This post only available in English
We have emailed CIPC’s Companies Tribunal with the following:
ENQUIRY OUT OF YOUR MEDIA RELEASE OF 4 JUNE TITLED: CIPC MOVES CLOSER TO FINALISING LONG-RUNNING NOVA-SHAREMAX INVESTIGATION
We refer to our email of 25 August (attached)* stemming in part from certain content in your 4 June media release on the “long-running Nova-Sharemax Investigation”
(* this was the text of our “call out” email sent 25 August to Nova CEO Haese, Board Chair Myburgh and the other Directors which we posted in this page and the NDCAG web site at the time)
Whilst we appreciate the extent of the state organs, entities and persons involved and the probable consequent impact on progress, we enquire if you are able to provide any updated information out of the following:
Quoted paragraphs below are from the June 4 Media Release
* “The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) is nearing a legal turning point in its long-running investigation into the business affairs and compliance status of Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Ltd (‘Nova’),
Has “nearing a legal turning point” become any closer to actual achievement? If yes, what detail can you share?
* “Any action or conduct, whether by omission or commission, by the Nova board that directly or indirectly circumvents the compliance notice prohibiting the disposal of immovable property; will trigger drastic enforcement steps against the board, including personal liability.
Besides the information and revelations that you were aware of prior to the commencement of Nova Debenture Trustee J-P Tromp’s reporting of irregularities and alleged illegalities and submission of CoR.135 complaints to yourselves, and those which he has since revealed, are there not now enough “indictments” on record to enable you to take definitive action put a stop to the mismanagement by the directors and the ever-worsening financial state of the company?
It is our understanding that the Tribunal investigation into Nova Property Group itself is on hold pending the company’s appeal against the August 2022 CIPC Compliance Notice prohibiting the disposal of any further fixed assets. What is the standing of that appeal? We take the view that it is only a delaying tactic (Stalingrad Defence) and in the meantime, as publicly alleged by J-P Tromp as well as in his complaints lodged with yourselves, the company looks for ways of circumventing the Compliance Note embargo which action, in our opinion, should not be tolerated by yourselves
* “CIPC expanded its investigations to include inter-regulator engagements aimed at reaching a factually and legally accurate account of the events, actions and decisions that led to the collapse of significant parts of the property syndication industry, from which Nova derived its assets and liabilities.
* “At this juncture in the investigation, the CIPC anticipates that based on the merits thus far, the National Director of Public Prosecution (NDPP) will intervene and consider the most efficient and prompt legal recourse under the current circumstances
Has the NDPP intervened yet? In what way and how is such intervention proceeding?
What is actually holding up progress with the Inter-Regulatory Investigation (IRI) into the shut-down of the PSPC industry in 2010? In the reactions to our posts in our web site ( <www.ndcag.co.za> www.ndcag.co.za) and Facebook page ( <web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800> web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800) comment is evenly divided between the failure of the Nova Directors to deliver Debenture Repayment and how it is that they get away with it on the one hand, and with cries of “Why isn’t CIPC doing anything/” and “When will the IRI Interim Report be released?”
Please note that we are aware of CIPC’s response to activist Deon Pienaar’s recent Petition to the Chef Justice in which he has sought, inter alia, presentation of oral evidence. We note that CIPC as a named respondent in the petition, have informed of their abidance with the court outcomes and have offered:

“Notice of Intention to Abide and Supplement ** (see note below)

Take Notice that the Twentieth Respondent, the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (“CIPC”) hereby gives notice that it abides the decision of the Honourable Court and does not intend to oppose the application

Take further notice that the Twentieth Respondent will supplement the proceedings if called upon by the court and prays for an in camera hearing (or in chambers) to ventilate certain merits contained in the inter-regulator investigation preliminary report (Subjected to Regulation 176 of the Companies Regulations 2011); the core contents of which have been characterised as injurious to the general public and may potentially lead to reputational harm for the State and/or certain respondents in this application”
This is very good news, although not unexpected, which we can share in or sites and show Nova Debenture Holders that CIPC is indeed active
* “The CIPC has reaffirmed its commitment to fulfilling its regulatory mandate and acknowledges the financial hardship experienced by several Debenture Holders and Investors of the various companies forming the subject of this appraisal.
“Several” Debenture Holders is in fact, some thirty-eight thousand individual investors or their successors, with some seventy-five thousand individual investments – in Sharemax alone!
We appreciate that you may be unable to impart what may be sensitive and confidential information but with your acknowledgement of the financial hardship that PSPC investors have endured (during the last sixteen years), we hope that your empathy will extend to provision of a status update now and we hope further that you might agree that information sharing on a more frequent basis than has been the case in the past would be appropriate – and very much welcomed
We thank you in anticipation of receipt of an informative response as well as your favourable consideration of a more frequent release of information on the two investigations
We hope to receive a response from CIPC and will post same if it does arrive

Note on above ** re CIPC action: This content from CIPC’s response to the petition relates to a developing action launched by PSPC activist Deon Pienaar in his efforts to get the CIPC Inter-Regulatory Investigation into the shut-down of the PSPC industry in 2010, moving towards finalisation. We will be posting on this in due course. What CIPC means by saying that it will abide by the Court’s decision is that it does not oppose Pienaar’s petition and that essentially, they are in agreement with him and wish to contribute to the evidence that will be presented and considered by the Court. Note the mention of “reputational harm” and “injurious to the general public”. This gives an indication that the findings in the Preliminary Report (we stress: preliminary and not final) are going to state that – in very broad terms – certain actions relevant to the 2010 shut-down were irregular and possibly, in CIPC’s view, even illegal