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

Ons het verneem dat sommige lesers van plasings in ons webwerwe vir Deon Pienaar, ‘n langdurige aktivis oor die sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappy in 2010, aangespreek het en blykbaar gevra het oor ons plasings van JP Tromp-inhoud. Hy berig dat hulle sy “lojaliteit teenoor Tromp” bevraagteken het. Sien die meegaande dokument wat sy reaksie via sy PSPC Whatsapp-groep bevat

Sien die skakels onderaan vir sy teks

Ons plaas hierdie inhoud om ons verbintenis met Tromp te verduidelik en om kommentaar te lewer op sommige van wat Deon gesê het. Ons beklemtoon dat hierdie inhoud nie bedoel is om op enige manier konfronterend te wees of met enige gevoel van kwade gevoelens aangebied te word nie. Alhoewel ons verskille in benadering het en hoewel ons nie alles met Sharemax/Nova eens is nie, was daar voortdurende interaksie tussen hom en NDCAG, hoewel dit miskien hoofsaaklik net inligtingdeling was

NDCAG is in 2018 gestig ten tyde van Nova se poging om op die JSE te noteer, wat, indien suksesvol, moontlik sou gelei het tot die omskakeling van alle skuldbriewe na (moontlik D-Klas nie-stemgeregtigde) aandele in Nova. Dit is wyd teengestaan ​​en in elk geval het die notering egter misluk, omdat, ons vermoed, Nova nie aan die JSE se noteringsvereistes kon voldoen nie. Die notering en omskakeling sou in elk geval effektief, blatante roof, na one mening, gewees het, gegewe die destydse situasie met Nova, en vandag nog erger. Wat is die waarde vandag van die D-Klas-aandele wat uitgereik is aan daardie Sharemax-beleggers wat gekies het om hul aandele in enige van die Sharemax-portefeulje-eiendomme na Nova-aandele in plaas van skuldbriewe om te skakel? Nul, na ons mening!

Na die tweede lysvergadering wat deur Nova in Pretoria byeengeroep is, het die aanwesiges in die lokaal gebly en ‘n algemene bespreking van kwessies het gevolg. Dit was hieruit dat ‘n aantal mense saamgestem het dat ‘n aktivistegroep nodig was, en dit het gelei tot NDCAG

Deon was een van diegene wat belangstelling getoon het en ons stem saam dat hy aanvanklik betrokke was, maar ons sou nie saamstem dat dit ‘n geval was van “nie toegelaat” was om ‘n lid te wees nie, maar eerder, dat ons besluit het om redes waaroor die relevante kommunikasie nie meer op rekord is nie, dat dit gepas sou wees om NDCAG apart van Deon se inisiatief te hou – moontlik omdat sy primêre fokus op die breër PSPC-maatskappy se sluiting (insluitend Sharemax) was terwyl ons fokus beperk is tot Sharemax/Nova en selfs dan, hoofsaaklik op die Skuldbriewe en die Skuldbriefhouers. Ons is oop vir regstelling hieroor

Wat Deon se “verkiesing” tot die posisie van Skuldbrieftrustee betref, stem ons nie saam met sy stelling nie en dink dat hy dalk bedoel het om te sê dat hy, in die klimaat van agterdog wat in 2021/2 geheers het toe die verkiesingsvergaderings gehou is, voldoende volmagte – dit wil sê Skuldbriefhouerstemme – aangebied het om die verkiesing te “wen” en die Trustee te word

Ons sou nie met hierdie moontlike uitkoms verskil nie, aangesien dit ons mening is dat die verkiesing deur Myburgh gemanipuleer is, hoewel ons dit nie kan bewys nie. Tydens die verkiesingsvergaderings het Myburgh geweier om enige inligting bekend te maak oor hoeveel volmagte die maatskappy ten gunste van die verkiesing van Tromp ontvang het, daar was geen onafhanklike oudit van die proses nie en die notule toon slegs die uitkomste soos bepaal deur Myburgh en die interne werknemers wat die nodige administrasie- en beheerfunksies by die vergaderings uitgevoer het

Wat Deon nie genoem het nie, is dat, nadat die eerste kommunikasie van Nova oor die verkiesing van ‘n nuwe Trustee ontvang is, NDCAG besluit het om Nova se reg om die verkiesing te hou te betwis en dat, as gevolg van sekere versuim om aan die bepalings van die Skuldbrieftrust te voldoen, hul reg om die vergadering te belê om die nuwe Trustee te verkies, in werklikheid in die hande van die Skuldbriefhouers oorgegaan het

NDCAG het ook besluit om aan Nova voor te stel dat Deon ‘n meer geskikte kandidaat vir die Trustee-posisie sou wees eerder as Tromp, wat destyds heeltemal onbekend aan ons was en onsigbaar was wat enige openbare profiel betref

Ons het ‘n voorstel aan Deon gemaak waarmee hy ingestem het. Ons het toe aan Nova geskryf en ook Deon se brief aan hulle gestuur waarin hy sy bereidwilligheid aandui om die rol te aanvaar. Nova het gereageer – op die gewone Myburgh – aanvallende, minagtingde en vernederingde manier – en ons argument oor die vergadering verwerp en geweier om Deon se nominasie te aanvaar

Vir die besonderhede van hierdie kommunikasies, sien die skakels hieronder

So, hoekom werk ons ​​saam met Tromp?

Dit is eintlik redelik eenvoudig: “Die vyand van my vyand is my vriend”. Daar is baie historiese voorbeelde van samewerking tussen vyande vir die bereiking van ‘n gemeenskaplike doel

Indien ‘n persoon of entiteit teen Nova werk, indien hul aktiwiteite ook in die belang van die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers is en indien die insette van dieselfde waarde toevoeg, is ons bereid om met hulle te kommunikeer en miskien saam te werk

Beteken dit dat ons, ongeag enige sodanige entiteit of persoon se geskiedenis, huklke sommer so sal aanvaar?

Die antwoord is ‘n duidelike Nee!

In 2021/22 was Tromp duidelik “Myburgh se man” en dit het sedert 2010 duidelik geword dat die Trustee slegs in plek was om enigiets goed te keur wat Myburgh wou bereik rakende die Skuldbriewe en die Skuldbriefhouers – en gewoonlik tot nadeel van laasgenoemde. Ons is sterk van mening dat die hol dokument wat die Skuldbrieftrust is, slegs ingestel is as ‘n lippediens aan normale sakereddingspraktyke kragtens Artikel 311 van die Insolvensiewet, om die BRP deur die howe bekragtig te kry en om by Myburgh en die Raad se strategie te pas wat die maatskappy gelei het tot waar dit vandag is

Verder, alhoewel Tromp aan die gehore by die stemvergaderings gesê het dat hy die benarde situasie en behoeftes van die Skuldbriefhouers verstaan ​​(maar geen verklarings gemaak het oor wat sy toekomstige optrede mag wees nie), het hy die werk geneem en toe die Skuldbriefhouers werklik onder die bus gegooi deur onmiddellik ‘n oop verlenging (geen sperdatum of vervaldatum) van die Skuldbriefterugbetalingstydperk goed te keur met ‘n daaropvolgende verklaring, toe hy hieroor uitgedaag is, dat hy destyds gedink het dat dit in die Skuldbriefhouer se beste belang was

Dit was Myburgh se enigste bedoeling rakende die aanstelling van Tromp, naamlik; kry ‘n Trustee aangestel, kry ‘n terugbetalingsverlenging in plek in lyn met die vereistes van die Trustakte EN kry die CIPC “van sy saak af” met betrekking tot hul probleme met die Skuldbriewe wat nie almal teen Januarie 2022 terugbetaal is nie, soos uiteengesit in die SoAs (daardie sperdatum sterk betwis deur Nova/Myburgh)

Kort na sy aanstelling en as gevolg van sekere inligtinginsette aan CIPC deur aktiviste en geaffekteerde partye – insluitend Deon en NDCAG – is ‘n vergadering gehou met Cuma Zwane, Senior Ondersoeker by die Kommissie, waar beide Deon en NDCAG-persone teenwoordig was. Die insette wat by hierdie vergadering gegee is, was na ons mening instrumenteel in die CIPC se besluit om ‘n ondersoek na Nova te begin (benewens hul reeds bestaande kwessies oor gevalle van nie-nakoming van hul verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet) en wat gelei het tot die instelling van die Inter-Regulerende Ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC-beleggingsmaatskappye in 2010

Toe Tromp dus, na twee jaar van oënskynlike onaktiwiteit met betrekking tot die lewering van die benarde situasie en behoeftes van die Skuldbriefhouers, met ‘n reeks mense en entiteite (nie almal aan ons bekend nie) begin kommunikeer het, was ons ook bly om dit te doen

Maar ons wil hê dit moet duidelik verstaan ​​word dat ons destyds ons vermoedens en twyfel oor sy motiewe gehad het, daarom het ons geen verbintenisse teenoor hom gemaak nie en ons het hom egter meegedeel dat:

– Ons beskou hom as “die vyand”
– Hy het die werk aanvaar selfs nadat hy al die negatiewe insette by die vergadering gehoor het – en die fooie geneem (alhoewel totdat Nova opgehou het om hom te betaal: Sien sy plasing getiteld Trustee Fee – High Court Application onder Nova Debenture Trust op sy webwerf by www.carian.co.za)
– Ons dink dat hy homself beskerm, om watter rede ook al
– Watter aksie ook al in die toekoms teen hom mag plaasvind en om watter rede ook al, ons sal geen ondersteuning bied nie

Hy het destyds gesê dat hy heeltemal tevrede hiermee was en ons glo dat dit steeds die geval is, alhoewel daar steeds ‘n mate van agterdog en ontevredenheid oor vorige optrede, of nie-aksies, bestaan

Maar weereens, “die vyand van my vyand is my vriend” en ons interaksies met hom is ‘n “huwelik van gerief”

Hierdie skrywer is van mening dat Tromp nouliks die moeite en koste sou aangewend het wat hy reeds het as hy nie heeltemal ernstig was om sy teenkanting teen alles wat verkeerd is in en met Nova te verwesenlik nie. Trouens, as ‘n geregistreerde geoktrooieerde rekenmeester, is hy ingevolge die SAICA-gedragskode verplig om nie-nakoming en onreëlmatighede/onwettighede aan te spreek. Dit geld in sy verbintenis met Nova, al is hy nie direk in diens van die bestuur van die maatskappy nie en nie, in die gewone verloop van sy aktiwiteite, betrokke by die oudit daarvan en interaksies met die ouditeure nie

Ons glo dat Tromp se onlangse optrede om te publiseer wat hy as onreëlmatig en onwettig in Nova se bedrywighede opgemerk het, positiewe nuus vir die Sharemax-beleggers is. Wat hulle sal bereik, hetsy in isolasie of as deel van ‘n groter geheel, bly nog gesienen hang tot ‘n mate af van die uitkomste van CIPC se Maatskappytribunaalverhoor en die Inter-Reguleringsondersoek, wat albei so gretig afgewag word

Die verskillende persone en aktivisteliggame mag wel afsonderlike entiteite wees wat hul eie strategieë volg, maar hulle veg almal teen gemeenskaplike vyande, en die slotsom is dat enige sukses wat deur enige van hulle behaal word, ‘n sukses is vir al die PSPC-maatskappybeleggers wat van soveel beroof is

Skakjels:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510134 >>>>> Deon Pieneaar’s se Whatsapp plasing

www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510133 >>>>> NDCAG brief van Desember 2021 i.b.m die Trustee verkiesing

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510132 >>>>> Deon se aanvaarding van ons voorstel

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202510131 >>>>> Nova se antwoordbrief aan NDCAG

JP Tromp het ‘n verdere artikel op sy besigheidswebwerf gepubliseer wat hier kan gelees word:

<www.carian.co.za/post/the-missing-r-414-694-327?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW 0CMTAAYnJpZBExOXpZOWw1bmxNZ1VWczhGVgEe_fPfkJ_FTCjOq8rBRW4nKfmIH-uqfY8hhDjB36 CR5SRSp_U9MlCMAR8OsKs_aem_siQW1-PEFYnUb0O_En0f2Q> www.carian.co.za/post/the-missing-r-414-694-327

Die nuwe plasing handel oor die skuldbriewe wat verband hou met die twaalf eiendomme wat deur Nova verkoop is voor die CIPC se verbod op die verkoop van enige verdere bates in Augustus 2022

Die betrokke eiendomme is:

– 148 Leeuwpoort Street
– 14De Marionette Centre
– Shopmakers Village
– Benoni Hyper
– Athlone Park Shopping Centre
– Liberty Mall (Amogela Mall)
– Oxford Gate
– Parkside Plaza
– Rivonia Square
– Nelspruit Hyper
– Dainfern Shopping Centre
– Whale Rock Residential Estate

Klik hier vir véredere inligting oor hierdie eiendomme:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExOXpZ OWw1bmxNZ1VWczhGVgEeK6naYkJWzz4wF5Sr9X2z5zanJIfq5_D4ZaHYgGuij85AqFEF3FCronKE Y3E_aem_1yW5OdMAQ5THYxlHTcWBaw> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1

Hy het hierdie inligting geplaas as ‘n “ergste geval” (worst case) scenario vir die betrokke skuldbriefhouers wat inligting openbaar oor ‘n situasie wat ‘n direkte gevolg is van Nova-voorsitter Myburgh en die Raad se optrede wat nie in die beste belang van die betrokke skuldbriefhouers was nie

Hy wil nie sensasioneel wees met hierdie inligting nie, maar verskaf die harde waarheid – inligting WAT LANK GELEDE MOES GEOPENBAAR GEWEES HET, OF, VEEL BETER, NOOIT IN DIE EERSTE PLEK VOORKOM HET NIE. Sien onderaan oor Tromp se insluiting van die arbitrêre stap wat Nova in 2019 geneem het waarvolgens hulle die opbrengs van eiendomsverkoop in bedryfskapitaal begin absorbeer het

Hy deel mee dat, aangesien die verkoopopbrengs in die bedryfskapitaal van die maatskappy geabsorbeer is, daardie geld nie meer bestaan nie. En met die oordrag van die verkoopte eiendomme in die name van die kopers, is daar geen spesifieke bates in die maatskappy se boeke wat onderliggend is aan, of ondersteun, die bogenoemde skuldbriefwaardes nie, en dus die fondse wat opsy gesit moes gewees het om die skuldbriewe terug te betaal, weg is!

Dit is nie ‘n nuwe feit nie, maar in die afwesigheid van die openbaarmaking (maar sien hieronder) en enige verduideliking, blyk die gepaste verduideliking te wees dat die behoud van die opbrengs van die eiendomsverkoop (eerder as om dit te gebruik om skuldbriewe terug te betaal) Nova se ontsnappingsroete en manier was om uit hul (gereeld genoemde) befondsingsprobleme te kom deur die skuldbriefhouers onder die bus te gooi en doelbewus skuldbriefterugbetalingsfondse te misbruik om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou om by die voorsitter en raad se eie agenda te pas

Wat ook in ag geneem moet word, is die inhoud van Tromp se plasing by punt 3: Fondse wat binne die Groep aangewend is

Die omleiding van fondse om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou, het begin, kan gesê word, met die 2013-verkoop van die Rivonia Square-eiendom. In ons vorige plasing het ons die enigste – maar ver van voldoende verduidelikende – kommunikasie deur Nova oor die verkoop van hierdie eiendom ingesluit

Die punt om duidelikheid te hê oor die omleiding van verkoopsopbrengsfondse vir al die reeds verkoopte eiendomme, is dat dit ‘n heeltemal eensydige optrede deur Nova was – geen konsultasie, geen verduideliking van, en motivering vir, die terughouding van die fondse en geen ooreenkoms vir die behoud en herontplooiing van fondse van die betrokke skuldbriefhouers nie

Verder het Nova die skuldbriefhouers eers in September 2019 in kennis gestel van die terughouding van die verkoopopbrengs, hoewel nege van die betrokke eiendomme lank tevore, van 2013 tot 2018, verkoop is sonder enige skuldbriefterugbetalings of toepaslike kommunikasie oor sowat ses jaar

Dus, vir hierdie ses jaar is inligting oor die retensie-aksies en die wanbetaling van die betrokke skuldbriewe weggesteek en die feit dat die verdwyning van enige van die verkoopte eiendomme uit die volgende jaar se finansiële jaarverslag navrae kon veroorsaak het, kwalifiseer nie as gepaste kommunikasie wat in elk geval na die verkoop en onbevredigend sou gewees het nie

Maar dié als is eintlik nog ‘n spyker in die kis rakende die voortdurende bewerings dat Nova insolvent is en in werklikheid in ‘n insolvente staat handel dryf, wat eerstens bewys is van roekelose gedrag aan die kant van die Voorsitter en Raad, maar ook in stryd is met die vereistes van die Maatskappywet waarin dit lui:

Reckless trading prohibited
22. (1) A company must not—
(a) carry on its business recklessly, with gross negligence, with intent to defraud
any person or for any fraudulent purpose; or
(b) trade under insolvent circumstances

Die maatskappy is reeds “onder kennisgewing” deur CIPC deurdat die Kommissie ‘n Notification aan Nova uitgereik het waarin hulle versoek word om te reageer op die formele Maatskappywet CoR135.1-klag wat Tromp by hulle ingedien het en waarin hy verklaar dat Nova na sy mening inderdaad skuldig is aan roekelose gedrag en insolvent

Tans het Nova tot 20 Oktober om op CIPC te reageer en intussen is die Maatskappytribunaal-verhoor om Nova se gereelde versuim om sy verpligtinge ingevolge die Wet na te kom en ook ander versuim, veral die versuim om die oorblywende skuldbriewe terug te betaal, aan te spreek, opgeskort

‘n Paar bydraende faktore om die insolvensie van die maatskappy te regverdig:

– Groot belastingskuld aan Sars en agterstallige BTW-betalings (R62 miljoen – uitgesluit boetes vir laat betaling – en R16, netto, miljoen onderskeidelik)
– Die Beneficio-lening wat nou ‘n las in die boeke is ten bedrae van 67 miljoen (met hofuitspraak teen die maatskappy en appèlle onsuksesvol)
– Die Quatro-groep – R12.3 miljoen verskuldig vir versuim om vir eiendomshigiënedienste te betaal. Hofbevel aan Nova om te betaal
– Die Bright Light Solar-sonverhittingswanbetaling van sowat R100 miljoen en ‘n aansoek om likwidasie van die maatskappy en, natuurlik;
– Die totale waarde van die nog onbetaalde skuldbriewe wat in die ’24 AFS as R2.27 miljard weerspieël word, wat die bogenoemde 370 miljoen waarde van die “ontbrekende miljoene” onbetaalde skuldbriewe insluit

Bogenoemde is dalk nie heeltemal akkuraat of wys die volledige prentjie nie, maar ongeag, wat dit wel aandui of beter, dit bevestig dat dit ernstige rooi vlae is wat slegs bestaande twyfel oor die maatskappy se status en die prestasie van die Voorsitter en Raad versterk

Nova sal nie erken dat die maatskappy insolvent is nie, maar dit is regtig tyd dat daardie feit in die openbaar erken word en veral deur CIPC bevestig word!

JP Tromp has published a further article in his business web site which can be read here:

www.carian.co.za/post/the-missing-r-414-694-327

The new post deals with the debentures related to the twelve properties sold off by Nova prior to the CIPC’s August 2022 prohibition on disposal of any further assets

The relevant properties are:

– 148 Leeuwpoort Street
– 14De Marionette Centre
– Shopmakers Village
– Benoni Hyper
– Athlone Park Shopping Centre
– Liberty Mall (Amogela Mall)
– Oxford Gate
– Parkside Plaza
– Rivonia Square
– Nelspruit Hyper
– Dainfern Shopping Centre
– Whale Rock Residential Estate

Click here for further information on these properties:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExSFls TU54MXZ6NDIxRWJyMQEeAvi170yIHvwCfBi7IX2tGBj2tuRmd3xxyAlenv8sHfs2sYZa6dVopwon JQ0_aem_JSecLrIeguImB0xVY1oSig> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250930-1

He has posted this information as a “worst case” scenario for the relevant Debenture Holders revealing information about a situation that is a direct result of Nova Chairman Myburgh and the Board’s actions that have not been in the best interests of the affected Debenture Holders

He is not looking to be sensationalist with this information but providing the stark truth – information THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY NOVA LONG AGO OR, FAR BETTER, SHOULD NEVER HAVE RESULTED IN THE FIRST PLACE. See lower down on Tromp’s inclusion of the arbitrary step taken by Nova in 2019 per which they started absorbing property sale proceeds into operating capital
He informs that, with the sale proceeds having been absorbed into the operating capital of the company, that money doesn’t exist any more

And, with the transfer of the sold properties into the names of the buyers, there are no specific assets in the company’s books that underly, or back, the above debenture values, and thus the funds that should have been set aside to repay the debentures, are gone!

This is not a new fact but, in the absence of the disclosure (but see below) and any explanation, the appropriate explanation seems to be that the retention of the property sale proceeds (rather than using same to repay debentures) was Nova’s escape hatch and way to get out of their (frequently stated) funding problems by throwing the Debenture Holders under the bus and deliberately misusing debenture repayment funds to keep the company afloat to suit the Chairman and Board’s own agenda

What should also be noted is the content in Tromp’s post at point 3: Funds utilized within the Group

Funds diversion to keep the company afloat started, it could be said, with the 2013 sale of the Rivonia Square property. In our previous post, we included the only – but far from sufficiently explanatory – communications by Nova on the sale of this property

The point to be clear about on the diversion of sale proceeds funds for all of the already sold properties is that it was a totally unilateral action by Nova – no consultation, no explanation of, and motivation for withholding the funds and no agreement for the funds retention and re-deployment from the affected Debenture Holders

Further, Nova only informed the Debenture Holders of the sale proceeds retentions in September 2019 although nine of the subject properties had been sold off well before then from 2013 to 2018 with no Debenture repayments or appropriate communications over some six years
So, for these six years, information on the retention actions and non-payment of the relevant debentures was kept hidden and the fact that the disappearance of any of the sold properties from the next year’s AFS and could have triggered enquiries, does not qualify as appropriate communication which would have been after the event and dissatisfactory anyway

But this is actually yet another nail in the coffin regarding the ongoing allegations that Nova is insolvent and is in fact, trading in an insolvent state, which firstly, is evidence of reckless behaviour on the part of the Chairman and the Board but is also in contravention of the requirements of the Companies Act in which it is stated:

Reckless trading prohibited
22. (1) A company must not-
(a) carry on its business recklessly, with gross negligence, with intent to defraud
any person or for any fraudulent purpose; or
(b) trade under insolvent circumstances
.
The company is already “under Notification” by CIPC in that the Commission has issued a Notification to Nova calling on them to respond to the formal Companies Act CoR135.1 Complaint that Tromp has submitted to them and in which he states that, in his opinion Nova is indeed guilty of reckless behaviour and insolvent

Currently Nova has until 20th October to respond to CIPC and in the meantime, the Companies Tribunal hearing to address Nova’s frequent failure to meet its obligations under the Act and also other failures, especially the failure to repay the remaining Debentures, is on hold

Some contributing factors to justify the insolvency of the company:

– Huge tax debt to Sars and overdue VAT payments (R 62 million – excluding penalties for late payment – and R 16 nett million respectively)
– The Beneficio loan which is now a liability in the books to the tune of 67 million (with court judgment against the company and appeals unsuccessful)
– The Quatro Group – R 12.3 million owed for failure to pay for property hygiene services. Court order to Nova to pay
– The Bright Light Solar solar heating default involving some R 100 million and an application for liquidation of the company and, of course;
– The total value of the as yet unpaid debentures which reflect in the ’24 AFS as R 2.27 billion which includes the above 370 million value of the “missing millions” unpaid debentures

The above might not be entirely accurate or show the full pictures but no matter, what they do indicate or better, confirm is that they are serious red flags which only reinforce existing doubts about the company’s status and the performance of the Chairman and Board

Nova will not admit that the company is insolvent but it really is time to have that fact acknowledged publicly and especially, confirmed by CIPC!

On 11 September we informed in both this Facebook page and the NDCAG web site ( <www.ndcag.co.za> www.ndcag.co.za) on JP Tromp’s addition of his revelations on the Beneficio loan in his business web site <www.carian.co.za> www.carian.co.za and under the Nova Debenture Trust link

Nova Chair Connie Myburgh has addressed Tromp on this subject and stated broad based rejection of many of the “issues” raised relating to the loan and demanded that Tromp publish the response and rejections in his web site.

He has complied with Myburgh’s demand and we reproduce it below

But, what does it actually say? “Defamatory”, “ignores certain crucial facts”, “rights to institute legal action” seem to be the key words in an otherwise relatively empty communication

Regarding “certain crucial facts” Myburgh has chosen to not detail them but then reserves his rights to do so. We would suggest that, given our experiences of Nova/Myburgh over the years, those facts will never be disclosed (but see below)

What Tromp has revealed are the facts that he has determined from analysis of the Annual Financial Statements (AFS) and other records that he has been privy to – information that is available in the public domain. Or, did he suck the information that he has disclosed out of cyberspace? Hardly likely in his position as a Chartered Accountant. From a purely ethical perspective not to mention risking negative reputational damage (Nova take note!) he is hardly likely to fabricate false narratives

Tromp has informed that the saga commenced in 2017. Has Nova ever disclosed any information – especially the purpose of the loan(s) and logically, how same was to be of (ultimate) benefit to the Debenture- as well as the Shareholders (hereafter, the Investors) or other reason that would have justified the borrowing? The answer is no! Not a word in any of the last eight year’s AFS

That the Investors were never informed of the loan and its purpose in the first place, and not informed of the underlying problems which led to the escalation of the liability to 67.5 million surely demonstrates a lack of transparency on the part of the Chairman and the Board. Of course, this is besides the lack of communication and sharing of the “crucial facts” which might counter the labelling of reckless trading of this borrowing

The Beneficio exposé should be read in conjunction with the content of the COR135.1.1 Complaint that Tromp has submitted to CIPC and which provides information that may well be on the agenda of the upcoming Companies Tribunal hearing into Nova’s failures to observe its obligations under the Companies Act and also, speculatively, its failure to repay all of the debentures by the deadline of January, 2022, as per the Schemes if Arrangement ( although this is disputed by Nova and the deadline has been extended – albeit open-endedly without an actual deadline date – following Tromp’s appointment and approved by him as his first action in the role)

The CoR135.1 Complaint details in addition to the Beneficio loans, the following:

* Allegation that Nova is not a Going Concern (insolvent) * Ongoing failure to meet obligations under the Companies Act * The failure to disclose information about Amogela (liberty) Mall sale * Reckless trading * The extent of Trade Payables and Tax and VAT not paid to Sars (also indicating insolvency)

The reckless behaviours that Tromp refers to are heightened by Myburgh’s declining to disclose those “certain crucial facts” which would be a component of the “business decision which made sense” as per the SAFLII court record ( <www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html> www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html) of the Gauteng North High Court record of May 2023 when Beneficio took Nova to court (and won) over their reneging on the loan repayments

That strongly suggests that the Chairman and the Board have something to hide and logic suggests that Tromp’s exposé will only further damage what little good reputation Nova has (if any). The correct step would be to “come clean” and share those crucial facts which, it is implied in the rebuttal, will justify the loan and it’s escalation in value. But perhaps, it’s now too late for that?

But of course, Myburgh has taken the opposite response path: rather launch an attack on Tromp and threaten legal action – which of course will have to be paid for out of the limited company funds. We suggest that the legal case history so far viz a viz the Beneficio loan indicates that a further case will also fail and with costs against the company and thus the (possible) action will be a total waste of time and money

And, just by the way, the fact that the debentures for Tarentaal Centre and The Village Mall were repaid in is immaterial. This issue is not about damage to the Investors but to the company as a whole and its viability for the purpose of operating successfully to deliver repayment on all of the remaining debenture liabilities

Tromp has already posted on Amogela (Liberty) Mall and Beneficio. What others – where there has been no communication out of Nova – need to be brought into the public domain and under the spotlight?

Cold Creek

The acquisition of this property remains undisclosed by way of any explanations. This notwithstanding the fact that Nova may enter into asset acquisitions in order to achieve its purpose. But such acquisitions should be transparently explained

Read these Moneyweb articles. The second one states that Myburgh got himself out of a financial hole at the expense of the Investors

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than- half-of-its-investment-properties/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than-h alf-of-its-investment-properties/

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inve stors-saved-connie-myburgh/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inves tors-saved-connie-myburgh/

and we’ve recorded these questions so far:

* Where did the money come from? * Which properties were sold round about that time and what became of the sale proceeds? Were they used to “finance” the Convey Assist (CA) acquisition * The other directors agreed to buy CA. Myburgh recused himself from the decision process. It’s very hard to believe that he did not influence the directors in some way towards the “correct decision” to rescue him (and the other CA directors?) * Nova paid what was owed to RMB thus preventing call up by the bank under the CA director suretyships but what were the CA assets that they assumed and what happened to them? Were there any assets besides the CA/CC property? * It can’t be right (justifiable?) that Nova also assumed a loan account in the name of Myburgh (and perhaps other directors)?. Were those loan accounts ever liquidated/repaid? If yes, how much did Nova pay out all told subsequent to acquisition? * If CC was sold – according to the April ’21 Moneyweb article – how were the sale proceeds applied?

Here again, what were the Investors told about the acquisition of the property and how same would be beneficial as regards the prospects of future company success and progress towards, if not some actual delivery, of debenture repayments?

Rivonia Square: One of the early “sell-offs” of the inherited Sharemax assets

Read these documents regarding the sale of this property:

* From a periodic Nova Communiqué in December 2012: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1

* A letter addressed to Rivonia Square investors in November 2016: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2

In summary:

* Property sold in 2012 * Sold for less than book value * Nova advised that sale proceeds were ringfenced and invested to grow to an amount sufficient to enable debenture repayment and that monthly income (presumably a portion of the monthly interest/growth) would be paid to relevant Debenture Holders * In November 2016 they advised that (the usual sob stories) due to adverse funding circumstances and consequent impact on the business, the income would no longer be paid

And then? It seems obvious that that ringfenced amount plus any growth (after income payments) was absorbed into the operating capital of the business and “disappeared” – partly, no doubt, used to provide the directors with their regular remuneration (which, in our opinion is a key component of the value extraction that has taken place over the years)

But, the content of the two documents provides no information on what was to be done with the ring-fenced Rivonia sale proceeds. What the November, 2016 letter does show is, again, total lack of transparency on the part on Nova, expecting the Rivonia Square Investors to “suck it up” without any undertaking (however nebulous same might be) on the prospects of debenture repayment. It’s actually disgusting!

And in this regard, the following from a recent media post, the content of which resonates with us:

<www.timcohen.co.za/r/cd12b54b?m=4bf85033-d65d-4c87-bbd4-eb345b14baa 1> www.timcohen.co.za/r/cd12b54b?m=4bf85033-d65d-4c87-bbd4-eb345b14baa1

Quote:

The business rescue sector really emerged out of the liquidations business, as companies involved in liquidations pivoted to this new opportunity. There are plenty of great business rescue practitioners out there, and it’s important to have them in order to save as much as possible of struggling businesses. But the record also shows that there are plenty of dodgy organisations too, which deliberately stretch out business rescue operations to keep the fees flowing.

And we all know what the opinions of the majority of the Investor’s are (including those of NDCAG) about where Nova fits into the above description of the Business Rescue industry

Op 11 September het ons op beide hierdie Facebook-blad en die NDCAG-webwerf (www.ndcag.co.za <www.ndcag.co.za> ) ingelig oor JP Tromp se byvoeging van sy onthullings oor die Beneficio-lening op sy besigheidswebwerf (www.carian.co.za <www.carian.co.za> ) en onder die Nova Debenture Trust-skakel

Nova-voorsitter Connie Myburgh het Tromp oor hierdie onderwerp aangespreek en ‘n breë verwerping van baie van die “kwessies” wat met die lening geopper is, verklaar en geëis dat Tromp sy reaksie en verwerpings op sy webwerf publiseer

Hy het aan Myburgh se eis voldoen en ons gee dit hieronder weer

Maar, wat sê dit eintlik? “Lastlik”, “ignoreer sekere deurslaggewende feite” (“ignores certain crucial facts”), “regte om regstappe in te stel” blyk die sleutelwoorde te wees in ‘n andersins relatief leë kommunikasie.

Wat “sekere deurslaggewende feite” betref, het Myburgh gekies om dit nie in detail te bespreek nie, maar behou dan sy regte voor om dit te doen. Ons stel voor dat, gegewe ons ervarings met Nova/Myburgh oor die jare, daardie feite nooit bekend gemaak sal word nie (maar sien hieronder)

Wat Tromp onthul het, is die feite wat hy vasgestel het uit die ontleding van die Jaarlikse Finansiële State (JFS) en ander rekords waarvan hy bewus was – inligting wat in die publieke domein beskikbaar is. Of het hy die inligting wat hy onthul het uit die kuberruimte gesuig? Sulke optrede sal waarskynlik nie van ‘n professionele geoktrooieerde rekenmeester kom nie. Vanuit ‘n suiwer etiese perspektief, om nie eens te praat van die risiko van negatiewe reputasieskade nie (Nova, let wel!), is dit nouliks waarskynlik dat hy valse narratiewe sal vervaardig
Tromp het meegedeel dat die sage in 2017 begin het. Het Nova ooit enige inligting bekend gemaak – veral die doel van die lening en logies, hoe dit (uiteindelike) voordeel vir die Skuldbrief – sowel as die Aandeelhouers (hierna die Beleggers) – sou wees, of ander redes wat die lening sou regverdig? Die antwoord is nee! Nie ‘n woord in enige van die afgelope agt jaar se finansiële jaarrekeninge nie
Dat die Beleggers nooit in die eerste plek ingelig is oor die lening en die doel daarvan nie, en nie ingelig is oor die onderliggende probleme wat gelei het tot die eskalasie van die las tot 67,5 miljoen nie, toon sekerlik ‘n gebrek aan deursigtigheid van die kant van die Voorsitter en die Raad. Natuurlik is dit benewens die gebrek aan kommunikasie en die deel van die “deurslaggewende feite” wat die etikettering van roekelose handel in hierdie lening kan teenwerk
Die Beneficio-eksposé moet gelees word in samehang met die inhoud van die CoR315-klag wat Tromp by CIPC ingedien het en wat inligting verskaf wat moontlik op die agenda van die komende Maatskappytribunaal-verhoor sal wees oor Nova se versuim om sy verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet na te kom, en ook, spekulatief, sy versuim om al die skuldbriewe teen die sperdatum van Januarie 2022 terug te betaal, volgens die Skema-ooreenkoms (alhoewel dit deur Nova betwis word en die sperdatum verleng is – alhoewel onbepaald sonder ‘n werklike sperdatum – na Tromp se aanstelling en deur hom goedgekeur as sy eerste aksie in die rol)
Die CoR135-klag bevat, benewens die Beneficio-lenings, die volgende:
– Bewering dat Nova nie ‘n Going Concern is nie (insolvent) – Voortdurende versuim om verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet na te kom – Die versuim om inligting oor die verkoop van Amogela (liberty) Mall bekend te maak – Die omvang van handelsskulde en belasting en BTW wat nie aan Sars betaal is nie (wat ook insolvensie aandui)
Die roekelose gedrag waarna Tromp verwys, word vererger. deur Myburgh se weiering om daardie “sekere deurslaggewende feite” bekend te maak wat ‘n komponent van die “business decision which made sense” sou wees volgens die SAFLII-hofrekord (www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html) van die Gauteng-Noord Hooggeregshofrekord van Mei 2023 toe Beneficio Nova hof toe geneem het (en gewen het) oor hul versuim om die lening terug te betaal
Dit dui sterk daarop dat die Voorsitter en Raad iets het om weg te steek en logika dui daarop dat Tromp se onthulling slegs die min goeie reputasie wat Nova het (indien enige) verder sal skaad. Die korrekte stap sou wees om daardie deurslaggewende inligting te deel wat, soos geïmpliseer word in die weerlegging, die lening en die waarde daarvan sal regverdig. Maar miskien is dit nou te laat daarvoor?
Die korrekte stap sou wees om daardie “crucial facts” te deel wat, soos geïmpliseer word in die weerlegging, die lening en die waarde daarvan sal regverdig. Maar miskien is dit nou te laat daarvoor?
Maar natuurlik het Myburgh die teenoorgestelde reaksiepad gevolg: eerder ‘n aanval op Tromp loods en met regstappe dreig – wat natuurlik uit die maatskappy se fondse betaal sal moet word. Ons stel voor dat die regsgeskiedenis tot dusver, naamlik die Beneficio-lening, aandui dat ‘n verdere saak ook sal misluk en met koste teen die maatskappy, en dus sal die (moontlike) aksie ‘n totale vermorsing van tyd en geld wees
En, terloops, die feit dat die skuldbriewe vir Tarentaal-sentrum en The Village Mall alreeds terugbetaal is, is onbelangrik. Hierdie kwessie gaan nie oor skade aan die Beleggers nie, maar oor die maatskappy as geheel en die lewensvatbaarheid daarvan met die doel om suksesvol te opereer om terugbetaling vasn al die oorblywende skuldbriewe-verpligtinge te lewer.
Tromp het reeds oor Amogela (Liberty) Mall en Beneficio geplaas. Watter ander – waar daar geen kommunikasie uit Nova was nie – moet in die publieke domein en onder die kollig gebring word?
Cold Creek: Die verkryging van hierdie eiendom bly onbekend deur middel van enige verduidelikings. Dit ondanks die feit dat Nova bate-verkrygings mag aangaan om sy doel te bereik. Maar sulke verkrygings moet deursigtig verduidelik word
Lees hierdie Moneyweb-artikels. Die tweede een lui dat Myburgh gered is oor ‘n mself ‘n finansiële moelikheoid ten koste van die Beleggers:

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than- half-of-its-investment-properties/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-has-sold-more-than-h alf-of-its-investment-properties/

<www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inve stors-saved-connie-myburgh/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/how-former-sharemax-inves tors-saved-connie-myburgh/
(Slegs in Engels beskikbaar)
en ons het tot dusver hierdie vrae aangeteken:
– Waar het die geld vandaan gekom? – Watter eiendomme is rondom daardie tyd verkoop en wat het van die verkoopopbrengs geword? Is dit gebruik om die Convey Assist (CA) verkryging te financier? – Die ander direkteure het ingestem om CA te koop. Myburgh het homself van die besluitnemingsproses onttrek. Dit is baie moeilik om te glo dat hy nie die direkteure op een of ander manier beïnvloed het tot die “korrekte besluit” om hom (en die ander CA-direkteure?) te red nie. – Nova het betaal wat aan RMB verskuldig was, wat verhoed het dat die bank dit onder die CA-direkteur se borgstellings sou oproep, maar wat was die CA-bates wat hulle aangeneem het en wat het daarmee gebeur? Was daar enige bates benewens die CA/CC-eiendom? – Dit kan nie reg (regverdigbaar?) wees dat Nova ook ‘n leningsrekening in die naam van Myburgh (en miskien ander direkteure) aangeneem het nie? Is daardie leningsrekeninge ooit gelikwideer/terugbetaal? Indien wel, hoeveel het Nova altesaam na die verkryging uitbetaal? – Indien CC verkoop is – volgens die Moneyweb-artikel van April 2021 – hoe is die verkoopopbrengs aangewend?
Hier weereens, wat is die beleggers meegedeel oor die verkryging van die eiendom en hoe dit voordelig sou wees met betrekking tot die vooruitsigte van toekomstige maatskappysukses en vordering met, indien nie werklike uitlewering nie, van skuldbriefterugbetalings?
Rivonia Square:
Een van die vroeë “verkope” van die geërfde Sharemax-bates
Lees hierdie dokumente rakende die verkoop van hierdie eiendom:
– Uit ‘n periodieke Nova Communiqué in Desember 2012: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-1
– ‘n Brief gerig aan Rivonia Square-beleggers in November 2016: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250922-2
Ter opsomming:
– Eiendom verkoop in 2012 – Verkoop vir minder as boekwaarde – Nova het meegedeel dat die verkoopopbrengs afgebaken en belê is om te groei tot ‘n bedrag wat voldoende is om skuldbriefterugbetaling moontlik te maak en dat maandelikse inkomste (vermoedelik ‘n gedeelte van die maandelikse rente/groei) aan relevante skuldbriefhouers betaal sou word – In November 2016 het hulle meegedeel dat (die gewone snikstories) as gevolg van ongunstige befondsingsomstandighede en die gevolglike impak op die besigheid, die inkomste nie meer betaal sou word nie
En toe? Dit lyk voor die hand liggend dat daardie afgebakende bedrag plus enige groei (na inkomstebetalings) in die bedryfskapitaal van die onderneming geabsorbeer is en “verdwyn” het – gedeeltelik, ongetwyfeld, gebruik om die direkteure van hul gereelde vergoeding te voorsien (wat na ons mening ‘n sleutelkomponent is van die “wealth extraction” wat oor die jare plaasgevind het)
Maar die inhoud van die twee dokumente verskaf geen inligting oor wat met die afsonderlike Rivonia-verkoopopbrengs gedoen moes word nie. Wat die brief van November 2016 wel toon, is weereens ‘n totale gebrek aan deursigtigheid van Nova se kant, wat verwag dat die Rivonia Square-beleggers dit sou “opsuig” )suck up) sonder enige onderneming (hoe vaag dit ook al mag wees) oor die vooruitsigte van skuldbriefterugbetaling. Dis eintlik walglik!
En in hierdie verband, die volgende uit ‘n onlangse mediaplasing, waarvan die inhoud by ons aanklank vind:
www.timcohen.co.za/r/cd12b54b?m=4bf85033-d65d-4c87-bbd4-eb345b14baa1

Uittreksel
The business rescue sector really emerged out of the liquidations business, as companies involved in liquidations pivoted to this new opportunity. There are plenty of great business rescue practitioners out there, and it’s important to have them in order to save as much as possible of struggling businesses. But the record also shows that there are plenty of dodgy organisations too, which deliberately stretch out business rescue operations to keep the fees flowing.
En ons weet almal wat die menings van die meerderheid van die beleggers is (insluitend dié van NDCAG) oor waar Nova in die bogenoemde beskrywing van die Besigheidsreddingsbedryf pas.

JP Tromp, die Nova Debenture Trustee, wat die afgelope maande die saak van die Debenture Houers opgeneem het, het vandag ‘n plasing gemaak oor die Beneficio-lenings-sage

Dit kan verkry word op sy besigheidswebwerf by www.Carian.co.za <www.Carian.co.za> . Klik op die Debentures-skakel

Voorheen het hy ‘n uiteensetting gepubliseer oor alles wat verkeerd is met betrekking tot die voormalige Liberty Mall, wat ‘n naamsverandering na Amogela Mall ondergaan het. Die eiendom lê in puin na ‘n brand, strukturele skade en plundering

Hier is ‘n nuwe media-artikel oor die eiendom:

newsday.co.za/south-africa/4156/welkoms-once-iconic-mall-ripped-apar t-brick-by-brick/?utm_source=newsletter

of

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911

Lees dit saam met Tromp se inhoud oor wat die afgelope vyf jaar of so daaroor gebeur het en wat wel en nie bekend gemaak is oor die verkoop en daaropvolgende gebeure nie

JP Tromp, the Nova Debenture Trustee, who has taken up the cause of the Debenture Holders in recent months has posted today on the Beneficio loans saga

It can be accessed in his business web site at www.Carian.co.za <www.Carian.co.za> . Click on the Debentures link

Previously, he published an exposé on all that is wrong regarding the former Liberty Mall which had a name change to Amogela Mall. The property lies in ruins having suffered a fire, structural damage and looting

Here is a new media article on the property:

newsday.co.za/south-africa/4156/welkoms-once-iconic-mall-ripped-apar t-brick-by-brick/?utm_source=newsletter

or

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20250911

Read this in conjunction with Tromp’s content on what has happened regarding it over the last five years or so and what has and hasn’t been disclosed about its sale and subsequent events

J-P Tromp has created a dedicated Debentures page in his business web site at www.carian.co.za <www.carian.co.za>

In that site he has informed of his commitment to fulfil the role of Debenture Trustee and work in the interests of the Debenture Holders

Go to the web site and click on the Nova Debenture Trust link/button to read his foundation statement

This channel arises in part from the historical lack of communication out of Nova and where certain (many?) actions of the Chairman and the Executive have rung alarm bells for him and which, he has decided, necessitate public highlighting

Whilst some negativity and suspicion of Tromp has been detected amongst some Debenture Holders and activists in the past we are, in terms of a conscious decision taken some time ago, willing to co-operate with anybody or entity that opposes Nova. This is despite any alleged past activity or actions or suspicions that such persons or entities may have engaged in provided that we are satisfied about the bona fides of their actions taken against Nova and/or in the interests of achieving repayment for the Sharemax investors – whether out of Nova operations or from persons or entities that eventually carry the blame and accountability for the alleged illegal and irregular shut-down of the Property Syndication Promotions Companies in 2010

Note also the other links/buttons in the Nova Debenture Trust page under the heading Media Statements. Tromp will be publishing information under these headings in the future

There is already a post present on his response to Nova’s reaction to his public statements via Moneyweb plus an exposé on the situation regarding Amogela Mall in Welkom (formerly Liberty Mall)

The Amogela post is likely to set the tone for future posts on other of the Nova properties and related matters

The news will not always be good – in fact, may never be good

Appreciate that Tromp, whilst in office as the Debenture Trustee, is, first and foremost, a Chartered Accountant and it is quite possible that much of his future posts will be conveyance of the bad news that he has detected in his scrutiny and analysis of Nova’s Annual Financial Statements

What therefore does this hold for the Debenture Holders and the likelihood of repayment out of Nova?

The answer is very little unless Nova can find a White Knight who will deliver the goods. We suggest: don’t hold your breath!

Thus, the answer lies in the outcomes of other actions against Nova

In direct action, the Companies Tribunal on Nova’s performance and failures, that was initiated by the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)

Indirectly, the impact on Nova’s future once the CIPC initiated Inter-Regulatory Investigation into the shut down of the Property Syndication companies in 2010, has delivered its Final Report

Whilst both of these are very slow moving they are nonetheless, still on the go and will still deliver, as per direct and indirect feedback received from time to time

What are the possible outcomes for Nova as a result of the revelatory actions by Tromp?

That remains to be seen. Will the CIPC include details of his revelations in the agenda for the Companies Tribunal hearing? Will the frequent assertions that Nova is in fact, insolvent result in the company being placed under administration (with removal of the current Board of Directors)? Will yet another Business Rescue Plan be necessary? What will all of this mean as regards time-frames relevant to any foreseen eventual repayment?

See also:
www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506101 Nova trustee takes on Sharemax rescue vehicle board
and
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExZ1pMY jJNMDVWUVJ5ZDNBYgEeW2nxjcUOAlVCE0GwhxgbEKktcxrs4F9QNGvfX9Li3HAMFML4B8Y6IO0mj os_aem_gJe1s8vmwEq9DnlL2joBzg> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102 Official Response from the Trustee of the Debenture Trust on the Moneyweb article of 19 June 2025 – Sharemax Rescue Vehicle on the Brink as Creditors Circle
and
iono.fm/e/1572350: RSG Geldsake podcast (available in Afrikaans only) featuring Tromp on liquidation applications against Nova

J-P Tromp het ‘n toegewyde Skuldbriewe-bladsy (Nova Debenture Trust) op sy besigheidswebwerf geskep by <www.carian.co.za> www.carian.co.za

Op daardie webwerf het hy ingelig oor sy verbintenis om die rol van Skuldbrieftrustee te vervul en in die belang van die Skuldbriefhouers te werk

Gaan na die webwerf en klik op die Nova Denture Trust-skakel/knoppie om sy stigtingsverklaring te lees

Hierdie kanaal spruit deels voort uit die historiese gebrek aan kommunikasie vanuit Nova en waar sekere (vele?) optrede van die Voorsitter en die Uitvoerende Kommitee alarmklokke vir hom laat lui het en wat, volgens hom, openbare uitlig noodsaak

Alhoewel daar in die verlede negatiwiteit en agterdog teenoor Tromp onder sommige Skuldbriefhouers en aktiviste bespeur is, is ons, in terme van ‘n bewuste besluit wat ‘n geruime tyd gelede geneem is, bereid om saam te werk met enigiemand of entiteit wat Nova teenstaan. Dit is ten spyte van enige beweerde vorige aktiwiteite of aksies of vermoedens waaraan sulke persone of entiteite moontlik deelgeneem het, mits ons tevrede is met die bona fides van hul optrede teen Nova en/of in die belang van die verkryging van terugbetaling vir die Sharemax-beleggers – hetsy uit Nova-bedrywighede of van persone of entiteite wat uiteindelik die skuld en aanspreeklikheid dra vir die beweerde onwettige en onreëlmatige sluiting van die Eiendomsindikasie-promosiemaatskappye in 2010

Let ook op die ander skakels/knoppies op die Nova Debenture Trust-bladsy onder die opskrif Mediaverklarings. Tromp sal in die toekoms inligting onder hierdie opskrifte publiseer

Daar is reeds ‘n plasing beskikbaar oor sy reaksie op Nova se openbare verklarings via Moneyweb, plus ‘n uiteensetting oor die situasie rakende Amogela Mall in Welkom (voorheen Liberty Mall).

Die Amogela-plasing sal waarskynlik die toon aangee vir toekomstige plasings oor ander van die Nova-eiendomme en verwante sake

Die nuus sal nie altyd goed wees nie – trouens, dit mag nooit goed wees nie

Daar moet verstaan word dat Tromp, terwyl hy in die amp as die Skuldbrieftrustee optree, eerstens ‘n Geoktrooieerde Rekenmeester is en dit is heel moontlik dat baie van sy toekomstige poste die oordrag van die slegte nuus sal wees wat hy in sy ondersoek en ontleding van Nova se jaarlikse finansiële state opgespoor het

Wat hou dit dus in vir die Skuldbriefhouers en die waarskynlikheid van terugbetaling uit Nova?

Die antwoord is baie min tensy Nova ‘n Wit Ridder kan vind wat die terugbetaling sal lewer. Ons stel voor: moenie jou asem ophou nie!

Dus lê die antwoord in die uitkomste van ander aksies teen Nova

In direkte aksie, die Maatskappytribunaal oor Nova se prestasie en mislukkings, wat deur die Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) geïnisieer is

Indirek, die impak op Nova se toekoms nadat die CIPC ‘n Inter-Regulatoriese Ondersoek na die sluiting van die Eiendomsindikasiemaatskappye in 2010 begin het, sy Finale Verslag gelewer het

Alhoewel beide hiervan baie stadig beweeg, is hulle nietemin steeds aan die gang en sal, volgens direkte en indirekte terugvoer wat van tyd tot tyd ontvang word, steeds uitkomste lewer en hopelik, die gewenste terugbetaling

Wat is die moontlike uitkomste vir Nova as gevolg van die openbarende aksies deur Tromp?

Dit bly nog gesien te word. Sal die CIPC besonderhede van sy onthullings in die agenda vir die Maatskappytribunaalverhoor insluit? Sal die gereelde bewerings dat Nova in werklikheid insolvent is, daartoe lei dat die maatskappy onder administrasie geplaas word (met die verwydering van die huidige direksie)? Sal nog ‘n sake-reddingsplan nodig wees? Wat sal dit alles beteken ten opsigte van tydsraamwerke wat relevant is tot enige voorsiene uiteindelike terugbetaling?

Sien ook:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506101> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506101 Nova trustee takes on Sharemax rescue vehicle board
and
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExZ1pMY jJNMDVWUVJ5ZDNBYgEeW2nxjcUOAlVCE0GwhxgbEKktcxrs4F9QNGvfX9Li3HAMFML4B8Y6IO0mj os_aem_gJe1s8vmwEq9DnlL2joBzg> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102 Official Response from the Trustee of The Debenture Trust on the Moneyweb article Of 19 June 2025 – Sharemax Rescue Vehicle on the Brink as Creditors Circle
and
iono.fm/e/1572350: RSG Geldsake podcast (available in Afrikaans only) featuring Tromp on liquidation applications against Nova