Read here:

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/novas-auditors-accused-o f-failing-to-flag-companies-act-breaches/

Tromp has responded via his Debentures related WhatsApp group as follows:

>>>> Dear Debenture Holder / Interested Party
I trust this message finds you well.
I wish to bring to your attention an article published this morning on Moneyweb
Worth noting, the article reports that the external auditors are considering legal action against me for putting the reasons for my complaint in the public domain. I can confirm that I have received an email from the auditors informing me of a legal process they have initiated.
As Trustee, I always consider the implications of any information I publish on my website. The same applied to the Memorandum relating to the official complaint I lodged with the IRBA.
Regardless of any potential adverse legal consequences on me as Trustee, I will continue to do what is right and communicate the true facts to the Debenture Holders. Whether I am sued for defamation or not, which now appears likely, this will not deter me from exposing the truth.
I have both a statutory and fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the Debenture Holders – and I will continue to do so, regardless of any consequences.
Kind regards
JP Tromp In my capacity as Trustee of the Debenture Trust

Lees hier:

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/novas-auditors-accused-o f-failing-to-flag-companies-act-breaches/

Tromp het soos volg via sy Skuldbriefverwante WhatsApp-groep gereageer:

>>>> Dear Debenture Holder / Interested Party
I trust this message finds you well.
I wish to bring to your attention an article published this morning on Moneyweb
Worth noting, the article reports that the external auditors are considering legal action against me for putting the reasons for my complaint in the public domain. I can confirm that I have received an email from the auditors informing me of a legal process they have initiated.
As Trustee, I always consider the implications of any information I publish on my website. The same applied to the Memorandum relating to the official complaint I lodged with the IRBA.
Regardless of any potential adverse legal consequences on me as Trustee, I will continue to do what is right and communicate the true facts to the Debenture Holders. Whether I am sued for defamation or not, which now appears likely, this will not deter me from exposing the truth.
I have both a statutory and fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the Debenture Holders – and I will continue to do so, regardless of any consequences.
Kind regards
JP Tromp In my capacity as Trustee of the Debenture Trust

.

* Nova’s incorrect interpretation of the Companies Act requirement for finalisation and publication of their Annual Financial Statements (AFS), which they have used as their “excuse” for on-going late finalisation and with the apparent agreement of the auditors (ARC Inc) regarding their stance

* Failure (seemingly by the auditors) to Report to IRBA, as a Reportable Irregularity, Nova’s Income Tax (R62 million) and VAT (R16.3 million) liabilities as reflected in the AFS and which have apparently been accumulating over a number of years

* A representation on why the AFS for 28/2/25 have not yet been finalised and published – with an imputation that the delay may be the exercise of a deliberate ploy whilst certain developments might occur that could improve the position of the company as to be reflected the financial statements. Tromp does not say so directly, but the reporting of this to IRBA suggests that he feels that ARC Inc is complicit in the delays with the ’25 AFS

Tromp states in conclusion of his submission that the issues reported “..collectively raises material concerns regarding governance, financial stability, and audit transparency within the Nova Group”

The submission and supporting documents can be viewed in his business web site at www.carian.co.za/post/complaints-lodged-with-the-independent-regulat ory-board-for-auditors

What are the possibilities of a meaningful outcome and what are the powers of IRBA in this connection?

Information out of the IRBA web site (via Google AI) informs that after investigation, a finding that corroborates Tromp’s complaint can result in any of Monetary Fines, Cancellation or Suspension (not actually stated but it’s relevant to the reported auditor?), Imposition of Conditions, Public Censure and Cost Orders

Further, where IRBA finds that elements of the complaint are non-relevant to the auditors themselves but evidences malpractice within the relevant company,
cross-reporting becomes necessary:

* “When a complaint details breaches of the Companies Act (such as reckless trading, failure to hold AGMs, or financial misstatements that are the fault of company directors/management rather than the auditor), the IRBA is obliged to refer the non-auditor portions of the complaint to the appropriate statutory authority, which is primarily the CIPC” (Source: www.accountancysa.org.za/reportable-irregularities-creating-a-cultur e-of-compliance/)

Does this new development add a compelling layer to the existing issues with Nova? Would it be sufficient to push CIPC to expedite completion of its Companies Act related investigation to the point of the envisaged Tribunal hearing and resulting findings on Nova’s breaches of the requirements of the Act, its seemingly deliberate hiding of a very much adverse financial position which we would expect, would only verify, yet again and by competent analysts, the company’s ongoing insolvency?

We receive no information from CIPC and what we do hear comes to us indirectly. We think that it’s time to call for a formal statement on the state of affairs regarding both the internal CIPC investigation into Nova and the wider CIPC investigation into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC industry – in the public interest”- being primarily, for us, the interests of the former Sharemax investors but also all of the investors in the PSPC companies

– Nova se verkeerde interpretasie van die Maatskappywet-vereiste vir die finalisering en publikasie van hul Jaarlikse Finansiële State (AFS), wat hulle as hul “verskoning” gebruik het vir die voortdurende laat finalisering en met die oënskynlike instemming van die ouditeure (ARC Inc) rakende hul standpunt

– Versuim (blykbaar deur die ouditeure) om Nova se inkomstebelasting- (R62 miljoen) en BTW- (R16.3 miljoen) laste, soos weerspieël in die finansiële jaarstate, en wat blykbaar oor ‘n aantal jare opgehoop het, as ‘n rapporteerbare onreëlmatigheid aan IRBA te rapporteer

– ‘n Verklaring oor waarom die finansiële jaarstate vir 28/2/25 nog nie gefinaliseer en gepubliseer is nie – met ‘n imputasie dat die vertraging moontlik die uitoefening van ‘n doelbewuste plan is, terwyl sekere ontwikkelings kan plaasvind wat die posisie van die maatskappy kan verbeter soos dit in die finansiële state weerspieël word. Tromp sê dit nie direk nie, maar die rapportering hiervan aan IRBA dui daarop dat hy voel dat ARC Inc. medepligtig is aan die vertragings met die ’25 finansiële jaarstate

Tromp verklaar ter afsluiting van sy voorlegging dat die aangemelde kwessies “….collectively raises material concerns regarding governance, financial stability, and audit transparency within the Nova Group”

Die voorlegging en ondersteunende dokumente kan besigtig word op sy besigheidswebwerf by www.carian.co.za/post/complaints-lodged-with-the-independent-regulat ory-board-for-auditors

Wat is die moontlikhede van ‘n betekenisvolle uitkoms en wat is die magte van IRBA in hierdie verband?

Inligting van die IRBA-webwerf (via Google AI) dui aan dat ‘n bevinding wat Tromp se klagte staaf, na ondersoek kan lei tot enige van die volgende: monetêre boetes, kansellasie of opskorting (nie eintlik vermeld nie, maar dit is relevant vir die gerapporteerde ouditeur?), oplegging van voorwaardes, openbare sensuur en kostebevele

Verder, waar IRBA bevind dat elemente van die klagte nie relevant is vir die ouditeure self nie, maar bewys lewer van wanpraktyke binne die betrokke maatskappy, word kruisrapportering nodig:

* “When a complaint details breaches of the Companies Act (such as reckless trading, failure to hold AGMs, or financial misstatements that are the fault of company directors/management rather than the auditor), the IRBA is obliged to refer the non-auditor portions of the complaint to the appropriate statutory authority, which is primarily the CIPC” (Source: www.accountancysa.org.za/reportable-irregularities-creating-a-cultur e-of-compliance/)

Voeg hierdie nuwe ontwikkeling ‘n dwingende laag by die bestaande probleme met Nova? Sal dit voldoende wees om CIPC te druk om die voltooiing van sy Maatskappywet-verwante ondersoek te bespoedig tot die punt van die beoogde Tribunaalverhoor en gevolglike bevindinge oor Nova se oortredings van die vereistes van die Wet, sy oënskynlik doelbewuste wegsteek van ‘n baie ongunstige finansiële posisie wat ons sou verwag, net weereens en deur bekwame ontleders, die maatskappy se voortdurende insolvensie sou bevestig?

Ons ontvang geen inligting van CIPC nie en wat ons wel hoor, kom indirek na ons toe. Ons dink dis tyd om ‘n formele verklaring te eis oor die stand van sake rakende beide die interne CIPC-ondersoek na Nova en die breër CIPC-ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC-bedryf in 2010 – alles in die openbare belang” – wat hoofsaaklik vir ons die belange van die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers beteken, maar ook, al die beleggers in die PSPC-maatskappye