Read here:
www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises- more-governance-questions/\ <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises -more-governance-questions/>

The post presents a back-and-forth argument on the matter with Nova CEO Haese digging in with insistence that the company had timeously applied for an extension of the AGM deadline

Even if Nova did apply for the extension ahead of the deadkine, it was a “last minute” action and signifies once again the disdain that the Board exhibits as regards obligations under the Companies Act and internal responsibilities regarding compliance

Of course, all of this stems from the continued failure to publish the 2025 Annual Financial Statements (AFS) which are, seemingly, sill not signed off by the auditors

But, Nova Debenture Trustee JP Tromp has also laid a complaint with CIPC on the same matter in the last week

Read here: www.carian.co.za/blog

Note that there are three relevant posts in this web page, all posted last week and covering:
* Companies Tribunal – Failure by the Nova Board of Directors to Convene an Annual General Meeting * Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) – Companies Act transgressions (18 June 2025) Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) * Companies Act transgressions (1 July 2026)

In the second and third of the above, Tromp has provided the Companies Tribunal with additional information on Nova for their consideration when addressing the application for an extension of the deadline for the AGM (The Companies Tribunal is an arm of CIPC which deals with Companies Act issues and compliance failures)

The ball is therefore in the Tribunal’s court and their decision and outcome is awaited

If they agree, will they place a – short-term? – deadline for the AGM which would require early AFS publication?

If they don’t agree – do Nova deserve such accommodation given the historical Act related failures anyway – what then?

According to Tromp, the Tribunal should not approve an extension, for two reasons:

– The company’s application does not contain a proposed length of the extension period as required under the provisions of the Act
– The company has previously applied for an extension and the Tribunal should take a negative view of such repeated requests

Further, the Tribunal may view the reason given in the application – “… due to a delay with the Auditor’s Report in the finalisation of the Audited Financial Statements” as insufficiently showing “good cause” and where “The Tribunal strictly assesses whether “good cause” is genuinely being shown. Repeatedly citing the same reasons (e.g., “audit delays” or “administrative issues”) is usually viewed with skepticism, as it often suggests underlying mismanagement or poor corporate governance.” (by Google AI out of <www.derebus.org.za/cpr-companies-failing-convene-annual-general-mee ting-companies-tribunal/?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExZWRtVXBRbENUSDVhZE RtVnNydGMGYXBwX2lkEDIyMjAzOTE3ODgyMDA4OTIAAR50VYy0cIlNcMg9x81Zypzcn3yuA0lh-y eCWsyVSl4wRBb6RcPjb2GWy4bcXA_aem_23szT8bI-uCHPB32mBGNFA> www.derebus.org.za/cpr-companies-failing-convene…/)

Its common knowledge that the delays with publication of the AFS are usually (always?) because of delays with auditor sign-off. Good reason to view the application with scepticism and, in light of the questions that this must surely invoke, decline to approve

Lees hier: www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises-more-governance-questions/\ <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/novas-delayed-agm-raises-more-governance-questions/>

Die plasing bied ‘n heen-en-weer argument oor die saak, met Nova se uitvoerende hoof, Haese, wat daarop aandring dat die maatskappy betyds aansoek gedoen het vir ‘n verlenging van die AJV-sperdatum maar die punt is gemaak

Selfs al het Nova wel aansoek betyds gedoen vir die verlenging, was dit ‘n “laaste minuut”-aksie en dui dit weereens op die minagting wat die Raad toon met betrekking tot verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet en verantwoordelikhede rakende nakoming

Natuurlik spruit dit alles voort uit die voortgesette versuim om die 2025 Jaarlikse Finansiële State (AFS) te publiseer

Maar, JP Tromp, die Nova-Skuldbrief Trustee, het ook, in die laaste week, ‘n klagte by die CIPC oor dieselfde aangeleentheid ingedien

Lees hier: www.carian.co.za/blog

Let daarop dat daar eintlik drie relevante plasings op hierdie webblad is; almal verlede week geplaas en handel oor:
* Companies Tribunal – Failure by the Nova Board of Directors to Convene an Annual General Meeting * Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) – Companies Act transgressions (18 June 2025) – wat blyk aanvullend te wees tot sy vroeëre klagte wat in Mei vanjaar ingedien is * Complaint lodged with the CIPC (CoR135.1) – Companies Act transgressions (1 July 2026)

Wat die tweede en derde van bogenoemde punte betref, het Tromp bykomende inligting oor Nova aan die Companies Tribunal voorsien vir oorweging tydens die hantering van die maatskappy se aansoek om ‘n verlenging van die sperdatum vir die algemene jaarvergadering

Die bal is dus in die Tribunaal se baan en hul besluit en uitslag word afgewag

Indien hulle saamstem, sal hulle ‘n – korttermyn? – sperdatum vir die AJV plaas? Dit sal vroeë publikasie van die AFS vereis?

Indien hulle nie instem nie (en in elk geval, verdien Nova sulke akkommodasie gegewe die historiese Maatskappy Wet verwante mislukkings?) wat dan?

Volgens Tromp behoort die Tribunaal nie ‘n verlenging goed te keur nie, om twee redes:

– Die maatskappy se aansoek bevat nie ‘n voorgestelde duur vir die verlengingstydperk soos vereis deur die bepalings van die Wet nie
– Die maatskappy het voorheen om ‘n verlenging aansoek gedoen, en die Tribunaal behoort so ‘n herhaalde versoek in ‘n negatiewe lig te beskou

Verder mag die Tribunaal die rede wat in die aansoek aangevoer is – “….. due to a delay with the Auditor’s Report in the finalisation of the Audited Financial Statements” as insufficiently showing “good cause” beskou as onvoldoende bewys van “good cause”, aangesien “The Tribunal strictly assesses whether “good cause” is genuinely being shown. Repeatedly citing the same reasons (e.g., “audit delays” or “administrative issues”) is usually viewed with skepticism, as it often suggests underlying mismanagement or poor corporate governance.” (deur Google AI, gebaseer op www.derebus.org.za/cpr-companies-failing-convene-annual-general-meeting-companies-tribunal/)

Dit is algemeen bekend dat vertragings met die publikasie van die geouditeerde finansiële state gewoonlik (altyd?) te wyte is aan vertragings met die ouditeur se goedkeuring. Dit is ‘n goeie rede om die aansoek met skeptisisme te bejeën en – in die lig van die vrae wat dit ongetwyfeld moet oproep – te weier om die aansoek goed te keur

Below is a link that is accessible

Die skakel na die CIPC-mediavrystelling wat in die teks ingesluit was, was moontlik nie vir lesers toeganklik nie

Hieronder is ‘n skakel wat wel toeganklik is

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20260608> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20260608

CIPC het ‘n persvrystelling gepubliseer wat ‘n opdatering gee oor hul ondersoeke na (hoofsaaklik) Nova en melding van die sluiting van die PSPC-bedryf in 2010 noem

Lees hier: <cdn.files-text.com/us-south1/api/lc/att/19347745/fbeed87c1fcbb657d223eb5d2b256f8b/Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf?utm_medium=chat&utm_campaign=link-shared-in-chat&utm_source=livechat….> Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf

Alhoewel dit die vordering van ondersoeke sedert 2020 verduidelik, is die enigste belangrike punte vir Skuldbriefhouers “….(CIPC) is nearing a legal turning point in its long-running investigation …”, hierdie stelling:
“At this juncture in the investigation, the CIPC anticipates that based on the merits thus far, the National Director of Public Prosecution (NDPP) will intervene and consider the most efficient and prompt legal recourse under the current circumstances…” en die laaste paragraaf: “The CIPC has reaffirmed its commitment to fulfilling its regulatory mandate and acknowledges the financial hardship experienced by several Debenture Holders and Investors of the various companies forming the subject of this appraisal.”

Wat behels ‘n “legal turning point”? Dit skakel na die besonderhede oor die NPA se “prompt legal recourse”. In ‘n vorige plasing het ons ingelig oor ‘n onbevestigde verslag dat die CIPC die PSPC-ondersoek se tussentydse verslag aan die NPA gestuur het en dat aanklagte ingedien is. Daar is steeds geen bevestiging of besonderhede hieroor vanuit die CIPC nie, maar ons het geen rede om te twyfel dat ons bron van die inligting nie betroubaar is nie. Wat hierdie aksies wel aandui, is dat die wiele agter die skerms draai en dat positiewe resultate op hande is

Dat die CIPC “reaffirmed its commitment” is goeie nuus vir die skuldbriefhouers. Dit beteken dat hulle steeds verbind is en dus sal voortgaan om binne die ruimte van die staatsorgane vir vordering en resultate te druk

Dit mag dalk nie nou ‘n positiewe ontvangs skep nie, maar solank hulle steeds aktief in die saak otree, is daar hoop vir ‘n uiteindelike oplossing wat skuldbriefterugbetaling sal lewer. Dit gesê vanuit die oogpunt dat Nova nie die nodige fondse het en nooit sal hê om terug te betaal nie – dit was nooit hul strategiese bedoeling nie en enigiets wat teendeel gesê word, is slegs lippediens aan die rede vir hul bestaan ​​– en dat die NPA en NDPP (Nasionale Dirextore for Public Prosecurions) die goedere lewer in terme van ooreenkoms oor die geldigheid van CIPC se bevindinge en die nodige regstappe doen om die nodige hofuitsprake ten uitvoer te bring

Toevallig – maar miskien nie – het Daily Investor (DI) ook op 4 Junie ‘n artikel oor The Villa-kompleks gepubliseer met insette van uitvoerende hoof Haese oor voornemens vir die hervatting van die ontwikkeling van die eiendom

Lees hier: dailyinvestor.com/property/137232/new-plans-for-the-half-built-ghost-shopping-mall-which-has-stood-empty-for-16-years/

Ons het op die artikel gereageer via ‘n kommentaar op die DI-webwerfblad soos volg:

>>> “Post from Nova Debenture Creditors Action Group, <ndcag.co.za> ndcag.co.za and <web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800> web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800.

 We are curious about this post as it doesn’t say anything concrete and appears to be similar to previous Broad Media posts on the Sharemax/Nova saga/debacle  We wonder if the article was instigated via an approach by Nova? (Daily Investor/Kirsten Minnaar: comment welcomed – herein or to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]) 

It’s appearance is interesting because, also yesterday, CIPC issued a media release update on their investigations into (primarily) Nova (Companies Act compliance related) and mentioning the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC industry (Property Syndication Promotion Company) and the alleged illegalities and irregularities perpetrated by SARB and the then Financial Services Board – See <cdn.files-text.com/us-south1/api/lc/att/19347745/fbeed87c1fcbb657d223eb5d2b256f8b/Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf?utm_medium=chat&utm_campaign=link-shared-in-chat&utm_source=livechat….> cdn.files-text.com/us-south1/api/lc/att/19347745/fbeed87c1fcbb657d223eb5d2b256f8b/Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf?utm_medium=chat&utm_campaign=link-shared-in-chat&utm_source=livechat….  

Is the post just another attempt by Nova to garner some good press and yet another invocation of the White Knight fiction about finance providers standing by to bail the company out. Who is going to finance a company that must have a very low-level credit rating, with hugely diminished inherent value after concerted fixed asset sell-off over the years? We say to Nova: Good Press requires Good Actions – of which there have been none – at least since 2013 when Nova Debentures were last repaid, with a value of 2.2 billon of same still requiring repayment and with the AFS for year-ending 28 February 2025 (yes, 2025!) still not published

 Long story short: the subject article on prospects for The Villa complex is just another smoke and mirrors display by the company”

CIPC has published a Media Release providing an update on their investigations into (primarily) Nova and mentioning the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC industry

Read here: <cdn.files-text.com/us-south1/api/lc/att/19347745/fbeed87c1fcbb657d2 23eb5d2b256f8b/Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf?utm_medium=chat &utm_campaign=link-shared-in-chat&utm_source=livechat.com&utm_content=www.bi zportal.gov.za> Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf

Whilst it explains the progress of investigations since 2020, the only salient points for Debenture Holders are “….(CIPC) is nearing a legal turning point in its long-running investigation …”, this statement: “At this juncture in the investigation, the CIPC anticipates that based on the merits thus far, the National Director of Public Prosecution (NDPP) will intervene and consider the most efficient and prompt legal recourse under the current circumstances…” and the final paragraph: “The CIPC has reaffirmed its commitment to fulfilling its regulatory mandate and acknowledges the financial hardship experienced by several Debenture Holders and Investors of the various companies forming the subject of this appraisal.”

What does a “legal turning point” entail? This links to the detail about the NPA “prompt legal recourse”. In a previous post we informed of an unconfirmed report that CIPC had forwarded the PSPC Investigation’s Interim Report to the NPA and that charges had been laid. There is still no confirmation of or detail on this out of CIPC but we have no reason to doubt that our source of the information is not reliable. What these actions do indicate is that the wheels are turning behind the scenes and that positive results are in the offing

That the CIPC has “reaffirmed its commitment” is good news for the Debenture Holders. It means that they are still committed and will therefore continue to press withing the spere of the organs of state space for progress and results

This may not create a positive reception now but as long as they are still active in the matter, there is hope for an eventual resolution that will deliver debenture repayment. This said from the viewpoint that Nova have not and will never have the necessary funds to repay – its never been their strategic intention and anything said to the contrary is only lip service to the reason for their existence – and that the NPA and NDPP (National Director of Public Prosecutions) delivers the goods in terms of agreement on the validity of CIPC’s findings and produces the necessary legal action to get the necessary court judgements executed

Co-incidentally – but maybe not – Daily Investor (DI) also published, an article on 4 June on The Villa complex with inputs from CEO Haese on intentions for resumption of development of the property

Read here: dailyinvestor.com/property/137232/new-plans-for-the-half-built-ghost -shopping-mall-which-has-stood-empty-for-16-years/

>>> “Post from Nova Debenture Creditors Action Group, <ndcag.co.za> ndcag.co.za and <web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800> web.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100067221587800.

 We are curious about this post as it doesn’t say anything concrete and appears to be similar to previous Broad Media posts on the Sharemax/Nova saga/debacle  We wonder if the article was instigated via an approach by Nova? (Daily Investor/Kirsten Minnaar: comment welcomed – herein or to <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected]) 

It’s appearance is interesting because, also yesterday, CIPC issued a media release update on their investigations into (primarily) Nova (Companies Act compliance related) and mentioning the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC industry (Property Syndication Promotion Company) and the alleged illegalities and irregularities perpetrated by SARB and the then Financial Services Board – See <cdn.files-text.com/us-south1/api/lc/att/19347745/fbeed87c1fcbb657d2 23eb5d2b256f8b/Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf?utm_medium=chat &utm_campaign=link-shared-in-chat&utm_source=livechat.com&utm_content=secure .livechatinc.com> cdn.files-text.com/us-south1/api/lc/att/19347745/fbeed87c1fcbb657d22 3eb5d2b256f8b/Nova-Sharemax-Investigation-Media-Release.pdf?utm_medium=chat& utm_campaign=link-shared-in-chat&utm_source=livechat.com&utm_content=secure. livechatinc.com  

Is the post just another attempt by Nova to garner some good press and yet another invocation of the White Knight fiction about finance providers standing by to bail the company out. Who is going to finance a company that must have a very low-level credit rating, with hugely diminished inherent value after concerted fixed asset sell-off over the years? We say to Nova: Good Press requires Good Actions – of which there have been none – at least since 2013 when Nova Debentures were last repaid, with a value of 2.2 billon of same still requiring repayment and with the AFS for year-ending 28 February 2025 (yes, 2025!) still not published

 Long story short: the subject article on prospects for The Villa complex is just another smoke and mirrors display by the company”

Read here:

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/novas-auditors-accused-o f-failing-to-flag-companies-act-breaches/

Tromp has responded via his Debentures related WhatsApp group as follows:

>>>> Dear Debenture Holder / Interested Party
I trust this message finds you well.
I wish to bring to your attention an article published this morning on Moneyweb
Worth noting, the article reports that the external auditors are considering legal action against me for putting the reasons for my complaint in the public domain. I can confirm that I have received an email from the auditors informing me of a legal process they have initiated.
As Trustee, I always consider the implications of any information I publish on my website. The same applied to the Memorandum relating to the official complaint I lodged with the IRBA.
Regardless of any potential adverse legal consequences on me as Trustee, I will continue to do what is right and communicate the true facts to the Debenture Holders. Whether I am sued for defamation or not, which now appears likely, this will not deter me from exposing the truth.
I have both a statutory and fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the Debenture Holders – and I will continue to do so, regardless of any consequences.
Kind regards
JP Tromp In my capacity as Trustee of the Debenture Trust

Lees hier:

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/novas-auditors-accused-o f-failing-to-flag-companies-act-breaches/

Tromp het soos volg via sy Skuldbriefverwante WhatsApp-groep gereageer:

>>>> Dear Debenture Holder / Interested Party
I trust this message finds you well.
I wish to bring to your attention an article published this morning on Moneyweb
Worth noting, the article reports that the external auditors are considering legal action against me for putting the reasons for my complaint in the public domain. I can confirm that I have received an email from the auditors informing me of a legal process they have initiated.
As Trustee, I always consider the implications of any information I publish on my website. The same applied to the Memorandum relating to the official complaint I lodged with the IRBA.
Regardless of any potential adverse legal consequences on me as Trustee, I will continue to do what is right and communicate the true facts to the Debenture Holders. Whether I am sued for defamation or not, which now appears likely, this will not deter me from exposing the truth.
I have both a statutory and fiduciary obligation to act in the best interests of the Debenture Holders – and I will continue to do so, regardless of any consequences.
Kind regards
JP Tromp In my capacity as Trustee of the Debenture Trust

.

* Nova’s incorrect interpretation of the Companies Act requirement for finalisation and publication of their Annual Financial Statements (AFS), which they have used as their “excuse” for on-going late finalisation and with the apparent agreement of the auditors (ARC Inc) regarding their stance

* Failure (seemingly by the auditors) to Report to IRBA, as a Reportable Irregularity, Nova’s Income Tax (R62 million) and VAT (R16.3 million) liabilities as reflected in the AFS and which have apparently been accumulating over a number of years

* A representation on why the AFS for 28/2/25 have not yet been finalised and published – with an imputation that the delay may be the exercise of a deliberate ploy whilst certain developments might occur that could improve the position of the company as to be reflected the financial statements. Tromp does not say so directly, but the reporting of this to IRBA suggests that he feels that ARC Inc is complicit in the delays with the ’25 AFS

Tromp states in conclusion of his submission that the issues reported “..collectively raises material concerns regarding governance, financial stability, and audit transparency within the Nova Group”

The submission and supporting documents can be viewed in his business web site at www.carian.co.za/post/complaints-lodged-with-the-independent-regulat ory-board-for-auditors

What are the possibilities of a meaningful outcome and what are the powers of IRBA in this connection?

Information out of the IRBA web site (via Google AI) informs that after investigation, a finding that corroborates Tromp’s complaint can result in any of Monetary Fines, Cancellation or Suspension (not actually stated but it’s relevant to the reported auditor?), Imposition of Conditions, Public Censure and Cost Orders

Further, where IRBA finds that elements of the complaint are non-relevant to the auditors themselves but evidences malpractice within the relevant company,
cross-reporting becomes necessary:

* “When a complaint details breaches of the Companies Act (such as reckless trading, failure to hold AGMs, or financial misstatements that are the fault of company directors/management rather than the auditor), the IRBA is obliged to refer the non-auditor portions of the complaint to the appropriate statutory authority, which is primarily the CIPC” (Source: www.accountancysa.org.za/reportable-irregularities-creating-a-cultur e-of-compliance/)

Does this new development add a compelling layer to the existing issues with Nova? Would it be sufficient to push CIPC to expedite completion of its Companies Act related investigation to the point of the envisaged Tribunal hearing and resulting findings on Nova’s breaches of the requirements of the Act, its seemingly deliberate hiding of a very much adverse financial position which we would expect, would only verify, yet again and by competent analysts, the company’s ongoing insolvency?

We receive no information from CIPC and what we do hear comes to us indirectly. We think that it’s time to call for a formal statement on the state of affairs regarding both the internal CIPC investigation into Nova and the wider CIPC investigation into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC industry – in the public interest”- being primarily, for us, the interests of the former Sharemax investors but also all of the investors in the PSPC companies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* “When a complaint details breaches of the Companies Act (such as reckless trading, failure to hold AGMs, or financial misstatements that are the fault of company directors/management rather than the auditor), the IRBA is obliged to refer the non-auditor portions of the complaint to the appropriate statutory authority, which is primarily the CIPC” (Source: www.accountancysa.org.za/reportable-irregularities-creating-a-cultur e-of-compliance/)

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

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

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

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

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

dat CIPC nog nie streng stappe gedoen het nie

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

Op 31 Maart

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

Cevolg op 2 April met:

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

En dan op 6 April het hy geskryf:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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