www.moneyweb.co.za/…/nova-suffers-big-blow-in…/
(This original text was updated to include the responses of both Myburgh and Ryk van Niekerk)

Or: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExY0kxWj g3eE9pTVNTeHcybQEebFNKKjeUyeB15RFGf85DcF7OCZ-39vCZtov4rVhYCp3IECbA0qFkYnhE9G g_aem_pmo2ixJIV583reFFDp6Aeg> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015 (NDCAG copy of the original article – without the responses)

We’re presenting below Nova Chair Myburgh’s response to the recent Moneyweb article on the Beneficio loan fiasco (he can respond to Moneyweb – public comment and criticism, after all, – but never a word for the victims to whom he is truly beholden!)

Note: We have inserted comment (NDCAG: bold/italic text) into the responses

>>>>>
Connie Myburgh responds
Following publication, Moneyweb received the following response from Connie Myburgh, which is published below in full. (Also see Ryk van Niekerk’s response to Mr Myburgh’s response below.)
Mr van Niekerk

We note that you published an article without waiting for our response.

We respect the Court’s judgement

The excessively high (usurious) interest rate was the very reason why the Group defended this matter in Court, as was its right to do and as was prudent in the best interests of Debenture Holders, in terms of the bigger picture, noting that no Debentures are linked to the assets securing the claim of Beneficio. On legal advice obtained, the Group was confident that it was correct in its actions to defend the claim, based on the high interest rate, and institute a counterclaim for amounts overpaid

NDCAG: HOW ABOUT JUSTIFYING WHY YOU CONSIDERED IT A GOOD BUSINESS CASE TO ENTER INTO THE LOAN CONTRACT AT A ”USUROUS” INTEREST RATE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND HOW ABOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE ACTUALLY USED FOR? THEY WERE CERTAINLY NOT SUFFICIENT TO REPAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DEBENTURE LIABILITY RELEVANT TO THE SILVERWATER CROSSING AND MAGALIESKRUIN PROPERTIES AS YOUR SUBMISSION IN THE 2023 COURT RECORD STATES (DEBENTURE LIABILITY 8.4 AND 23.5 MILLION RESPECTIVELY IN THE FIRST – 2012 -AFS AND PROBABLY ALREADY “FAIR VALUE DISCOUNTED” MEANING, WRITTEN DOWNAS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOA)

The Group’s position vis a vis Mr Tromp and his views, remains unchanged.
The Group is not in breach of the Companies Act as alleged by you.
You interpret the Companies Act incorrectly. We have had this debate before

NDCAG: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO WIN THIS ONE SO, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!!!, DO NOT WASTE ANY MORE COMPANY MONEY – “OUR MONEY” REMEMBER? (YOUR STATEMENT DURING THE 2021 TRUSTEE ELECTION MEETINGS) – ON A POSITION THAT YOU’RE SURE TO LOSE (AGAIN), NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU MIGHT TAKE IT UP THE APPEAL CHAIN. IT WOULD BE JUST ANOTHER CASE OF YOUR SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY ON TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE LAW IN YOUR OWN INTERESTS

The Group has no obligation to publish its financial statements within six months after its year end. The Group must only prepare its financial statements within six months after its year end, which it has done

The result of the judgement will be dealt with in the financials as an adjusting event, post balance sheet, as required by IFRS

NDCAG: CAN’T WAIT TO SEE HOW YOU DO THIS AND HOW YOUR AUDITOR IS GOING TO HANDLE IT – WHICHEVER AUDITOR YOU HAVE WHEN THE TIME COMES. SEEMS TO US STRANGE THAT, WITH THE HISTORICAL FINALISATION DIFFICULTY, ANY AUDITOR WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THE JOB

The financial statements are not outstanding as alleged by you

NDCAG: MAINTAIN THIS STANCE AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE BUT ,WHATEVER, THE POINT REALLY IS, WHY DOES IT ALWAYS TAKE SO LONG TO FINALISE THE AFS? YOU CAN’’T RIGHTLY THINK THAT “LATE” DOESN’T CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT ALL IS NOT UNDER CONTROL AT YOUR END AND THAT THERE HAS TO BE A LOT OF MANIPULATING, DICUSSION WITH, AND MORE LIKE, PERSUASION OF, THE AUDITORS TO GET THEIR APPROVAL TO RELEASE? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE DELAYS AND THE NEGATIVE PRESS THAT THEY ENGENDER DOES ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE ZERO-LEVEL CREDIBILITY THAT YOU HAVE?

The financial statements will be published in due course, when required in law

NDCAG: LET’S SEE WHAT CIPC RULES WHEN THE COMPANIES ACT TRIBUNAL TAKES PLACE

Please publish this response verbatim

Connie Myburgh
Chairman
Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Limited

Response from Ryk van Niekerk to Mr Myburgh’s statement:
Dear Mr Myburgh
I am surprised at your interpretation of the Companies Act.
Did you obtain an independent legal opinion regarding whether financial statements must also be audited within six months after Nova’s year-end, or is it your own interpretation?
NDCAG: AND, AT WHAT COST?
The same question can be asked as to whether it was your opinion—or an independent one, referred to in your annual financial statements—that Nova was confident it would win the Beneficio case.
NDCAG: FALSE PROMISE, SMOKE AND MIRRORS, BRAVADO, AND STALLING
Please make these independent legal opinions available to me, or confirm that it is your own interpretation.
Section 30 of the Companies Act clearly states:
30. Annual financial statements
(1) Each year, a company must prepare annual financial statements within six months after the end of its financial year, or such shorter period as may be appropriate to provide the required notice of an annual general meeting in terms of section 61(7).
(2) The annual financial statements must—
(a) be audited, in the case of a public company; or…
(My emphasis)
SAICA and the CIPC have also published statements which offer a simplified and more digestible explanation:
SAICA communication entitled: The CIPC enforcement of the Companies Act (2008)
I have <www.moneyweb.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/SAICA-Media-release.p df> attached the document, but here are the relevant paragraphs for your convenience:
Companies must take note that from 1 May 2011, the Companies Act No 71 of 2008 (Companies Act) requires annual financial statements to be completed within 6 months (section 30(1)) after year-end. If companies are not completing their annual financial statements within the 6-month period they are in breach of the Companies Act.
The annual financial statements will only be viewed as completed when the annual financial statements meet all the requirements in terms of section 30 of the Companies Act and should include the company secretary certificate and the audit committee report, when applicable, as well as the directors’ report and the audit report where a company is audited.
(My emphasis)
The CIPC also issued a statement entitled ‘Preparation and Approval of Annual Financial Statements’ last year. The document is available on the CIPC website and can be accessed <www.cipc.co.za/?p=20882> there.
For your convenience, the relevant paragraphs are:
CIPC has observed that a significant number of companies are not adhering to the requirements of Section 30(1) of the Act by not preparing and approving their annual financial statements within the six-month period after their financial year-end.
In terms of Section 30(1) of the Act, a company must prepare annual financial statements (AFS) each year within six months after the end of its financial year. Within the same six-month period, the annual financial statements must be audited in the case of a public company, state-owned company or any profit or non-profit company, if the company meets the requirements of Regulation 28 of the Companies Regulations of 2011 (“the Regulations”), or if the Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI) requires an audit.
(My emphasis)
The reading of Section 30 of the Act, as well as the communications from SAICA and the CIPC, clearly state that a company must release its financial statements within six months of its year-end, and that these statements must be audited within this period if the company is compelled to do so.
I would therefore appreciate it if you could provide me with an independent legal opinion that differs from these communications.
Your interpretation appears to be a delaying tactic to avoid informing debenture holders and other stakeholders of the company’s financial position. This is in clear contravention of the Companies Act and the principles of King IV, to which Nova apparently proudly subscribes.
Given these unambiguous regulatory interpretations, your assertion that Nova has ‘no obligation to publish its financial statements within six months’ appears to be incorrect in law and inconsistent with both statutory and professional guidance.
Kind regards
Ryk van Niekerk
Having read the above, we point readers to the following that was presented as the Conclusion to the last formal communication from Nova, being the 12 December ’23 Communiqué giving supplementary information for the Debenture Holders as an accompaniment to the 2023 AFS which, incidentally, is the last formal communication (outside of the annual AFS – for what they’re worth in terms of positives for the Debenture Holders) published by the company

>>>>>

Communiqué Nova Group Update 12 December 2023

Conclusion

The Nova Board is committed to continuing building on the positives achieved over the past decade. Nova is confident that it has done everything in its power to securing for its Debenture Holders and Stakeholders the best possible value creation. Nova is looking forward to completing the historic restructuring process, with maximum benefit to its Debenture Holders and Stakeholders

Nova is here because we fundamentally believe we can succeed in getting as much if people’s historical money invested back to them; we work tirelessly in achieving this goal; we have been and are their best chance of getting it done

>>>>>

Reader, Debenture Holder, Shareholder (Not the A Class shareholders – you’re in the pound seats – but the D Class non-voting Shareholders who are the former Sharemax Investors who elected to convert to shares in Nova rather than debentures, whose value in the company probably disappeared a long time ago – if it has ever actually existed), and any other persons and entities who have an interest in and/or are dependent on Nova’s success, make up your own mind (if you have not already) on Nova and its Board being a viable entity capable of fulfilling its mission

For NDCAG, only one word applies to the above: RUBBISH! We doubt that any former Sharemax investor still waiting for delivery out of the business rescue, now running for thirteen years and with the prospects of delivery from the Chairman and the Board ever diminishing, would not agree with us

www.moneyweb.co.za/…/nova-suffers-big-blow-in…/
(Hierdie is die oorspronklike artikel wat met die reaksie van Myburgh en antwoord van Ryk van Niekerk, geopdateer is)

Of: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExY0kxWjg3eE9pTVNTeHcybQEeCKst_5o2g5j20nitGlGQuE3SjikZuEN_jeYTg0LAMdPy1LHiLc-tNT7H730_aem_Opx1kzYQoodImI8BoX7yVQ> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015 (NDCAG se afskrif van die oorspronklike artikel sonder die reaksies)

Ons bied hieronder Nova-voorsitter Myburgh se reaksie op die onlangse Moneyweb-artikel oor die Beneficio-leningsfiasko aan (hy kan op Moneyweb reageer – openbare kommentaar en kritiek, immers – maar nooit ‘n woord vir die slagoffers aan wie hy werklik verskuldig is nie!)

Let wel: Ons het kommentaar (NDCAG: vetdruk/skuinsdruk teks) in die antwoorde ingevoeg

>>>>>
Connie Myburgh reageer

Na publikasie het Moneyweb die volgende reaksie van Connie Myburgh ontvang, wat hieronder volledig gepubliseer word. (Sien ook Ryk van Niekerk se reaksie op mnr. Myburgh se reaksie hieronder)

Mnr. van Niekerk

Ons neem kennis dat u ‘n artikel gepubliseer het sonder om vir ons reaksie te wag

Ons respekteer die Hof se uitspraak

Die buitensporig hoë (woeker) rentekoers was die rede daarvoor

Die buitensporig hoë (woeker) rentekoers was juis die rede waarom die Groep hierdie saak in die Hof verdedig het, soos dit hul reg was om te doen en soos dit verstandig was in die beste belang van Skuldbriefhouers, in terme van die groter prentjie, en opgemerk het dat geen Skuldbriewe gekoppel is aan die bates wat die eis van Beneficio verseker nie. Op grond van ingewin regsadvies was die Groep vol vertroue dat dit korrek was in sy optrede om die eis te verdedig, gebaseer op die hoë rentekoers, en ‘n teen-eis in te stel vir bedrae wat oorbetaal is

NDCAG: PROBEER OM TE REGVERDIG WAAROM JULLE DIT AS ‘N GOEIE SAKE-ARGUMENT BESKOU HET OM DIE LENINGSKONTRAK TEEN ‘N “WOEKER”-RENTEKOERS IN DIE EERSTE PLEK AAN TE GAAN EN WAT VAN BEWYSE TE LEWER VAN WAARVOOR DIE GELEENDE FONDSE WERKLIK GEBRUIK IS? HULLE WAS BESEKER NIE VOLDOENDE OM DIE VOLLE BEDRAG VAN DIE SKULDBRIEFBELASTING BETREFFEND TOT DIE SILVERWATER CROSSING EN MAGALIESKRUIN EIENDOMME TERUG TE BETAAL SOOS JULLE VOORLEGGING IN DIE 2023-HOFREKORDSTATE (SKULDBRIEFBELASTING ONDERSKEIDELIK 8.4 EN 23.5 MILJOEN IN DIE EERSTE – 2012 -AFS EN WAARSKYNLIK REEDS “BILLIKE WAARDE VERDISSEL” OF NEDERGESKRYF VOLGENS DIE BEPALINGS VAN DIE REELINGSKEMA)

Die Groep se posisie teenoor mnr. Tromp en sy sienings bly onveranderd

Die Groep oortree nie die Maatskappywet soos deur u beweer nie

U interpreteer die Maatskappywet verkeerd. Ons het hierdie debat al voorheen gehad

NDCAG: JULLE GAAN NIE HIERDIE EEN WEN NIE, SO, ASSEBLIEF, ASSEBLIEF!!!!!, MOENIE MEER MAATSKAPPYGELD VERMORS NIE – “ONS GELD” ONTHOU JULLEY? (U VERKLARING VOORSITTER MYBURGH, TYDENS DIE 2021 TRUSTEE-VERKIESINGSVERGADERINGS) – OP ‘N POSISIE WAT JY SEKER GAAN (ALWEER) VERLOOR, MAAK NIE SAAK HOE VER JY DIT IN DIE APPÈLKETTING OPNEEM NIE. DIT SOU NET NOG ‘N GEVAL WEES VAN JY WAT ANDER MENSE SE GELD BESTEDIG OM DIE WET IN JOU EIE BELANGE TE MANIPULEER

Die Groep het geen verpligting om sy finansiële state binne ses maande na die jaareinde te publiseer nie. Die Groep moet sy finansiële state slegs binne ses maande na die jaareinde opstel, wat hulle gedoen het

Die resultaat van die uitspraak sal in die finansiële state as ‘n aanpassingsgebeurtenis na die balansstaat hanteer word, soos vereis deur IFRS

NDCAG: KAN NIE WAG OM TE SIEN HOE JULLE DIT DOEN EN HOE JUL OUDITEUR DIT GAAN HANTEER NIE – WATTER OUDITEUR JULLE OOKAL HET WANNEER DIE TYD AANBREEK. DIT LYK VIR ONS VREEMD DAT, MET DIE HISTORIESE FINALISERINGSMOEITE, ENIGE OUDITEUR BEREID SOU WEES OM DIE WERK AAN TE NEEM

Die finansiële state is nie uitstaande soos deur u beweer nie

NDCAG: HANDHAAF HIERDIE STANDPUNT SOVEEL AS JULLE WIL, MAAR WAT OOKAL, DIE WERKLIKE PUNT IS, HOEKOM NEEM DIT ALTYD SO LANK OM DIE FJS TE FINALISEER? JULLE KAN NIE MET REG DINK DAT “LAAT” NIE DIE INDRUK SKEP DAT ALLES NIE ONDER BEHEER AAN JULLE KANT IS NIE EN DAT DAAR BAIE MANIPULERING, BESPREKING MET, EN ‘N GROOTMAAT OORREDING VAN, DIE OUDITEURE MOET WEES OM HUL GOEDKEURING VIR VRYLATING TE KRY? DINK JULLE REGTIG DAT DIE VERTRAGINGS EN DIE NEGATIEWE PERS WAT DIT VEROORSAAK, ENIGIETS DOEN OM DIE NULVLAK-GELOOFWAARDIGHEID WAT JULLE HET, TE VERBETER?

Die finansiële state sal te gepaste tyd gepubliseer word, wanneer dit wetlik vereis word

NDCAG: KOM ONS WAG OP WAT CIPC SE LAASSTE WOORD HIEROP WANEER DIE MAATSKAPPYWET-TRIBUNAAL PLAASVIND

Publiseer asseblief hierdie antwoord woordelik

Connie Myburgh
Voorsitter
Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Limited

Antwoord van Ryk van Niekerk op mnr. Myburgh se verklaring:

Geagte mnr. Myburgh

Ek is verbaas oor u interpretasie van die Maatskappywet

Het u ‘n onafhanklike regsmening verkry oor die vraag of finansiële state ook binne ses maande na Nova se jaareinde geouditeer moet word, of is dit u eie interpretasie?

NDCAG: EN, TEEN WATTER KOSTE?

Dieselfde vraag kan gevra word of dit u mening was – of ‘n onafhanklike een, waarna in u jaarlikse finansiële state verwys word – dat Nova vol vertroue was dat hulle die Beneficio-saak sou wen

NDCAG: VALSE BELOFTE, ROOK EN SPIEËLS, BRAVADE, EN VERTRAGING

Maak asseblief hierdie onafhanklike regsmenings aan my beskikbaar, of bevestig dat dit u eie interpretasie is

Artikel 30 van die Maatskappywet bepaal duidelik:

30. Jaarlikse finansiële state
(1) Elke jaar moet ‘n maatskappy jaarlikse finansiële state opstel binne ses maande na die einde van sy finansiële jaar, of so ‘n korter tydperk as wat gepas mag wees om die vereiste kennisgewing van ‘n jaarlikse algemene vergadering ingevolge artikel 61(7) te verskaf
(2) Die jaarlikse finansiële state moet—
(a) geouditeer word, in die geval van ‘n publieke maatskappy; of…

(My klem)

SAICA en die CIPC het ook verklarings gepubliseer wat ‘n vereenvoudigde en meer verteerbare verduideliking bied:

SAICA-kommunikasie getiteld: Die CIPC-afdwinging van die Maatskappywet (2008)

Ek het die dokument aangeheg, maar hier is die relevante paragrawe vir u gerief:

Maatskappye moet kennis neem dat die Maatskappywet nr. 71 van 2008 (Maatskappywet) vanaf 1 Mei 2011 vereis dat jaarlikse finansiële state binne 6 maande (artikel 30(1)) na jaareinde voltooi moet word. Indien maatskappye nie hul jaarlikse finansiële state binne die 6-maande-tydperk voltooi nie, oortree hulle die Maatskappywet

Die jaarlikse finansiële state sal slegs as voltooi beskou word wanneer die jaarlikse finansiële state aan al die vereistes ingevolge artikel 30 van die Maatskappywet voldoen en moet die maatskappysekretaris se sertifikaat en die ouditkomiteeverslag insluit, waar van toepassing, sowel as die direkteursverslag en die ouditverslag waar ‘n maatskappy geouditeer word

Die CIPC het ook verlede jaar ‘n verklaring uitgereik met die titel ‘Voorbereiding en Goedkeuring van Jaarlikse Finansiële State’. Die dokument is beskikbaar op die CIPC-webwerf en kan daar verkry word

Vir u gerief is die relevante paragrawe:

CIPC het waargeneem dat ‘n beduidende aantal maatskappye nie voldoen aan die vereistes van Artikel 30(1) van die Wet deur nie hul jaarlikse finansiële state binne die ses maande periode na hul finansiële jaareinde op te stel en goed te keur nie

Ingevolge Artikel 30(1) van die Wet moet ‘n maatskappy jaarlikse finansiële state (JFS) elke jaar binne ses maande na die einde van sy finansiële jaar opstel. Binne dieselfde sesmaandeperiode moet die jaarlikse finansiële state geouditeer word in die geval van ‘n publieke maatskappy, staatsbeheerde maatskappy of enige winsgewende of nie-winsgewende maatskappy, indien die maatskappy aan die vereistes van Regulasie 28 van die Maatskappywetgewings van 2011 (“die Regulasies”) voldoen, of indien die Akte van Oprigting (MOI) ‘n oudit vereis.

(My klem)

Die interpretasie van Artikel 30 van die Wet, sowel as die kommunikasies van SAICA en die CIPC, stel dit duidelik dat ‘n maatskappy sy finansiële state binne ses maande na sy jaareinde moet vrystel, en dat hierdie state binne hierdie tydperk geouditeer moet word indien die maatskappy verplig is om dit te doen

Ek sal dit dus waardeer as u my van ‘n onafhanklike regsmening kan voorsien wat van hierdie kommunikasies verskil

U interpretasie blyk ‘n vertragingstaktiek te wees om te verhoed dat skuldbriefhouers en ander belanghebbendes oor die maatskappy se finansiële posisie ingelig word. Dit is ‘n duidelike stryd met die Maatskappywet en die beginsels van King IV, wat Nova blykbaar met trots onderskryf

Gegewe hierdie ondubbelsinnige regulatoriese interpretasies, blyk u bewering dat Nova ‘geen verpligting het om sy finansiële state binne ses maande te publiseer nie’ regtens verkeerd en strydig met beide statutêre en professionele riglyne te wees.
Vriendelike groete

Ryk van Niekerk

Nadat daar bogenoemde gelees is, verwys ons lesers na die volgende wat aangebied is as die gevolgtrekking van die laaste formele kommunikasie van Nova, synde die Kommunikasie van 12 Desember 2023 wat aanvullende inligting vir die Skuldbriefhouers gee as ‘n bylae tot die 2023-jaarlikse finansiële jaarverslag, wat terloops die laaste formele kommunikasie is (buite die jaarlikse jaarlikse finansiële jaarverslag – vir wat dit werd is in terme van positiewe aspekte vir die Skuldbriefhouers) wat deur die maatskappy gepubliseer is

>>>>>

Kommunikasie: Nova Groep Opdatering 12 Desember 2023

Gevolgtrekking

Die Nova Direksie is daartoe verbind om voort te bou op die positiewe wat oor die afgelope dekade bereik is. Nova is vol vertroue dat hulle alles in hul vermoë gedoen het om vir hul Skuldbriefhouers en Belanghebbendes die beste moontlike waardeskepping te verseker. Nova sien uit na die voltooiing van die historiese herstruktureringsproses, met maksimum voordeel vir hul Skuldbriefhouers en Belanghebbendes

Nova is hier omdat ons fundamenteel glo dat ons daarin kan slaag om soveel as moontlik van mense se historiese geld wat hulle belê het, terug te kry; ons werk onvermoeid om hierdie doelwit te bereik; ons was en is hul beste kans om dit te bereik

>>>>>

Leser, Skuldbriefhouer, Aandeelhouer (Nie die A-klas aandeelhouers nie – julle kan nie kla nie! – maar die D-klas nie-stemgeregtigde aandeelhouers wat die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers is wat gekies het om na aandele in Nova om te skakel eerder as skuldbriewe, wie se waarde in die maatskappy waarskynlik lank gelede verdwyn het – indien dit ooit werklik bestaan ​​het), en enige ander persone en entiteite wat ‘n belang het in en/of afhanklik is van Nova se sukses, maak jou eie besluit (indien julle dit nog nie gedoen het nie) oor Nova en sy Raad as ‘n lewensvatbare entiteit wat in staat is om sy missie te vervul

Want, by NDCAG, is slegs een woord van toepassing op bogenoemde: TWAK! Ons twyfel of enige voormalige Sharemax-belegger wat steeds wag vir lewering uit die sakeredding, wat nou al dertien jaar aan die gang is en met die vooruitsigte op lewering deur die Voorsitter en Raad wat steeds afneem, nie met ons sal saamstem nie

“The money was borrowed as a result of a business decision by the defendants and the NOVA Group to repay debenture holders and to avoid reputational damage – it was a business decision which made sense to the defendants and the NOVA Group”
Vanuit: Beneficio Developments (Pty) Ltd v Tarentaal Centre Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (22258/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 324 (23 May 2023) in die Hooggeregshof van Suid-Afrika, Gauteng Afdeling, Pretoria

Die “Another” is The Village Mall Investments (Pty) Limited, ook in Nelspruit, en die twee maatskappye is die verweerders (defendants) waarna in die bogenoemde aanhaling verwys word.

Die skuldbriewe wat aan hierdie twee eiendomme gekoppel is, is reeds terugbetaal, dus lê hul waarde in hul moontlike verkoop om fondse in te samel vir skuldbriefterugbetaling as hulle nie as sekuriteit vir die lening verpand was nie, en nou is die waarskynlikheid dat hulle verkoop sal word om die terugbetaling van die Beneficio-lening moontlik te maak.

Sien die volledige teks van die hofrekord en bostaande aanhaling in klousule 64.4 op bladsy 27 in die hofrekord wat hier beskikbaar is:
www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.pdf
____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Ryk van Niekerk het gepubliseer oor Nova se mislukking om die Hooggeregshof van Appèl goedkeuring te kry om teen vorige uitsprake van laer howe te appelleer.”

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/nova-suffers-big-blow-in -1-a-week-loan-dispute/

of:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015

Enkele vrae hieruit?

– Nadat daar in al die vorige hofguitsprake teen Nova was en nou die verpligting m Beneficio die volle bedrag te betaal (of die verlies van die twee eiendomme wat as sekuriteit gestel is) wat hulle in die gesig te staar, het Nova die vermoë? Hoeveel het vyf jaar se litigasie gekos, wat uiteindelik GELD WAT NIE GOED BESTEE IS NIE?

– Die mees verdoemende is: “Wat verkeerdelik as ‘n ‘ontvangbare’ van R19.7 miljoen aangeteken is, is nou onthul as ‘n betaalbare bedrag van ten minste R67 miljoen, ‘n onderskatting van laste met R86 miljoen” ????!

– Is dit ‘n geval van “boeke kook” en hoe sal CIPC dit beskou?

– Sal ‘n heropgawe van die ’24 Jaarstate om die 19.7 ontvangbare bedrag uit te sluit, die volle bedrag wat aan Beneficio betaalbaar is – insluitend opgehoopte rente – in te sluit, vereis word en sal dit die insolvente status van die maatskappy bevestig?

– Wat is die impak op die – nog ongepubliseerde en weer laat – ’25 Jaarstate? Hoe sal die Beneficio-lening nou daarin getoon word? Hoe sal die ouditeure dit hierdie keer hanteer? Ons wonder of Nova ander syfers sal moet “dokter” om die boeke te balanseer?

– As die boeke gekook is rakende die Beneficio-lening, was dit die eerste keer? Of, hoeveel ander gevalle van “kreatiewe rekeningkunde” het in die verlede plaasgevind?

Lees Skuldbrieftrustee JP Tromp se referaat oor die Beneficio-lening vir ‘n meer diepgaande beeld van die fiasko by:

www.carian.co.za/post/nova-memo-beneficio

“The money was borrowed as a result of a business decision by the defendants and the NOVA Group to repay debenture holders and to avoid reputational damage – it was a business decision which made sense to the defendants and the NOVA Group”

From: Beneficio Developments (Pty) Ltd v Tarentaal Centre Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (22258/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 324 (23 May 2023) in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
The “Another” is The Village Mall Investments (Pty) Limited, also in Nelspruit, and the two companies are the defendants referred to in the above quotation. The debentures linked to these two properties have already been repaid so their value lies in their possible sale to raise funds for debenture repayment had they not been pledged as security for the loan and now the likelihood is that they will be sold to enable repayment of the Beneficio loan
See the full text of the court record and the quote in Clause 64.4 on page 27 in the court record accessible here:
www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.pdf

____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

Ryk van Niekerk has published on Nova’s failure to get Supreme Court of Appeal OK to appeal the previous judgments handed down by lower courts

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/nova-suffers-big-blow-in -1-a-week-loan-dispute/

or

Some take-outs from this?

* Having lost out in all of the previous court actions and now faced with the obligation to pay Beneficio the full amount due (or face the loss of the two properties put up as security), does Nova have the capability? How much has five years of litigation cost that is, ultimately, MONEY NOT WELL SPENT ? * The most damning is: “What was incorrectly recorded as a ‘receivable’ of R19.7 million has now been revealed to be a payable of at least R67 million, an understatement of liabilities by R86 million” ????!
* Is this a case of cooking the books and how will CIPC view it?

* Will a re-statement of the ’24 AFS to exclude the 19.7 receivable, include the full amount payable to Beneficio – including accrued interest – be required and will it confirm the insolvent status of the company?

* What is the impact on the – as yet unpublished and late again – ’25 AFS? How will the Beneficio loan be shown in the AFS now? How will the auditors play it this time around? We wonder if Nova will have to “doctor” other figures to balance the books?

* If the books have been cooked regarding the Beneficio loan, was this the first time? Or, how many other instances of “creative accounting:” have occurred in the past?

Read Debenture Trustee JP Tromp’s paper on the Beneficio loan for a more in-depth picture of the fiasco at:

www.carian.co.za/post/nova-memo-beneficio

We have learnt that some readers of our postings in our sites have addressed Deon Pienaar, long-time activist on the PSPC company shutdown in 2010, asking, apparently, about our posts of JP Tromp content. He reports that they have questioned his “loyalty towards Tromp”. See the links at bottom for his text

We are posting this content to clarify our connection with Tromp and to comment on some of what Deon has stated. We stress that this content is not meant to be confrontational in any way or presented with any sense of ill-feeling. Although we have differences of approach and although we don’t see eye on everything Sharemax/Nova, there has been ongoing interaction between him and NDCAG although this has perhaps been mainly only information sharing

NDCAG was established in 2018 at the time of Nova’s attempt to list on the JSE which, if successful, would have possibly resulted in conversion of all debentures to (possibly, D Class non-voting) shares in Nova. This was widely opposed and anyway, the listing fell though, for the reason, we surmise, that Nova could not meet the JSE’s listing requirements. The listing and conversion would have, effectively, been blatant robbery, in our opinion, anyway, given the then already existing situation with Nova and even worse so today. What is the value today of the D Class shares that were issued to of those Sharemax investors who opted to convert their shares in any of the Sharemax portfolio properties to Nova Shares instead of Debentures? Zero, in our opinion!

After the second listing meeting convened by Nova in Pretoria, the persons in attendance remained in the venue and a general discussion of issues followed. It was out of this that and number of people agreed that an activist group was necessary, and this resulted in NDCAG

Deon was one of those who showed interest and we agree that he was “in the loop” initially but we would not agree that it was a case of being “not allowed” to be a member but rather that we decided for reasons (re which the relevant communications are no longer on record, that it would be appropriate to keep NDCAG separate from Deon’s initiative – possibly because his primary focus is on the wider PSPC company shut-down (including Sharemax) whilst our focus is confined to Sharemax/Nova and even then, primarily on the Debentures and the Debenture Holders). We are open to correction on this

As regards Deon’s “election” to the position of Debenture Trustee, we disagree with his statement and think that maybe he meant to say that, in the climate of suspicion that existed back in 2021/2 when the election meetings were held, he had presented sufficient proxies – meaning Debenture Holder votes – to have “won” the election and become the Trustee

We would not disagree with this possibility as it is our opinion that the election was rigged by Myburgh although we can’t prove it. During the election meetings Myburgh refused to disclose any information on how many proxies the company had received in favour of the election of Tromp, there was no independent audit of the process and the minutes show only the outcomes as determined by Myburgh and the internal employees who were executing the necessary administration and control functions at the meetings

What Deon has not mentioned is that, after the first communications from Nova on the election of a new Trustee were received, NDCAG decided to contest Nova’s right to hold the election and that, because of certain failures to comply with the provisions of the Debenture Trust, their right to convene the meeting to elect the new Trustee had in fact passed into the hands of the Debenture Holders

NDCAG also decided to propose to Nova that Deon would be a more appropriate candidate for the Trustee position rather than Tromp who was at that time, completely unknown to us and was invisible as regards any public profile was concerned

We put a proposal to Deon to which he agreed. We then wrote to Nova and also sent them Deon’s email in which he stated his willingness to take on the role. Nova responded in the usual Myburgh “attack and disparage” manner, rejected our argument about the meeting and declined to accept the nomination of Deon

For the detail of these communications, see the links below

So, why are we collaborating with Tromp?

It’s actually quite simple: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend”. There are many historical examples of collaborations between enemies for achievement of a common purpose

If a person or entity is working against Nova, if their activities are also in the interests of the former Sharemax Investors and if the inputs from same add value, we are willing to interact and perhaps collaborate with them
Does this mean that regardless of any such entity or person’s history, we’ll “get into bed” with them willy-nilly?

The answer is a clear No!

Back in 2021/22, Tromp was clearly “Myburgh’s man” and it had become obvious since 2010 that the Trustee was only in place to approve anything that Myburgh wanted to achieve regarding the Debentures and the Debenture Holders – and usually to the detriment of the latter. We are strongly of the opinion that the hollow document that is the Debenture Trust was put in place only as a lip service to normal business rescue practices under Section 311 of the Insolvency Act, to get the BRP ratified by the Courts and to suit Myburgh and the Board’s strategy that has led the company to where it is today

Further, although Tromp had stated to the audiences at the voting meetings that he understood the plight and needs of the Debenture Holders (but made no statements as to what his future actions might be) he took the job and then really “dropped” the Debenture Holders by immediately approving an open-ended extension (no deadline or expiry date) of the Debenture repayment timeframe with a subsequent statement when challenged on this that he thought at the time, that it was in the Debenture Holder’s best interests

This was Myburgh’s only intention regarding the appointment of Tromp, viz; get a Trustee appointed, get a repayment extension in place in line with the requirements of the Trust Deed AND get the CIPC “off his case” as regards their issues with the Debentures not having all been repaid by January 2022 as detailed in the SoAs (that deadline strongly disputed by Nova/Myburgh)

Soon after his appointment and as a result of certain information inputs to CIPC by activists and affected parties – Deon and NDCAG included – a meeting was held with Cuma Zwane, Senior Investigator at the Commission, at which both Deon and NDCAG persons were present, The inputs given at this meeting were, in our opinion , instrumental in the CIPCs decision to initiate an investigation into Nova (beyond their already existing issues over events of non-compliance regarding their obligations under the Companies Act) and which led to the establishment of the Inter-Regulatory Investigation into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC investment companies

So, when Tromp, after two years of apparent inactivity as regard delivering on the plight and needs of the Debenture Holders, started communicating with a range of people and entities (not all known to us), we were happy to do so as well

But, we wish it to be clearly understood that, at that time, we had our suspicions and doubts about his motives so we made no commitments to him and we told him that:

* We consider him “the enemy” * He took the job even after hearing all the negative inputs at the meeting – and took the fees (albeit until Nova stopped paying him: See his post titled Trustee Fee – High Court Application under Nova Debenture Trust in his web site at <www.carian.co,za> www.carian.co,za) * We think that he is covering his back, for whatever reason * Whatever action might transpire against him in the future and for whatever reason, we would not provide any support

He stated at the time that he was completely OK with this and we believe that this is still the case although some suspicions and dissatisfaction over past actions, or non-actions, remain

But again, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and our interactions with him are a “marriage of convenience”

This writer is of the opinion that Tromp would hardly have gone to the effort, and cost that he already has if he were not totally serious in actualising his opposition to all that is wrong in and with Nova. In fact, as a registered Chartered Accountant, he is obligated under the SAICA Code of Conduct to address non-compliance and irregularities/illegalities. This applies in his connection to Nova, even though he is not directly employed in the management of the company and not, in the usual course of his activities, involved in the audit of same and interactions with the auditors

We believe that Tromp’s recent actions in publicising what he has detected as being irregular and unlawful in Nova’s operations are positive news for the Sharemax investors. What they will achieve whether in isolation or as part of a greater whole remains to be seen and is, to some extent, dependent on the outcomes of CIPC’s Companies Tribunal hearing and the Inter-Regulatory Investigation, both of which are so keenly awaited

The different persons and activist bodies may well be separate entities, following their own strategies but they are all fighting common enemies and the bottom line is that of any success achieved by any of them is a success for all of the PSPC company investors who have been robbed of so much

Links:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134 >>>>> Deon Pieneaar’s Whatsapp post

www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510133 >>>>> NDCAG letter of December 2021 re the Trustee election

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132 >>>>> Deon’s Acceptance if our proposal

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131 >>>>> Nova’s response to NDCAG