Emu NL 04R

Introduction

1. The review Panel, Louise Higgins, Ruth Higgins SC, and Nicola Wakefield Evans AM (sitting President) in substance affirmed the initial Panel’s decision to vary the orders in Emu NL 03, subject to minor procedural and clarifying amendments.
2. In these reasons, the following definitions apply.

draft meeting documents

has the meaning in paragraph 45

EGM

the extraordinary general meeting of Emu shareholders convened to consider the resolutions in the s249D Notice

Emu

Emu NL ACN 127 291 927

Emu NL 03

the proceedings in Emu NL 03 [2025] ATP 18

Initial Panel

the sitting Panel in Emu NL 03

Members’ Statement

has the meaning in paragraph 10

New Meeting

has the meaning in paragraph 6

New Notice of Meeting

the notice of meeting for the New Meeting

New Order 1(b)

has the meaning in paragraph 10

New Order 2A

has the meaning in paragraph 10

Order 2(e) Variation

has the meaning in paragraph 10

Order 2(f) Variation

has the meaning in paragraph 10

Orders

the final orders made by the Initial Panel on 10 July 2025, as varied

Requisitioning Shareholders

means the Emu shareholders who signed the s249D Notice: Mayfair Communications Pty Ltd ACN 144 673 138; Coolibah WA Pty Ltd ACN 620 574 094 as trustee for the Wippl Family Superannuation Fund; Oakmount Nominees Pty Ltd ACN 076 377 387 as trustee for the Narromine Super Fund; and Farris Corporation Pty Ltd ACN 008 933 711 as trustee for the Farris Family Trust

s249D Notice

the notice received by Emu under section 249D¹, announced on 23 January 2025, requisitioning a meeting to consider four resolutions to remove two of Emu’s three directors² (Mr Peter Thomas and Mr Roland Bartsch) and to appoint two new nominees as Emu directors

Variation Decision

has the meaning in paragraph 10

Wayburn

Wayburn Holdings Pty Ltd ACN 009 320 852

Wayburn’s Notice

has the meaning in paragraph 7

Facts

3. Emu is an ASX‑listed copper/gold exploration company (ASX code: EMU).
4. On 16 May 2025, Wayburn sought a declaration of unacceptable circumstances submitting (among other things) that the issue of new shares by way of placement on the day of the EGM apparently allowed Emu directors to retain control against the wishes of Emu shareholders.
5. On 27 June 2025, the Initial Panel made a declaration of unacceptable circumstances in relation to the affairs of Emu. The Initial Panel considered (among other things) that:
   1. the actions of the Emu directors in issuing the new shares to the placees, and the timing, manner and quantum of issue, facilitated the acquisition of a substantial interest in Emu by one or more placees that the Emu directors could reasonably expect would be voted at the EGM and would likely be voted in support of the incumbent directors and
   2. the overall manner in which the EGM was conducted, including the two postponements, the placement on the day of the EGM and the lack of clarity and disclosure with regards to Emu’s several recounts of the proxies, did not give Emu shareholders or the market a sufficient basis for confidence as to the outcome of the EGM and the subsequent composition of the Emu board, preventing or inhibiting the acquisition of control over Emu shares taking place in an informed market.
6. On 10 July 2025, the Initial Panel made orders that Emu convene and hold a further general meeting (New Meeting) to consider the resolutions previously put at the EGM³ and any additional resolution for which notice under section 203D was given before the New Meeting was called. To ensure the integrity of the New Meeting, the Panel also ordered that Emu (among other things):
   1. provide a draft New Notice of Meeting and proxy form to the Initial Panel by 18 July 2025 and
   2. issue the final notice and proxy form, in a form acceptable to the Panel, by 25 July 2025.
7. On 18 July 2025, Wayburn sent the following documents to Emu:
   1. a section 203D notice in relation to resolutions for the removal of each of Mr Oliver Douglas and Mr Tim Staermose (Wayburn’s Notice) and
   2. a statement, signed by the Requisitioning Shareholders, for dispatch pursuant to section 249P in relation to the New Meeting.
8. On 24 July 2025, Wayburn submitted to the Initial Panel that since sending the members’ statement “neither the Company Secretary for Emu NL nor Emu NL’s lawyers in relation to the Takeovers Panel Proceedings have confirmed that a copy of the statement will be dispatched to shareholders together with the Notice of Meeting, which pursuant to the Panel Orders is required to be dispatched no later than tomorrow”. On that basis, Wayburn applied for a further order requiring Emu to dispatch the members’ statement together with the New Notice of Meeting.
9. On the same day, Emu applied for a variation to order 2(f) of the Orders to extend the deadline for the issuance of the New Notice of Meeting from 25 July 2025 to “5 business days following receipt of approval from the Panel”.
10. On 1 August 2025, the Initial Panel decided to vary the Orders as follows (Variation Decision):
    1. by amending Order 1 to add that the resolutions to be considered at the New Meeting included all resolutions set out in Wayburn’s Notice (New Order 1(b))
    2. by amending Order 2 to provide more time for Emu to:
       1. provide a draft New Notice of Meeting and proxy form for the Panel’s review (Order 2(e) Variation) and
       2. issue the New Notice of Meeting and proxy form (Order 2(f) Variation) and
    3. by inserting a new Order 2A clarifying that Emu must dispatch, together with the New Notice of Meeting, the members’ statement or any variation of the members’ statement received by Emu no later than 1 August 2025 (Members’ Statement) (New Order 2A).

Application

11. By application dated 5 August 2025, Emu sought a review of the Variation Decision.
12. Emu submitted that the Initial Panel did not have the power to make the New Order 1(b) and the New Order 2A and, or alternatively, that these orders were inappropriate because:
    1. they did not do anything to remediate the unacceptable circumstances found by the Initial Panel and
    2. they allowed Wayburn to bypass the requirements of the Corporations Act.
13. Emu also submitted that Wayburn applying for New Order 2A was against due process in Panel proceedings and that the Members’ Statement was defamatory so that it would be inappropriate for the Panel to require Emu to publish it.

Interim orders sought

14. Emu sought interim orders that New Order 1(b), Order 2(f) Variation and New Order 2A be stayed until further order of the review Panel, so that (in effect), Emu would not be compelled to issue the New Notice of Meeting with Wayburn’s Notice and the Members’ Statement by 13 August 2025.

Final orders sought

15. Emu sought final orders that:
    1. New Order 1(b) and New Order 2A be vacated and
    2. the time for compliance with order 2(f) of the Orders “be extended to at least 5 clear business days after the date of Orders made by the Review Panel”.

Discussion

16. We have considered all the material, including the material before the parties in Emu NL 03, but address specifically only the material we consider necessary to explain our reasoning. The Initial Panel’s reasons for decision were not available at the time of our decision.

Decision to conduct and interim orders

17. The President of the Panel considered the urgent interim orders sought by Emu. The President declined to make interim orders on the basis that a review Panel, once appointed, would have the opportunity to consider Emu’s request on or prior to 13 August 2025, being the day on which Emu was to issue the New Notice of Meeting.
18. We met on 12 August 2025 to consider the review application and the request for interim orders. Parties were informed accordingly and were told that, for the avoidance of doubt, the Orders continued to have effect until otherwise determined by us, noting section 657F and section 657G.
19. As set out in Guidance Note 2,⁴ the Panel’s approach to reviewing an initial Panel’s decision is guided by the following considerations:
    1. review proceedings are a de novo consideration on the merits
    2. the review is based on the facts at the time of the review, and is not limited to the facts found by the initial Panel
    3. review proceedings ensure that parties are not affected by a manifestly incorrect decision and
    4. review proceedings help ensure that decisions are made according to proper procedures.
20. As part of making the decision whether to conduct proceedings, and given it is unusual for the Panel to consider a review of a decision to vary an order, we considered whether we had jurisdiction.
21. Here, the review application raised issues with respect to New Order 1(b) and New Order 2A. These orders were new orders made by the Initial Panel, in the sense that they created new obligations to protect the rights or interests of persons affected by the circumstances.⁵ As of right, section 657EA permits a party to apply for a review of a decision made on application under section 657C, including a decision to make an order under section 657D. On that basis, we were satisfied that we had jurisdiction to hear the review application.
22. While Emu’s request for interim orders included a stay of Order 2(f) and a final order seeking an extension of the deadline set forth in Order 2(f) to allow for the determination of its review application, it did not appear to us that Emu objected to the issuance of the New Notice of Meeting and proxy forms under Order 2(f) Variation other than the objections related to New Order 1(b) and New Order 2A.
23. Our role as a review Panel is to conduct a de novo review. Given the significant volume of material in Emu NL 03, the lack of preliminary submissions received in response to the review application and the timing constraints imposed on Emu NL by the Orders,⁶ we considered that in order to be able to properly decide the matter, it was appropriate to:
    1. make an interim order to stay the requirement for Emu to issue the New Notice of Meeting and proxy form until 25 August 2025 (see Annexure A) and
    2. conduct proceedings and seek submissions from the parties on the review application.

Orders creating new rights

24. Emu submitted that the Variation Decision was inconsistent with and contradicted the Corporations Act and created new non‑statutory rights because:
    1. New Order 1(b) allowed Wayburn to bypass the requirements of section 203D given Wayburn did not hold a 5% or greater shareholding in Emu and
    2. New Order 2A allowed Wayburn to bypass the requirements of section 249P given Wayburn did not hold 5% of the votes to be cast at the meeting.
25. Emu also submitted that the Members’ Statement was invalid given it was provided to Emu by the solicitors of Wayburn, not the Requisitioning Shareholders and the Requisitioning Shareholders were not entitled to submit a fresh statement in relation to the same resolutions simply because these were being reconsidered at the New Meeting.

26. Under section 657D, provided a declaration of unacceptable circumstances has been made under section 657A, the Panel may:

    … make any order (including a remedial order but not including an order directing a person to comply with a requirement of Chapter 6, 6A, 6B or 6C) that it thinks appropriate to:

    (a) if the Takeovers Panel is satisfied that the rights or interests of any person, or group of persons, have been or are being affected, or will be or are likely to be affected, by the circumstances‑‑protect those rights or interests, or any other rights or interests, of that person or group of persons; or

    (b) ensure that a takeover bid or proposed takeover bid in relation to securities proceeds (as far as possible) in a way that it would have proceeded if the circumstances had not occurred; or

    (c) specify in greater detail the requirements of an order made under this subsection; or

    (d) determine who is to bear the costs of the parties to the proceedings before the Takeovers Panel;

    regardless of whether it has previously made an order under this subsection or section 657E in relation to the declaration. The Takeovers Panel may also make any ancillary or consequential orders that it thinks appropriate.

27. In Attorney‑General (Cth) v Alinta Limited [2008] HCA 2, Hayne J said that:⁷

    … the requirement that the Panel take into account any policy considerations that it considers relevant, in deciding whether to make or not make a declaration, coupled with the obligation to have regard to the matters identified in s 657A(3)(a) and the power to have regard to any other matters it considers relevant reinforce the view that the Panel's task is better described as the creating of new rights and obligations rather than the quelling of a controversy about contravention of the Corporations Act.

28. Crennan and Kiefel JJ further said that the orders of the Panel:⁸

    … address the circumstances as have occurred in connection with the takeover. Its role is to protect the interests of persons affected by the share acquisition and to realign the takeover process. In doing so it is to take account of the extent of burden or prejudice to a party in what it seeks to do. This suggests a power akin to one to do what is right and fair as between the respective interests. Its orders, whilst remedial in effect, do not require a party to make good a legal obligation or correct a contravention of the Chapters. The Panel is expressly denied the power to do so.

29. In Cape Lambert MinSec Pty Ltd,⁹ the Panel said:

    [T]he Panel cannot exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth, which it appears to us we would be purporting to exercise if we were to make a declaration as to the operation of the law. It would involve "an inquiry concerning the law as it is and the facts as they are." The Panel's role is to create new rights and obligations, and not to determine existing rights.

30. It is clear, based on previous court and Panel decisions, that the Panel can create new rights and obligations that it considers appropriate to address the unacceptable circumstances. In making New Order 1(b) and New Order 2A, the Initial Panel did so. It did not bypass the Corporations Act but instead relied on its powers under section 657D.
31. For the avoidance of doubt, we considered that it was appropriate to vary New Order 2A to remove the reference to section 249P to make it abundantly clear that this was a new right created by the Panel under its Orders, so that Emu must send, together with the New Notice of Meeting, the Members’ Statement.

Remedial Orders

32. Emu submitted that the Variation Decision did not remediate the unacceptable circumstances found by the Initial Panel, in particular the finding that the conduct of the EGM resulted in Emu shareholders and/or the market not having “a sufficient basis for confidence as to the outcome of the EGM and the subsequent composition of the Emu Board” given:
    1. the resolutions contained in Wayburn’s Notice (to remove Mr Douglas and Mr Staermose as directors of Emu) were not considered at the EGM and
    2. the Requisitioning Shareholders’ original section 249P statement had already been circulated to shareholders prior to the EGM.
33. Mr Grewar submitted that the review application was “not a genuine appeal to procedural equity, but rather a tactical wedge designed to buy time, sow uncertainty, and perpetuate the entrenchment of a board that has already been found to have disenfranchised its shareholders.”

34. In CEMEX Australia Pty Ltd v Takeovers Panel¹⁰ the Court said, in relation to the question of whether it is necessary to demonstrate a “causal link” “between the unacceptable circumstances and the effect on the rights or interests of the person or group of persons for whose benefit the order was made”, that “the nexus need not be a causal one” and that:

    The power contained in s 657D seems to us to be a broad one. It can only be exercised where the Panel has made a declaration of unacceptable circumstances: see s 657D(1). But subject to that jurisdictional limitation, and the requirement that the Panel must not make an order that would unfairly prejudice any person, the Panel need only be satisfied that the order is appropriate to protect persons whose rights or interests have been affected.

35. As noted at [16], we did not have the benefit of the Initial Panel’s reasons at the time of our decision. However, given the concerns raised in the Initial Panel’s declaration and the nature of the Orders, it appears to us that the Orders are designed to provide Emu shareholders with the opportunity to decide the composition of the Emu board unencumbered by the actions of the incumbent directors. The Variation Decision appears to support this objective. The Initial Panel decided that it was necessary to include explicitly the rights and obligations set out in New Order 1(b) and New Order 2A.
36. Looking at each variation in turn:
    1. New Order 1(b) – the inclusion of the resolution to remove Mr Douglas: In its declaration of unacceptable circumstances dated 27 June 2025, the Initial Panel included the following circumstance: “On 17 June 2025, Emu announced that Mr Bartsch had resigned as a director of Emu and was replaced by Mr Oliver Douglas.” The appointment of Mr Douglas was part of the circumstances and we infer that New Order 1(b) was made by the Initial Panel to address this.
    2. New Order 1(b) – the inclusion of the resolution to remove Mr Staermose: The removal of Mr Staermose was not contemplated at the EGM. However, given Mr Staermose’s involvement in the circumstances that the Initial Panel found to be unacceptable, and in light of the Panel’s orders power and the apparent objective of the Orders, we agree with the Initial Panel that New Order 1(b) was appropriate here.
    3. New Order 2A – the requirement to send a varied members’ statement: Given the long period of time between the publication of the original members’ statement (11 February 2025)¹¹ and the proposed date for the New Meeting (30 days after the issue of the New Notice of Meeting) and the new resolutions to be put to the EGM, we consider it appropriate for shareholders to receive an updated members’ statement as contemplated by New Order 2A.

Standing

37. Emu submitted that Wayburn did not have standing to bring the application for New Order 2A given it was not a Requisitioning Shareholder or a signatory of the Members’ Statement. Emu also submitted that the Requisitioning Shareholders did not have a right to apply for any orders binding the other parties given they had not been involved in Emu NL 03.
38. Under section 657C(2), an application for an order may be made by any person whose interests are affected by the relevant circumstances.
39. In our view, Wayburn had standing to apply for the New Order 2A as a person affected by the relevant circumstances.
40. The Requisitioning Shareholders did not request the New Order 2A however they had an opportunity to make submissions in accordance with section 657D(3).

Alleged defamatory statements

41. Emu submitted that the Members’ Statement was allegedly defamatory and that concerns notices had been issued to the Requisitioning Shareholders to provide them with an opportunity to make amends. It also submitted that it would be inappropriate for the Panel to require Emu to publish it given (among other things) section 249P(9)(a) “excuses a company from complying with a member request to circulate a 249P statement if the statement is defamatory, whether or not the publication of such a statement would be the subject of a defence to defamation”.¹² Emu provided a redacted copy of the Members’ Statement.
42. Wayburn rejected that the Members’ Statement contained defamatory material on the bases that the concerns notices issued in relation to the Members’ Statement:
    1. did not comply with the relevant legislation
    2. failed to have regard to the fact that the Requisitioning Shareholders have manifest prima facie defences of honest opinion and qualified privilege and
    3. had apparently been issued for the purpose of frustrating the Orders rather than genuine defamation concerns.
43. We were concerned by the fact that the Members’ Statement had been redacted and that no unredacted copy had been provided to us, despite the apparent relevance of the material to the review application and the confidentiality obligations that apply during Panel proceedings.¹³ We considered requesting an unredacted version and pursuing this further, to ensure that Emu shareholders would be able to make a decision at the New Meeting on a fully informed basis. However, on balance, we decided not to investigate this matter further. In our view, it was in the best interests of shareholders to receive the New Notice of Meeting, proxy forms and Members’ Statement (albeit redacted) convening the New Meeting as soon as possible. We took additional comfort from the fact that the Initial Panel, under its Orders, did not object to Emu issuing the Members’ Statement on a redacted basis.
44. We considered that it was necessary to vary New Order 2A to clarify that the Member’s Statement, if redacted, would be redacted only so that it was in the form that the Initial Panel had not objected to (see Annexure B).

Other matters

45. In our brief, we asked Emu to provide with its submissions copies of documents provided to the Initial Panel for approval by the Initial Panel, but not to all parties, in Emu NL 03. Emu submitted that the following should only be provided to us on a confidential basis:
    1. drafts of the New Notice of Meeting
    2. drafts of the proxy form and
    3. a draft directors’ statement (collectively, the draft meeting documents).
46. In support of its confidentiality request, Emu initially submitted that “[t]he other parties to this review application do not have a right to see or comment on the draft documents which, per the 10 July and 1 August orders only required approval from the Panel and it would be inappropriate for them to see the same. That correspondence is, in any event, irrelevant to their response to the Review Application.”
47. The Panel executive informed Emu that, to the extent that Emu’s concerns related to parties having an opportunity to comment on those documents, Emu could instead provide these documents with its rebuttals.
48. Emu objected and submitted that although the draft meeting documents, by their nature, were designed for circulation, “the documents in question have not been circulated and may never be circulated depending on the result of this Review Application”. Emu also submitted that, if the other parties were provided with copies of the documents, they would be in possession of something the remainder of the shareholders were not and may never be in possession of.
49. Any document in connection with proceedings must be provided to ASIC and each other party to the proceedings.¹⁴ While some exceptions apply in accordance with our Procedural Rules,¹⁵ we require at a minimum that a party seeking confidential restrictions justify the restrictions it is seeking to impose by reference to the genuine commercial sensitivity or otherwise of the information in question and offer that the restrictions be kept to a minimum. Given the procedural fairness requirements imposed on our proceedings¹⁶ and the Panel’s objectives,¹⁷ we consider that these requests should be limited to exceptional circumstances.
50. While we are cognisant of the provision of commercially‑sensitive non‑public information to shareholders during the course of Panel proceedings, we did not find Emu’s reasons for withholding the draft meeting documents in question compelling. In particular, given the nature of these documents, we would not expect them to include much, if any, price‑sensitive information and, in any event, they were each due for imminent public dissemination.
51. Emu’s submissions did not suggest to us that the draft meeting documents were relevant and significant to Emu’s review application. While they were documents that had been considered by the Initial Panel, on balance, we decided not to see the draft meeting documents. The other parties did not object to us proceeding on this basis and, in light of our desire to facilitate the convening of the New Meeting as soon as possible, we did not want to delay our decision to further consider the confidentiality request.

Decision

52. For the reasons above, we decided to substantively affirm the Variation Decision.
53. However, we must address the fact that the time limit for Emu to issue the New Notice of Meeting and proxy form under the Orders had passed at the time we made that decision. We also considered that the operation of New Order 2A should be clarified (as discussed above).
54. The Panel is empowered to make ‘any order’¹⁸ if 4 tests are met:
    1. it has made a declaration under s657A. This was done by the Initial Panel on 27 June 2025.
    2. it must not make an order if it is satisfied that the order would unfairly prejudice any person. We are satisfied that our orders do not unfairly prejudice any person.
    3. it gives any person to whom the proposed order would be directed, the parties and ASIC an opportunity to make submissions. This was done on 15 August 2025 and on 22 August 2025.
    4. it considers the orders appropriate to either protect the rights and interests of persons affected by the unacceptable circumstances, or any other rights or interests of those persons. The orders do this by ensuring that Emu convenes and holds the New Meeting.
55. Emu submitted that it required a five‑business day allowance to issue the New Notice of Meeting and proxy form following approval by the Initial Panel. It submitted that this was necessary due to the logistical requirements for its registry to print and dispatch the relevant documents.
56. In our professional experience, given the circumstances and the fact that Emu was already on notice for some time, five calendar days would be sufficient time to issue the New Notice of Meeting. We were nonetheless mindful of Emu’s logistical concerns, despite our main concern being not to delay the issuance of the New Notice of Meeting any further.
57. On that basis, we made a minor variation of the Orders to extend the time for the issue of the New Notice of Meeting and proxy form to no later than 29 August 2025 (see Annexure B).
58. We also clarified the operation of New Order 2A to remove the reference to section 249P, so that Emu must send, together with the New Notice of Meeting, the Members’ Statement and allow for the Members’ Statement to be redacted, but only so that it would be in the form that the Initial Panel had not objected to (see Annexure B).

Nicola Wakefield Evans AM
President of the sitting Panel
Decision dated 25 August 2025
Reasons given to parties 2 December 2025
Reasons published 8 December 2025

Advisers

ANNEXURE A

Corporations Act
Section 657EA
Interim Orders

Emu NL 04R

Emu NL made an application to the Panel dated 5 August 2025 seeking a review of the Panel’s decision on 1 August 2025 to vary the orders in Emu NL 03 made by the Panel on 10 July 2025 (as varied, the Orders).

The Panel ORDERS:

1. That Order 2(f) be stayed until 25 August 2025.
2. These interim orders have effect until the earliest of:
   1. further order of the Panel
   2. the determination of the proceedings or
   3. 2 months from the date of these interim orders.

Tania Mattei
General Counsel
with authority of Nicola Wakefield Evans
President of the sitting Panel
Dated 12 August 2025

ANNEXURE B

Corporations Act
SectionS 657EA AND 657D
Variation of Orders

Emu NL 04R

Pursuant to sections 657EA(4) and 657D(3) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

The Panel orders

The final orders made on 10 July 2025, and varied on 1 August 2025, by the Panel in Emu NL 03 are varied by:

1. Amending Order 2(f) to read:

   “issue the notice of meeting and proxy form, in the form that the Panel did not object to on 5 August 2025, as soon as practicable and by no later than 29 August 2025 and”.

2. Amending Order 2A to read:

   “Emu must send, together with the notice of meeting, the members’ statement given to Emu on 1 August 2025 which, if redacted, is redacted only so that it is in the form that the Panel did not object to on 5 August 2025.”

Tania Mattei
General Counsel
with authority of Nicola Wakefield Evans AM
President of the sitting Panel
Dated 25 August 2025

¹ Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and all terms used in Chapter 6, 6A or 6C have the meaning given in the relevant Chapter (as modified by ASIC)

² Emu’s third director was Mr Tim Staermose

³ With the exception of the resolution for the removal of Mr Roland Bartsch, given Emu announced, on 17 June 2025, that Mr Bartsch had resigned as a director of Emu

⁴ Guidance Note 2: Reviewing Decisions

⁵ See section 657D(2)(a)

⁶ Being the requirement, under Order 2(f), that Emu issue the New Notice of meeting and proxy form by 13 August 2025

⁷ at [88]

⁸ In Attorney‑General (Cth) v Alinta Limited [2008] HCA 2 at [173]

⁹ [2009] ATP 12 at [34]

¹⁰ [2009] FCAFC 78

¹¹ Included in the notice of meeting for the EGM

¹² Emu referred to National Roads and Motorists’ Association Ltd v Snodgrass (2002) 42 ACSR 622

¹³ Takeovers Panel Procedural Rules 2020, rule 18

¹⁴ Takeovers Panel Procedural Rules 2020, rule 10(6)

¹⁵ Takeovers Panel Procedural Rules 2020, rule 11

¹⁶ Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 (Cth), section 195(d)

¹⁷ Australian Securities and Investments Commission Regulations 2001 (Cth), reg 13

¹⁸ Including a remedial order but other than an order requiring a person to comply with a provision of Chapters 6, 6A, 6B or 6C