Moneyweb opened with: “Its [CIPC’s] own investigator warned of possible insolvency and questioned the board’s ability to repay investors. Four years later, 18 500 former Sharemax investors may be left with almost nothing.” and further: “Despite Zwane’s[*] findings, which clearly indicate that the CIPC had serious concerns about Nova’s solvency, possible reckless trading, and the board’s intention and capacity to repay investors, it took no further enforcement action.” (*Cuma Zwane is Senior Investigator, Corporate and Disclosure Regulation Unit – and the “investigator” referred to in the first quote).

CIPC have responded via a media release on 23 October (www.cipc.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2026/10/CIPC-STATEMENT-ON-REGULAT ORY-ACTION-IN-THE-NOVA-MATTER_.pdf) stating that the Moneyweb article:

” .. presents an incomplete and grossly misleading account of the actions taken by the Commission in relation to Nova PropGrow Group Holding Ltd (“Nova”) and the material developments relevant to those actions.”

CIPC state that, as early as 2021, they took action as regard’s Nova affairs via two Compliance Notices. This was following preparatory steps to lay the groundwork for the more aggressive public actions

The first one, in February, was a ” <www.google.com/search?q=Notice+to+Show+Cause> Notice to Show Cause” over potential reckless or insolvent trading. Nova was required to submit audited Annual Financial Statements for 2021 (meaning, late again) and a board resolution detailing its plan to exit debentures and repay historical Sharemax investors

The second, in October, followed an unsatisfactory response to the first, and CIPC issued an official <www.google.com/search?q=Compliance+Notice> Compliance Notice (on 25 October 2021). This gave Nova a final deadline until 28 February 2022-the scheduled period to repay former Sharemax debenture holders to prove it would not be financially distressed

Those were the firsts actions in the Companies Tribunal investigation into Nova but they (Nova) lodged a dispute over the allegations and the investigation was frozen pending an outcome. We are not aware of the status of the dispute and the investigation – still frozen? Going nowhere? Yet another delaying tactic and manipulation of “the process” by Board Chair Myburgh and the Directors?

Then followed the election of J-P Tromp as Debenture Trustee and late in January 2022, the Trustee approved and open-ended extension (another Myburgh and Board manipulation and delaying tactic?) of the January 2022 deadline for the debentures as set out in the Schemes of Arrangement . This deadline is disputed by Nova but they had to have a new Trustee in place in order to approve an extension (required per the Trust Deed) as a way to remove the non-repayment from CIPCs agenda

Following Tromp’s election and the debenture repayment extension, NDCAG had a meeting with Cuma Zwane at the CIPC Offices. Deon Pienaar, leading activist at the wider PSPC company shut-down level was also present and Zwane was given in-depth information on all that was wrong in terms of illegalities and irregularities in the SARB/FSB’s investigation, the shut-down, the fall out and, as regards Nova after 2010, all that related to its failure to execute repayment of all of the debentures

Those inputs to Zwane played a very important role in the CIPC decision to launch a separate investigation into the PSPC shut-down. CIPC had finalised an Interim Report on its findings during 2024 and the next step was to be a Tribunal on the findings with the parties and entities that participated in the investigation to be followed by production and release of a Final Report with findings and recommendations for the consideration of and action by appropriate authorities

And that seems to be as far as the matter has progressed – from an outsider’s viewpoint – and it seems to be just not moving any further

We agree that CIPC has taken up the cause re the 2010 shut-down (where SARB claims CIPC has acted beyond its scope of authority). and we recognise and acknowledge the value of its activities in what is for all of the victims of the shut-down, hugely important and vital in terms of possible eventual investment repayment

But with so little visible progress, with the Companies Tribunal Investigation at Companies Act obligations and failures level and likewise with the Inter-Regulatory investigation on the PSPC shut-down, the eventual outcomes of which are so vital for both the Nova Debenture- and Shareholders (the *Class D – former Sharemax investors who did not opt for Nova Debentures back n 2011), there is a tangible air of frustration

In this regard, the CIPC 4 June ’26 media release on progress re Nova (which we think may well have been a concession to pressure for information anyway) opened with: “The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) is nearing a legal turning point in its long-running investigation into the business affairs and compliance status of Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Ltd (‘Nova’), which ensued in the first half of 2020.”

Does this not signify progress and create an expectation?

In addition to the Moneyweb allegation, in our post of 2 November (COUNTDOWN TO THE OVERDUE NOVA 2025 AGM) we informed that Tromp had escalated his concerns over the delays to the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition of his views on such failure as posted on 19 October and he also cited regulatory failure

It remains to be seen what transpires from Tromp’s escalation. We have received no acknowledgement or response from any area of CIPC to our email but we think that CIPC have perhaps missed the point or, won’t acknowledge, that the two investigations are just not progressing towards final outcomes and consequent action against Nova

So, we suggest that CIPC’s response to the Moneyweb article is a defensive action and diverting attention from the lack of investigation outcomes

Moneyweb het soos volg begin: “Its [CIPC’s] own investigator warned of possible insolvency and questioned the board’s ability to repay investors. Four years later, 18 500 former Sharemax investors may be left with almost nothing.” En verder: “Despite Zwane’s[*] findings, which clearly indicate that the CIPC had serious concerns about Nova’s solvency, possible reckless trading, and the board’s intention and capacity to repay investors, it took no further enforcement action.” (*Cuma Zwane is Senior Investigator, Corporate and Disclosure Regulation Unit – en die “ondersoeker” na wie in die eerste aanhaling verwys word)

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

“ …. presents an incomplete and grossly misleading account of the actions taken by the Commission in relation to Nova PropGrow Group Holding Ltd (“Nova”) and the material developments relevant to those actions.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In hierdie verband het die CIPC se mediaverklaring van 4 Junie ’26 oor vordering met betrekking tot Nova (wat, na ons mening, dalk in elk geval ’n toegewing aan druk vir inligting was) soos volg begin: The Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) is nearing a legal turning point in its long-running investigation into the business affairs and compliance status of Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Ltd (‘Nova’), which ensued in the first half of 2020.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The CIPC rules on AGM extension applications are that:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Die sperdatum hiervoor is 25 November. Die 2025-oudit deur ARC Inc moet dus afgehandel wees sodat die finansiële jaarstate (AFS) gepubliseer en aan aandeelhouers versprei kan word voordat die jaarvergadering kan plaasvind

Sal dit werklik gebeur, of sal Nova nóg ‘n aansoek om uitstel indien? En indien wel, watter rede sal hulle aanvoer, en sal die Maatskappytribunaal (Companies Tribunal) dit weer goedkeur?

‘n Verdere goedkeuring sal net bydra tot die duur van die “Dark Ages” situasie wat heers rakende die stand van die maatskappy wat nie publiek verslag gedoen het volgens hul verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet sedert die ’24 AFS “goedgekeur is vir uitreiking op 31 Januarie 2025 en daarna gepubliseer is via die Februarie 2025-kennisgewings vir die 2024 AJV” (Google AI)

Sal die Maatskappytribunaal tevrede wees met dieselfde kinderagtige rede wat Nova in hul vorige aansoeke gegee het?

Volgens die verlengingsgoedkeuring van 10 September, was die rede wat Nova in hul aansoek aangevoer het:

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

Vir ons klink dit soos om die verantwoordelikheid op ander af te skuif. Of dalk om hul ouditeure onder die bus te gooi

In die goedkeuringsrekord van 27 Julie is die rede soos volg aangedui:

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

Die CIPC-reëls oor AGM-verlengingsaansoeke is dat:

“The Tribunal’s jurisdiction to grant an extension is discretionary. The applicant bears the onus of establishing “good cause.” The Act does not define “good cause.” The Tribunal has held that it requires a convincing explanation for the delay and a demonstration that the applicant is acting in good faith and with reasonable diligence.”

Die vorige redes rakende die verlengings vorm na ons mening nouliks ‘n goeie rede. Sal die Tribunaal dieselfde rede weer aanvaar of dieper besonderhede vereis oor die rede vir die vertraging in die verkryging van ouditgoedkeuring

Wat sal gebeur indien hulle nie goedkeuring verleen nie? En wat as die ouditeure teen daardie tyd steeds nie die Ouditeursverslag gefinaliseer het nie? Sal die Tribunaal op ‘n besluit aandring, en wat sal die uitkoms daarvan wees?

In hierdie verband meld ons dat daar geen reaksie ontvang is van enige van die partye aan wie ons e-pos van 21 Oktober – getiteld “ONS DOEN ‘N BEROEP OP REGULEERENDE OWERHEDE OM OP TE TREE INSAKE DIE ’25 AFS” – gerig was nie. Hierdie e-pos is gestuur aan ARC Inc, die IRBA, die CIPC en die Maatskappytribunaal

Daardie e-pos het ons persepsie van regulatoriese mislukking aangespreek – ‘n kwessie wat ook genoem is in Moneyweb se berig van 19 Oktober (www.moneyweb.co.za/…/cipc-saw-the-nova…/) – asook in die voorlegging deur die obligasietrustee, Tromp, aan die Nasionale Vergadering se Portefeuljekomitee oor Handel, Nywerheid en Mededinging, waarin hy sy siening oor sodanige mislukking uiteensit (soos op 19 Oktober gepubliseer)

Die CIPC het op die Moneyweb-artikel gereageer, en ons sal daardie reaksie in die nabye toekoms publiseer

Die verband tussen bogenoemde kommentaar oor die situasie rakende die 2025-jaarfinansiële state (AFS) en die “regulatoriese mislukking” waarna vroeër verwys is, is eenvoudig:

HOEVEEL LANGER SAL DIE NOVA-DIREKTEURE TOEGELAAT WORD OM “DAARMEE WEG TE KOM”?

Ons sal die webwerf van die Maatskappytribunaal monitor vir enige inligting oor ‘n verdere aansoek om die verlenging van die algemene jaarvergadering deur die maatskappy

Ons dink beslis dat enige verdere sodanige aansoek summier van die hand gewys moet word met die gelyktydige uitreiking van ‘n Compliance Notice wat onmiddellike finalisering en publikasie vereis, SAAM MET die finalisering en publikasie van die finansiële jaarverslag vir die jaar wat eindig op 28 Februarie 2026, wat ook nou agt maande agterstallig is

Ons het die volgende teks per e-pos gestuur aan die genoemde regulerende owerhede en ARC Inc, die ouditeure van Nova:

We have sent the following text via email to the named regulatory authorities and ARC Inc, the Nova auditors:

For attention:

ARC Inc: Theo Rautenbach
IRBA: The Board and the Director: Investigations
CIPC: Advocate Rudi Voller and Cuma Zwane
Companies Tribunal: Dr Simukele Khoza

For Information:

Nova Propgrow: Board Chair Connie Myburgh and Directors
Nova Debenture Trustee J-P Tromp

Good day to all

Please refer to the attached text of a recent posting in our web site ( <www.ndcag.co.za> www.ndcag.co.za) and Facebook page ( <web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800> web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800) on the matter of the long overdue Nova Propgrow (Nova) Annual Financial Statements (AFS) for year-ending 28 February 2025
[The referenced posting is that of 19th October and present elsewhere in tis screen]

All addressees should already be aware of the situation regarding the subject AFS via the formal submissions by and/or correspondence from Nova Debenture Trustee, J-P Tromp (and, in all likelihood, aware also of the many historical and ongoing issues, irregularities and failures as have appeared in the media since 2011)

We have opened our sites post with a link to and a quote from a Moneyweb article written by Bart Henderson, fraud risk specialist and forensic investigator, re the role of the auditor, viz:

AUDITORS EXIST FOR ONE REASON: TO GIVE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SEE INSIDE A BUSINESS AN INDEPENDENT OPINION THEY CAN RELY ON

There may be differing viewpoints on the priority focus of auditors as that stated by Henderson but the point is valid in relation to Nova’s history, obligations and failures in its role as the product of the Sharemax Business Rescue Plan and its responsibility for the repayment of the Nova Debentures which replaced the investment product shares of most of the Sharemax investors and, specifically, in relation to the current non-compliance issue with Nova: the outstanding 2025 Annual Financial Statements (AFS). In addition to the Companies Act compliance failure, this is, effectively, another instance of Nova’s isolation of the Debenture Holders where communication with them is almost non-existent

We are of firm opinion that CIPC and the Companies Tribunal, IRBA and possibly even ARC Inc are being manipulated by Nova for its own purposes

We also question ARC’s actions/non-actions as regards finalisation of the Nova 2025 audit and whether it is in fact acting in collusion with Nova for whatever reason of its own

We submit to you that those Nova purposes are to deliberately conceal the true state of the company’s affairs whilst flouting its obligations under the Companies Act. For years, analysis opinion has been that the company is insolvent, which has also been the stated opinion out of CIPC

Regarding ARC and whatever its motives and reasons are for the audit non-finalisation, we maintain that they are in contravention of their responsibilities under any/all of the Audit Profession Act, the Companies Act and the IRBA Code of Professional Conduct (IRBA Code)

Henderson has also raised the matter of Regulatory Failure in respect of Masterbond and he details what was built and implemented, “post-Masterbond” – to resolve/prevent such failures

That focus has been echoed in an article in Moneyweb ( <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/cipc-saw-the-nova-disaste r-coming-and-failed-to-stop-it/> www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/cipc-saw-the-nova-disaster-coming -and-failed-to-stop-it/) in which it is posited that regulatory failure has also occurred at CIPC through its lack of action re Nova

Nova Debenture Trust Trustee, J-P Tromp, has also addressed relevant regulatory failure in his communication to National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition stating in his Nova Debenture Trust WhatsApp group, inter alia:

>>>>> I have taken the decisive step of escalating the ongoing regulatory inaction – particularly from the CIPC – to the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition. This matter now sits before a structure with the authority to intervene meaningfully.

Therefore, we call upon the three central entities in this submission for action:

* ARC Inc: to be guided by and to immediately act as required, under the mentioned Acts and the IRBA Code

* IRBA: to invoke the appropriate procedures to,
* Investigate the audit finalisation delays * censure ARC Inc if necessary and as appropriate out of the findings and; * Request a written explanation as to why no Reportable Irregularity was submitted to the IRBA with reference to the multiple purported legislative transgressions, Section 30, Section 61 (of the Companies Act) as well as the fact that the CEO has made a public statement that the Nova Group is experiencing an ‘insolvent financial position’. * Request a written explanation of the factors and circumstances that are preventing ARC from completing the audit

* CIPC/Companies Tribunal: to issue a Compliance Notice requiring Nova’s immediate finalisation and publication of the 2025 AFS

We urge all addressees to take all appropriate action and push for progress to resolve the fiasco that the original Sharemax Business Rescue plan has become in the hands of Nova Propgrow and we thank all in anticipation of such positive action

Acknowledgements of receipt would be appreciated as would responses informing of hopefully, entity actions to address the above

Hierdie artikel volg op die stuk deur Bart Henderson – wat vroeër vandag geplaas is – oor die ineenstorting van Masterbond en BHI Trust

Albei lig die kwessie aan dat staatsinstansies versuim het om hul regulerende en toesighoudende funksies behoorlik uit te voer, tot nadeel van beleggers en die publiek

Lede het dikwels – in kommentaar op ons plasings – navraag gedoen oor die gebrek aan vordering deur die CIPC en die Maatskappytribunaal (Companies Tribunal) met die ondersoeke na Nova en die CIPC-sluiting; nou spreek ’n media-instansie ook sy kommer hieroor uit

Nova-obligasietrustee J-P Tromp gaan voort om sy rol uit te voer, en het ook sy kommer uitgespreek in ‘n verklaring op die Nova-obligasietrust se WhatsApp-groep:

>>>>> Over the past 4½ years in my capacity as Trustee, I have reached a point of near helplessness in the face of the continued non‑action by various Regulators regarding the countless and well‑documented instances of reckless conduct by the Nova Board of Directors. I can only imagine the heartache and frustration that Debenture Holders have endured for more than 16 years.
We are all painfully aware of the human cost of this prolonged injustice — investors driven to despair, some tragically taking their own lives; many living in poverty, struggling to survive on meagre pensions while hoping and praying for even a modest recovery of their investment. The suffering of Debenture Holders stands in stark contrast to the circumstances of the Directors of Nova, who were entrusted with safeguarding investor funds yet do not share in the hardship their decisions have caused.
In light of this, I have taken the decisive step of escalating the ongoing regulatory inaction — particularly from the CIPC — to the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition. This matter now sits before a structure with the authority to intervene meaningfully.
As a matter of courtesy, I have informed the Nova Board of Directors of my actions.

This article comes on the back of the Bart Henderson article on the Masterbond and BHI Trust failures posted earlier today

They both raise the question of State entity failure to exercise their regulatory and watchdog functions appropriately and to the detriment of investors and the public

Members have often questioned, via Comment to our posts, the lack of progress out of CIPC and the Companies Tribunal on moving the Nova and CIPC shut-down investigations forward and here we have a media entity also raising its concerns

Nova Debenture Trustee J-P Tromp continues to activate in execution of his role and has also escalated his concerns via this statement on his Nova Debenture Trust WhatsApp group:

>>>>> Over the past 4½ years in my capacity as Trustee, I have reached a point of near helplessness in the face of the continued non‑action by various Regulators regarding the countless and well‑documented instances of reckless conduct by the Nova Board of Directors. I can only imagine the heartache and frustration that Debenture Holders have endured for more than 16 years.
We are all painfully aware of the human cost of this prolonged injustice — investors driven to despair, some tragically taking their own lives; many living in poverty, struggling to survive on meagre pensions while hoping and praying for even a modest recovery of their investment. The suffering of Debenture Holders stands in stark contrast to the circumstances of the Directors of Nova, who were entrusted with safeguarding investor funds yet do not share in the hardship their decisions have caused.
In light of this, I have taken the decisive step of escalating the ongoing regulatory inaction — particularly from the CIPC — to the National Assembly’s Portfolio Committee on Trade, Industry and Competition. This matter now sits before a structure with the authority to intervene meaningfully.
As a matter of courtesy, I have informed the Nova Board of Directors of my actions.

I am confident that the issues surrounding Nova have now been placed before the appropriate authorities for urgent attention.
Once feedback is received, I will publish the communication on my website without delay.

www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-opinion/soapbox/30-years-after-masterbon d-investors-are-still-vulnerable/

This article does not reference the Sharemax/Nova disaster and investor repayment failure but it contains a statement that is very relevant to the Debenture Holder’s situation

That statement is:

>>>>> AUDITORS EXIST FOR ONE REASON: TO GIVE PEOPLE WHO CANNOT SEE INSIDE A BUSINESS AN INDEPENDENT OPINION THEY CAN RELY ON <<<<>>>> “The Commission of Inquiry into the Affairs of the Masterbond Group and Investor Protection in South Africa, chaired by retired Judge HC Nel, did not soften its language.
>>>>> Among some of the auditors it examined, it found “an astonishing degree of dishonesty, inefficiency, lack of professional integrity and lack of independence”

We have to ask: Where do Nova’s external auditors – ARC Inc – stand in this context?

They recently informed Nova Debenture Trustee J-P Tromp that the audit is not yet finished – more than a year after the Companies Act defined deadline for publication of 31 August 2025!

Why not and what is the hold-up?

It seems obvious that there are factors in the information that Nova has presented to ARC that are extremely contentious and that clearly, have not and cannot be resolved by Nova, in order to allow them (ARC) to sign-off on the audit

But the bigger questions are:

* Who is pulling the strings in this matter? * Why is ARC, apparently, allowing themselves to be manipulated and/or exposed in this way? * Why do ARC not force the issue by applying strict compliance with the relevant Acts and under the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (IRBA) Code of Professional Conduct?

And, underlying all of the above:

>>>>> WHAT ARE THE ISSUES THAT ARE PREVENTING AUDIT FINALISATON AND AFS PUBLICATION? <<<<<

And behind that again, is the issue of the delayed 2025 AGM and the further CIPC Companies Tribunal approved extension of deadline which is nothing else but a delaying tactic by the Nova Board so that they can continue to deliberately withhold the 2025 financial results (and therefore an expectation, if not a certainty, that, in the absence of any near-future definitive action by CIPC/Companies Tribunal or other authority, exactly the same situation is going to apply re the 2026 AFS and AGM)

Following posting hereof, the text has been emailed to:

* Nova, for attention of The Chairman and the Board * ARC Inc, for attention of Theo Rautenbach * The CIPC Companies Tribunal for attention of the and the Nova investigation team * Cuma Zwane, Senior Investigator Corporate Compliance and Disclosure Unit * The IRBA * Nova Debenture Trustee J-P Tromp