www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/sharemax-rescue-vehicle-o n-the-brink-as-creditors-circle/

In case the article is moved behind Moneyweb’s paywall, it can also be viewed here www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506191, and for Nova Chair Connie Myburgh’s response to Moneyweb’s questions, here <www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506192> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506192

Whilst, on the surface, it is correct that if Nova goes into liquidation, there is not enough money and insufficient assets, available to meet all of the company’s liabilities – including the 2.2 billion value of the yet to be repaid debentures, it is not the only source of possible debenture repayment

The article states that the CIPC investigation (into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC – Property Syndication Promotion Companies – industry which included Sharemax and into Nova itself due to repeated failures to meet Companies Act obligations and the failure to repay all of the debentures by 22 January 2022) has “ground to a halt”

This is not the case. Yes, we still await the release of the CIPC Investigation’s Interim Report and have been for almost two years now. But there are actions underway to move forward

On 2 June, CIPC sent out a letter to all of the investigation participants who had already signed and submitted Non-Disclosure Agreements to CIPC (that’s non-disclosure of the contents of the Interim Report) together with documentation for recipient’s comments on the report’s contents. The letter opened with a statement to the effect that the recipients had already received the report but not directly from the internal Investigation division of CIPC – probably from their legal area

That report had not been sent out by 2 June and still has not. It appears that, on the one hand, there is much bureaucracy involved which keeps tripping up the release and on the other, we suspect, there are entities, organs of state, and individuals perhaps, who are also intervening because they are going to be seriously embarrassed at what the Final Report reveals – whether because of their part in the process that led to the shut-down, or their failure to act when addressed by the activists, some of the PSPC company directors and whoever, on the allegations of wrongdoing

The sending of the letters on 2 June indicates that CIPC Investigation division is ready to proceed and process investigation participant’s comments as preparation for the CIPC Inquisition (to take place thirty days after the release of the Interim Report) on the findings of the investigation which will lead to the formulation of the Final Report, which, we understand, will be made public

Given the expectation that the findings will expose who and which entities engineered and benefited from the deliberate shut-down (and as has been alleged, capture of the PSPC companies’ assets) we are of the opinion that all of the PSPC investors (or their successors) can look to the Investigation’s outcomes as their best hope of receiving their money back

But, it will not necessarily happen quickly. Once the Final Report has revealed the details of the illegalities and irregularities that were perpetrated back in 2010, decisions will have to be made on what to do about the revelations. Once those decisions have been made and implemented, will there be legal action against those persons and bodies found to be responsible and accountable? Will those same persons and bodies institute legal actions of their own to contest the findings and/or to defend their actions? How long will all of that take?

Note also the input from Debenture Trustee J-P Tromp. He is still speaking publicly and in negative terms about Nova which indicates that he is still pursuing actions against the company. We await further news in this regard

Regarding Nova Chair Connie Myburgh’s response to the liquidation application by Bright Light, we’d say that of course he would respond as he did. Typical Myburgh tactics in our opinion. He states that Bright Light is “a seemingly unregistered electricity provider”. According to CIPC company registrations, Bright Light is registered with CIPC as a Venture Capital Company with enterprise number K201649138. Does that not legitimise them? Anyway, why label them negatively now? Did they not have doubts right from the start of the solar installation project for the relevant properties? If so, why trade with them in the first place (reckless trading)? Or, are those doubts now expressed, just a smokescreen?

Likewise, with Beneficio and the 31 million loan. When they could not repay and the pressure was on, they complained that the interest rate was usury. But they entered into the deal nonetheless! Were the directors wearing blindfolds when they signed the contract? What was the purpose of the loan anyway? Something not benefiting the business per sé and not in the interests of the Debenture Holders?
According to the court record (North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria) for Benefico vs Tarentaal Centre in the Saffli archive – www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html – Nova stated that “[64.4] The money was borrowed as a result of a business decision by the defendants and the NOVA Group to repay debenture holders and to avoid reputational damage – it was a business decision which made sense to the defendants and the NOVA Group”. It made sense? Who’s kidding who here? Was this the true reason? Just another smokescreen? What on Earth would lead the Nova directors to think – convince themselves? – that a debenture repayment of 31 million out of a total amount due of 2.2 billion would in any way contribute to avoiding reputational damage? Does that approach mean that they were not aware (and are still not?) of the huge scale of the reputational damage that already applied and continues to apply?

The downside of Nova’s tactics? They spend company money, what Myburgh publicly referred to, at one of the Debenture Trustee election meetings back in 2021, as “our money”, implying Debenture Holder money that could be used to repay, to defend their interpretations of the law or the legal opinions received (again, paid for with “our” money) and to attempt to escape the consequences of what has been alleged as occurrences of reckless trading. Deemed reckless trading which could lead to a CIPC Compliance Notice, in terms of the provisions of the Act, ordering them to cease trading which action in itself will probably lead to further legal action by the company (“our” money, again)

But the directors will continue promising repayment whilst stalling, fighting and spending “our money” on legal actions for as long as they can. Why? Because, we believe, Nova is a cash cow which they milk and have been milking ever since they acquired the Sharemax assets. That, we believe, was the hidden purpose behind the “Sharemax Business Rescue” (refer also Ryk van Niekerk’s content on the Harrison & White liquidation)

Mr Myburgh and co-directors of Nova Group: we invite you to respond and try to convince us otherwise. But, that’s a hell of a mountain to climb and your chances of success are very slim!

www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/sharemax-rescue-vehicle-o n-the-brink-as-creditors-circle/

Ingeval die artikel agter Moneyweb se betaalmuur geskuif word, kan dit ook hier besigtig word: www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506191

En, vir Nova-voorsitter Connie Myburgh se reaksie op Moneyweb se vrae, hier: www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506192

Alhoewel dit oppervlakkig korrek is dat indien Nova tot in likwidasie gaan, daar nie genoeg geld en onvoldoende bates beskikbaar is om al die maatskappy se laste te dek nie – insluitend die 2.2 miljard waarde van die nog terugbetaalde skuldbriewe – is dit nie die enigste bron van moontlike skuldbriefterugbetaling nie

Die artikel verklaar dat die CIPC-ondersoek (na die 2010-sluiting van die PSPC – Property Syndication Promotion Companies – bedryf, wat Sharemax ingesluit het, en na Nova self weens herhaalde versuim om aan die Maatskappywet-verpligtinge te voldoen en die versuim om al die skuldbriewe teen 22 Januarie 2022 terug te betaal) “tot stilstand gekom het”

Dit is nie die geval nie. Ja, ons wag steeds vir die vrystelling van die CIPC Ondersoek se Tussentydse Verslag en doen dit nou al vir byna twee jaar. Maar daar is aksies aan die gang om vorentoe te beweeg

Op 2 Junie het CIPC ‘n brief gestuur aan al die ondersoekdeelnemers wat reeds Geheimhoudingsooreenkomste (dit is die nie-openbaarmaking van die inhoud van die Tussentydse Verslag) onderteken en by CIPC ingedien het, tesame met dokumentasie vir die ontvanger se kommentaar oor die inhoud van die verslag. Die brief het begin met ‘n verklaring dat die ontvangers die verslag reeds ontvang het, maar nie direk van die interne Ondersoekafdeling van CIPC nie – waarskynlik van hul regsgebied

Daardie verslag was teen 2 Junie nie uitgestuur nie en is steeds nog nie. Dit blyk dat daar aan die een kant baie burokrasie betrokke is wat die vrystelling aanhoudend belemmer, en aan die ander kant, vermoed ons, is daar entiteite, staatsorgane en miskien individue wat ook ingryp omdat hulle ernstig verleë gaan wees oor wat die Finale Verslag openbaar – hetsy as gevolg van hul aandeel in die proses wat tot die sluiting gelei het, of hul versuim om op te tree toe hulle deur die aktiviste, sommige van die PSPC-maatskappydirekteure en wie ook al, oor die bewerings van oortreding aangespreek is

Die versending van die briewe op 2 Junie dui daarop dat die CIPC-ondersoekafdeling gereed is om voort te gaan en die kommentaar van die ondersoekdeelnemers te verwerk as voorbereiding vir die CIPC-ondersoek (wat dertig dae na die vrystelling van die tussentydse verslag sal plaasvind) oor die bevindinge van die ondersoek wat sal lei tot die formulering van die Finale Verslag, wat, soos ons verstaan, openbaar gemaak sal word

Gegewe die verwagting dat die bevindinge sal blootlê wie en watter entiteite die doelbewuste sluiting (en soos beweer is, die kaping van die PSPC-maatskappye se bates) bewerkstellig en daarby baat gevind het, is ons van mening dat al die PSPC-beleggers (of hul opvolgers) na die ondersoek se uitkomste kan kyk as hul beste hoop om hul geld terug te ontvang

Maar dit sal nie noodwendig vinnig gebeur nie. Sodra die finale verslag die besonderhede van die onwettighede en onreëlmatighede wat in 2010 gepleeg is, onthul het, sal besluite geneem moet word oor wat om te doen met die onthullings. Sodra daardie besluite geneem en geïmplementeer is, sal daar regstappe wees teen die persone en liggame wat verantwoordelik en aanspreeklik bevind word? Sal dieselfde persone en liggame hul eie regstappe instel om die bevindinge te betwis en/of hul optrede te verdedig? Hoe lank sal dit alles duur?

Let ook op die insette van die skuldbrieftrustee J-P Tromp. Hy praat steeds in die openbaar en in negatiewe terme oor Nova, wat daarop dui dat hy steeds stappe teen die maatskappy doen. Ons wag vir verdere nuus in hierdie verband

Wat Nova-voorsitter Connie Myburgh se reaksie op die likwidasie-aansoek deur Bright Light betref, sou ons sê dat hy natuurlik sou reageer soos hy gedoen het. Tipiese Myburgh-taktiek na ons mening. Hy sê dat Bright Light “‘n skynbaar ongeregistreerde elektrisiteitsverskaffer” is. Volgens CIPC-maatskappyregistrasies is Bright Light by CIPC geregistreer as ‘n Venture Capital Company met ondernemingsnommer K201649138. Legitimeer dit hulle nie? Hoe dit ook al sy, hoekom hulle nou negatief etiketteer? Het hulle nie van die begin van die sonkraginstallasieprojek vir die betrokke eiendomme twyfel gehad nie? Indien wel, hoekom in die eerste plek met hulle handel dryf (roekelose handel)? Of word daardie twyfel nou uitgespreek, net ‘n rookskerm?

Net so, met Beneficio en die lening van 31 miljoen. Toe hulle nie kon terugbetaal nie en die druk hoog was, het hulle gekla dat die rentekoers woeker was. Maar hulle het nietemin die transaksie aangegaan! Het die direkteure blinddoeke gedra toe hulle die kontrak onderteken het? Wat was in elk geval die doel van die lening? Iets wat nie die besigheid per sé bevoordeel het nie en nie in die belang van die skuldbriefhouers was nie?

Volgens die hofrekord (Noord-Gauteng Hooggeregshof, Pretoria) vir Benefico vs Tarentaal-sentrum in die Saffli-argief – www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.html – het Nova verklaar dat “[64.4] The money was borrowed as a result of a business decision by the defendants and the NOVA Group to repay debenture holders and to avoid reputational damage – it was a business decision which made sense to the defendants and the NOVA Group”. Sin gemaak? Wie kul nou vir wie hier? Was dit die ware rede of ook nog ‘n rookskerm? Wat op aarde sou die Nova-direkteure laat dink – hulself oortuig? – dat ‘n skuldbriefterugbetaling van 31 miljoen uit ‘n totale verskuldigde bedrag van 2,2 miljard op enige manier sou bydra tot die vermyding van reputasieskade? Beteken daardie benadering dat hulle nie bewus was nie (en steeds nie is nie?) van die enorme omvang van die reputasieskade wat reeds gegeld het en steeds geld?

Die nadeel van Nova se taktiek? Hulle bestee maatskappygeld, waarna Myburgh in 2021 in die openbaar verwys het tydens een van die verkiesingsvergaderings vir die Skuldbrieftrustee, as “ons geld”, wat impliseer dat Skuldbriefhouergeld gebruik kan word om terug te betaal, hul interpretasies van die wet of die ontvangde regsmenings te verdedig (weer eens betaal met “ons” geld) en om te probeer ontsnap aan die gevolge van wat beweer is as gevalle van roekelose handel. Veronderstelde roekelose handel wat kan lei tot ‘n CIPC-nakomingskennisgewing (Compliance Notice), ingevolge die bepalings van die Wet, wat hulle beveel om op te hou handel dryf, welke aksie op sigself waarskynlik tot verdere regstappe deur die maatskappy (“ons” geld, weer eens) sal lei

Maar die direkteure sal voortgaan om terugbetaling te belowe terwyl hulle so lank as moontlik “ons geld” aan regstappe, uitstel (stalling), opponerendeveg (opposing) bestee. Hoekom? Omdat, glo ons, Nova ‘n kontantkoei (cash cow) is wat hulle melk en gemelk het sedert hulle die Sharemax-bates verkry het. Dit, glo ons, was die versteekte doel agter die “Sharemax Besigheidsredding” van die begin af (verwys na Ryk van Niekerek se skrywe oor die Harrison & White likwidasie)

Mnr. Myburgh en mededirekteure van Nova Groep: ons nooi u uit om te reageer en ons te probeer oortuig om anders te dink. Maar dis ‘n helse berg om te klim en u kanse op sukses is baie skraal!

www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb…/nova-insolvency-pays/

(Artikel slegs in Engels beskikbaar)

Uittreksel:
“The delay ensured that Nova, a high-profile company tasked by the high court to repay investors of the largest failed property investment scheme, could hide the disclosure of its dire financial position to debenture holders, creditors and other stakeholders for five months.”
Hierdie “wegsteek” was in werklikheid vir ‘n tydperk van dertien maande, wat dateer vanaf die laat publikasie, laat Desember ’23, van die 2023 finansiële state – wat die laaste openbare kommunikasie deur Nova was voor die vrystelling van die ’24 state in Januarie ’25
<www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-opinion/nova-insolvency-pays/?fbclid=Iw ZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2dZmpn1cEXUiJ6UEoxR4XMcLcEUICOJtysbdsPYAxXIDUHozKmX3ouzYU_ aem_rRuJbGEGw1Vn3eh_VwURpA>
<www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb-opinion/nova-insolvency-pays/?fbclid=Iw ZXh0bgNhZW0CMTEAAR2dZmpn1cEXUiJ6UEoxR4XMcLcEUICOJtysbdsPYAxXIDUHozKmX3ouzYU_ aem_rRuJbGEGw1Vn3eh_VwURpA>

Hierdie “wegsteek” was in werklikheid vir ‘n tydperk van dertien maande, wat dateer vanaf die laat publikasie, laat Desember ’23, van die 2023 finansiële state – wat die laaste openbare kommunikasie deur Nova was voor die vrystelling van die ’24 state in Januarie ’25

www.moneyweb.co.za/moneyweb…/nova-insolvency-pays/

Extract:
“The delay ensured that Nova, a high-profile company tasked by the high court to repay investors of the largest failed property investment scheme, could hide the disclosure of its dire financial position to debenture holders, creditors and other stakeholders for five months.”
This “hiding” was in fact for a period of thirteen months, dating from the late publication, in late December ’23, of the 2023 financial statements – which was the last public communication by Nova prior to the release of the ’24 statements in January ’25

This “hiding” was in fact for a period of thirteen months, dating from the late publication, in late December ’23, of the 2023 financial statements – which was the last public communication by Nova prior to the release of the ’24 statements in January ’25

We have learnt that appointments have been made and that they will be briefed by CIPC officials on 6 March “to unpack the preliminary report and scope the inquisition’s objectives and expected outputs (a final report with recommendations)”
This will trigger the release of the Investigation’s Interim Report. It will be emailed to those of the investigation participants who have returned signed non-disclosure agreements. CIPC then allows a thirty-day period “to allow affected parties to gather supplementary and supporting evidence and explore any other available legal remedy, while awaiting the contemplated inquisition.” Affected parties are the investigation participants
Then the investigation’s preliminary outcomes will be addressed at two levels:
* An “inquisition” will cover the “origin of the Schemes of Arrangement” (SoA) which means, in effect, how the Sharemax Business Rescue Plan originated and how it was sanctioned by the Courts under the provisions of Section 311 of the Companies Act * A separate internal tribunal within the Dtic (Department of Trade , Industry and Competition – of which CIPC is a Division) to address “the execution by Nova” meaning the execution of the SoA mission which is restitution for the original Sharemax investors or their successors and the reason for Nova’s existence
Thereafter, the Final Report will be released and the matter will enter a new phase where “a higher authority must be approached for a declaratory order.” But, “This obviously cannot happen before we give vent to Section 41 of the Constitution to allow those who may have been wrong in endorsing the Schemes to regularise a “crime”( which, in terms of the preliminary report; is found to be amiss and unlawful) a chance to defend their historical actions or concede that they were factually wrong.”
In other words, the findings which will hopefully turn the historical allegations of illegality and irregularity about the PSPC industry shut-down, into “fact” and presumably, persons and entities – both in the private and public sectors – will be named and thus, effectively, accused of “a crime” or wrongdoing. It is those persons and entities who/that will be given the chance to “defend their historical actions or concede that they were factually wrong”
What will follow is that quite possibly there could be legal actions which, in their turn, will take time. And then, there may also be a, possibly extended, period of negotiations on how to achieve restitution for the Sharemax investors
So, whilst the investigation is moving forward to its conclusion and whilst there is a good chance that the initial outcomes will beneficial for the Sharemax investors, these will also be the start of a lot of other legal processes which in their turn, will probably also take time

Ons het verneem dat aanstellings gemaak is en dat hulle op 6 Maart deur CIPC-amptenare ingelig sal word“to unpack the preliminary report and scope the inquisition’s objectives and expected outputs (a final report with recommendations)”.
Dit sal die vrystelling van die Ondersoek se Tussentydse Verslag veroorsaak en wat sal per e-pos gestuur word aan diegene van die ondersoekdeelnemers wat ondertekende Non-disclosure Agreements teruggestuur het. CIPC laat dan ‘n tydperk van dertig dae toe “to allow affected parties to gather supplementary and supporting evidence and explore any other available legal remedy, while awaiting the contemplated inquisition.” Geaffekteerde partye is die ondersoekdeelnemers
Dan sal die ondersoek se voorlopige uitkomste op twee vlakke aangespreek word:
– Die “inkwisisie” sal die “origin of the Schemes of Arrangement” (SoA) dek, wat beteken: hoe die Sharemax Besigheidsreddingsplan ontstaan ​​het en hoe dit deur die Howe goedgekeur is kragtens die bepalings van Artikel 311 van die Maatskappywet
– ‘n afsonderlike interne tribunaal binne die Dtic (Department of Trade, Industry and Competition) waarvan CIPC ‘n afdeling is, om “the execution by Nova” aan te spreek, wat beteken die uitvoering van die SoA-missie deur Nova waarvan die terugbetaling aan die oorspronklike Sharemax-beleggers of hul opvolgers hul bestaansrede is
Daarna sal die finale verslag vrygestel word en die aangeleentheid sal ‘n nuwe fase betree waar “a higher authority must be approached for a declaratory order.”Maar, “This obviously cannot happen before we give vent to Section 41 of the Constitution to allow those who may have been wrong in endorsing the Schemes to regularise a “crime”( which, in terms of the preliminary report; is found to be amiss and unlawful) a chance to defend their historical actions or concede that they were factually wrong.”

Met ander woorde, die bevindings wat hopelik die historiese bewerings van onwettigheid en onreëlmatigheid oor die sluiting van die PSPC-industrie sal verander tot in “feitlik” en vermoedelik sal persone en entiteite – beide in die private en openbare sektore – genoem word en dus, effektief, van “‘n misdaad” of oortreding beskuldig word. Dit is daardie persone en entiteite aan wie/wat die kans gegee sal word om te “defend their historical actions or concede that they were factually wrong”
Wat sal volg, is dat daar heel moontlik regsaksies kan volg wat op hul beurt tyd sal neem. En dan kan daar ook ‘n, moontlik verlengde, tydperk van onderhandelinge wees oor hoe om restitusie vir die Sharemax-beleggers te bewerkstellig

Dus, terwyl die ondersoek vorder na sy afsluiting en terwyl daar ‘n goeie kans is dat die aanvanklike uitkomste voordelig sal wees vir die Sharemax-beleggers, sal dit ook die begin wees van baie ander regsprosesse wat in hul sin ook tyd sal neem