Nova Chair Connie Myburgh has addressed Tromp on this subject and stated broad based rejection of many of the “issues” raised relating to the loan and demanded that Tromp publish the response and rejections in his web site.

He has complied with Myburgh’s demand and we reproduce it below

But, what does it actually say? “Defamatory”, “ignores certain crucial facts”, “rights to institute legal action” seem to be the key words in an otherwise relatively empty communication

Regarding “certain crucial facts” Myburgh has chosen to not detail them but then reserves his rights to do so. We would suggest that, given our experiences of Nova/Myburgh over the years, those facts will never be disclosed (but see below)

What Tromp has revealed are the facts that he has determined from analysis of the Annual Financial Statements (AFS) and other records that he has been privy to – information that is available in the public domain. Or, did he suck the information that he has disclosed out of cyberspace? Hardly likely in his position as a Chartered Accountant. From a purely ethical perspective not to mention risking negative reputational damage (Nova take note!) he is hardly likely to fabricate false narratives

Tromp has informed that the saga commenced in 2017. Has Nova ever disclosed any information – especially the purpose of the loan(s) and logically, how same was to be of (ultimate) benefit to the Debenture- as well as the Shareholders (hereafter, the Investors) or other reason that would have justified the borrowing? The answer is no! Not a word in any of the last eight year’s AFS

That the Investors were never informed of the loan and its purpose in the first place, and not informed of the underlying problems which led to the escalation of the liability to 67.5 million surely demonstrates a lack of transparency on the part of the Chairman and the Board. Of course, this is besides the lack of communication and sharing of the “crucial facts” which might counter the labelling of reckless trading of this borrowing

The Beneficio exposé should be read in conjunction with the content of the COR135.1.1 Complaint that Tromp has submitted to CIPC and which provides information that may well be on the agenda of the upcoming Companies Tribunal hearing into Nova’s failures to observe its obligations under the Companies Act and also, speculatively, its failure to repay all of the debentures by the deadline of January, 2022, as per the Schemes if Arrangement ( although this is disputed by Nova and the deadline has been extended – albeit open-endedly without an actual deadline date – following Tromp’s appointment and approved by him as his first action in the role)

The CoR135.1 Complaint details in addition to the Beneficio loans, the following:

* Allegation that Nova is not a Going Concern (insolvent) * Ongoing failure to meet obligations under the Companies Act * The failure to disclose information about Amogela (liberty) Mall sale * Reckless trading * The extent of Trade Payables and Tax and VAT not paid to Sars (also indicating insolvency)

The reckless behaviours that Tromp refers to are heightened by Myburgh’s declining to disclose those “certain crucial facts” which would be a component of the “business decision which made sense” as per the SAFLII court record ( <www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html> www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html) of the Gauteng North High Court record of May 2023 when Beneficio took Nova to court (and won) over their reneging on the loan repayments

That strongly suggests that the Chairman and the Board have something to hide and logic suggests that Tromp’s exposé will only further damage what little good reputation Nova has (if any). The correct step would be to “come clean” and share those crucial facts which, it is implied in the rebuttal, will justify the loan and it’s escalation in value. But perhaps, it’s now too late for that?

But of course, Myburgh has taken the opposite response path: rather launch an attack on Tromp and threaten legal action – which of course will have to be paid for out of the limited company funds. We suggest that the legal case history so far viz a viz the Beneficio loan indicates that a further case will also fail and with costs against the company and thus the (possible) action will be a total waste of time and money

And, just by the way, the fact that the debentures for Tarentaal Centre and The Village Mall were repaid in is immaterial. This issue is not about damage to the Investors but to the company as a whole and its viability for the purpose of operating successfully to deliver repayment on all of the remaining debenture liabilities

Tromp has already posted on Amogela (Liberty) Mall and Beneficio. What others – where there has been no communication out of Nova – need to be brought into the public domain and under the spotlight?

Cold Creek

The acquisition of this property remains undisclosed by way of any explanations. This notwithstanding the fact that Nova may enter into asset acquisitions in order to achieve its purpose. But such acquisitions should be transparently explained

Read these Moneyweb articles. The second one states that Myburgh got himself out of a financial hole at the expense of the Investors

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than- half-of-its-investment-properties/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than-h alf-of-its-investment-properties/

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inve stors-saved-connie-myburgh/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inves tors-saved-connie-myburgh/

and we’ve recorded these questions so far:

* Where did the money come from? * Which properties were sold round about that time and what became of the sale proceeds? Were they used to “finance” the Convey Assist (CA) acquisition * The other directors agreed to buy CA. Myburgh recused himself from the decision process. It’s very hard to believe that he did not influence the directors in some way towards the “correct decision” to rescue him (and the other CA directors?) * Nova paid what was owed to RMB thus preventing call up by the bank under the CA director suretyships but what were the CA assets that they assumed and what happened to them? Were there any assets besides the CA/CC property? * It can’t be right (justifiable?) that Nova also assumed a loan account in the name of Myburgh (and perhaps other directors)?. Were those loan accounts ever liquidated/repaid? If yes, how much did Nova pay out all told subsequent to acquisition? * If CC was sold – according to the April ’21 Moneyweb article – how were the sale proceeds applied?

Here again, what were the Investors told about the acquisition of the property and how same would be beneficial as regards the prospects of future company success and progress towards, if not some actual delivery, of debenture repayments?

Rivonia Square: One of the early “sell-offs” of the inherited Sharemax assets

Read these documents regarding the sale of this property:

* From a periodic Nova Communiqué in December 2012: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1

* A letter addressed to Rivonia Square investors in November 2016: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2

In summary:

* Property sold in 2012 * Sold for less than book value * Nova advised that sale proceeds were ringfenced and invested to grow to an amount sufficient to enable debenture repayment and that monthly income (presumably a portion of the monthly interest/growth) would be paid to relevant Debenture Holders * In November 2016 they advised that (the usual sob stories) due to adverse funding circumstances and consequent impact on the business, the income would no longer be paid

And then? It seems obvious that that ringfenced amount plus any growth (after income payments) was absorbed into the operating capital of the business and “disappeared” – partly, no doubt, used to provide the directors with their regular remuneration (which, in our opinion is a key component of the value extraction that has taken place over the years)

But, the content of the two documents provides no information on what was to be done with the ring-fenced Rivonia sale proceeds. What the November, 2016 letter does show is, again, total lack of transparency on the part on Nova, expecting the Rivonia Square Investors to “suck it up” without any undertaking (however nebulous same might be) on the prospects of debenture repayment. It’s actually disgusting!

And in this regard, the following from a recent media post, the content of which resonates with us:

<www.timcohen.co.za/r/cd12b54b?m=4bf85033-d65d-4c87-bbd4-eb345b14baa 1> www.timcohen.co.za/r/cd12b54b?m=4bf85033-d65d-4c87-bbd4-eb345b14baa1

Quote:

The business rescue sector really emerged out of the liquidations business, as companies involved in liquidations pivoted to this new opportunity. There are plenty of great business rescue practitioners out there, and it’s important to have them in order to save as much as possible of struggling businesses. But the record also shows that there are plenty of dodgy organisations too, which deliberately stretch out business rescue operations to keep the fees flowing.

And we all know what the opinions of the majority of the Investor’s are (including those of NDCAG) about where Nova fits into the above description of the Business Rescue industry

Nova-voorsitter Connie Myburgh het Tromp oor hierdie onderwerp aangespreek en ‘n breë verwerping van baie van die “kwessies” wat met die lening geopper is, verklaar en geëis dat Tromp sy reaksie en verwerpings op sy webwerf publiseer

Hy het aan Myburgh se eis voldoen en ons gee dit hieronder weer

Maar, wat sê dit eintlik? “Lastlik”, “ignoreer sekere deurslaggewende feite” (“ignores certain crucial facts”), “regte om regstappe in te stel” blyk die sleutelwoorde te wees in ‘n andersins relatief leë kommunikasie.

Wat “sekere deurslaggewende feite” betref, het Myburgh gekies om dit nie in detail te bespreek nie, maar behou dan sy regte voor om dit te doen. Ons stel voor dat, gegewe ons ervarings met Nova/Myburgh oor die jare, daardie feite nooit bekend gemaak sal word nie (maar sien hieronder)

Wat Tromp onthul het, is die feite wat hy vasgestel het uit die ontleding van die Jaarlikse Finansiële State (JFS) en ander rekords waarvan hy bewus was – inligting wat in die publieke domein beskikbaar is. Of het hy die inligting wat hy onthul het uit die kuberruimte gesuig? Sulke optrede sal waarskynlik nie van ‘n professionele geoktrooieerde rekenmeester kom nie. Vanuit ‘n suiwer etiese perspektief, om nie eens te praat van die risiko van negatiewe reputasieskade nie (Nova, let wel!), is dit nouliks waarskynlik dat hy valse narratiewe sal vervaardig
Tromp het meegedeel dat die sage in 2017 begin het. Het Nova ooit enige inligting bekend gemaak – veral die doel van die lening en logies, hoe dit (uiteindelike) voordeel vir die Skuldbrief – sowel as die Aandeelhouers (hierna die Beleggers) – sou wees, of ander redes wat die lening sou regverdig? Die antwoord is nee! Nie ‘n woord in enige van die afgelope agt jaar se finansiële jaarrekeninge nie
Dat die Beleggers nooit in die eerste plek ingelig is oor die lening en die doel daarvan nie, en nie ingelig is oor die onderliggende probleme wat gelei het tot die eskalasie van die las tot 67,5 miljoen nie, toon sekerlik ‘n gebrek aan deursigtigheid van die kant van die Voorsitter en die Raad. Natuurlik is dit benewens die gebrek aan kommunikasie en die deel van die “deurslaggewende feite” wat die etikettering van roekelose handel in hierdie lening kan teenwerk
Die Beneficio-eksposé moet gelees word in samehang met die inhoud van die CoR315-klag wat Tromp by CIPC ingedien het en wat inligting verskaf wat moontlik op die agenda van die komende Maatskappytribunaal-verhoor sal wees oor Nova se versuim om sy verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet na te kom, en ook, spekulatief, sy versuim om al die skuldbriewe teen die sperdatum van Januarie 2022 terug te betaal, volgens die Skema-ooreenkoms (alhoewel dit deur Nova betwis word en die sperdatum verleng is – alhoewel onbepaald sonder ‘n werklike sperdatum – na Tromp se aanstelling en deur hom goedgekeur as sy eerste aksie in die rol)
Die CoR135-klag bevat, benewens die Beneficio-lenings, die volgende:
– Bewering dat Nova nie ‘n Going Concern is nie (insolvent) – Voortdurende versuim om verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet na te kom – Die versuim om inligting oor die verkoop van Amogela (liberty) Mall bekend te maak – Die omvang van handelsskulde en belasting en BTW wat nie aan Sars betaal is nie (wat ook insolvensie aandui)
Die roekelose gedrag waarna Tromp verwys, word vererger. deur Myburgh se weiering om daardie “sekere deurslaggewende feite” bekend te maak wat ‘n komponent van die “business decision which made sense” sou wees volgens die SAFLII-hofrekord (www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html) van die Gauteng-Noord Hooggeregshofrekord van Mei 2023 toe Beneficio Nova hof toe geneem het (en gewen het) oor hul versuim om die lening terug te betaal
Dit dui sterk daarop dat die Voorsitter en Raad iets het om weg te steek en logika dui daarop dat Tromp se onthulling slegs die min goeie reputasie wat Nova het (indien enige) verder sal skaad. Die korrekte stap sou wees om daardie deurslaggewende inligting te deel wat, soos geïmpliseer word in die weerlegging, die lening en die waarde daarvan sal regverdig. Maar miskien is dit nou te laat daarvoor?
Die korrekte stap sou wees om daardie “crucial facts” te deel wat, soos geïmpliseer word in die weerlegging, die lening en die waarde daarvan sal regverdig. Maar miskien is dit nou te laat daarvoor?
Maar natuurlik het Myburgh die teenoorgestelde reaksiepad gevolg: eerder ‘n aanval op Tromp loods en met regstappe dreig – wat natuurlik uit die maatskappy se fondse betaal sal moet word. Ons stel voor dat die regsgeskiedenis tot dusver, naamlik die Beneficio-lening, aandui dat ‘n verdere saak ook sal misluk en met koste teen die maatskappy, en dus sal die (moontlike) aksie ‘n totale vermorsing van tyd en geld wees
En, terloops, die feit dat die skuldbriewe vir Tarentaal-sentrum en The Village Mall alreeds terugbetaal is, is onbelangrik. Hierdie kwessie gaan nie oor skade aan die Beleggers nie, maar oor die maatskappy as geheel en die lewensvatbaarheid daarvan met die doel om suksesvol te opereer om terugbetaling vasn al die oorblywende skuldbriewe-verpligtinge te lewer.
Tromp het reeds oor Amogela (Liberty) Mall en Beneficio geplaas. Watter ander – waar daar geen kommunikasie uit Nova was nie – moet in die publieke domein en onder die kollig gebring word?
Cold Creek: Die verkryging van hierdie eiendom bly onbekend deur middel van enige verduidelikings. Dit ondanks die feit dat Nova bate-verkrygings mag aangaan om sy doel te bereik. Maar sulke verkrygings moet deursigtig verduidelik word
Lees hierdie Moneyweb-artikels. Die tweede een lui dat Myburgh gered is oor ‘n mself ‘n finansiële moelikheoid ten koste van die Beleggers:

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than- half-of-its-investment-properties/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than-h alf-of-its-investment-properties/

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inve stors-saved-connie-myburgh/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inves tors-saved-connie-myburgh/
(Slegs in Engels beskikbaar)
en ons het tot dusver hierdie vrae aangeteken:
– Waar het die geld vandaan gekom? – Watter eiendomme is rondom daardie tyd verkoop en wat het van die verkoopopbrengs geword? Is dit gebruik om die Convey Assist (CA) verkryging te financier? – Die ander direkteure het ingestem om CA te koop. Myburgh het homself van die besluitnemingsproses onttrek. Dit is baie moeilik om te glo dat hy nie die direkteure op een of ander manier beïnvloed het tot die “korrekte besluit” om hom (en die ander CA-direkteure?) te red nie. – Nova het betaal wat aan RMB verskuldig was, wat verhoed het dat die bank dit onder die CA-direkteur se borgstellings sou oproep, maar wat was die CA-bates wat hulle aangeneem het en wat het daarmee gebeur? Was daar enige bates benewens die CA/CC-eiendom? – Dit kan nie reg (regverdigbaar?) wees dat Nova ook ‘n leningsrekening in die naam van Myburgh (en miskien ander direkteure) aangeneem het nie? Is daardie leningsrekeninge ooit gelikwideer/terugbetaal? Indien wel, hoeveel het Nova altesaam na die verkryging uitbetaal? – Indien CC verkoop is – volgens die Moneyweb-artikel van April 2021 – hoe is die verkoopopbrengs aangewend?
Hier weereens, wat is die beleggers meegedeel oor die verkryging van die eiendom en hoe dit voordelig sou wees met betrekking tot die vooruitsigte van toekomstige maatskappysukses en vordering met, indien nie werklike uitlewering nie, van skuldbriefterugbetalings?
Rivonia Square:
Een van die vroeë “verkope” van die geërfde Sharemax-bates
Lees hierdie dokumente rakende die verkoop van hierdie eiendom:
– Uit ‘n periodieke Nova Communiqué in Desember 2012: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1
– ‘n Brief gerig aan Rivonia Square-beleggers in November 2016: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2
Ter opsomming:
– Eiendom verkoop in 2012 – Verkoop vir minder as boekwaarde – Nova het meegedeel dat die verkoopopbrengs afgebaken en belê is om te groei tot ‘n bedrag wat voldoende is om skuldbriefterugbetaling moontlik te maak en dat maandelikse inkomste (vermoedelik ‘n gedeelte van die maandelikse rente/groei) aan relevante skuldbriefhouers betaal sou word – In November 2016 het hulle meegedeel dat (die gewone snikstories) as gevolg van ongunstige befondsingsomstandighede en die gevolglike impak op die besigheid, die inkomste nie meer betaal sou word nie
En toe? Dit lyk voor die hand liggend dat daardie afgebakende bedrag plus enige groei (na inkomstebetalings) in die bedryfskapitaal van die onderneming geabsorbeer is en “verdwyn” het – gedeeltelik, ongetwyfeld, gebruik om die direkteure van hul gereelde vergoeding te voorsien (wat na ons mening ‘n sleutelkomponent is van die “wealth extraction” wat oor die jare plaasgevind het)
Maar die inhoud van die twee dokumente verskaf geen inligting oor wat met die afsonderlike Rivonia-verkoopopbrengs gedoen moes word nie. Wat die brief van November 2016 wel toon, is weereens ‘n totale gebrek aan deursigtigheid van Nova se kant, wat verwag dat die Rivonia Square-beleggers dit sou “opsuig” )suck up) sonder enige onderneming (hoe vaag dit ook al mag wees) oor die vooruitsigte van skuldbriefterugbetaling. Dis eintlik walglik!
En in hierdie verband, die volgende uit ‘n onlangse mediaplasing, waarvan die inhoud by ons aanklank vind:
www.timcohen.co.za/r/cd12b54b?m=4bf85033-d65d-4c87-bbd4-eb345b14baa1

Uittreksel
The business rescue sector really emerged out of the liquidations business, as companies involved in liquidations pivoted to this new opportunity. There are plenty of great business rescue practitioners out there, and it’s important to have them in order to save as much as possible of struggling businesses. But the record also shows that there are plenty of dodgy organisations too, which deliberately stretch out business rescue operations to keep the fees flowing.
En ons weet almal wat die menings van die meerderheid van die beleggers is (insluitend dié van NDCAG) oor waar Nova in die bogenoemde beskrywing van die Besigheidsreddingsbedryf pas.

Dit kan verkry word op sy besigheidswebwerf by www.Carian.co.za <www.Carian.co.za> . Klik op die Debentures-skakel

Voorheen het hy ‘n uiteensetting gepubliseer oor alles wat verkeerd is met betrekking tot die voormalige Liberty Mall, wat ‘n naamsverandering na Amogela Mall ondergaan het. Die eiendom lê in puin na ‘n brand, strukturele skade en plundering

Hier is ‘n nuwe media-artikel oor die eiendom:

newsday.co.za/south-africa/4156/welkoms-once-iconic-mall-ripped-apar t-brick-by-brick/?utm_source=newsletter

of

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911

Lees dit saam met Tromp se inhoud oor wat die afgelope vyf jaar of so daaroor gebeur het en wat wel en nie bekend gemaak is oor die verkoop en daaropvolgende gebeure nie

It can be accessed in his business web site at www.Carian.co.za <www.Carian.co.za> . Click on the Debentures link

Previously, he published an exposé on all that is wrong regarding the former Liberty Mall which had a name change to Amogela Mall. The property lies in ruins having suffered a fire, structural damage and looting

Here is a new media article on the property:

newsday.co.za/south-africa/4156/welkoms-once-iconic-mall-ripped-apar t-brick-by-brick/?utm_source=newsletter

or

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911

Read this in conjunction with Tromp’s content on what has happened regarding it over the last five years or so and what has and hasn’t been disclosed about its sale and subsequent events