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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dat CIPC nog nie streng stappe gedoen het nie

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

Op 31 Maart

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

Cevolg op 2 April met:

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

En dan op 6 April het hy geskryf:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Meantime, Nova has still not published the 2025 AFS and so we have no information on the present state of the company. Of course, the 2025 AFS are not going present an up-to-date picture anyway. And, we are already in the time period when the ’26 financials should be well under way in preparation for release

It’s mystifying that, with all of the issues re Nova that have been tabled over the years,

* their long-deemed insolvency (CIPC has a copy of the ’25 financials and will have, we are sure, already confirmed that insolvency out of their own analysis and also Debenture Trustee JP Tromp’s submissions) * their attempt (but maybe by this time actually successful) to circumvent the CIPC embargo re the further disposal off property assets and; * the ongoing failure to repay the remaining debentures,

that CIPC have not yet taken stern action

We can report that Deon Pienaar – leading activist in the sphere of the wider SARB/Financial Services Board PSPC shut-down – has recently published in his PSPC WhatsApp group :

On 31 March

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

Followed on 2 April by:

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

And then on 6 April he wrote:

“Only the NDPP can apply POCA ( PROCEEDS OF CRIME ACT) . This Act will proceed with a preservation order within a month or so, followed by the Asset Forfeiture Unit three months later, giving the Property syndications buildings back to the original investors’, and allowing the new Directors to file delict claims for losses of income”

Today, 30 April, Deon has stated in his monthly newsletter:
“Important to note, that the CIPC have formally filed papers against our adversaries with the NDPP. This is a very big deal, and we have reason to be very grateful for what is currently happening”

We take the information about the CIPC action on board because we know that Deon is in frequent contact with Cuma Zwane of CIPC and they seem to share a lot of information on matters PSPC and Sharemax/Nova

So, it remains to be seen what action, if any, comes out of NDPP . We suggest that the asset forfeiture and “property return” envisioned by Deon are one possible outcome but one way or another, there will be a claim for loss of income plus, of course, return of capital invested

Zwane declined to provide us with any information about the above actions by way of deleting – without reading – our email sent to him on the above and asking for some clarity. Therefore, we can only surmise as to what’s going on

CIPC cannot initiate any legal action themselves hence the referral of the Investigation findings to the NDPP

This action follows CIPC’s letter to the Western Cape High Court in October ’25 informing the latter – in execution of the inter-State entity co-operation called for in section 17 of the SA Constitution – of the findings detailed in the report and to take same into account when hearing cases relevant to Deon Pienaar’s activism and to his sequestration for outstanding court costs which arose out of many court case judgements over the last decade and more

SARB subsequently wrote to Zwane through their attorneys stating that the letter constituted a “flagrant attempt to interfere with a judicial process outside of any power that he may have” and demanded that the letter be repudiated failing which, “urgent interdictory relief” would be sought No news on the outcome to hand. But, it does indicate a rejection of any obligation under the Section 17 of the Constitution’s co-operative governance requirement

Also relevant, in this scenario, is the intervention of the Judge Presidents office last year when – after receipt of the CIPC letter at Western Cape High Court – they called for submission from relevant parties involved in the activism and litigation surrounding the PSPC shut-down. That someone at the Judge President level has intervened suggests that the CIPC letter must have piqued interest at a higher level and that the false and true narratives are under scrutiny with, hopefully, production of some definitive and clear-cut instruction to the Courts and other relevant authorities

On the one hand, to have taken the above actions, CIPC must be very sure of the validity and the required future outcomes of their PSPC shut-down investigation and this, it would seem, has been re-enforced by the intervention by the Judge President’s office although, it seems that they have not yet produced any response to the submissions that they received

For the last some four years now (since the actual completion if the report) CIPC has defended its non-release of same on the grounds that it must be delivered to all relevant parties simultaneously which suggests that, maybe, some parties were not up to speed , eg because of case handler personnel changes, some were not yet even involved and still needed to be briefed and some, like perhaps with the SARB, are not willing to be on board and are pushing back (officialdom and bureaucracy at it worst?)

Do the above actions indicate that the pendulum has swung in or favour?

Unfortunately, we continue to wait for concrete information and positive developments. Our hope still lies with the Investigation’s outcomes being not only positive but also restitutional for the former Sharemax investors

He has published new items in his web site www.carian.co.za <www.carian.co.za> (see under the Nova Debenture Trust button)

On 9 March: www.carian.co.za/post/non-compliance-with-section-30-of-the-companie s-act-audited-annual-financial-statements-for-the-fi

It calls on CIPC to rule on the matter of the AFS publication deadline being as per the Companies Act, content, viz; six months after the end of the financial year in t eight of Nova Chair Myburgh’s persistence the Act’s requirements are only a guideline. It also contains statements on the unaudited AFS that nova lodged with CIPC in September last year and re which, Tromp states “These AFS clearly reflect a severe going concern risk and, in my opinion, indicate that the Nova Group is technically insolvent.”

On 10 March: www.carian.co.za/post/statement-on-the-nova-group-s-financial-positi on-and-official-complaint-to-the-cipc

This post deals with Tromp’s formal complaint to CIPC in May, 2025 about the state based on his analysis of the AFS up to the one for year-end 28 February, 2024

On 10 March: www.carian.co.za/post/nova-propgrow-group-holdings-limited-potential -r-414-694-327-debenture-shortfall
This post centres on Nova Chair Myburgh’s response to Tromps “Missing R 414,694,327” of September 30, 2025 nd correspondence between Tromp, CIPC Commissioner Advocate Rudi Voller and Myburgh

Tromp has echoed our views previously tabled with Cuma Zwane, Senior Investigator, Corporate Compliance and Disclosure Regulation Unit that urgent CIPC action against Nova is necessary and we wait to see what transpires

Hy het nuwe items op sy webwerf www.carian.co.za <www.carian.co.za> gepubliseer (sien onder die Nova Debenture Trust-knoppie)

Op 9 Maart: www.carian.co.za/post/non-compliance-with-section-30-of-the-companie s-act-audited-annual-financial-statements-for-the-fi

Dit doen ‘n beroep op CIPC om te beslis oor die kwessie van die publikasiedatum vir die finansiële jaarstate volgens die Maatskappywet, naamlik ses maande na die einde van die finansiële jaar, in agt van Nova-voorsitter Myburgh se volharding, maar die vereistes van die Wet is slegs ‘n riglyn. Dit bevat ook verklarings oor die ongeouditeerde finansiële jaarstate wat Nova verlede jaar in September by CIPC ingedien het, en waaroor Tromp sê: “These AFS clearly reflect a severe going concern risk and, in my opinion, indicate that the Nova Group is technically insolvent.”

Op 10 Maart: www.carian.co.za/post/statement-on-the-nova-group-s-financial-positi on-and-official-complaint-to-the-cipc

Hierdie plasing handel oor Tromp se formele klagte by CIPC in Mei 2025 oor die staat van die maatskappy gebaseer op sy ontleding van die AFS tot die een vir die einde van die jaar

On 10 March: www.carian.co.za/post/nova-propgrow-group-holdings-limited-potential -r-414-694-327-debenture-shortfall

Hierdie plasing fokus op Nova-voorsitter Myburgh se reaksie op Tromp se “Ontbrekende R 414,694,327” van 30 September 2025 en korrespondensie tussen Tromp, CIPC-Kommissaris Advokaat Rudi Voller en Myburgh

Tromp het ons sienings herhaal wat voorheen met Cuma Zwane, Senior Ondersoeker, Korporatiewe Nakoming en Openbaarmakingsreguleringseenheid, ter tafel gelê is dat dringende CIPC-optrede teen Nova nodig is en ons wag om te sien wat gebeur

Ons het inligting sedert ontvang wat verklaar het dat die interne oudit nog nie voltooi is nie, wat verder beteken dat die rekeninge nog nie eers aan die eksterne ouditeure vir hersiening en goedkeuring voorgelê is nie. Hierdie inligting het geen besonderhede ingesluit oor waarom die oudit nie voltooi is nie, maar dit verg nie te veel verbeelding om te glo dat die tyd dalk aangebreek het wanneer dit nie meer vir CEO/CFO Haese en Voorsitter Myburgh moontlik is om die boeke te manipuleer sodoende om ‘n aanvaarbare momentopname (snapshot) van ‘n lewensvatbare maatskappy te bied nie

Wat is die implikasies hiervan – van ‘n maatskappy wat aanhou aandring dat dit , ‘n “going concern” is en ….

“ …… here because we fundamentally believe we can succeed in getting as much of these investors’ historical money invested back to them. At Nova, we work tirelessly in achieving this goal; we have been and are their best chance to getting it done”

Dit is, na vyftien jaar van Nova-bestuur, so tragies vir die grootste deel van die agt-en-dertigduisend individuele Sharemax-beleggers en in baie gevalle hul opvolgers, wat steeds wag op skuldbriefterugbetaling en vir wie die Nova-missie (die publiek verklaarde een, in elk geval) was om die geld wat hulle belê het, terug te gee en wat hulle nêrens naby gekom het om te bereik nie, ten spyte van hul voortdurende versekerings en protes

Wat moet nou gebeur?

Ons glo dat daar te veel optrede deur die Voorsitter en die Raad was wat nie tot voordeel van die beleggers was nie en dat hulle duidelik misluk het om die vereistes van hul missie te lewer

Ons gaan selfs so ver as om ons mening te stel dat die doel van die sakeredding wat in 2011 voorgestel is, nooit oor die beleggers gegaan het nie, maar alles oor korporatiewe kaping en selfverryking met die doel om die geërfde eiendomsportefeulje van sy bates te stroop – wat grootliks bereik is en wat voortduur, alhoewel nie deur openlike optrede nie, maar deur slinksheid en onderduimse aksies

Ons glo dat die maatskappy nou onder administrasie geplaas moet word, maar nie met die oog op likwidasie nie – wat nie in die beste belang van die beleggers sou wees nie – maar met die oog daarop om die Voorsitter en die Raad van beheer oor die maatskappy te verwyder, dit onder ‘n tussentydse bestuur te plaas wie se enigste doel sal wees om te stabiliseer, te herbou en te groei sodat, ten minste, dié van die geërfde eiendomme wat op die boeke bly, hul ware doel kan dien, naamlik groei in waarde om die fondse te realiseer wat nodig is om die verwante skuldbriewe terug te betaal

Dit is geweldig ironies dat die voertuig vir die sakeredding in 2011 Nova PropGROW genoem is (of was dit ‘n doelbewus misleidende aksie?) en sedertdien was daar geen groei van enige aard nie en eintlik die teenoorgestelde en rampspoedig so!

Ons het gevolglik Cuma Zwane by CIPC oor die saak aangespreek per e-pos met hierdie pleidooi:

Hello Mr Zwane

As usual, Nova failed to publish their 2025 Annual Financial Statements by the deadline stipulated in the Companies Act. They have also now failed to publish by 28 February 2026. JP Tomp, the Nova Debenture Trustee may already have addressed you re this situation

We would like to appeal to CIPC (dare we demand?) for action via a famous quote (and an allegorical one for the purpose of this mail) from President Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on June 12, 1989 when he said:

MR GORBACHEV, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

In the same vein as Reagan’s appeal, we appeal to you: MR ZWANE: HAS THE NOVA BUSINESS RESCUE AND DEBENTURE REPAYMENT FARCE NOT NOW, AND DEFINITELY, GONE ON TOO LONG?

We are posting the following content in our Facebook page and web site and we urge you to take it on board and give it serious consideration (should you not already be contemplating such action):

We have received information stating that the internal audit has not yet been completed which further means that the accounts have not yet even been submitted to the external auditors for review and approval. This information did not include any detail as to why the audit is not finished but it does not require too much imagination to believe that maybe the time has arrived when it is no longer possible for CEO/CFO Haese and Chair Myburgh to juggle the books sufficiently so as to present an acceptable snapshot of a viable company

We are of the strong opinion that the Chair and Board of Nova can no longer be allowed to continue as they have been doing since around 2013. We believe that they do not have, and have never have had, the interests of the Sharemax investors at heart and as their guiding star

We believe that there have been too many actions by the Chair and the Board that have not been for the benefit of the investors and that they have manifestly failed to deliver the obligations of their mission (the publicly stated one, anyway)

We go so far as to state our opinion that the purpose of the business rescue put forward in 2011 was never about the investors and all about corporate capture and self-enrichment with the intention to strip the inherited property portfolio of its assets – which has largely been achieved and which continues albeit not through overt actions but by deviousness and subterfuge

We believe that the company should now be put under administration but not with a view to liquidation – which would not be in the best interests of the investors – but with a view to removing the Chair and the Board from control of the company, placing it under an interim management whose sole purpose will be to stabilise, re-build and grow so that, at the very least, those of the inherited properties that remain on the books can serve their true purpose, viz; growing in value in order to realise the funds necessary to repay the related debentures

There are some lines in an old English hymn titled The Church’s One Foundation” which read:

Yet saints their watch are keeping, their cry goes up, “How long?” And soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song!

For the Sharemax investors it’s more a case of: When will the night of weeping, become the morn of song?

CIPC can make that happen, at least in part, by an immediate action against the Chair and the Board of Nova

Thank you in hope of what we deem would be an entirely appropriate action

We have since received information stating that the internal audit has not yet been completed which further means that the accounts have not yet even been submitted to the external auditors for review and approval. This information did not include any detail as to why the audit is not finished but it does not require too much imagination to believe that maybe the time has arrived when it is no longer possible for CEO/CFO Haese and Chair Myburgh to juggle the books sufficiently so as to present an acceptable snapshot of a viable company

What are the implications of this – from a company that keeps insisting that it is solvent, is a going concern and is ..

” .. here because we fundamentally believe we can succeed in getting as much of these investors’ historical money invested back to them. At Nova, we work tirelessly in achieving this goal; we have been and are their best chance to getting it done”

This is, after fifteen years of Nova stewardship, so tragic for the greater portion of the thirty-eight thousand individual Sharemax investors and in many cases, their successors, who still await debenture repayment and for whom the Nova mission ( the publicly declared one, anyway) was to return the money that they invested and re which they have come nowhere near to achieving despite their ongoing assurances and protestations

What should happen now?

We are of the strong opinion that the Chair and Board of Nova can no longer be allowed to continue as they have been doing since around 2013. We believe that they do not have, and have never had, the interests of the Sharemax investors at heart and as their guiding star

We believe that there have been too many actions by the Chair and the Board that have not been for the benefit of the investors and that they have manifestly failed to deliver the requirements of their mission

We go so far as to state our opinion that the purpose of the business rescue put forward in 2011 was never about the investors and all about corporate capture and self-enrichment with the intention to strip the inherited property portfolio of its assets – which has largely been achieved and which continues albeit not through overt actions but by deviousness and subterfuge

We believe that the company should now be put under administration but not with a view to liquidation – which would not be in the best interests of the investors – but with a view to removing the Chair and the Board from control of the company, placing it under an interim management whose sole purpose will be to stabilise, re-build and grow so that, at the very least, those of the inherited properties that remain on the books can serve their true purpose, viz; growing in value in order to realise the funds necessary to repay the related debentures

It is hugely ironic that the vehicle for the business rescue was named Nova PropGROW in 2011 (or was that a deliberately misleading action?) and since when there has been no growth of any sort and in fact quite the opposite and disastrously so!

We have accordingly, addressed Cuma Zwane at CIPC on the matter via mail with this plea:

Hello Mr Zwane

As usual, Nova failed to publish their 2025 Annual Financial Statements by the deadline stipulated in the Companies Act. They have also now failed to publish by 28 February 2026. JP Tomp, the Nova Debenture Trustee may already have addressed you re this situation

We would like to appeal to CIPC (dare we demand?) for action via a famous quote (and an allegorical one for the purpose of this mail) from President Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin on June 12, 1989 when he said:

MR GORBACHEV, TEAR DOWN THIS WALL!

In the same vein of Reagan’s appeal, we appeal to you, MR ZWANE: HAS THE NOVA BUSINESS RESCUE AND DEBENTURE REPAYMENT FARCE NOT NOW, AND DEFINITELY, GONE ON TOO LONG?

We are posting the following content in our Facebook page and web site and we urge you to take it on board and give it serious consideration (should you not already be contemplating such action):

We have received information stating that the internal audit has not yet been completed which further means that the accounts have not yet even been submitted to the external auditors for review and approval. This information did not include any detail as to why the audit is not finished but it does not require too much imagination to believe that maybe the time has arrived when it is no longer possible for CEO/CFO Haese and Chair Myburgh to juggle the books sufficiently so as to present an acceptable snapshot of a viable company

We are of the strong opinion that the Chair and Board of Nova can no longer be allowed to continue as they have been doing since around 2013. We believe that they do not have, and have never have had, the interests of the Sharemax investors at heart and as their guiding star

We believe that there have been too many actions by the Chair and the Board that have not been for the benefit of the investors and that they have manifestly failed to deliver the obligations of their mission (the publicly stated one, anyway)

We go so far as to state our opinion that the purpose of the business rescue put forward in 2011 was never about the investors and all about corporate capture and self-enrichment with the intention to strip the inherited property portfolio of its assets – which has largely been achieved and which continues albeit not through overt actions but by deviousness and subterfuge

We believe that the company should now be put under administration but not with a view to liquidation – which would not be in the best interests of the investors – but with a view to removing the Chair and the Board from control of the company, placing it under an interim management whose sole purpose will be to stabilise, re-build and grow so that, at the very least, those of the inherited properties that remain on the books can serve their true purpose, viz; growing in value in order to realise the funds necessary to repay the related debentures

There are some lines in an old English hymn titled The Church’s One Foundation” which read:

Yet saints their watch are keeping, their cry goes up, “How long?” And soon the night of weeping shall be the morn of song!

For the Sharemax investors it’s more a case of: When will the night of weeping, become the morn of song?

CIPC can make that happen, at least in part, by an immediate action against the Chair and the Board of Nova

Thank you in hope of what we deem would be an entirely appropriate action

We imagine that the AFS will be published by Saturday 28th because, for any normal company, it would be highly embarrassing for the Directorate if such a situation like arrival of a new year-end when the AFS for the previous year-end have still not been published, were to occur

Is Nova a “normal” company?

No, It’s an unlisted company with shareholders and its purpose is to deliver the Sharemax business rescue out of which it originated and achieve repayment of the Nova Debentures to the former Sharemax investors. Normally, the company Chair and Board would be at pains to demonstrate accountability to the shareholders but not in this case

The company has two levels of Shareholder:

* The A & B Class shareholders who are all Directors of the company. (as far as we know) That’s an insider cabal and no accountability is necessary. They acquired their shares out of a provision in the SoA whereby all Sharemax shares for which the individual underlying investors did not make a formal choice as to conversion to either of Nova Shares or Nova Debentures, would by default be assigned to the directors of the company and the investors who did not make a choice would become Debenture Holders by default

* The D Class shareholders being those Sharemax investors who did opt to convert their Sharemax asset to shares in Nova. D Class shares carry no voting rights and thus the Chair and the Board can disregard them altogether and probably do

Thus, we think that there is a chance that the 2025 AFS may not be published by Saturday 28th February and if so, that company Chair Myburgh will have already prepared one of his self-serving personal law-bending interpretations (possibly even backed by a – paid for – legal opinion) which justifies the non-publication

So, in the absence of the 2025 AFS, what is our level of information about and understanding of, the affairs of the company? Not very good considering that the last published AFS, for 2024, will have contained information that was relevant to activities in 2023 and thus, it could be said that we have had no formal information from Nova for two years (discount the not very informative Communiqu?? issued in December 2025) while they continue to run the company, and the prospects for Debenture Holder repayment, into the ground

And, underneath this, we have become aware of apparent court actions involving Nova

There was, apparently, a court session today (26 February) which reportedly, is an application for liquidation of Nova or one or more of it’s subsidiary companies

We stress that this and related information herein is at this stage, unverified. But, we think that, because of the implications of such court action, if indeed taking pace, the Debenture Holders should be aware of it

Of course, the Nova Chair and Board will not inform on this. They don’t do communication! At best, we might get some passing comment in a future Communqu? (don’t hold your breath) or in the 2026 AFS, if and when they are eventually published

Who might the applicants be? Maybe one or more of those creditors who have been at the losing end of Nova defaults over the last years?

* Quattro Security Services who wanted liquidation back in 2024 for Nova default under a contract for hygiene services at a number of malls. Has Nova defaulted again, this time under the settlement arrangement arrived at to prevent the liquidation and give Nova time to repay the outstanding debt?

* Bright Light Solar who took Nova to court in 2025 (see: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506191> www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506191,) over default in payment for solar installations at some of the commercial properties? Nova properties mentioned in a message on a Brightstar application are Flora Centre (but see below), Tarentaal/Courtside and the Village Mall (both already lost out of the Beneficio loan fiasco), Carletonville Centre (pledged under the Capitec loan – see below), Witbank Highveld and Waterfall

* Are there other creditors who are also taking legal action? We would not be surprised if that is indeed the case?

Then, there is the Flora Centre matter (see our 28 November post here: <www.ndcag.co.za/2025/11/> www.ndcag.co.za/2025/11/) which is apparently, going to court on 9 March. It seems that Capitec are going ahead with their application for liquidation of Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, the Nova subsidiary that is the registered owner of Flora Centre

If this does go ahead and given the Board’s sacrificial and in defiance of CIPC’s asset disposal embargo, offering of Carletonville and Rangeview Centres in settlement – what will the outcome be?

We stress again, we have not verified any if this information and await detail and clarity

We’ve had no word from CIPC on Flora Centre following our email to them last year in which we suggested that the Nova action to circumvent the ban on disposal of fixed assets is now actionable

Meantime, we are aware that Nova debenture Trustee, JP Tromp, has addressed Willem van Niekerk, Chair of the Nova audit committee, and copied the other directors, on why the audit of the ’25 AFS has not yet been competed and when the AFS will be published

As regards Tromp’s investigative and revelatory activities, he has informed us that February is a very busy time for him and his business and that he will be resuming his Nova and Debenture related posts in his business web site at <www.carian.co.za> www.carian.co.za > Nova Debenture Trust in March

Ons verbeel ons dat die Jaarstate teen Saterdag 28ste gepubliseer sal word, want vir enige normale maatskappy sou dit ‘n grrot verleentheid vir die Direktoraat wees as so ‘n situasie soos die aankoms van ‘n nuwe jaareinde sou plaasvind wanneer die state vir die vorige jaar nog steeds nie gepubliseer is nie

Is Nova ‘n “normale” maatskappy?

Nee, dit is ‘n ongenoteerde maatskappy met aandeelhouers en die doel daarvan is om die Sharemax besigheidsredding waaruit dit ontstaan ​​het, te bewerkstellig en die terugbetaling van die Nova-skuldbriewe aan die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers te bewerkstellig. Normaalweg sou die maatskappy se voorsitter en direksie moeite doen om aanspreeklikheid teenoor die aandeelhouers te demonstreer, maar nie in hierdie geval nie

Die maatskappy het twee vlakke van aandeelhouers:

– Die A- en B-klas-aandeelhouers wat almal direkteure van die maatskappy is (sovêr ons weet). Dit is ‘n binnekring en geen aanspreeklikheid is nodig nie. Hulle het hul aandele verkry uit ‘n bepaling in die besigheidsreddingsplan Reëlingskena waarvolgens alle Sharemax-aandele waarvoor die individuele onderliggende beleggers nie ‘n formele keuse gemaak het oor omskakeling na Nova-aandele of Nova-skuldbriewe nie, by verstek aan die direkteure van die maatskappy toegeken sou word en die beleggers wat nie ‘n formele keuse gemaak het nie, by verstek skuldbriefhouers sou word.

– Die D-klas-aandeelhouers is daardie Sharemax-beleggers wat wel gekies het om hul Sharemax-bate tot in aandele in Nova om te skakel. D-klas-aandele dra geen stemreg nie en dus kan die Voorsitter en Raad hulle heeltemal ignoreer en waarskynlik doen wel so

Dus, dink dons at daar ‘n kans is dat die 2025 Jaarstate dalk nie teen Saterdag 28 Februarie gepubliseer sal word nie en dat maatskappyvoorsitter, Myburgh, reeds een van sy selfsugtige persoonlike wetsbuigende interpretasies al voorberei het (moontlik selfs gerugsteun deur ‘n regsopinie – dalk waarvoor betaal is met matskappy fondse) wat die nie-publikasie regverdig

So, in die afwesigheid van die 2025 Jaarstate wat is ons vlak van inligting oor en begrip van, die sake en stand van die maatskappy? Nie baie goed nie, as in ag geneem word dat die laaste gepubliseerde AFS, vir 2024, inligting sou bevat het wat relevant was tot aktiwiteite in 2023, en dus kan gesê word dat ons vir twee jaar geen formele inligting van Nova ontvang het nie (ignoreer die nie-baie insiggewende Communiqué uitgereik in Desember 2025) terwyl hulle voortgaan om die maatskappy, en die vooruitsigte vir die terugbetaling van die skuldbriefhouers, tot in die grond te dryf.

En onder hierdie het ons nou bewus geword van oënskynlike hofaksies teen Nova

Daar was blykbaar vandag (26 Februarie) ‘n hofsitting wat na bewering ‘n aansoek vir likwidasie van Nova of een of meer van sy filiale is

Ons beklemtoon dat hierdie en verwante inligting hierin op hierdie stadium ongeverifieer is. Maar ons dink dat, as gevolg van die implikasies van sodanige hofaksie, indien dit wel plaasvind, die skuldbriefhouers daarvan bewus moet wees.

Natuurlik sal die Nova-voorsitter en -raad nie hieroor inlig nie. Hulle doen nie kommunikasie nie! Op sy beste kan ons dalk ‘n paar terloopse kommentaar in ‘n toekomstige kommunikasie kry (maar moenie asem ophou nie) of in die 2026 Jaarstate, indien en wanneer dit uiteindelik gepubliseer word?

Wie mag die aansoekers wees? Miskien een of meer van daardie gewone verdagtes wat die afgelope paar jaar aan die verloorkant van Nova-wanbetalings was?

– Quattro Security Services wat in 2024 likwidasie wou hê vir Nova se wanbetaling onder ‘n kontrak vir higiënedienste by ‘n aantal winkelsentrums. Het Nova weer in gebreke gebly, hierdie keer onder die skikkingsreëling wat bereik is om die likwidasie te voorkom en Nova tyd te gee om die uitstaande skuld terug te betaal?

– Bright Light Solar wat Nova in 2025 hof toe geneem het (sien: www.ndcag.co.za/go/202506191,) oor wanbetaling vir sonkraginstallasies by sommige van die kommersiële eiendomme? Nova-eiendomme wat in ‘n boodskap op ‘n Brightstar-aansoek genoem word, is Flora Centre (maar sien hieronder), Tarentaal/Courtside en die Village Mall (albei reeds verloor uit die Beneficio-leningsfiasko), Carletonvile Centre (belowe onder die Capitec-lening – sien hieronder), Witbank Highveld en Waterfall.

– Is daar ander krediteure wat ook regstappe doen? Ons sal nie verbaas wees as dit inderdaad die geval is nie?

Dan is daar die Flora Centre-saak (sien ons plasing van 28 November hier: www.ndcag.co.za/2025/11/) wat blykbaar op 9 Maart hof toe gaan. Dit lyk asof Capitec voortgaan met hul aansoek om likwidasie van Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, die Nova-filiaal wat die geregistreerde eienaar van Flora Centre is.

Indien dit wel voortgaan en gegewe die Raad se opoffering en in weerwil van CIPC se bateverkopingsembargo, aanbod van Carletonville- en Rangeview-sentrums as skikking – wat sal die uitkoms wees?

Ons het geen woord van CIPC hieroor ontvang na aanleiding van ons e-pos aan hulle waarin ons voorgestel het dat die Nova-aksie om die verbod op die verkoop van vaste bates te omseil nou aksievatbaar is nie.

Intussen is ons bewus daarvan dat Nova-skuldbrieftrustee, JP Tromp vir Willem van Niekerk, voorsitter van die Nova-ouditkomitee, aangespreek het asook die ander direkteure oor waarom die oudit van die ’25 AFS nog nie voltooi is nie en wanneer die Jaarstate gepubliseer sal word

Wat Tromp se ondersoekende en onthullende aktiwiteite betref, het hy ons meegedeel dat Februarie ‘n baie besige tyd vir hom en sy besigheid is en dat hy sy Nova- en skuldbriefverwante poste op sy besigheidswebwerf by www.carian.co.za <www.carian.co.za> > Nova Debenture Trust in Maart sal hervat.

Op Donderdag 15 Januarie kon ons nie konnekteer nie en is ons via ‘n opspringboodskap op die skerm in kennis gestel dat: “Daar was ‘n kritieke fout op hierdie webwerf”. Teen Maandagoggend was toegang steeds nie moontlik nie

Wat beteken dit? Wat moet persone wat enige belang in Nova het hiervan maak? Wie sou hierdie belangstellendes wees? Die skuldbriewe en aandeelhouers natuurlik, maar ook ander krediteure, diensverskaffers, hul bankiers en moontlik selfs potensiële beleggers, hoe onwaarskynlik dit ook al mag wees

Hoe krities is hierdie gebeurtenis?

Was dit bloot ‘n tegniese saak? Is die maatskappy se internetdiens deur die betrokke diensverskaffer afgesny en, indien ja, waarom?

Of is dit deel van ‘n groot ontwikkeling of verandering wat nog gepubliseer moet word?
Wat beteken dit? Wat moet persone wat enige belang in Nova het hiervan maak? Wie sou hierdie belanghebbende persone wees? Die skuldbriewe en aandeelhouers natuurlik, maar ook ander krediteure, diensverskaffers, hul bankiers en moontlik selfs potensiële beleggers, hoe onwaarskynlik dit ook al mag wees

Of was dit deel van ‘n groot ontwikkeling of verandering wat nog nie gepubliseer is nie?

‘n Mens sou nie weet sonder enige kommunikasie van Nova nie, en dit sou nie onregverdig wees om te sê dat dit gelyk het of die skuldbriefhouers dalk weer eens in die duister gelaat word nie

Ons het Maandagoggend vir Nova ‘n e-pos gestuur na hul generiese e-posadres – gemerk vir die aandag van Raadsvoorsitter Myburgh – en gevra vir die rede waarom die webwerf ontoeganklik is

‘n Generiese antwoord is ontvang van ‘n persoon in die administrasie, wat verklaar dat die rede ‘n tegniese probleem was en kort na ontvangs van die e-pos was toegang tot die webwerf weer moontlik

Dit besweer nie ons kommer oor die moontlikheid van nog ‘n gebeurtenis wat dui op, eerstens, onstabiliteit binne die maatskappy, tweedens, dat niemand by Nova, so lyk dit, daaraan gedink het om ‘n openbare verklaring oor die onderbreking te maak nie en derdens, dat die generiese antwoord dalk ‘n dekmantelstorie is vir ‘n meer ernstige onderliggende situasie, waarvan die besonderhede nog bekend gemaak moet word

Paranoia? Gegewe die onthulde geskiedenis van aksies wat die skuldbriefhouers benadeel het sedert 2012, sal enige negatiewe gebeurtenis met agterdog bejeën word

Die e-posse waarna verwys word, kan hier gelees word: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20260121-2 en hier: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20260121-1