* 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