Nova Debenture Trustee JP Tromp has posted information on what he describes as a “carefully orchestrated plan by the Board of Directors to circumvent the Compliance Notice issued by the CIPC”

See: www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-p otentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment

This comprises a package of documents including a Response from Dominique Haese, CEO of Nova Propgrow

This content, whilst of specific relevance to holders of Debentures linked to Carletonville and Range View, is also very relevant to all Debenture Holders from the perspective of the solvency and viability of Nova

The Compliance Notice was issued to Nova in August 2022 and it prohibits the sale of any further properties (immovable assets) by the company. This, after some twenty one of the original thirty seven Sharemax properties inherited by Nova in the BRP/SoA process back in 2010/12 were sold (E&OE on these figures). The compliance Notice also triggered CIPC to open an internal investigation into Nova’s repeated failures to meet its obligations under the Companies Act and the failure to repay all of the Debentures by the “10 year deadline” as per the SoAs. (This deadline is contested by Nova). The internal investigation will result in a Companies Tribunal to address the findings with Nova

Whilst some debentures were repaid in 2012/13, the company stopped repaying and, on their own admittance (but , only communicated to Debenture Holders in one of Nova’s Communiques in September 2019), started retaining property sale proceeds to finance ongoing operations and to provide the funds to keep the company afloat amid growing concerns as to its solvency

According to Tromp’s new posting regarding a loan which Nova arranged with Mercantile Bank (since bought by Capitec), for which, they pledged as security, Flora Centre, Carletonville Centre and Range View Centre, but have defaulted on the mortgage payments, Capitec have lodged an application for liquidation of Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, the entity within Nova Propgrow Group that owns Flora Centre and a judgement against Nova could see Flora Centre being attached and sold off to repay the loan

Nova sought and have received “favourable” legal opinion to the effect that if the pledged properties are sold in execution of a court judgement, then such sale is not a circumvention of the CIPC Compliance Notice prohibiting sale of the properties.

Based on this opinion. Nova have proposed to Capitec that that both the Carletonville and Range View properties be accepted as settlement of the loan.

The proposal reads:

“We have taken legal advice from Advocate (blanked out) on how we overcome this prohibition. The advice is that the subject matter property (the surety properties [Carletonville and Range View]) may be disposed of under circumstances of a sale following a Court Order in the form of a judgement and in execution of such judgement. We therefore suggest that a Summons is issued, judgement is obtained, and the property/s sold in pursuance of the judgement”

Tromp suggests that Flora Centre is far more “valuable” as an asset in the company’s books and the board would not want to lose that following Court judgement in favour of Capitec

But, we have here a case of blatant sacrifice of two properties to suit their own interests – with the negative of a court judgement against the company (Nova) on record – and in the process, removing the underlying assets that are supposed be the base off which the Carletonville and Range View debentures can be repaid

We ask: is the pledging of portfolio properties – thus putting them at risk – in itself not a circumvention of the Compliance Notice?

And, we ask: is a taken course of action which they admit is a ploy “to overcome this prohibition” (selling of the portfolio properties) not also a flagrant demonstration of disregard of the authority of CIPC?

Was the taking of the loan, in fact, part of a strategic plan devised by the Board, to bypass CIPC’s asset sell-off prohibition per which they pledged the three properties as security in order to obtain funds to keep the company afloat but with the premeditated intention to default and then sacrifice the two “lesser” properties to the lending bank in settlement of the loan?

And, we have the Board, once again, expending company funds to get legal opinion that supports their strategy and proposed action that is not in the interests of the Debenture Holders!

Tromp goes on to inform that once sold off, these two properties (and any of the other portfolio properties sold) will not exist in the Nova books anymore meaning that the assets that could realise the funds necessary to repay the underlying Debenture liability, have disappeared and Nova’s capability to create the funds necessary to repay has been further diminished. See our October 1 post on “The Missing R414 million” and Tromp’s post on same in his web site

How will CIPC react to this news? Will they accept Tromp’s allegations as being valid and take action? Perhaps bring the Companies Tribunal on Nova into immediate action? Perhaps more stringent action?

Is all lost for the relevant Debenture Holders as Tromp has stated?

Perhaps not, but only if the CIPC Investigation into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC’s can move forward and deliver the Final Report and if its recommendations (expected to confirm the long-alleged illegalities and the irregularities of the shut-down) are followed through with ultimate restitution and compensation for all Sharemax Investors

We will be sharing this post with Cuma Zwane who is the Senior Investigator: Corporate Compliance and Disclosure Regulation at CIPC, in support of Tromp’s submissions to them

JP Tromp, Trustee van die Nova Debenture Trust, het inligting geplaas oor wat hy beskryf as ‘n sorgvuldig georkestreerde plan deur die Raad van Direkteure om die Nakomingskennisgewing wat deur die CIPC uitgereik is, te omseil (“carefully orchestrated plan by the Board of Directors to circumvent the Compliance Notice issued by the CIPC”)

Sien: <www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-potentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment> www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-potentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment

Dit behels ‘n pakket dokumente, insluitend ‘n reaksie vanaf Dominique Haese, uitvoerende hoof van Nova Propgrow

Hierdie inhoud, hoewel van spesifieke relevansie vir houers van skuldbriewe gekoppel aan die Carletonville en Range View eiendomme, is ook baie relevant vir alle skuldbriewehouers vanuit die perspektief van die solvensie en lewensvatbaarheid van Nova

Die Nakomingskennisgewing is in Augustus 2022 aan Nova uitgereik en dit verbied die verkoop van enige verdere eiendomme (onroerende bates) deur die maatskappy. Dit nadat sowat een-en-twintig van die oorspronklike sewe-en-dertig Sharemax-eiendomme wat Nova in die BRP/SoA-proses in 2010/12 geërf het (F.E.W. op hierdie syfers) verkoop is. Die nakomingskennisgewing het ook CIPC aangespoor om ‘n interne ondersoek te open na Nova se herhaalde versuim om sy verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet na te kom en die versuim om al die skuldbriewe teen die “10-jaar-sperdatum” volgens die Reëlingskemas terug te betaal. (Hierdie sperdatum word deur Nova betwis). Die interne ondersoek sal lei tot ‘n Maatskappytribunaal om die bevindinge met Nova aan te spreek

Terwyl sommige skuldbriewe in 2012/13 terugbetaal is, het die maatskappy opgehou om terug te betaal en, na hul eie erkenning (maar eers in September 2019 aan skuldbriefhouers in een van Nova se Communiqué publikasies gekommunikeer), het hulle begin om die opbrengs van eiendomsverkope te behou om voortgesette bedrywighede te finansier en die fondse te verskaf om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou te midde van groeiende kommer oor sy solvensie

Volgens Tromp se nuwe plasing rakende ‘n lening wat Nova met Mercantile Bank (sedertdien deur Capitec gekoop) gereël het, waarvoor hulle as sekuriteit Flora Centre, Carletonville Centre en Range View Centre verpand het, maar wanbetaal het op die verbandbetalings, het Capitec ‘n aansoek ingedien vir likwidasie van Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, die entiteit binne Nova Propgrow Group wat Flora Centre besit, en ‘n vonnis teen Nova kan daartoe lei dat Flora Centre in beslag geneem en verkoop word om die lening terug te betaal

Nova het ‘n “gunstige” regsmening ingewin en ontvang dat indien die verpande eiendomme verkoop word in uitvoering van ‘n hofuitspraak, sodanige verkoop nie ‘n omseiling van die CIPC-nakomingskennisgewing is wat die verkoop van die eiendomme verbied nie.

Gebaseer op hierdie mening, het Nova aan Capitec voorgestel dat beide die Carletonville- en Range View-eiendomme as skikking van die lening aanvaar word.

Die voorstel lui:

“We have taken legal advice from Advocate (blanked out) on how we overcome this prohibition. The advice is that the subject matter property (the surety properties [Carletonville and Range View]) may be disposed of under circumstances of a sale following a Court Order in the form of a judgement and in execution of such judgement. We therefore suggest that a Summons is issued, judgement is obtained, and the property/s sold in pursuance of the judgement”

Tromp stel voor dat Flora Centre baie meer “waardevol” is as ‘n bate in die maatskappy se boeke en die direksie wil dit nie verloor na ‘n hofuitspraak ten gunste van Capitec nie

Maar ons het hier ‘n geval van blatante opoffering van twee eiendomme om hul eie belange te dien – met die negatiewe gevolg van ‘n hofuitspraak teen die maatskappy of rekord – en in die proses, die verwydering van die onderliggende bates wat veronderstel is om die basis te wees waarop die Carletonville- en Range View-skuldbriewe terugbetaal kan word

Ons vra: is die verpanding van portefeulje-eiendomme – wat hulle dus in gevaar stel – op sigself nie ‘n omseiling van die Compliance Notice nie?

En ons vra: is ‘n stap wat hulle erken ‘n plan is om hierdie verbod te oorkom (die verkoop van die portefeulje-eiendomme) nie ook ‘n blatante minagting van die gesag van CIPC nie?

Was die aangaan van die lening in werklikheid deel van ‘n strategiese plan wat deur die Raad opgestel is om CIPC se verbod op die verkoop van bates te omseil, ingevolge waarvan hulle die drie eiendomme as sekuriteit verpand het om fondse te bekom om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou, maar met die voorbedagte bedoeling om in gebreke te bly en dan die twee “minderwaardige” eiendomme aan die lenende bank op te offer ter vereffening van die lening?

En hier het ons die Raad, weereens, wat maatskappyfondse bestee om ‘n regsmening te kry wat hul strategie en voorgestelde aksie ondersteun en wat nie in die belang van die Skuldbriefhouers is nie!

Tromp gaan voort om te deel dat sodra hulle verkoop is, hierdie twee eiendomme (en enige van die ander portefeulje-eiendomme wat verkoop is) nie meer in die Nova-boeke sal bestaan ​​nie, wat beteken dat die bates wat die fondse wat nodig is om die onderliggende skuldbrieflas terug te betaal, kon realiseer, verdwyn het en Nova se vermoë om die fondse te skep wat nodig is om terug te betaal, verder verminder is. Sien ons plasing van 1 Oktober oor “The Missing R414 million” en Tromp se plasing daaroor op sy webwerf

Hoe sal CIPC op hierdie nuus reageer? Sal hulle Tromp se bewerings as waarheid aanvaar en aksie neem? Miskien die Maatskappytribunaal oor Nova onmiddellik tot aksie bring? Miskien strenger optrede?

Is alles verlore vir die betrokke skuldbriefhouers soos Tromp gesê het?

Miskien nie, maar slegs as die CIPC-ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC’s in 2010 kan voortuitgang maak en die finale verslag kan lewer en as die aanbevelings daarvan (wat na verwagting die lang beweerde onwettighede en die onreëlmatighede van die PSPC sluiting sal bevestig) opgevolg word met uiteindelike restitusie en vergoeding vir alle Sharemax-beleggers

Ons sal hierdie plasing met Cuma Zwane, die Senior Ondersoeker: Korporatiewe Nakoming en Openbaarmakingsregulering by CIPC deel, ter ondersteuning van Tromp se voorleggings aan hulle.

Die CIPC het ingegryp in geregtelike prosesse wat aan die gang is teen Deon Pienaar, ‘n langdurige aktivis oor die onwettighede en onreëlmatighede van die PSPC-maatskappy se sluiting in 2010 – wat Sharemax ingesluit het

Ons sluit in hierdie plasing ‘n afskrif van hul onlangse brief in, geskryf aan die Wes-Kaapse Hooggeregshof (WCHC) voor komende hofaksies en beskikbaar hier: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

Hierdie brief is potensieel betekenisvol vir al die mense wat so negatief geraak is deur die gebeure van 2010. Dit is die eerste keer dat ‘n staatsorgaan (CIPC is ‘n afdeling van die DTIC – Departement van Handel, Nywerheid en Mededinging) na vore gekom en ter tafel gelê het dat hulle tot die gevolgtrekking gekom het dat daar faktore buite die historiese en bestaande regsmenings en drywers is waarvan die howe bewus moet wees

Die brief is slegs in Engels beskikbaar (en sal nie in Afrikaans vertaal word nie uit vrees vir vertaalfoute). Maar lesers moet die potensiële belangrikheid daarvan en wat dit reeds openbaar oor wat waarskynlik uit die ondersoek sal kom, waardeer

Alhoewel die inhoud van die brief daarop gemik is om die speelveld te verander met betrekking tot die spesifiek genoemde Deon Pienaar-sake, het die aksie moontlike implikasies wat betekenisvol kan wees vir die hele sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappy in 2010 en alles wat daaruit voortgevloei het, en dit dui daarop dat die ware storie, soos na verwagting uiteindelik in CIPC ondersoek se finale verslag onthul sal word, reeds enige verwante regsprosesse behoort te rig.

Die brief suggereer ook dat die CIPC seker is van hul saak rakende die bevindinge van hul ondersoek en dat wat hulle nou beskou as die valse narratief wat oor die jare algemeen aanvaar is (maar nie deur die aktiviste en die PSPC-maatskappydirekteure nie en beslis nie deur die beleggerslagoffers nie) nou aangespreek moet word

Die groot vraag in dit alles is egter: Sal die howe hiervan kennis neem en dienooreenkomstig gelei word?

As ‘n voetnoot tot bogenoemde, is ons ook in kennis gestel dat die regsadviseur van die SA Reserwebank (SARB) die CIPC se Cuma Zwane aangespreek het oor sommige bekommernisse wat voortspruit uit sy brief aan WCHC. Zwane het gereageer om die situasie in perspektief te plaas. ‘n Moontlike afleiding kan hieroor gemaak word dat die storie agter hierdie briewe is dat die SARB nie tred gehou het met hierdie saak nie en dat dit moontlik een van die redes kan wees waarom die CIPC ondersoek-tussentydse verslag nog nie vrygestel is nie. Uit die Antwoord wat aan die SARB se regsadviseur gestuur is, kan ook afgelei word dat die CIPC hulle aangesê het om “aan boord te kom”

Hierdie bykomende briewe kan hier gelees word:
(Beskikbaar slegs in Engels)

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2

The CIPC has intervened in judicial processes underway against Deon Pienaar, long-time activist on the illegalities and irregularities of the PSPC company shut-down in 2010 – which included Sharemax

We include in this post, a copy of their recent letter, written to the Western Cape High Court (WCHC) ahead of upcoming court actions and accessible here: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

This letter is potentially significant for all of the people who have been so negatively affected by the events of 2010. It is the first time that an organ of state (CIPC is a division of the DTIC – Department of Trade & Industry and Competition) has come out and tabled that they have concluded that there are factors outside of the historical and existing legal opinions and drivers that the courts need to be aware of

The letter is only available in English (and will not be translated into Afrikaans for fear of translation error). But readers should appreciate its potential importance and what it already reveals about what is likely to come out of the Investigation

Whilst the content of the letter appears to be aimed at changing the playing field as to the specifically named Deon Pienaar cases, the action has, potentially, implications that could be significant for the whole of the 2010 PSPC company shutdown and all that flowed from it and it suggests that the real story, as is expected to be eventually revealed in CIPC’s Final Report, should already be guiding any related legal processes

The letter also suggests that the CIPC are certain of their case as to the findings of their investigation and that what they now consider to be the false narrative that has been generally accepted (but not by the activists and the PSPC Company directors and certainly not by the investor victims) down the years must now be addressed

As a footnote to the above, we have also been informed that the legal counsel of the SA Reserve Bank (SARB) has addressed CIPCs Cuma Zwane on some concerns arising out of his letter to WCHC and Zwane has responded putting the situation into perspective. It can be deduced from the content that the story behind these letters is that SARB have not been keeping up to speed in this matter and that, possibly, this may be one of the reasons as to why the Investigation’s Interim Report has not yet been released. From the response sent to SARB’s legal counsel it can also be inferred that CIPC has told them to “get with the program”

These additional letters can be read here:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2