We have learnt that some readers of our postings in our sites have addressed Deon Pienaar, long-time activist on the PSPC company shutdown in 2010, asking, apparently, about our posts of JP Tromp content. He reports that they have questioned his “loyalty towards Tromp”. See the links at bottom for his text

We are posting this content to clarify our connection with Tromp and to comment on some of what Deon has stated. We stress that this content is not meant to be confrontational in any way or presented with any sense of ill-feeling. Although we have differences of approach and although we don’t see eye on everything Sharemax/Nova, there has been ongoing interaction between him and NDCAG although this has perhaps been mainly only information sharing

NDCAG was established in 2018 at the time of Nova’s attempt to list on the JSE which, if successful, would have possibly resulted in conversion of all debentures to (possibly, D Class non-voting) shares in Nova. This was widely opposed and anyway, the listing fell though, for the reason, we surmise, that Nova could not meet the JSE’s listing requirements. The listing and conversion would have, effectively, been blatant robbery, in our opinion, anyway, given the then already existing situation with Nova and even worse so today. What is the value today of the D Class shares that were issued to of those Sharemax investors who opted to convert their shares in any of the Sharemax portfolio properties to Nova Shares instead of Debentures? Zero, in our opinion!

After the second listing meeting convened by Nova in Pretoria, the persons in attendance remained in the venue and a general discussion of issues followed. It was out of this that and number of people agreed that an activist group was necessary, and this resulted in NDCAG

Deon was one of those who showed interest and we agree that he was “in the loop” initially but we would not agree that it was a case of being “not allowed” to be a member but rather that we decided for reasons (re which the relevant communications are no longer on record, that it would be appropriate to keep NDCAG separate from Deon’s initiative – possibly because his primary focus is on the wider PSPC company shut-down (including Sharemax) whilst our focus is confined to Sharemax/Nova and even then, primarily on the Debentures and the Debenture Holders). We are open to correction on this

As regards Deon’s “election” to the position of Debenture Trustee, we disagree with his statement and think that maybe he meant to say that, in the climate of suspicion that existed back in 2021/2 when the election meetings were held, he had presented sufficient proxies – meaning Debenture Holder votes – to have “won” the election and become the Trustee

We would not disagree with this possibility as it is our opinion that the election was rigged by Myburgh although we can’t prove it. During the election meetings Myburgh refused to disclose any information on how many proxies the company had received in favour of the election of Tromp, there was no independent audit of the process and the minutes show only the outcomes as determined by Myburgh and the internal employees who were executing the necessary administration and control functions at the meetings

What Deon has not mentioned is that, after the first communications from Nova on the election of a new Trustee were received, NDCAG decided to contest Nova’s right to hold the election and that, because of certain failures to comply with the provisions of the Debenture Trust, their right to convene the meeting to elect the new Trustee had in fact passed into the hands of the Debenture Holders

NDCAG also decided to propose to Nova that Deon would be a more appropriate candidate for the Trustee position rather than Tromp who was at that time, completely unknown to us and was invisible as regards any public profile was concerned

We put a proposal to Deon to which he agreed. We then wrote to Nova and also sent them Deon’s email in which he stated his willingness to take on the role. Nova responded in the usual Myburgh “attack and disparage” manner, rejected our argument about the meeting and declined to accept the nomination of Deon

For the detail of these communications, see the links below

So, why are we collaborating with Tromp?

It’s actually quite simple: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. There are many historical examples of collaborations between enemies for achievement of a common purpose

If a person or entity is working against Nova, if their activities are also in the interests of the former Sharemax Investors and if the inputs from same add value, we are willing to interact and perhaps collaborate with them
Does this mean that regardless of any such entity or person’s history, we’ll “get into bed” with them willy-nilly?

The answer is a clear No!

Back in 2021/22, Tromp was clearly “Myburgh’s man” and it had become obvious since 2010 that the Trustee was only in place to approve anything that Myburgh wanted to achieve regarding the Debentures and the Debenture Holders – and usually to the detriment of the latter. We are strongly of the opinion that the hollow document that is the Debenture Trust was put in place only as a lip service to normal business rescue practices under Section 311 of the Insolvency Act, to get the BRP ratified by the Courts and to suit Myburgh and the Board’s strategy that has led the company to where it is today

Further, although Tromp had stated to the audiences at the voting meetings that he understood the plight and needs of the Debenture Holders (but made no statements as to what his future actions might be) he took the job and then really “dropped” the Debenture Holders by immediately approving an open-ended extension (no deadline or expiry date) of the Debenture repayment timeframe with a subsequent statement when challenged on this that he thought at the time, that it was in the Debenture Holder’s best interests

This was Myburgh’s only intention regarding the appointment of Tromp, viz; get a Trustee appointed, get a repayment extension in place in line with the requirements of the Trust Deed AND get the CIPC “off his case” as regards their issues with the Debentures not having all been repaid by January 2022 as detailed in the SoAs (that deadline strongly disputed by Nova/Myburgh)

Soon after his appointment and as a result of certain information inputs to CIPC by activists and affected parties – Deon and NDCAG included – a meeting was held with Cuma Zwane, Senior Investigator at the Commission, at which both Deon and NDCAG persons were present, The inputs given at this meeting were, in our opinion , instrumental in the CIPCs decision to initiate an investigation into Nova (beyond their already existing issues over events of non-compliance regarding their obligations under the Companies Act) and which led to the establishment of the Inter-Regulatory Investigation into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC investment companies

So, when Tromp, after two years of apparent inactivity as regard delivering on the plight and needs of the Debenture Holders, started communicating with a range of people and entities (not all known to us), we were happy to do so as well

But, we wish it to be clearly understood that, at that time, we had our suspicions and doubts about his motives so we made no commitments to him and we told him that:

* We consider him “the enemy” * He took the job even after hearing all the negative inputs at the meeting – and took the fees (albeit until Nova stopped paying him: See his post titled Trustee Fee – High Court Application under Nova Debenture Trust in his web site at <www.carian.co,za> www.carian.co,za) * We think that he is covering his back, for whatever reason * Whatever action might transpire against him in the future and for whatever reason, we would not provide any support

He stated at the time that he was completely OK with this and we believe that this is still the case although some suspicions and dissatisfaction over past actions, or non-actions, remain

But again, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and our interactions with him are a “marriage of convenience”

This writer is of the opinion that Tromp would hardly have gone to the effort, and cost that he already has if he were not totally serious in actualising his opposition to all that is wrong in and with Nova. In fact, as a registered Chartered Accountant, he is obligated under the SAICA Code of Conduct to address non-compliance and irregularities/illegalities. This applies in his connection to Nova, even though he is not directly employed in the management of the company and not, in the usual course of his activities, involved in the audit of same and interactions with the auditors

We believe that Tromp’s recent actions in publicising what he has detected as being irregular and unlawful in Nova’s operations are positive news for the Sharemax investors. What they will achieve whether in isolation or as part of a greater whole remains to be seen and is, to some extent, dependent on the outcomes of CIPC’s Companies Tribunal hearing and the Inter-Regulatory Investigation, both of which are so keenly awaited

The different persons and activist bodies may well be separate entities, following their own strategies but they are all fighting common enemies and the bottom line is that of any success achieved by any of them is a success for all of the PSPC company investors who have been robbed of so much

Links:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134 >>>>> Deon Pieneaar’s Whatsapp post

www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510133 >>>>> NDCAG letter of December 2021 re the Trustee election

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132 >>>>> Deon’s Acceptance if our proposal

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131 >>>>> Nova’s response to NDCAG

Ons het verneem dat sommige lesers van plasings in ons webwerwe vir Deon Pienaar, ‘n langdurige aktivis oor die sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappy in 2010, aangespreek het en blykbaar gevra het oor ons plasings van JP Tromp-inhoud. Hy berig dat hulle sy “lojaliteit teenoor Tromp” bevraagteken het. Sien die meegaande dokument wat sy reaksie via sy PSPC Whatsapp-groep bevat

Sien die skakels onderaan vir sy teks

Ons plaas hierdie inhoud om ons verbintenis met Tromp te verduidelik en om kommentaar te lewer op sommige van wat Deon gesê het. Ons beklemtoon dat hierdie inhoud nie bedoel is om op enige manier konfronterend te wees of met enige gevoel van kwade gevoelens aangebied te word nie. Alhoewel ons verskille in benadering het en hoewel ons nie alles met Sharemax/Nova eens is nie, was daar voortdurende interaksie tussen hom en NDCAG, hoewel dit miskien hoofsaaklik net inligtingdeling was

NDCAG is in 2018 gestig ten tyde van Nova se poging om op die JSE te noteer, wat, indien suksesvol, moontlik sou gelei het tot die omskakeling van alle skuldbriewe na (moontlik D-Klas nie-stemgeregtigde) aandele in Nova. Dit is wyd teengestaan ​​en in elk geval het die notering egter misluk, omdat, ons vermoed, Nova nie aan die JSE se noteringsvereistes kon voldoen nie. Die notering en omskakeling sou in elk geval effektief, blatante roof, na one mening, gewees het, gegewe die destydse situasie met Nova, en vandag nog erger. Wat is die waarde vandag van die D-Klas-aandele wat uitgereik is aan daardie Sharemax-beleggers wat gekies het om hul aandele in enige van die Sharemax-portefeulje-eiendomme na Nova-aandele in plaas van skuldbriewe om te skakel? Nul, na ons mening!

Na die tweede lysvergadering wat deur Nova in Pretoria byeengeroep is, het die aanwesiges in die lokaal gebly en ‘n algemene bespreking van kwessies het gevolg. Dit was hieruit dat ‘n aantal mense saamgestem het dat ‘n aktivistegroep nodig was, en dit het gelei tot NDCAG

Deon was een van diegene wat belangstelling getoon het en ons stem saam dat hy aanvanklik betrokke was, maar ons sou nie saamstem dat dit ‘n geval was van “nie toegelaat” was om ‘n lid te wees nie, maar eerder, dat ons besluit het om redes waaroor die relevante kommunikasie nie meer op rekord is nie, dat dit gepas sou wees om NDCAG apart van Deon se inisiatief te hou – moontlik omdat sy primêre fokus op die breër PSPC-maatskappy se sluiting (insluitend Sharemax) was terwyl ons fokus beperk is tot Sharemax/Nova en selfs dan, hoofsaaklik op die Skuldbriewe en die Skuldbriefhouers. Ons is oop vir regstelling hieroor

Wat Deon se “verkiesing” tot die posisie van Skuldbrieftrustee betref, stem ons nie saam met sy stelling nie en dink dat hy dalk bedoel het om te sê dat hy, in die klimaat van agterdog wat in 2021/2 geheers het toe die verkiesingsvergaderings gehou is, voldoende volmagte – dit wil sê Skuldbriefhouerstemme – aangebied het om die verkiesing te “wen” en die Trustee te word

Ons sou nie met hierdie moontlike uitkoms verskil nie, aangesien dit ons mening is dat die verkiesing deur Myburgh gemanipuleer is, hoewel ons dit nie kan bewys nie. Tydens die verkiesingsvergaderings het Myburgh geweier om enige inligting bekend te maak oor hoeveel volmagte die maatskappy ten gunste van die verkiesing van Tromp ontvang het, daar was geen onafhanklike oudit van die proses nie en die notule toon slegs die uitkomste soos bepaal deur Myburgh en die interne werknemers wat die nodige administrasie- en beheerfunksies by die vergaderings uitgevoer het

Wat Deon nie genoem het nie, is dat, nadat die eerste kommunikasie van Nova oor die verkiesing van ‘n nuwe Trustee ontvang is, NDCAG besluit het om Nova se reg om die verkiesing te hou te betwis en dat, as gevolg van sekere versuim om aan die bepalings van die Skuldbrieftrust te voldoen, hul reg om die vergadering te belê om die nuwe Trustee te verkies, in werklikheid in die hande van die Skuldbriefhouers oorgegaan het

NDCAG het ook besluit om aan Nova voor te stel dat Deon ‘n meer geskikte kandidaat vir die Trustee-posisie sou wees eerder as Tromp, wat destyds heeltemal onbekend aan ons was en onsigbaar was wat enige openbare profiel betref

Ons het ‘n voorstel aan Deon gemaak waarmee hy ingestem het. Ons het toe aan Nova geskryf en ook Deon se brief aan hulle gestuur waarin hy sy bereidwilligheid aandui om die rol te aanvaar. Nova het gereageer – op die gewone Myburgh – aanvallende, minagtingde en vernederingde manier – en ons argument oor die vergadering verwerp en geweier om Deon se nominasie te aanvaar

Vir die besonderhede van hierdie kommunikasies, sien die skakels hieronder

So, hoekom werk ons ​​saam met Tromp?

Dit is eintlik redelik eenvoudig: “Die vyand van my vyand is my vriend”. Daar is baie historiese voorbeelde van samewerking tussen vyande vir die bereiking van ‘n gemeenskaplike doel

Indien ‘n persoon of entiteit teen Nova werk, indien hul aktiwiteite ook in die belang van die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers is en indien die insette van dieselfde waarde toevoeg, is ons bereid om met hulle te kommunikeer en miskien saam te werk

Beteken dit dat ons, ongeag enige sodanige entiteit of persoon se geskiedenis, huklke sommer so sal aanvaar?

Die antwoord is ‘n duidelike Nee!

In 2021/22 was Tromp duidelik “Myburgh se man” en dit het sedert 2010 duidelik geword dat die Trustee slegs in plek was om enigiets goed te keur wat Myburgh wou bereik rakende die Skuldbriewe en die Skuldbriefhouers – en gewoonlik tot nadeel van laasgenoemde. Ons is sterk van mening dat die hol dokument wat die Skuldbrieftrust is, slegs ingestel is as ‘n lippediens aan normale sakereddingspraktyke kragtens Artikel 311 van die Insolvensiewet, om die BRP deur die howe bekragtig te kry en om by Myburgh en die Raad se strategie te pas wat die maatskappy gelei het tot waar dit vandag is

Verder, alhoewel Tromp aan die gehore by die stemvergaderings gesê het dat hy die benarde situasie en behoeftes van die Skuldbriefhouers verstaan ​​(maar geen verklarings gemaak het oor wat sy toekomstige optrede mag wees nie), het hy die werk geneem en toe die Skuldbriefhouers werklik onder die bus gegooi deur onmiddellik ‘n oop verlenging (geen sperdatum of vervaldatum) van die Skuldbriefterugbetalingstydperk goed te keur met ‘n daaropvolgende verklaring, toe hy hieroor uitgedaag is, dat hy destyds gedink het dat dit in die Skuldbriefhouer se beste belang was

Dit was Myburgh se enigste bedoeling rakende die aanstelling van Tromp, naamlik; kry ‘n Trustee aangestel, kry ‘n terugbetalingsverlenging in plek in lyn met die vereistes van die Trustakte EN kry die CIPC “van sy saak af” met betrekking tot hul probleme met die Skuldbriewe wat nie almal teen Januarie 2022 terugbetaal is nie, soos uiteengesit in die SoAs (daardie sperdatum sterk betwis deur Nova/Myburgh)

Kort na sy aanstelling en as gevolg van sekere inligtinginsette aan CIPC deur aktiviste en geaffekteerde partye – insluitend Deon en NDCAG – is ‘n vergadering gehou met Cuma Zwane, Senior Ondersoeker by die Kommissie, waar beide Deon en NDCAG-persone teenwoordig was. Die insette wat by hierdie vergadering gegee is, was na ons mening instrumenteel in die CIPC se besluit om ‘n ondersoek na Nova te begin (benewens hul reeds bestaande kwessies oor gevalle van nie-nakoming van hul verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet) en wat gelei het tot die instelling van die Inter-Regulerende Ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC-beleggingsmaatskappye in 2010

Toe Tromp dus, na twee jaar van oënskynlike onaktiwiteit met betrekking tot die lewering van die benarde situasie en behoeftes van die Skuldbriefhouers, met ‘n reeks mense en entiteite (nie almal aan ons bekend nie) begin kommunikeer het, was ons ook bly om dit te doen

Maar ons wil hê dit moet duidelik verstaan ​​word dat ons destyds ons vermoedens en twyfel oor sy motiewe gehad het, daarom het ons geen verbintenisse teenoor hom gemaak nie en ons het hom egter meegedeel dat:

– Ons beskou hom as “die vyand”
– Hy het die werk aanvaar selfs nadat hy al die negatiewe insette by die vergadering gehoor het – en die fooie geneem (alhoewel totdat Nova opgehou het om hom te betaal: Sien sy plasing getiteld Trustee Fee – High Court Application onder Nova Debenture Trust op sy webwerf by www.carian.co.za)
– Ons dink dat hy homself beskerm, om watter rede ook al
– Watter aksie ook al in die toekoms teen hom mag plaasvind en om watter rede ook al, ons sal geen ondersteuning bied nie

Hy het destyds gesê dat hy heeltemal tevrede hiermee was en ons glo dat dit steeds die geval is, alhoewel daar steeds ‘n mate van agterdog en ontevredenheid oor vorige optrede, of nie-aksies, bestaan

Maar weereens, “die vyand van my vyand is my vriend” en ons interaksies met hom is ‘n “huwelik van gerief”

Hierdie skrywer is van mening dat Tromp nouliks die moeite en koste sou aangewend het wat hy reeds het as hy nie heeltemal ernstig was om sy teenkanting teen alles wat verkeerd is in en met Nova te verwesenlik nie. Trouens, as ‘n geregistreerde geoktrooieerde rekenmeester, is hy ingevolge die SAICA-gedragskode verplig om nie-nakoming en onreëlmatighede/onwettighede aan te spreek. Dit geld in sy verbintenis met Nova, al is hy nie direk in diens van die bestuur van die maatskappy nie en nie, in die gewone verloop van sy aktiwiteite, betrokke by die oudit daarvan en interaksies met die ouditeure nie

Ons glo dat Tromp se onlangse optrede om te publiseer wat hy as onreëlmatig en onwettig in Nova se bedrywighede opgemerk het, positiewe nuus vir die Sharemax-beleggers is. Wat hulle sal bereik, hetsy in isolasie of as deel van ‘n groter geheel, bly nog gesienen hang tot ‘n mate af van die uitkomste van CIPC se Maatskappytribunaalverhoor en die Inter-Reguleringsondersoek, wat albei so gretig afgewag word

Die verskillende persone en aktivisteliggame mag wel afsonderlike entiteite wees wat hul eie strategieë volg, maar hulle veg almal teen gemeenskaplike vyande, en die slotsom is dat enige sukses wat deur enige van hulle behaal word, ‘n sukses is vir al die PSPC-maatskappybeleggers wat van soveel beroof is

Skakjels:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134 >>>>> Deon Pieneaar’s se Whatsapp plasing

www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510133 >>>>> NDCAG brief van Desember 2021 i.b.m die Trustee verkiesing

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132 >>>>> Deon se aanvaarding van ons voorstel

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131 >>>>> Nova se antwoordbrief aan NDCAG

JP Tromp het ‘n verdere artikel op sy besigheidswebwerf gepubliseer wat hier kan gelees word:

<www.carian.co.za/post/the-missing-r-414-694-327?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW 0CMTAAYnJpZBExOXpZOWw1bmxNZ1VWczhGVgEe_fPfkJ_FTCjOq8rBRW4nKfmIH-uqfY8hhDjB36 CR5SRSp_U9MlCMAR8OsKs_aem_siQW1-PEFYnUb0O_En0f2Q> www.carian.co.za/post/the-missing-r-414-694-327

Die nuwe plasing handel oor die skuldbriewe wat verband hou met die twaalf eiendomme wat deur Nova verkoop is voor die CIPC se verbod op die verkoop van enige verdere bates in Augustus 2022

Die betrokke eiendomme is:

– 148 Leeuwpoort Street
– 14De Marionette Centre
– Shopmakers Village
– Benoni Hyper
– Athlone Park Shopping Centre
– Liberty Mall (Amogela Mall)
– Oxford Gate
– Parkside Plaza
– Rivonia Square
– Nelspruit Hyper
– Dainfern Shopping Centre
– Whale Rock Residential Estate

Klik hier vir véredere inligting oor hierdie eiendomme:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExOXpZ OWw1bmxNZ1VWczhGVgEeK6naYkJWzz4wF5Sr9X2z5zanJIfq5_D4ZaHYgGuij85AqFEF3FCronKE Y3E_aem_1yW5OdMAQ5THYxlHTcWBaw> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1

Hy het hierdie inligting geplaas as ‘n “ergste geval” (worst case) scenario vir die betrokke skuldbriefhouers wat inligting openbaar oor ‘n situasie wat ‘n direkte gevolg is van Nova-voorsitter Myburgh en die Raad se optrede wat nie in die beste belang van die betrokke skuldbriefhouers was nie

Hy wil nie sensasioneel wees met hierdie inligting nie, maar verskaf die harde waarheid – inligting WAT LANK GELEDE MOES GEOPENBAAR GEWEES HET, OF, VEEL BETER, NOOIT IN DIE EERSTE PLEK VOORKOM HET NIE. Sien onderaan oor Tromp se insluiting van die arbitrêre stap wat Nova in 2019 geneem het waarvolgens hulle die opbrengs van eiendomsverkoop in bedryfskapitaal begin absorbeer het

Hy deel mee dat, aangesien die verkoopopbrengs in die bedryfskapitaal van die maatskappy geabsorbeer is, daardie geld nie meer bestaan nie. En met die oordrag van die verkoopte eiendomme in die name van die kopers, is daar geen spesifieke bates in die maatskappy se boeke wat onderliggend is aan, of ondersteun, die bogenoemde skuldbriefwaardes nie, en dus die fondse wat opsy gesit moes gewees het om die skuldbriewe terug te betaal, weg is!

Dit is nie ‘n nuwe feit nie, maar in die afwesigheid van die openbaarmaking (maar sien hieronder) en enige verduideliking, blyk die gepaste verduideliking te wees dat die behoud van die opbrengs van die eiendomsverkoop (eerder as om dit te gebruik om skuldbriewe terug te betaal) Nova se ontsnappingsroete en manier was om uit hul (gereeld genoemde) befondsingsprobleme te kom deur die skuldbriefhouers onder die bus te gooi en doelbewus skuldbriefterugbetalingsfondse te misbruik om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou om by die voorsitter en raad se eie agenda te pas

Wat ook in ag geneem moet word, is die inhoud van Tromp se plasing by punt 3: Fondse wat binne die Groep aangewend is

Die omleiding van fondse om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou, het begin, kan gesê word, met die 2013-verkoop van die Rivonia Square-eiendom. In ons vorige plasing het ons die enigste – maar ver van voldoende verduidelikende – kommunikasie deur Nova oor die verkoop van hierdie eiendom ingesluit

Die punt om duidelikheid te hê oor die omleiding van verkoopsopbrengsfondse vir al die reeds verkoopte eiendomme, is dat dit ‘n heeltemal eensydige optrede deur Nova was – geen konsultasie, geen verduideliking van, en motivering vir, die terughouding van die fondse en geen ooreenkoms vir die behoud en herontplooiing van fondse van die betrokke skuldbriefhouers nie

Verder het Nova die skuldbriefhouers eers in September 2019 in kennis gestel van die terughouding van die verkoopopbrengs, hoewel nege van die betrokke eiendomme lank tevore, van 2013 tot 2018, verkoop is sonder enige skuldbriefterugbetalings of toepaslike kommunikasie oor sowat ses jaar

Dus, vir hierdie ses jaar is inligting oor die retensie-aksies en die wanbetaling van die betrokke skuldbriewe weggesteek en die feit dat die verdwyning van enige van die verkoopte eiendomme uit die volgende jaar se finansiële jaarverslag navrae kon veroorsaak het, kwalifiseer nie as gepaste kommunikasie wat in elk geval na die verkoop en onbevredigend sou gewees het nie

Maar dié als is eintlik nog ‘n spyker in die kis rakende die voortdurende bewerings dat Nova insolvent is en in werklikheid in ‘n insolvente staat handel dryf, wat eerstens bewys is van roekelose gedrag aan die kant van die Voorsitter en Raad, maar ook in stryd is met die vereistes van die Maatskappywet waarin dit lui:

Reckless trading prohibited
22. (1) A company must not—
(a) carry on its business recklessly, with gross negligence, with intent to defraud
any person or for any fraudulent purpose; or
(b) trade under insolvent circumstances

Die maatskappy is reeds “onder kennisgewing” deur CIPC deurdat die Kommissie ‘n Notification aan Nova uitgereik het waarin hulle versoek word om te reageer op die formele Maatskappywet CoR135.1-klag wat Tromp by hulle ingedien het en waarin hy verklaar dat Nova na sy mening inderdaad skuldig is aan roekelose gedrag en insolvent

Tans het Nova tot 20 Oktober om op CIPC te reageer en intussen is die Maatskappytribunaal-verhoor om Nova se gereelde versuim om sy verpligtinge ingevolge die Wet na te kom en ook ander versuim, veral die versuim om die oorblywende skuldbriewe terug te betaal, aan te spreek, opgeskort

‘n Paar bydraende faktore om die insolvensie van die maatskappy te regverdig:

– Groot belastingskuld aan Sars en agterstallige BTW-betalings (R62 miljoen – uitgesluit boetes vir laat betaling – en R16, netto, miljoen onderskeidelik)
– Die Beneficio-lening wat nou ‘n las in die boeke is ten bedrae van 67 miljoen (met hofuitspraak teen die maatskappy en appèlle onsuksesvol)
– Die Quatro-groep – R12.3 miljoen verskuldig vir versuim om vir eiendomshigiënedienste te betaal. Hofbevel aan Nova om te betaal
– Die Bright Light Solar-sonverhittingswanbetaling van sowat R100 miljoen en ‘n aansoek om likwidasie van die maatskappy en, natuurlik;
– Die totale waarde van die nog onbetaalde skuldbriewe wat in die ’24 AFS as R2.27 miljard weerspieël word, wat die bogenoemde 370 miljoen waarde van die “ontbrekende miljoene” onbetaalde skuldbriewe insluit

Bogenoemde is dalk nie heeltemal akkuraat of wys die volledige prentjie nie, maar ongeag, wat dit wel aandui of beter, dit bevestig dat dit ernstige rooi vlae is wat slegs bestaande twyfel oor die maatskappy se status en die prestasie van die Voorsitter en Raad versterk

Nova sal nie erken dat die maatskappy insolvent is nie, maar dit is regtig tyd dat daardie feit in die openbaar erken word en veral deur CIPC bevestig word!

JP Tromp has published a further article in his business web site which can be read here:

www.carian.co.za/post/the-missing-r-414-694-327

The new post deals with the debentures related to the twelve properties sold off by Nova prior to the CIPC’s August 2022 prohibition on disposal of any further assets

The relevant properties are:

– 148 Leeuwpoort Street
– 14De Marionette Centre
– Shopmakers Village
– Benoni Hyper
– Athlone Park Shopping Centre
– Liberty Mall (Amogela Mall)
– Oxford Gate
– Parkside Plaza
– Rivonia Square
– Nelspruit Hyper
– Dainfern Shopping Centre
– Whale Rock Residential Estate

Click here for further information on these properties:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExSFls TU54MXZ6NDIxRWJyMQEeAvi170yIHvwCfBi7IX2tGBj2tuRmd3xxyAlenv8sHfs2sYZa6dVopwon JQ0_aem_JSecLrIeguImB0xVY1oSig> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1

He has posted this information as a “worst case” scenario for the relevant Debenture Holders revealing information about a situation that is a direct result of Nova Chairman Myburgh and the Board’s actions that have not been in the best interests of the affected Debenture Holders

He is not looking to be sensationalist with this information but providing the stark truth – information THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY NOVA LONG AGO OR, FAR BETTER, SHOULD NEVER HAVE RESULTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. See lower down on Tromp’s inclusion of the arbitrary step taken by Nova in 2019 per which they started absorbing property sale proceeds into operating capital
He informs that, with the sale proceeds having been absorbed into the operating capital of the company, that money doesn’t exist any more

And, with the transfer of the sold properties into the names of the buyers, there are no specific assets in the company’s books that underly, or back, the above debenture values, and thus the funds that should have been set aside to repay the debentures, are gone!

This is not a new fact but, in the absence of the disclosure (but see below) and any explanation, the appropriate explanation seems to be that the retention of the property sale proceeds (rather than using same to repay debentures) was Nova’s escape hatch and way to get out of their (frequently stated) funding problems by throwing the Debenture Holders under the bus and deliberately misusing debenture repayment funds to keep the company afloat to suit the Chairman and Board’s own agenda

What should also be noted is the content in Tromp’s post at point 3: Funds utilized within the Group

Funds diversion to keep the company afloat started, it could be said, with the 2013 sale of the Rivonia Square property. In our previous post, we included the only – but far from sufficiently explanatory – communications by Nova on the sale of this property

The point to be clear about on the diversion of sale proceeds funds for all of the already sold properties is that it was a totally unilateral action by Nova – no consultation, no explanation of, and motivation for withholding the funds and no agreement for the funds retention and re-deployment from the affected Debenture Holders

Further, Nova only informed the Debenture Holders of the sale proceeds retentions in September 2019 although nine of the subject properties had been sold off well before then from 2013 to 2018 with no Debenture repayments or appropriate communications over some six years
So, for these six years, information on the retention actions and non-payment of the relevant debentures was kept hidden and the fact that the disappearance of any of the sold properties from the next year’s AFS and could have triggered enquiries, does not qualify as appropriate communication which would have been after the event and dissatisfactory anyway

But this is actually yet another nail in the coffin regarding the ongoing allegations that Nova is insolvent and is in fact, trading in an insolvent state, which firstly, is evidence of reckless behaviour on the part of the Chairman and the Board but is also in contravention of the requirements of the Companies Act in which it is stated:

Reckless trading prohibited
22. (1) A company must not-
(a) carry on its business recklessly, with gross negligence, with intent to defraud
any person or for any fraudulent purpose; or
(b) trade under insolvent circumstances
.
The company is already “under Notification” by CIPC in that the Commission has issued a Notification to Nova calling on them to respond to the formal Companies Act CoR135.1 Complaint that Tromp has submitted to them and in which he states that, in his opinion Nova is indeed guilty of reckless behaviour and insolvent

Currently Nova has until 20th October to respond to CIPC and in the meantime, the Companies Tribunal hearing to address Nova’s frequent failure to meet its obligations under the Act and also other failures, especially the failure to repay the remaining Debentures, is on hold

Some contributing factors to justify the insolvency of the company:

– Huge tax debt to Sars and overdue VAT payments (R 62 million – excluding penalties for late payment – and R 16 nett million respectively)
– The Beneficio loan which is now a liability in the books to the tune of 67 million (with court judgment against the company and appeals unsuccessful)
– The Quatro Group – R 12.3 million owed for failure to pay for property hygiene services. Court order to Nova to pay
– The Bright Light Solar solar heating default involving some R 100 million and an application for liquidation of the company and, of course;
– The total value of the as yet unpaid debentures which reflect in the ’24 AFS as R 2.27 billion which includes the above 370 million value of the “missing millions” unpaid debentures

The above might not be entirely accurate or show the full pictures but no matter, what they do indicate or better, confirm is that they are serious red flags which only reinforce existing doubts about the company’s status and the performance of the Chairman and Board

Nova will not admit that the company is insolvent but it really is time to have that fact acknowledged publicly and especially, confirmed by CIPC!