The Bentley situation is actually a good example of where I...

The Bentley situation is actually a good example of where I think this foray by the Takeovers Panel may end up. See paras 190-198 of:

http://www.takeovers.gov.au/content/Reasons_For_Decisions/2011/downloads/013_bentley_01R.pdf

If the Takeovers Panel decides with TBR that:
1) Possibly an unacceptable "takeover" is afoot, if Mr Billis owns more than 20% of TBR.
2) Possibly there's an undeclared level of control in the company, if Mr Billis controls 60.5% instead of 44.4% of the company; as well as the supposed lack of declarations by his wife and by Tribune itself.

They could then make orders to:
1) Tell individuals with share ownerships above 20% to divest them back down to 20%, or they'll ask the rest of the shareholders (s611 Item 7 of Corps Act) if the Panel should do it for them.
2) Tell individuals to declare their interests, and possibly make orders around prohibiting them from voting their interests in certain manners.
3) And this is rampant speculation by me: refer the issue to ASIC to have them review which shareholders voted on which resolutions in the past few AGMs, e.g. remuneration reports etc. (although I think we all mostly share the same opinion of ASIC's competency haha)

I see @eshmun has had a sook and taken his bat and ball and gone home, but I'd be interested in what other posters in this thread think about this possible situation. Would you consider it justice for other shareholders, if it turned out an individual shareholder had acquired parcels of shares totaling above 20% outside legally accepted methods, and the Takeovers Panel forced them to divest down to 20%? Or would that be the Takeovers Panel wielding power it shouldn't?

And would it be justice to force any individual shareholders to declare if they have relevant interests in TBR above any of the important threshold limits of ≥5% (obligation to file substantial holding notice), >10% (ability to block compulsory acquisition), >20% (takeovers threshold), >25% (ability to block scheme of arrangement and special resolution), >50% (ability to pass ordinary resolution), ≥75% (ability to pass special resolution) and ≥90% (entitlement to compulsory acquisition)? Or would that be the Takeovers Panel wielding power it shouldn't?