Hierdie keer handel dit oor Nova se versuim om verpligtinge na te kom rakende beskerming vir die terugbetaling aan Skuldbriefhouers – ‘n vereiste ingevolge die bepalings van die Debenture Trust Deed. Hierdie dokument vorm deel van die dokumentasie vir die sake-reddingsplan ingevolge Artikel 311 van die Insolvensiewet – wat deur die hof goedgekeur is en ‘n sekere verantwoordelikheid aan Nova opgelê het – en waarvan hulle, soos nou aan die lig gekom het, versuim het om na te kom.

Lees meer hier:

<www.carian.co.za/post/non-registration-of-the-covering-bond-by-nova -property-group-investments-pty-ltd-in-favour-of-the> www.carian.co.za/post/non-registration-of-the-covering-bond-by-nova- property-group-investments-pty-ltd-in-favour-of-the

Watter doel dien hierdie beskermingsverbande?

Dit bied ‘n bykomende beskermingslaag vir die Skuldbriefhouers. Die oskuldbriewe self word in die jaarlikse finansiële state as ‘n las aangedui, waar die Skuldbriefhouers gesamentlik as ‘n krediteur van die maatskappy optree

Die dekkingverband – waarvan die Skudbriefhouers die begunstigdes is – dien as ‘n ekstra beskermingslaag; indien die obligasies nie terugbetaal word nie, verkry die verbandbegunstigdes “… ‘n beperkte saaklike reg wat hulle tydens likwidasie as versekerde krediteure voor onversekerde krediteure laat rangskik (“ …..a limited real right, ranking them as secured creditors ahead of unsecured creditors during liquidation”)

Die sleutelwoorde is “versekerde krediteure”; dit beteken dat dit onder sekere omstandighede aan obligasiehouers ‘n voorkeurstatus as krediteur – oftewel “eerste in die ry” – verleen vir terugbetaling, byvoorbeeld in die geval van die maatskappy se likwidasie

Selfs al bly die maatskappy egter voortbestaan ​​maar versuim om die obligasiehouers terug te betaal, kan hulle – as begunstigdes van die verband – hul reg afdwing om beslag te lê op die onderliggende eiendom of ander bates ten einde die nodige fondse vir terugbetaling te verhaal; dit sou egter ‘n hofaansoek en ‘n gunstige uitspraak vereis

Snellers om af te dwing sou insluit: versuim om teen ‘n gegewe sperdatum terug te betaal (indien enige), insolvensie of vrywillige sluiting van die maatskappy en verbreking van enige voorwaardes uiteengesit in die verband en (waarskynlik) enige van die onderliggende Debenture Trust Deed voorwaardes

In die afwesigheid van so ‘n dekkende verband, bestaan ​​daardie laag van beskerming nie en word die Skuldbriefhouers “net nog ‘n skuldeiser” met ‘n nie-voorkeur-eis op, byvoorbeeld, die insolvente boedel

Dalk sal Tromp se klagte by die CIPC oor die afwesigheid van ’n dekkingverband vir Flora Centre duidelikheid bring oor die vraag of hierdie situasie ook geld vir al die eiendomme wat Nova uit die Sharemax Business Rescue Plan oorgeneem het

Maar selfs al bestaan ​​daar wel verbande en word daar stappe gedoen om terugbetaling af te dwing: watter bates is beskikbaar om die uitstaande Skuldbriefwaarde van R2,2 miljard – soos uiteengesit in die jaarlikse finansiële state (AFS) van 2024 – terug te betaal?

Hier word ons weer gekonfronteer met die afwesigheid van die 2025-jaarfinansiële state – nou reeds elf maande na die sperdatum van 31 Augustus 2025 vir publikasie (ongeag hoeveel Nova hieroor redeneer, en hoeveel van dit wat hulle as Skuldbriefhouerfondse bestempel bestee om ondersteunende regsmenngs ter ondersteuning van hul standpunt te bekom)

Daarbenewens is die sperdatum vir die publikasie van die 2026-finansiële state slegs ‘n maand weg, en dit is ook onwaarskynlik dat dit betyds gepubliseer sal word.

Om terug te keer na die bates wat beskikbaar is om fondse vir skuldbrief terugbetaling te genereer:

Eerstens word die volgende in die direkteursverslag van die 2024-finansiële state verklaar oor die maatskappy se status as ‘n lopende saak (going concern)
:

“The consolidated and separate annual financial statements have been prepared on the basis of accounting policies applicable to a going concern. This basis presumes that funds will be available to finance future operations and that the realisation of assets and settlement of liabilities, contingent obligations and commitments will occur in the ordinary course of business”

‘n Google-KI-definisie van ‘n “lopende saak” is ” ‘n rekeningkundige term vir ‘n finansieel stabiele onderneming wat sal voortgaan om te funksioneer sonder die risiko van likwidasie vir ten minste die volgende 12 maande. Sleutelaspekte sluit finansiële stabiliteit, voortdurende bedrywighede en nakoming van verslagdoeningstandaarde in.”

Dit beskryf Nova? Rerig?

En, soos in die Direkteur se Verslag: “ Presumably” ??? (Veronderstel)

Die insluiting van hierdie woord dui sterk daarop dat die maatskappy op 28 Februarie 2024 (reeds en terug in tyd) nie ‘n lopende saak was nie (al is “veronderstel” dalk net ortodokse terminologiegebruik in AFS-produksie?)

Om te aanvaar dat alles in die toekoms rooskleurig sal wees, is weereens die gewone leë belofte wat gereeld van die maatskappydirekteure in hul baie ongereelde kommunikasie uitgaan

So, soos Tromp dit stel …

Is hierdie uiters ernstige versuim die spreekwoordelike laaste spyker in die doodskis wat die CIPC Companies Tribunal sal dwing om voet by stuk te hou en op te tree om die verval te stuit?

This time it is about Nova’s failure to meet obligations for Debenture Holder repayment protection required under the provisions of the Debenture Trust Deed – a document that forms part of the Insolvency Act Section 311 Business Rescue Plan documentation that was approved in the Courts and which conveys upon Nova a certain responsibility, which, it is now revealed, they have failed to execute

Read here:

www.carian.co.za/post/non-registration-of-the-covering-bond-by-nova- property-group-investments-pty-ltd-in-favour-of-the

What purpose do these protection mortgages serve?

They are an added layer of protection for the Debenture holders. The debentures themselves feature in the Annual Financial statements as a liability with the Debenture Holders collectively being a Creditor of the company

The covering mortgage – in which the Debenture Holders are the beneficiaries – is an extra layer of protection and in the event of non-repayment of the debentures, the mortgage beneficiaries obtain ” …a limited real right, ranking them as secured creditors ahead of unsecured creditors during liquidation”

The operative words are “secured creditors” meaning that under certain conditions, it secures for the debenture holders a preferential creditor – ‘first in line” – status for repayment in the event of say, liquidation if the company

But, even if the company remains in existence but fails to repay the debenture holders, they as the mortgage beneficiaries can enforce their right to attach the underlying property or other assets to realise the necessary funds to achieve repayment – but this would require a court application and favourable judgement

Triggers to enforce would include: failure to repay by a given deadline date (if any), insolvency or voluntary closure of the company and breach of any conditions set out in the mortgage and (probably) any of the underlying Debenture Trust conditions

In the absence of such covering mortgage, that layer of protection does not exist and the Debenture Holders become “just another creditor” with a non- preferential claim on, say, the insolvent estate

Perhaps following Tromp’s complaint to CIPC regarding the nonexistence of a covering mortgage for Flora Centre, it will be clarified as to whether or not this situation applies to all of the properties that Nova inherited out of the Sharemax Business Rescue Plan

But, even if mortgages do exist and an initiative is launched to sue for repayment, what assets exist to repay the outstanding 2.2.billion debenture value – as per the 2024 Annual Financial Statements (AFS)?

Here again we come up against the absence of the 2025 AFS – now eleven months after the August 31 2025 deadline for publication (no matter how much Nova argue about this and how much of what they have referred to as Debenture Holder funds they expend on getting supporting legal opinion for their stance)

In addition, the 2026 AFS publication deadline is just a month away and is unlikely to be published on time either

Getting back to assets available to realise funds to repay:

Firstly, in the Directors Report in the ’24 AFS the following is stated on the company being a “going concern”

“The consolidated and separate annual financial statements have been prepared on the basis of accounting policies applicable to a going concern. This basis presumes that funds will be available to finance future operations and that the realisation of assets and settlement of liabilities, contingent obligations and commitments will occur in the ordinary course of business”

A Google AI definition of Going Concern is “an accounting term for a financially stable business that will continue operating without the threat of liquidation for at least the next 12 months. Key aspects include financial stability, ongoing operations, and compliance with reporting standards.”

That describes Nova? Yeah, Right?

And, as in the Director’s Report: “Presumes”????

The inclusion of this word strongly indicates that as at 28 February 2024 (already and going back in time), the company was not a going concern (however much “presumes” might just be standard terminology usage in AFS production?)

Presuming that in the future, all will be rosy, is once again the usual empty promise that regularly emanates from the company directors in their very infrequent communications

So, as Nova CEO Haese states that Tromp’s activities are not in the best interests of the Debenture Holders, is the revealed and reported failure by the company to ensure that the covering bonds for Flora Centre – and all of the other classes of Debenture? – are actually registered also a case of “not in the best interests” of the same Debenture Holders?

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