX tomorrow, Drake would have no involvement in the outcome of that TO, they would have no voting rights, no say whatsoever. If they did Drake would have not lodged a ceasing to be a substantial holder notice, instead the NPT becoming substantial holder notice would have show that both parties each had a relevant interest in the shares and if it was the case that NPT was holding the shares in trust for Drake that arrangement would have been made apparent in the notice NPT lodged IMO. Esh
https://download.asic.gov.au/media/1236706/rg5-published-20-december-2013.pdfThe relevant interest concept (RG 5.6, RG 5.7, RG 5.8)
The concept of a ‘relevant interest’ in securities defines the connections with securities falling within the scope of the takeover, post-bid compulsory acquisition and substantial holding provisions of the Corporations Act. The concept is therefore a fundamental part of the regulation of corporate control and market disclosure.
A relevant interest is concerned with a person’s capacity to exercise a degree of influence over securities. Accordingly, the concept encompasses connections wider than ownership, including connections giving rise to power or control over the voting or disposal of securities. As such, a number of people may have a relevant interest in the same securities in a variety of different capacities.
The nature of power or control over voting or disposal that may give rise to a relevant interest is intentionally expressed in wide terms to prevent avoidance of relevant requirements. A relevant interest can arise from power or control though agreements, arrangements, understandings and practices that are legally unenforceable, and whether or not the power or control is indirect, implied or informal.
The basic rule for a relevant interest (RG 5.24, RG 5.25, RG 5.26)
The basic rule set out in s608(1) is that:
A person has a relevant interest in securities if they:
(a) are the holder of the securities;
(b) have power to exercise, or control the exercise of, a right to vote attached to the securities; or
(c) have power to dispose of, or control the exercise of a power to dispose of, the securities.
It does not matter how remote the relevant interest is or how it arises under the basic rule. If two or more people can jointly exercise a power described, each are taken to have the power: s608(1).
