Nova Debenture Trustee JP Tromp has posted information on what he describes as a “carefully orchestrated plan by the Board of Directors to circumvent the Compliance Notice issued by the CIPC”

See: www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-p otentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment

This comprises a package of documents including a Response from Dominique Haese, CEO of Nova Propgrow

This content, whilst of specific relevance to holders of Debentures linked to Carletonville and Range View, is also very relevant to all Debenture Holders from the perspective of the solvency and viability of Nova

The Compliance Notice was issued to Nova in August 2022 and it prohibits the sale of any further properties (immovable assets) by the company. This, after some twenty one of the original thirty seven Sharemax properties inherited by Nova in the BRP/SoA process back in 2010/12 were sold (E&OE on these figures). The compliance Notice also triggered CIPC to open an internal investigation into Nova’s repeated failures to meet its obligations under the Companies Act and the failure to repay all of the Debentures by the “10 year deadline” as per the SoAs. (This deadline is contested by Nova). The internal investigation will result in a Companies Tribunal to address the findings with Nova

Whilst some debentures were repaid in 2012/13, the company stopped repaying and, on their own admittance (but , only communicated to Debenture Holders in one of Nova’s Communiques in September 2019), started retaining property sale proceeds to finance ongoing operations and to provide the funds to keep the company afloat amid growing concerns as to its solvency

According to Tromp’s new posting regarding a loan which Nova arranged with Mercantile Bank (since bought by Capitec), for which, they pledged as security, Flora Centre, Carletonville Centre and Range View Centre, but have defaulted on the mortgage payments, Capitec have lodged an application for liquidation of Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, the entity within Nova Propgrow Group that owns Flora Centre and a judgement against Nova could see Flora Centre being attached and sold off to repay the loan

Nova sought and have received “favourable” legal opinion to the effect that if the pledged properties are sold in execution of a court judgement, then such sale is not a circumvention of the CIPC Compliance Notice prohibiting sale of the properties.

Based on this opinion. Nova have proposed to Capitec that that both the Carletonville and Range View properties be accepted as settlement of the loan.

The proposal reads:

“We have taken legal advice from Advocate (blanked out) on how we overcome this prohibition. The advice is that the subject matter property (the surety properties [Carletonville and Range View]) may be disposed of under circumstances of a sale following a Court Order in the form of a judgement and in execution of such judgement. We therefore suggest that a Summons is issued, judgement is obtained, and the property/s sold in pursuance of the judgement”

Tromp suggests that Flora Centre is far more “valuable” as an asset in the company’s books and the board would not want to lose that following Court judgement in favour of Capitec

But, we have here a case of blatant sacrifice of two properties to suit their own interests – with the negative of a court judgement against the company (Nova) on record – and in the process, removing the underlying assets that are supposed be the base off which the Carletonville and Range View debentures can be repaid

We ask: is the pledging of portfolio properties – thus putting them at risk – in itself not a circumvention of the Compliance Notice?

And, we ask: is a taken course of action which they admit is a ploy “to overcome this prohibition” (selling of the portfolio properties) not also a flagrant demonstration of disregard of the authority of CIPC?

Was the taking of the loan, in fact, part of a strategic plan devised by the Board, to bypass CIPC’s asset sell-off prohibition per which they pledged the three properties as security in order to obtain funds to keep the company afloat but with the premeditated intention to default and then sacrifice the two “lesser” properties to the lending bank in settlement of the loan?

And, we have the Board, once again, expending company funds to get legal opinion that supports their strategy and proposed action that is not in the interests of the Debenture Holders!

Tromp goes on to inform that once sold off, these two properties (and any of the other portfolio properties sold) will not exist in the Nova books anymore meaning that the assets that could realise the funds necessary to repay the underlying Debenture liability, have disappeared and Nova’s capability to create the funds necessary to repay has been further diminished. See our October 1 post on “The Missing R414 million” and Tromp’s post on same in his web site

How will CIPC react to this news? Will they accept Tromp’s allegations as being valid and take action? Perhaps bring the Companies Tribunal on Nova into immediate action? Perhaps more stringent action?

Is all lost for the relevant Debenture Holders as Tromp has stated?

Perhaps not, but only if the CIPC Investigation into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC’s can move forward and deliver the Final Report and if its recommendations (expected to confirm the long-alleged illegalities and the irregularities of the shut-down) are followed through with ultimate restitution and compensation for all Sharemax Investors

We will be sharing this post with Cuma Zwane who is the Senior Investigator: Corporate Compliance and Disclosure Regulation at CIPC, in support of Tromp’s submissions to them

JP Tromp, Trustee van die Nova Debenture Trust, het inligting geplaas oor wat hy beskryf as ‘n sorgvuldig georkestreerde plan deur die Raad van Direkteure om die Nakomingskennisgewing wat deur die CIPC uitgereik is, te omseil (“carefully orchestrated plan by the Board of Directors to circumvent the Compliance Notice issued by the CIPC”)

Sien: <www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-potentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment> www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-potentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment

Dit behels ‘n pakket dokumente, insluitend ‘n reaksie vanaf Dominique Haese, uitvoerende hoof van Nova Propgrow

Hierdie inhoud, hoewel van spesifieke relevansie vir houers van skuldbriewe gekoppel aan die Carletonville en Range View eiendomme, is ook baie relevant vir alle skuldbriewehouers vanuit die perspektief van die solvensie en lewensvatbaarheid van Nova

Die Nakomingskennisgewing is in Augustus 2022 aan Nova uitgereik en dit verbied die verkoop van enige verdere eiendomme (onroerende bates) deur die maatskappy. Dit nadat sowat een-en-twintig van die oorspronklike sewe-en-dertig Sharemax-eiendomme wat Nova in die BRP/SoA-proses in 2010/12 geërf het (F.E.W. op hierdie syfers) verkoop is. Die nakomingskennisgewing het ook CIPC aangespoor om ‘n interne ondersoek te open na Nova se herhaalde versuim om sy verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet na te kom en die versuim om al die skuldbriewe teen die “10-jaar-sperdatum” volgens die Reëlingskemas terug te betaal. (Hierdie sperdatum word deur Nova betwis). Die interne ondersoek sal lei tot ‘n Maatskappytribunaal om die bevindinge met Nova aan te spreek

Terwyl sommige skuldbriewe in 2012/13 terugbetaal is, het die maatskappy opgehou om terug te betaal en, na hul eie erkenning (maar eers in September 2019 aan skuldbriefhouers in een van Nova se Communiqué publikasies gekommunikeer), het hulle begin om die opbrengs van eiendomsverkope te behou om voortgesette bedrywighede te finansier en die fondse te verskaf om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou te midde van groeiende kommer oor sy solvensie

Volgens Tromp se nuwe plasing rakende ‘n lening wat Nova met Mercantile Bank (sedertdien deur Capitec gekoop) gereël het, waarvoor hulle as sekuriteit Flora Centre, Carletonville Centre en Range View Centre verpand het, maar wanbetaal het op die verbandbetalings, het Capitec ‘n aansoek ingedien vir likwidasie van Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, die entiteit binne Nova Propgrow Group wat Flora Centre besit, en ‘n vonnis teen Nova kan daartoe lei dat Flora Centre in beslag geneem en verkoop word om die lening terug te betaal

Nova het ‘n “gunstige” regsmening ingewin en ontvang dat indien die verpande eiendomme verkoop word in uitvoering van ‘n hofuitspraak, sodanige verkoop nie ‘n omseiling van die CIPC-nakomingskennisgewing is wat die verkoop van die eiendomme verbied nie.

Gebaseer op hierdie mening, het Nova aan Capitec voorgestel dat beide die Carletonville- en Range View-eiendomme as skikking van die lening aanvaar word.

Die voorstel lui:

“We have taken legal advice from Advocate (blanked out) on how we overcome this prohibition. The advice is that the subject matter property (the surety properties [Carletonville and Range View]) may be disposed of under circumstances of a sale following a Court Order in the form of a judgement and in execution of such judgement. We therefore suggest that a Summons is issued, judgement is obtained, and the property/s sold in pursuance of the judgement”

Tromp stel voor dat Flora Centre baie meer “waardevol” is as ‘n bate in die maatskappy se boeke en die direksie wil dit nie verloor na ‘n hofuitspraak ten gunste van Capitec nie

Maar ons het hier ‘n geval van blatante opoffering van twee eiendomme om hul eie belange te dien – met die negatiewe gevolg van ‘n hofuitspraak teen die maatskappy of rekord – en in die proses, die verwydering van die onderliggende bates wat veronderstel is om die basis te wees waarop die Carletonville- en Range View-skuldbriewe terugbetaal kan word

Ons vra: is die verpanding van portefeulje-eiendomme – wat hulle dus in gevaar stel – op sigself nie ‘n omseiling van die Compliance Notice nie?

En ons vra: is ‘n stap wat hulle erken ‘n plan is om hierdie verbod te oorkom (die verkoop van die portefeulje-eiendomme) nie ook ‘n blatante minagting van die gesag van CIPC nie?

Was die aangaan van die lening in werklikheid deel van ‘n strategiese plan wat deur die Raad opgestel is om CIPC se verbod op die verkoop van bates te omseil, ingevolge waarvan hulle die drie eiendomme as sekuriteit verpand het om fondse te bekom om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou, maar met die voorbedagte bedoeling om in gebreke te bly en dan die twee “minderwaardige” eiendomme aan die lenende bank op te offer ter vereffening van die lening?

En hier het ons die Raad, weereens, wat maatskappyfondse bestee om ‘n regsmening te kry wat hul strategie en voorgestelde aksie ondersteun en wat nie in die belang van die Skuldbriefhouers is nie!

Tromp gaan voort om te deel dat sodra hulle verkoop is, hierdie twee eiendomme (en enige van die ander portefeulje-eiendomme wat verkoop is) nie meer in die Nova-boeke sal bestaan ​​nie, wat beteken dat die bates wat die fondse wat nodig is om die onderliggende skuldbrieflas terug te betaal, kon realiseer, verdwyn het en Nova se vermoë om die fondse te skep wat nodig is om terug te betaal, verder verminder is. Sien ons plasing van 1 Oktober oor “The Missing R414 million” en Tromp se plasing daaroor op sy webwerf

Hoe sal CIPC op hierdie nuus reageer? Sal hulle Tromp se bewerings as waarheid aanvaar en aksie neem? Miskien die Maatskappytribunaal oor Nova onmiddellik tot aksie bring? Miskien strenger optrede?

Is alles verlore vir die betrokke skuldbriefhouers soos Tromp gesê het?

Miskien nie, maar slegs as die CIPC-ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC’s in 2010 kan voortuitgang maak en die finale verslag kan lewer en as die aanbevelings daarvan (wat na verwagting die lang beweerde onwettighede en die onreëlmatighede van die PSPC sluiting sal bevestig) opgevolg word met uiteindelike restitusie en vergoeding vir alle Sharemax-beleggers

Ons sal hierdie plasing met Cuma Zwane, die Senior Ondersoeker: Korporatiewe Nakoming en Openbaarmakingsregulering by CIPC deel, ter ondersteuning van Tromp se voorleggings aan hulle.

Die CIPC het ingegryp in geregtelike prosesse wat aan die gang is teen Deon Pienaar, ‘n langdurige aktivis oor die onwettighede en onreëlmatighede van die PSPC-maatskappy se sluiting in 2010 – wat Sharemax ingesluit het

Ons sluit in hierdie plasing ‘n afskrif van hul onlangse brief in, geskryf aan die Wes-Kaapse Hooggeregshof (WCHC) voor komende hofaksies en beskikbaar hier: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

Hierdie brief is potensieel betekenisvol vir al die mense wat so negatief geraak is deur die gebeure van 2010. Dit is die eerste keer dat ‘n staatsorgaan (CIPC is ‘n afdeling van die DTIC – Departement van Handel, Nywerheid en Mededinging) na vore gekom en ter tafel gelê het dat hulle tot die gevolgtrekking gekom het dat daar faktore buite die historiese en bestaande regsmenings en drywers is waarvan die howe bewus moet wees

Die brief is slegs in Engels beskikbaar (en sal nie in Afrikaans vertaal word nie uit vrees vir vertaalfoute). Maar lesers moet die potensiële belangrikheid daarvan en wat dit reeds openbaar oor wat waarskynlik uit die ondersoek sal kom, waardeer

Alhoewel die inhoud van die brief daarop gemik is om die speelveld te verander met betrekking tot die spesifiek genoemde Deon Pienaar-sake, het die aksie moontlike implikasies wat betekenisvol kan wees vir die hele sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappy in 2010 en alles wat daaruit voortgevloei het, en dit dui daarop dat die ware storie, soos na verwagting uiteindelik in CIPC ondersoek se finale verslag onthul sal word, reeds enige verwante regsprosesse behoort te rig.

Die brief suggereer ook dat die CIPC seker is van hul saak rakende die bevindinge van hul ondersoek en dat wat hulle nou beskou as die valse narratief wat oor die jare algemeen aanvaar is (maar nie deur die aktiviste en die PSPC-maatskappydirekteure nie en beslis nie deur die beleggerslagoffers nie) nou aangespreek moet word

Die groot vraag in dit alles is egter: Sal die howe hiervan kennis neem en dienooreenkomstig gelei word?

As ‘n voetnoot tot bogenoemde, is ons ook in kennis gestel dat die regsadviseur van die SA Reserwebank (SARB) die CIPC se Cuma Zwane aangespreek het oor sommige bekommernisse wat voortspruit uit sy brief aan WCHC. Zwane het gereageer om die situasie in perspektief te plaas. ‘n Moontlike afleiding kan hieroor gemaak word dat die storie agter hierdie briewe is dat die SARB nie tred gehou het met hierdie saak nie en dat dit moontlik een van die redes kan wees waarom die CIPC ondersoek-tussentydse verslag nog nie vrygestel is nie. Uit die Antwoord wat aan die SARB se regsadviseur gestuur is, kan ook afgelei word dat die CIPC hulle aangesê het om “aan boord te kom”

Hierdie bykomende briewe kan hier gelees word:
(Beskikbaar slegs in Engels)

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2

The CIPC has intervened in judicial processes underway against Deon Pienaar, long-time activist on the illegalities and irregularities of the PSPC company shut-down in 2010 – which included Sharemax

We include in this post, a copy of their recent letter, written to the Western Cape High Court (WCHC) ahead of upcoming court actions and accessible here: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

This letter is potentially significant for all of the people who have been so negatively affected by the events of 2010. It is the first time that an organ of state (CIPC is a division of the DTIC – Department of Trade & Industry and Competition) has come out and tabled that they have concluded that there are factors outside of the historical and existing legal opinions and drivers that the courts need to be aware of

The letter is only available in English (and will not be translated into Afrikaans for fear of translation error). But readers should appreciate its potential importance and what it already reveals about what is likely to come out of the Investigation

Whilst the content of the letter appears to be aimed at changing the playing field as to the specifically named Deon Pienaar cases, the action has, potentially, implications that could be significant for the whole of the 2010 PSPC company shutdown and all that flowed from it and it suggests that the real story, as is expected to be eventually revealed in CIPC’s Final Report, should already be guiding any related legal processes

The letter also suggests that the CIPC are certain of their case as to the findings of their investigation and that what they now consider to be the false narrative that has been generally accepted (but not by the activists and the PSPC Company directors and certainly not by the investor victims) down the years must now be addressed

As a footnote to the above, we have also been informed that the legal counsel of the SA Reserve Bank (SARB) has addressed CIPCs Cuma Zwane on some concerns arising out of his letter to WCHC and Zwane has responded putting the situation into perspective. It can be deduced from the content that the story behind these letters is that SARB have not been keeping up to speed in this matter and that, possibly, this may be one of the reasons as to why the Investigation’s Interim Report has not yet been released. From the response sent to SARB’s legal counsel it can also be inferred that CIPC has told them to “get with the program”

These additional letters can be read here:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2

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