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

Moneyweb het soos volg begin: “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.” En verder: “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 – en die “ondersoeker” na wie in die eerste aanhaling verwys word)

CIPC het op 23 Oktober via ‘n mediaverklaring gereageer (www.cipc.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/CIPC-STATEMENT-ON-REGULAT ORY-ACTION-IN-THE-NOVA-MATTER_.pdf) en verklaar dat die Moneyweb-artikel:

“ …. 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 verklaar dat hulle reeds in 2021 stappe gedoen het rakende Nova se sake via twee Compliance Notices. Dit volg op voorbereidende stappe om die grondslag te lê vir die meer aggressiewe openbare optrede

Die eerste een, in Februarie, was ‘n “Notice to Show Cause” oor potensiële roekelose of insolvente handel. Nova moes geouditeerde Jaarlikse Finansiële State vir 2021 (wat weer laat beteken) en ‘n raadsbesluit inhandig wat die plan uiteensit om skuldbriewe te verlaat en historiese Sharemax-beleggers terug te betaal

Die tweede een, in Oktober, volg op ‘n onbevredigende reaksie op die eerste, en CIPC het ‘n amptelike Compliance Notice uitgereik (op 25 Oktober 2021). Dit het Nova ‘n finale sperdatum gegee tot 28 Februarie 2022 – die geskeduleerde tydperk om voormalige Sharemax-skuldbriefhouers terug te betaal om te bewys dat dit nie finansieel in die moeilikheid sou wees nie\

Dit was die eerste stappe in die Maatskappytribunaal se ondersoek na Nova, maar hulle (Nova) het ’n geskil oor die bewerings geopper, en die ondersoek is op ys geplaas in afwagting op ’n uitkoms. Ons is nie bewus van die status van die geskil en die ondersoek nie – is dit steeds op ys? Kom dit nêrens heen nie? Is dit dalk wéér ’n vertragingstaktiek en ’n manipulasie van “die proses” deur die voorsitter van die direksie, Myburgh, en die direkteure?

Daarna het die verkiesing van J-P Tromp as skuldbrief-trustee gevolg, en laat in Januarie 2022 het die trustee ’n onbepaalde verlenging goedgekeur (nog ’n manipulasie en vertragingstaktiek deur Myburgh en die direksie?) van die sperdatum in Januarie 2022 vir die skuldbriewe, soos uiteengesit in die Skikkingskemas *Schemes of Arrangement). Nova betwis hierdie sperdatum, maar hulle moes ’n nuwe Trustee in plek hê om ’n verlenging goed te keur (soos vereis deur die Trustakte) – ’n manier om die kwessie van nie-terugbetaling van die CIPC se agenda te verwyder

Na Tromp se verkiesing en die verlenging van die terugbetalingstydperk vir skuldbriewe, het NDCAG ’n vergadering met Cuma Zwane by die CIPC-kantore gehou. Deon Pienaar, ’n leidende aktivis wat betrokke was by die breër sluitingsproses van die PSPC-maatskappye, was ook teenwoordig. Zwane is voorsien van breedvoerige inligting oor alle onwettighede en onreëlmatighede wat met die SARB/FSB-ondersoek, die sluiting en die gevolglike reperkussies verband gehou het; wat Nova betref – vir die tydperk na 2010 – is hy ook ingelig oor alles wat verband hou met die maatskappy se versuim om alle skuldbriewe terug te betaal

Daardie insette aan Zwane het ‘n baie belangrike rol gespeel in die CIPC se besluit om ‘n afsonderlike ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC maatskappye te loods. Die CIPC het in 2024 ‘n tussentydse verslag oor sy bevindinge gefinaliseer. Die volgende stap sou ‘n tribunaal oor hierdie bevindinge wees, waarby die partye en entiteite wat aan die ondersoek deelgeneem het, betrek sou word. Daarna sou ‘n finale verslag – wat bevindinge en aanbevelings bevat – opgestel en vrygestel word vir oorweging en optrede deur die toepaslike owerhede

Dit lyk asof dit so ver is as wat die saak gevorder het – vanuit die perspektief van ‘n buitestander – en dit wil voorkom asof dit glad nie verder beweeg nie

Ons stem saam dat die CIPC die saak rakende die sluiting in 2010 opgeneem het (waartydens die SARB beweer dat die CIPC buite sy bevoegdheidsbestek opgetree het). Ons erken en waardeer die waarde van sy aktiwiteite – wat vir al die slagoffers van die sluiting uiters belangrik en noodsaaklik is met die oog op die moontlike uiteindelike terugbetaling van beleggings

Maar aangesien daar so min sigbare vordering is – met die ondersoek deur die Maatskappytribunaal (Companies Tribunal) na verpligtinge en versuime ingevolge die Maatskappywet, sowel as die interregulerende ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC – en aangesien die uiteindelike uitkomste hiervan so deurslaggewend is vir beide Nova-obligasiehouers en aandeelhouers (die sogenaamde “Klas D”-groep, oftewel voormalige Sharemax-beleggers wat in 2011 nie vir Nova-obligasies gekies het nie), heers daar ‘n tasbare gevoel van frustrasie

In hierdie verband het die CIPC se mediaverklaring van 4 Junie ’26 oor vordering met betrekking tot Nova (wat, na ons mening, dalk in elk geval ’n toegewing aan druk vir inligting was) soos volg begin: 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.”

Beteken dit nie vooruitgang nie en skep dit nie ‘n verwagting nie?

Benewens die bewering deur Moneyweb, het ons in ons plasing van 2 November (AFTELLING NA DIE AGTERSTALLIGE NOVA 2025-JAARVERGADERING) aangedui dat Tromp sy kommer oor die vertragings – asook sy sienings oor sodanige versuim, soos uiteengesit in ‘n plasing op 19 Oktober – aan die National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competitionvoorgelê het; hy het ook na regulatoriese versuim verwys

Dit moet nog gesien word wat uit Tromp se eskalasie voortspruit. Ons het geen erkenning of reaksie van enige afdeling van die CIPC op ons e-pos ontvang nie, maar ons vermoed dat die CIPC dalk die punt miskyk – of weier om te erken – dat die twee ondersoeke eenvoudig nie vorder na finale uitkomste en gepaardgaande optrede teen Nova nie

Ons is dus van mening dat die CIPC se reaksie op die Moneyweb-artikel ’n verdedigende stap is, bedoel om die aandag af te lei van die gebrek aan uitkomste in die ondersoeke

Ons volg op ons plasing van 19 Augustus getiteld: AANKOMENDE ALGEMENE JAARVERGADERING (AJV) VIR DIE JAAR WAT OP 28 FEBRUARIE 2025 EINDE

Alhoewel ons gister voorgestel het dat die 2025 AJV dalk nie voor 25 November sal plaasvind nie, kan dit – indien die oudit gefinaliseer word en die 2025 AJV gepubliseer en aan die aandeelhouers vrygestel word

Dus, in die geval van die moontlikheid dat dit hierdie maand sal plaasvind, hernu ons ons versoek aan enige Klas D-aandeelhouer/voormalige Sharemax-belegger wat ons Facebook- en webwerfplasings lees/volg om te help soos ons voorheen versoek het

Indien die 2025 AJV hierdie maand voortgaan, moet Nova die aandeelhouers kennisgewing stuur met ‘n uitnodiging om by te woon

Ons vra enige aandeelhouer wat sodanige kennisgewing ontvang om asseblief die e-pos aan ons te stuur – met alle aanhangsels – by [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> .

Ons – hetsy as NDCAG of in ons persoonlike hoedanighede – sal nie sodanige kennisgewing ontvang nie. Ons is egter baie benieuwd om te sien wat op die agenda sal verskyn, watter spesiale besluite (Special Resolutons) dalk voorgestel word, en of die finansiële jaarstate (AFS) ingesluit is of ‘n skakel vir toegang daartoe verskaf word. (Gegewe die lang vertraging met die hou van die algemene jaarvergadering en die onbekende onderliggende redes daarvoor, vermoed ons dat die finansiële jaarstate dalk nie op die webwerf gepubliseer sal word nie.)

Ons bedank sodanige aandeelhouers by voorbaat vir enige hulp wat hulle in hierdie verband mag verleen

We are following up our post of 19 August titled: <www.ndcag.co.za/upcoming-annual-general-meeting-agm-for-year-ending -28-february-2025/> UPCOMING ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING (AGM) FOR YEAR ENDING 28 FEBRUARY 2025

Whilst we have suggested that the 2025 AGM might not take place before November 25, it could -if the audit is finalised and the 2025 AFS published and released to the shareholders

So, on the off-chance, that it will take place this month, we renew our request to any Class D shareholder/former Sharemax investor reading/following our Facebook and web site posts to assist as we have requested previously

If the 2025 AGM goes ahead this month, Nova must send the shareholders notification with an invitation to attend

We ask any Shareholder receiving such notification to please forward the email to us – with all attachments – at [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

We – as NDCAG or in our personal capacities – will not receive such notification and we are very interested to see what will be on the agenda, what Special Resolutions there might be and in the AFS if they include same or provide an access link (we surmise, based on the extended delay regarding the AGM and what the unknown underlying cause is, that the AFS might not be published in the web site)

We thank such Shareholders in advance for assistance that they might provide in this connection

Deadline for this is 25 November. Thus, the 2025 audit by ARC Inc must be finalised so that the AFS can be published and distributed to Shareholders before the AGM can take place

Will this eventuate or will Nova submit yet another application for extension and if they do, what reason will they give and will Companies Tribunal approve again?

A further approval will just add to the length of the ongoing “dark ages” situation regarding the state of the company which has not reported publicly as per their obligations under the Companies Act since the ’24 AFS “were approved for issue on 31 January 2025 and subsequently published via the February 2025 notices for the 2024 AGM” (Google AI)

Will Companies Tribunal be satisfied with the same puerile reason given by Nova in their previous applications?

According to the 10 September extension approval, the reason Nova stated in its application was:

” … that it cannot convene its AGM within the previously extended period because the auditors had expected to finalise the audit and audit report by August 2026, but this did not occur”

Sounds like passing the buck to us. Or, maybe, throwing their auditors under the bus

In the 27 July approval record, the reason was given as:

“The Company states that it was unable to convene its AGM within the prescribed period due to a delay in the finalisation of the auditors’ report and the audited financial statements for the February 2025 financial year”

The CIPC rules on AGM extension applications are that:

“The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to grant an extension is discretionary. The applicant bears the onus of establishing “good cause.” The Act does not define “good cause.” The Tribunal has held that it requires a convincing explanation for the delay and a demonstration that the applicant is acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence.”
The previous reasons re the extensions hardly constitute good cause in our opinion. Will the Tribunal accept the same reason again or require deeper detail in the reason for the delay in getting audit approval

What will eventuate if they do not approve? And, what if at that time, the auditors have still not finalised the Auditor’s Report? Will the Tribunal force the issue and with what outcome?

In this connection, we mention that there have been no responses from anyone addressed in our 21 October “WE CALL ON REGULATORY AUTHORITIES TO TAKE ACTION ON THE ’25 AFS” email sent to ARC Inc, IRBA, CIPC, and the Companies Tribunal

That mail addressed our perception of regulatory failure which has also been stated in Moneyweb’s 19 October post: <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/cipc-saw-the-nova-disast er-coming-and-failed-to-stop-it/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAcGRvZgFicmlkETF5OH EyYWlJcnY1UGR6UzROc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABH310an_yjsSoNudLou 9TAzH4hCAG3LQqoQeNL2DaJ_D7O_tu_q48LsrcYM6r_aem_lp_OWjU7LXUTInOeV12N6Q> www.moneyweb.co.za/…/cipc-saw-the-nova…/ as well as Debenture Trustee Tromp’s escalation to the to the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition of his views on such failure as posted on 19 October

CIPC have responded to the Moneyweb article and we will be publishing same in the near future

The connection between the above comment on the 2025 AFS situation and the “regulatory failure” as previously published is simply:

HOW MUCH LONGER WILL THE NOVA DIRECTORS BE ALLOWED TO “GET AWAY WITH IT”?

We will be monitoring the Companies Tribunal web site for any information on a further application for AGM extension by the company

We definitely think that any further such application should be summarily declined with simultaneous issuance of a Compliance Notice demanding immediate finalisation and publication, TOGETHER WITH finalisation and publication of the AFS for year-ending 28 February, 2026which is also now eight months overdue)