Moneyweb opened with: “Its [CIPC’s] own investigator warned of possible insolvency and questioned the board’s ability to repay investors. Four years later, 18 500 former Sharemax investors may be left with almost nothing.” and further: “Despite Zwane’s[*] findings, which clearly indicate that the CIPC had serious concerns about Nova’s solvency, possible reckless trading, and the board’s intention and capacity to repay investors, it took no further enforcement action.” (*Cuma Zwane is Senior Investigator, Corporate and Disclosure Regulation Unit – and the “investigator” referred to in the first quote).
CIPC have responded via a media release on 23 October (www.cipc.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/CIPC-STATEMENT-ON-REGULAT ORY-ACTION-IN-THE-NOVA-MATTER_.pdf) stating that the Moneyweb article:
” .. presents an incomplete and grossly misleading account of the actions taken by the Commission in relation to Nova PropGrow Group Holding Ltd (“Nova”) and the material developments relevant to those actions.”
CIPC state that, as early as 2021, they took action as regard’s Nova affairs via two Compliance Notices. This was following preparatory steps to lay the groundwork for the more aggressive public actions
The first one, in February, was a ” <www.google.com/search?q=Notice+to+Show+Cause> Notice to Show Cause” over potential reckless or insolvent trading. Nova was required to submit audited Annual Financial Statements for 2021 (meaning, late again) and a board resolution detailing its plan to exit debentures and repay historical Sharemax investors
The second, in October, followed an unsatisfactory response to the first, and CIPC issued an official <www.google.com/search?q=Compliance+Notice> Compliance Notice (on 25 October 2021). This gave Nova a final deadline until 28 February 2022-the scheduled period to repay former Sharemax debenture holders to prove it would not be financially distressed
Those were the firsts actions in the Companies Tribunal investigation into Nova but they (Nova) lodged a dispute over the allegations and the investigation was frozen pending an outcome. We are not aware of the status of the dispute and the investigation – still frozen? Going nowhere? Yet another delaying tactic and manipulation of “the process” by Board Chair Myburgh and the Directors?
Then followed the election of J-P Tromp as Debenture Trustee and late in January 2022, the Trustee approved and open-ended extension (another Myburgh and Board manipulation and delaying tactic?) of the January 2022 deadline for the debentures as set out in the Schemes of Arrangement . This deadline is disputed by Nova but they had to have a new Trustee in place in order to approve an extension (required per the Trust Deed) as a way to remove the non-repayment from CIPCs agenda
Following Tromp’s election and the debenture repayment extension, NDCAG had a meeting with Cuma Zwane at the CIPC Offices. Deon Pienaar, leading activist at the wider PSPC company shut-down level was also present and Zwane was given in-depth information on all that was wrong in terms of illegalities and irregularities in the SARB/FSB’s investigation, the shut-down, the fall out and, as regards Nova after 2010, all that related to its failure to execute repayment of all of the debentures
Those inputs to Zwane played a very important role in the CIPC decision to launch a separate investigation into the PSPC shut-down. CIPC had finalised an Interim Report on its findings during 2024 and the next step was to be a Tribunal on the findings with the parties and entities that participated in the investigation to be followed by production and release of a Final Report with findings and recommendations for the consideration of and action by appropriate authorities
And that seems to be as far as the matter has progressed – from an outsider’s viewpoint – and it seems to be just not moving any further
We agree that CIPC has taken up the cause re the 2010 shut-down (where SARB claims CIPC has acted beyond its scope of authority). and we recognise and acknowledge the value of its activities in what is for all of the victims of the shut-down, hugely important and vital in terms of possible eventual investment repayment
But with so little visible progress, with the Companies Tribunal Investigation at Companies Act obligations and failures level and likewise with the Inter-Regulatory investigation on the PSPC shut-down, the eventual outcomes of which are so vital for both the Nova Debenture- and Shareholders (the *Class D – former Sharemax investors who did not opt for Nova Debentures back n 2011), there is a tangible air of frustration
In this regard, the CIPC 4 June ’26 media release on progress re Nova (which we think may well have been a concession to pressure for information anyway) opened with: “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’), which ensued in the first half of 2020.”
Does this not signify progress and create an expectation?
In addition to the Moneyweb allegation, in our post of 2 November (COUNTDOWN TO THE OVERDUE NOVA 2025 AGM) we informed that Tromp had escalated his concerns over the delays to the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition of his views on such failure as posted on 19 October and he also cited regulatory failure
It remains to be seen what transpires from Tromp’s escalation. We have received no acknowledgement or response from any area of CIPC to our email but we think that CIPC have perhaps missed the point or, won’t acknowledge, that the two investigations are just not progressing towards final outcomes and consequent action against Nova
So, we suggest that CIPC’s response to the Moneyweb article is a defensive action and diverting attention from the lack of investigation outcomes