Read here:
www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises- more-governance-questions/\ <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises -more-governance-questions/>

The post presents a back-and-forth argument on the matter with Nova CEO Haese digging in with insistence that the company had timeously applied for an extension of the AGM deadline

Even if Nova did apply for the extension ahead of the deadkine, it was a “last minute” action and signifies once again the disdain that the Board exhibits as regards obligations under the Companies Act and internal responsibilities regarding compliance

Of course, all of this stems from the continued failure to publish the 2025 Annual Financial Statements (AFS) which are, seemingly, sill not signed off by the auditors

But, Nova Debenture Trustee JP Tromp has also laid a complaint with CIPC on the same matter in the last week

Read here: www.carian.co.za/blog

Note that there are three relevant posts in this web page, all posted last week and covering:
* Companies Tribunal – Failure by the Nova Board of Directors to Convene an Annual General Meeting * Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) – Companies Act transgressions (18 June 2025) Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) * Companies Act transgressions (1 July 2026)

In the second and third of the above, Tromp has provided the Companies Tribunal with additional information on Nova for their consideration when addressing the application for an extension of the deadline for the AGM (The Companies Tribunal is an arm of CIPC which deals with Companies Act issues and compliance failures)

The ball is therefore in the Tribunal’s court and their decision and outcome is awaited

If they agree, will they place a – short-term? – deadline for the AGM which would require early AFS publication?

If they don’t agree – do Nova deserve such accommodation given the historical Act related failures anyway – what then?

According to Tromp, the Tribunal should not approve an extension, for two reasons:

– The company’s application does not contain a proposed length of the extension period as required under the provisions of the Act
– The company has previously applied for an extension and the Tribunal should take a negative view of such repeated requests

Further, the Tribunal may view the reason given in the application – “… due to a delay with the Auditor’s Report in the finalisation of the Audited Financial Statements” as insufficiently showing “good cause” and where “The Tribunal strictly assesses whether “good cause” is genuinely being shown. Repeatedly citing the same reasons (e.g., “audit delays” or “administrative issues”) is usually viewed with skepticism, as it often suggests underlying mismanagement or poor corporate governance.” (by Google AI out of <www.derebus.org.za/cpr-companies-failing-convene-annual-general-mee ting-companies-tribunal/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExZWRtVXBRbENUSDVhZE RtVnNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR50VYy0cIlNcMg9x81Zypzcn3yuA0lh-y eCWsyVSl4wRBb6RcPjb2GWy4bcXA_aem_23szT8bI-uCHPB32mBGNFA> www.derebus.org.za/cpr-companies-failing-convene…/)

Its common knowledge that the delays with publication of the AFS are usually (always?) because of delays with auditor sign-off. Good reason to view the application with scepticism and, in light of the questions that this must surely invoke, decline to approve

Lees hier: www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises-more-governance-questions/\ <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises-more-governance-questions/>

Die plasing bied ‘n heen-en-weer argument oor die saak, met Nova se uitvoerende hoof, Haese, wat daarop aandring dat die maatskappy betyds aansoek gedoen het vir ‘n verlenging van die AJV-sperdatum maar die punt is gemaak

Selfs al het Nova wel aansoek betyds gedoen vir die verlenging, was dit ‘n “laaste minuut”-aksie en dui dit weereens op die minagting wat die Raad toon met betrekking tot verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet en verantwoordelikhede rakende nakoming

Natuurlik spruit dit alles voort uit die voortgesette versuim om die 2025 Jaarlikse Finansiële State (AFS) te publiseer

Maar, JP Tromp, die Nova-Skuldbrief Trustee, het ook, in die laaste week, ‘n klagte by die CIPC oor dieselfde aangeleentheid ingedien

Lees hier: www.carian.co.za/blog

Let daarop dat daar eintlik drie relevante plasings op hierdie webblad is; almal verlede week geplaas en handel oor:
* Companies Tribunal – Failure by the Nova Board of Directors to Convene an Annual General Meeting * Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) – Companies Act transgressions (18 June 2025) – wat blyk aanvullend te wees tot sy vroeëre klagte wat in Mei vanjaar ingedien is * Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) – Companies Act transgressions (1 July 2026)

Wat die tweede en derde van bogenoemde punte betref, het Tromp bykomende inligting oor Nova aan die Companies Tribunal voorsien vir oorweging tydens die hantering van die maatskappy se aansoek om ‘n verlenging van die sperdatum vir die algemene jaarvergadering

Die bal is dus in die Tribunaal se baan en hul besluit en uitslag word afgewag

Indien hulle saamstem, sal hulle ‘n – korttermyn? – sperdatum vir die AJV plaas? Dit sal vroeë publikasie van die AFS vereis?

Indien hulle nie instem nie (en in elk geval, verdien Nova sulke akkommodasie gegewe die historiese Maatskappy Wet verwante mislukkings?) wat dan?

Volgens Tromp behoort die Tribunaal nie ‘n verlenging goed te keur nie, om twee redes:

– Die maatskappy se aansoek bevat nie ‘n voorgestelde duur vir die verlengingstydperk soos vereis deur die bepalings van die Wet nie
– Die maatskappy het voorheen om ‘n verlenging aansoek gedoen, en die Tribunaal behoort so ‘n herhaalde versoek in ‘n negatiewe lig te beskou

Verder mag die Tribunaal die rede wat in die aansoek aangevoer is – “….. due to a delay with the Auditor’s Report in the finalisation of the Audited Financial Statements” as insufficiently showing “good cause” beskou as onvoldoende bewys van “good cause”, aangesien “The Tribunal strictly assesses whether “good cause” is genuinely being shown. Repeatedly citing the same reasons (e.g., “audit delays” or “administrative issues”) is usually viewed with skepticism, as it often suggests underlying mismanagement or poor corporate governance.” (deur Google AI, gebaseer op www.derebus.org.za/cpr-companies-failing-convene-annual-general-meeting-companies-tribunal/)

Dit is algemeen bekend dat vertragings met die publikasie van die geouditeerde finansiële state gewoonlik (altyd?) te wyte is aan vertragings met die ouditeur se goedkeuring. Dit is ‘n goeie rede om die aansoek met skeptisisme te bejeën en – in die lig van die vrae wat dit ongetwyfeld moet oproep – te weier om die aansoek goed te keur