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

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

Die betrokke eiendomme is:

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

Klik hier vir véredere inligting oor hierdie eiendomme:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The relevant properties are:

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

Click here for further information on these properties:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Some contributing factors to justify the insolvency of the company:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cold Creek

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

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

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

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

and we’ve recorded these questions so far:

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

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

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

Read these documents regarding the sale of this property:

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

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

In summary:

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

of

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

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

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

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

Here is a new media article on the property:

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

or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hierdie reaksie is gepubliseer in ‘n verdere Moneyweb-artikel getiteld “ <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-trustee-takes-on-sharemax-rescue-vehicle-board/> Nova trustee takes on Sharemax rescue vehicle board”

Sien www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-trustee-takes-on-sharemax-rescue-vehicle-board/

en www.moneyweb.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/JPT-response.pdf

Luister ook na hierdie potgooi oor die onderwerp in RSG se Geldsake: iono.fm/e/1572350 waar Tromp verdere insette gelewer het.

Let wel: slegs beskikbaar in Afrikaans – Indien Engelssprekendes of ander taalsprekers hulp benodig, moet hulle asseblief met familielede of ander, bv. hul finansiële adviseur, skakel vir ‘n vertaling

Ingeval bogenoemde agter ‘n “paywall” geplaas is, kry toegang hier:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506101> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506101
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102

Waarheen gaan dit?

Likwidasie van Nova is nie die beste opsie nie as gevolg van die gebrek aan fondse om die skuldbriefhouers terug te betaal, wat nie eers eerste in die ry is nie. Hulle staan ​​agter Sars en ander voorkeurkrediteure.

Om die maatskappy in die beheer van die huidige direksie te laat, kan geensins gesien word as ‘n lewensvatbare toekoms wat terugbetaling kan lewer nie.

Om die maatskappy in kuratorskap te plaas (wat beteken opskorting van die huidige direkteurskap) mag dalk ‘n opsie wees, maar gegewe die oënskynlike insolvensie, hoe lank sal dit neem om die maatskappy te herstel, te stabiliseer en te laat groei tot die punt waar skuldbriefterugbetalingsvermoë bereik word?

Is die uitkomste van die CIPC en sy ondersoek na die beweerde onwettighede en onreëlmatighede agter die sluiting van Sharemax en ander eiendomsindikasiemaatskappye in 2010, en afsonderlik na Nova oor sy mislukkings, die enigste hoop? Kan daar enige hoop in hierdie verband wees solank die CIPC se tussentydse verslag nie vrygestel word nie en dus enige vordering na ‘n uiteindelike voordelige uitkoms vir die beleggers verhoed?

Wat nodig is, is aksie! Hoe langer die vertragings voorkom, hoe gevaarliker word die moontlikheid van ingryping deur “gevestigde belange” met die moontlikheid dat die hele saak onder die dekmantel van “politieke doelmatigheid” laat vaar word

Dit lyk asof daar óf te veel interne burokrasie by CIPC is wat die vrystelling belemmer, óf dat daar te veel geleentheid is vir eksterne agente – diegene wat dalk in die verslag genoem, indien nie geïmpliseer nie – om in te meng, óf dat daar binne CIPC te veel kommer is oor die moontlike reputasieskade wat die lot van sekere persone en entiteite by die staatsorgane kan wees, wat duidelik sal word sodra die Finale Verslag uiteindelik al die vorige skelmstreke in die publieke domein plaas!

This response has also been published in a further Moneyweb article titled <www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-trustee-takes-on-sh aremax-rescue-vehicle-board/> Nova trustee takes on Sharemax rescue vehicle board

See www.moneyweb.co.za/in-depth/investigations/nova-trustee-takes-on-sha remax-rescue-vehicle-board/

and www.moneyweb.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/JPT-response.pdf

Listen also to this podcast on the topic in RSG’s Geldsake: iono.fm/e/1572350 where Tromp gave further inputs

Note: only available in Afrikaans. If English or other language speakers require assistance, they should, please, engage with family members or others, eg; their financial advisor, for an interpretation

In the event that the above have been placed behind a paywall, access here:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506101> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506101
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506102

Where is this going?

Liquidation of Nova is not the best option because of the lack of funds to repay the Debenture Holders who are not even first in line. They rank behind Sars and other preferential creditors

Leaving the company in the control of the present directorate cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be seen as a viable future that can deliver repayment

Placing the company in curatorship (meaning suspension of the current directorship) might be an option but, given the apparent insolvency, how long will it take to recover, stabilise and grow the company to the point of achieving debenture repayment capability?

Are the outcomes of the CIPC and its investigation into the alleged illegalities and irregularities behind the 2010 shutdown of Sharemax and other property syndication companies and separately, into Nova over its failures, the only hope? Can there be any hope in this connection as long as the CIPC’s Interim Report remains unreleased thus preventing any progress towards an eventual beneficial outcome for the investors?

What’s needed is action! The longer the delays occur, the more dangerous the possibility of intervention by “vested interests” becomes with the possibility of the whole matter being dropped under the guise of “political expediency”

It seems that there is either too much internal bureaucracy at CIPC that is hindering the release or that there is too much opportunity for outside agents – those who might be named, if not implicated, in the report – to interfere and/or that, within CIPC there is too much concern for the possible reputational damage that might be the lot of certain persons and entities with the organs of state that will become apparent once the Final Report eventually places all of the past skullduggery in the public domain!