* 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

– Nova se verkeerde interpretasie van die Maatskappywet-vereiste vir die finalisering en publikasie van hul Jaarlikse Finansiële State (AFS), wat hulle as hul “verskoning” gebruik het vir die voortdurende laat finalisering en met die oënskynlike instemming van die ouditeure (ARC Inc) rakende hul standpunt

– Versuim (blykbaar deur die ouditeure) om Nova se inkomstebelasting- (R62 miljoen) en BTW- (R16.3 miljoen) laste, soos weerspieël in die finansiële jaarstate, en wat blykbaar oor ‘n aantal jare opgehoop het, as ‘n rapporteerbare onreëlmatigheid aan IRBA te rapporteer

– ‘n Verklaring oor waarom die finansiële jaarstate vir 28/2/25 nog nie gefinaliseer en gepubliseer is nie – met ‘n imputasie dat die vertraging moontlik die uitoefening van ‘n doelbewuste plan is, terwyl sekere ontwikkelings kan plaasvind wat die posisie van die maatskappy kan verbeter soos dit in die finansiële state weerspieël word. Tromp sê dit nie direk nie, maar die rapportering hiervan aan IRBA dui daarop dat hy voel dat ARC Inc. medepligtig is aan die vertragings met die ’25 finansiële jaarstate

Tromp verklaar ter afsluiting van sy voorlegging dat die aangemelde kwessies “….collectively raises material concerns regarding governance, financial stability, and audit transparency within the Nova Group”

Die voorlegging en ondersteunende dokumente kan besigtig word op sy besigheidswebwerf by www.carian.co.za/post/complaints-lodged-with-the-independent-regulat ory-board-for-auditors

Wat is die moontlikhede van ‘n betekenisvolle uitkoms en wat is die magte van IRBA in hierdie verband?

Inligting van die IRBA-webwerf (via Google AI) dui aan dat ‘n bevinding wat Tromp se klagte staaf, na ondersoek kan lei tot enige van die volgende: monetêre boetes, kansellasie of opskorting (nie eintlik vermeld nie, maar dit is relevant vir die gerapporteerde ouditeur?), oplegging van voorwaardes, openbare sensuur en kostebevele

Verder, waar IRBA bevind dat elemente van die klagte nie relevant is vir die ouditeure self nie, maar bewys lewer van wanpraktyke binne die betrokke maatskappy, word kruisrapportering nodig:

* “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/)

Voeg hierdie nuwe ontwikkeling ‘n dwingende laag by die bestaande probleme met Nova? Sal dit voldoende wees om CIPC te druk om die voltooiing van sy Maatskappywet-verwante ondersoek te bespoedig tot die punt van die beoogde Tribunaalverhoor en gevolglike bevindinge oor Nova se oortredings van die vereistes van die Wet, sy oënskynlik doelbewuste wegsteek van ‘n baie ongunstige finansiële posisie wat ons sou verwag, net weereens en deur bekwame ontleders, die maatskappy se voortdurende insolvensie sou bevestig?

Ons ontvang geen inligting van CIPC nie en wat ons wel hoor, kom indirek na ons toe. Ons dink dis tyd om ‘n formele verklaring te eis oor die stand van sake rakende beide die interne CIPC-ondersoek na Nova en die breër CIPC-ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC-bedryf in 2010 – alles in die openbare belang” – wat hoofsaaklik vir ons die belange van die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers beteken, maar ook, al die beleggers in die PSPC-maatskappye

Intussen het Nova nog nie die 2025-jaarlikse finansiële jaarverslag gepubliseer nie, en daarom het ons geen inligting oor die huidige stand van die maatskappy nie. Natuurlik sal die 2025-jaarlikse finansiële jaarverslag in elk geval nie ‘n huidige prentjie bied nie. En ons is reeds in die tydperk wanneer die finansiële state van 2026 goed op dreef behoort te wees ter voorbereiding vir vrystelling

Dit is verstommend dat, met al die kwessies rakende Nova wat oor die jare ter sprake gekom het,

* hul lank reeds vermeende insolvensie (CIPC het ‘n afskrif van die 25-finansiële state en sal, ons is seker, reeds daardie insolvensie bevestig het uit hul eie ontleding en ook skuldbrieftrustee JP Tromp se voorleggings), * hul poging (maar miskien teen hierdie tyd eintlik suksesvol) om die CIPC-embargo rakende die verdere verkoop van eiendomsbates te omseil * en die voortdurende versuim om die oorblywende skuldbriewe terug te betaal,

dat CIPC nog nie streng stappe gedoen het nie

Ons kan berig dat Deon Pienaar – toonaangewende aktivis in die sfeer van die breër SARB/Finansiële Dienste Raad PSPC-sluiting – onlangs in sy PSPC WhatsApp-groep gepubliseer het:

Op 31 Maart

“I believe that the CIPC have also filed criminal charges, and I’m just waiting for confirmation. If this is so, this is what we have all prayed for, namely for the NDPP to issue a Preservation order followed by asset forfeiture orders…… never before will a fraud case be dealt with as clinical and successful as this”

Cevolg op 2 April met:

“….the Cipc have given the NDPP their report…. their official prosecution will certainly restore all my indictments of the past…. we have won this war …the npa will not be able to ignore the state ( CIPC) themselves… the real criminals will now be held accountable… not fabricated crimes where their resources were wasted”

En dan op 6 April het hy geskryf:

“Only the NDPP can apply POCA ( PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT) . This Act will proceed with a preservation order within a month or so, followed by the Asset Forfeiture Unit three months

Vandag, 30 April, het Deon in sy maandelikse nuusbrief gesê:

“Important to note, that the CIPC have formally filed papers against our adversaries with the NDPP. This is a very big deal, and we have reason to be very grateful for what is currently happening”

Ons neem die inligting oor die CIPC-aksie ter harte, want ons weet dat Deon gereeld in kontak is met Cuma Zwane van CIPC en dit lyk asof hulle baie inligting deel oor sake rakende PSPC en Sharemax/Nova

Dit bly dus nog gesien watter aksie, indien enige, uit NDPP sal kom. Ons stel voor dat die bateverbeurding en “eiendomsteruggawe” wat deur Deon in die vooruitsig gestel word, een moontlike uitkoms is, maar op die een of ander manier sal daar beslis ‘n eis wees vir verlies aan inkomste plus, natuurlik, die uiteindelike teruggawe van kapitaal wat belê is

Zwane het geweier om ons enige inligting oor die bogenoemde aksies te verskaf deur ons e-pos wat aan hom gestuur is oor die bogenoemde te verwyder – sonder om dit te lees – en om duidelikheid te vra. Daarom kan ons slegs vermoed wat aangaan

CIPC kan nie self enige regstappe instel nie, daarom is die ondersoekbevindinge na die NDPP verwys

Hierdie aksie volg op CIPC se brief aan die Wes-Kaapse Hooggeregshof in Oktober ’25 waarin laasgenoemde – in uitvoering van die interstaatlike entiteitsamewerking wat in artikel 17 van die SA Grondwet vereis word – in kennis gestel word van die bevindinge wat in die verslag uiteengesit word en om dit in ag te neem wanneer sake aangehoor word wat relevant is tot Deon Pienaar se aktivisme en tot sy sekwestrasie vir uitstaande hofkoste wat voortgespruit het uit talle hofuitsprake oor die afgelope dekade en meer

SARB het daarna deur hul prokureurs aan Zwane geskryf en verklaar dat die brief ‘n blatante poging was om in te meng met ‘n geregtelike proses buite enige mag wat hy mag hêen geëis dat die brief verwerp word, indien nie, sal dringende interdiktêre verligting aangevra word. Geen nuus oor die uitkoms is beskikbaar nie. Dit dui egter wel op ‘n verwerping deur SARB van enige verpligting kragtens Artikel 17 van die Grondwet se samewerkende bestuursvereiste

Ook relevant in hierdie scenario is die ingryping van die Regterpresident se kantoor verlede jaar toe hulle – na ontvangs van die CIPC-brief by die Wes-Kaapse Hooggeregshof – versoek het om voorleggings van relevante partye betrokke by die aktivisme en litigasie rondom die PSPC-sluiting. Dat iemand op die vlak van Regterpresident ingegryp het, dui daarop dat die CIPC-brief belangstelling op ‘n hoër vlak moes gewek het en dat die valse en ware narratiewe onder die loep geneem word, met hopelik die lewering van definitiewe en duidelike instruksies aan die howe en ander relevante owerhede

Aan die een kant, om die bogenoemde stappe te neem, moet CIPC baie seker wees van die geldigheid en die vereiste toekomstige uitkomste van hul PSPC-sluitingsondersoek, en dit lyk asof dit versterk is deur die ingryping deur die Regterpresident se kantoor, hoewel dit lyk asof hulle nog geen reaksie op die voorleggings wat hulle ontvang het, gelewer het nie

Vir die afgelope sowat vier jaar nou (sedert die voltooiing van die verslag) het CIPC die nie-vrystelling daarvan verdedig op grond daarvan dat dit gelyktydig aan alle relevante partye gelewer moet word, wat daarop dui dat sommige partye dalk nie op hoogte was nie, bv. as gevolg van personeelveranderinge in die saakbehandelaars, sommige was nog nie betrokke nie en moes steeds ingelig word en sommige, soos miskien die SARB, is nie bereid om aan boord te wees nie en druk terug (amptenary en burokrasie op sy ergste?)

Dui die bogenoemde aksies daarop dat die pendulum in die guns van die Sharemax beleggers geswaai het?

Ongelukkig wag ons steeds vir konkrete inligting en positiewe ontwikkelings. Ons hoop lê steeds daarin dat die ondersoek se uitkomste nie net positief sal wees nie, maar ook restitusioneel vir die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers

Meantime, Nova has still not published the 2025 AFS and so we have no information on the present state of the company. Of course, the 2025 AFS are not going present an up-to-date picture anyway. And, we are already in the time period when the ’26 financials should be well under way in preparation for release

It’s mystifying that, with all of the issues re Nova that have been tabled over the years,

* their long-deemed insolvency (CIPC has a copy of the ’25 financials and will have, we are sure, already confirmed that insolvency out of their own analysis and also Debenture Trustee JP Tromp’s submissions) * their attempt (but maybe by this time actually successful) to circumvent the CIPC embargo re the further disposal off property assets and; * the ongoing failure to repay the remaining debentures,

that CIPC have not yet taken stern action

We can report that Deon Pienaar – leading activist in the sphere of the wider SARB/Financial Services Board PSPC shut-down – has recently published in his PSPC WhatsApp group :

On 31 March

“I believe that the CIPC have also filed criminal charges, and I’m just waiting for confirmation. If this is so, this is what we have all prayed for, namely for the NDPP to issue a Preservation order followed by asset forfeiture orders…… never before will a fraud case be dealt with as clinical and successful as this”

Followed on 2 April by:

“..the Cipc have given the NDPP their report…. their official prosecution will certainly restore all my indictments of the past…. we have won this war …the npa will not be able to ignore the state ( CIPC) themselves… the real criminals will now be held accountable… not fabricated crimes where their resources were wasted”

And then on 6 April he wrote:

“Only the NDPP can apply POCA ( PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT) . This Act will proceed with a preservation order within a month or so, followed by the Asset Forfeiture Unit three months later, giving the Property syndications buildings back to the original investors’, and allowing the new Directors to file delict claims for losses of income”

Today, 30 April, Deon has stated in his monthly newsletter:
“Important to note, that the CIPC have formally filed papers against our adversaries with the NDPP. This is a very big deal, and we have reason to be very grateful for what is currently happening”

We take the information about the CIPC action on board because we know that Deon is in frequent contact with Cuma Zwane of CIPC and they seem to share a lot of information on matters PSPC and Sharemax/Nova

So, it remains to be seen what action, if any, comes out of NDPP . We suggest that the asset forfeiture and “property return” envisioned by Deon are one possible outcome but one way or another, there will be a claim for loss of income plus, of course, return of capital invested

Zwane declined to provide us with any information about the above actions by way of deleting – without reading – our email sent to him on the above and asking for some clarity. Therefore, we can only surmise as to what’s going on

CIPC cannot initiate any legal action themselves hence the referral of the Investigation findings to the NDPP

This action follows CIPC’s letter to the Western Cape High Court in October ’25 informing the latter – in execution of the inter-State entity co-operation called for in section 17 of the SA Constitution – of the findings detailed in the report and to take same into account when hearing cases relevant to Deon Pienaar’s activism and to his sequestration for outstanding court costs which arose out of many court case judgements over the last decade and more

SARB subsequently wrote to Zwane through their attorneys stating that the letter constituted a “flagrant attempt to interfere with a judicial process outside of any power that he may have” and demanded that the letter be repudiated failing which, “urgent interdictory relief” would be sought No news on the outcome to hand. But, it does indicate a rejection of any obligation under the Section 17 of the Constitution’s co-operative governance requirement

Also relevant, in this scenario, is the intervention of the Judge Presidents office last year when – after receipt of the CIPC letter at Western Cape High Court – they called for submission from relevant parties involved in the activism and litigation surrounding the PSPC shut-down. That someone at the Judge President level has intervened suggests that the CIPC letter must have piqued interest at a higher level and that the false and true narratives are under scrutiny with, hopefully, production of some definitive and clear-cut instruction to the Courts and other relevant authorities

On the one hand, to have taken the above actions, CIPC must be very sure of the validity and the required future outcomes of their PSPC shut-down investigation and this, it would seem, has been re-enforced by the intervention by the Judge President’s office although, it seems that they have not yet produced any response to the submissions that they received

For the last some four years now (since the actual completion if the report) CIPC has defended its non-release of same on the grounds that it must be delivered to all relevant parties simultaneously which suggests that, maybe, some parties were not up to speed , eg because of case handler personnel changes, some were not yet even involved and still needed to be briefed and some, like perhaps with the SARB, are not willing to be on board and are pushing back (officialdom and bureaucracy at it worst?)

Do the above actions indicate that the pendulum has swung in or favour?

Unfortunately, we continue to wait for concrete information and positive developments. Our hope still lies with the Investigation’s outcomes being not only positive but also restitutional for the former Sharemax investors

He has published new items in his web site www.carian.co.za <www.carian.co.za> (see under the Nova Debenture Trust button)

On 9 March: www.carian.co.za/post/non-compliance-with-section-30-of-the-companie s-act-audited-annual-financial-statements-for-the-fi

It calls on CIPC to rule on the matter of the AFS publication deadline being as per the Companies Act, content, viz; six months after the end of the financial year in t eight of Nova Chair Myburgh’s persistence the Act’s requirements are only a guideline. It also contains statements on the unaudited AFS that nova lodged with CIPC in September last year and re which, Tromp states “These AFS clearly reflect a severe going concern risk and, in my opinion, indicate that the Nova Group is technically insolvent.”

On 10 March: www.carian.co.za/post/statement-on-the-nova-group-s-financial-positi on-and-official-complaint-to-the-cipc

This post deals with Tromp’s formal complaint to CIPC in May, 2025 about the state based on his analysis of the AFS up to the one for year-end 28 February, 2024

On 10 March: www.carian.co.za/post/nova-propgrow-group-holdings-limited-potential -r-414-694-327-debenture-shortfall
This post centres on Nova Chair Myburgh’s response to Tromps “Missing R 414,694,327” of September 30, 2025 nd correspondence between Tromp, CIPC Commissioner Advocate Rudi Voller and Myburgh

Tromp has echoed our views previously tabled with Cuma Zwane, Senior Investigator, Corporate Compliance and Disclosure Regulation Unit that urgent CIPC action against Nova is necessary and we wait to see what transpires