Following our post of 2 December there have been further exchanges involving Deon Pienaar and ADJP, CIPC and Western Cape High Court (WCHC) as well as ADJP, the SARB’s attorneys & CIPC and the intervention of an Assistant Deputy Judge President within DoJ (Department of Justice and Constitutional Affairs)

We also understand from posts by Deon Pienaar that the CIPC’s Investigation and the hoped for release of the Interim Report are on ice pending ADJP/DoJ outcomes from the information that has, at their invitation, been submitted to them by Deon, Cuma Zwane and others

This has prompted us to send a further email to Zwane which went out on Friday 12th with this content:

Hello Mr Zwane

There have been some interesting developments lately which prompt us to write to you again

From recent correspondence that has been on the go it seems quite apparent that SARB is the reason for the delay in CIPC’s releasing the Investigation’s Interim Report!

Our first impression from the Sarb Attorneys email of 12 November in response to your letter sent to the WCHC – was that SARB are stalling. Further, that the attorneys will have been instructed by SARB and thus it was the latter that a) made an extensive – but pointless? – argument about the non-release of the report and b) their inappropriate instruction to “cease your unlawful interference” without stating any authority per which they can issue such instruction and overlooking your statement in your letter to WCHC that CIPC has no intention of becoming involved (interference) in cases relevant but not directly related to, the PSPC shut-down

Then, in your letter to ADJP, it is pretty obvious that SARB are going to be named as the primary entity responsible for the PSPC shut-down (see attached copy of our Facebook and web site posts on this)

And, in his second letter to ADJP – attached in case you have not already seen it – Deon Pienaar has made definitive statements about SARB’s non-participation in the S41 co-operative process and also alleged (but true?) that they have not even committed to the further process by way of provision of an NDA undertaking

We know that you and Deon interact frequently and exchange information so it seems logical to say that this revealed situation viz a viz SARB has come to him from CIPC

Is this indeed the case and if so, what is to be done about it?

The ADJP’s interest (Justice Goliath?) is a very welcome surprise and although we don’t know how that came about, the big question is: where it will lead?

DoJ is also responsible for Constitutional Development meaning that they have authority over all Constitutional matters and can act regarding S41 issues – specifically, failure by organs of state to participate and co-operate?

This possibility suggests to us that there will be a very senior official within DoJ (ADJP or higher level?) who can address cases of non-participation in an S41 co-operative process and can take up the present matter with SARB and compel them to comply with their obligation as set out in S41?
Is such pressure to meet the Constitutional obligation likely to occur?
If SARB have been responsible for the delay in release of the Interim Report since the completion two years ago, and are now to be pressured to participate, how long is that going to take and how much more delay will it entail?
In his attached letter, Deon states at para 29 that “the approximate 80 000 investors, have been held hostage long enough” and the continuation of this situation is now attributable solely to SARB?
Are there now sufficient grounds to by-pass the required protocols and release the report and move the process forward without SARB, leaving them to deal with the resulting fall out as a consequence of their failure to be part of the process?
We hope that you’ll share information with us but completely understand if this is not possible
Thank you
Zwane has not responded to the email although we’re hoping that he will before CIPC shuts down for the festive season break
We also wait to hear about any actions taken by them as regards JP Tromp’s recent revelation of Nova’s machinations to circumvent the August 2022 prohibition on the disposal of assets and the Flora Centre loan on which they’ve reneged and offered to Capitec Bank Range View and Carletonville Centres in settlement thus, potentially, further reducing the company’s asset base with further negative impact on its prospects and ability to repay the debentures

Na aanleiding van ons plasing van 2 Desember was daar verdere uitruilings tussen Deon Pienaar en ADJP, CIPC en die Wes-Kaapse Hooggeregshof (WCHC), sowel as die ADJP, die SARB se prokureurs en CIPC, en die ingryping van ‘n Assistent-Adjunk-Regterpresident binne die DoJ (Departement van Justisie en Grondwetlike Sake)

Ons verstaan ​​ook uit plasings deur Deon Pienaar dat die CIPC se ondersoek en die verwagte vrystelling van die tussentydse verslag op ys geplaas is hangende die ADJP/DoJ-uitkomste van die inligting wat, op hul uitnodiging, deur Deon, Cuma Zwane en ander aan hulle voorgelê is

Dit het ons aangespoor om ‘n verdere e-pos aan Zwane te stuur wat op Vrydag die 12de uitgestuur is met hierdie inhoud:

>>>>>

Hello Mr Zwane

There have been some interesting developments lately which prompt us to write to you again

From recent correspondence that has been on the go it seems quite apparent that SARB is the reason for the delay in CIPC’s releasing the Investigation’s Interim Report!

Our first impression from the SARB Attorneys email of 12 November in response to your letter sent to the WCHC – was that SARB are stalling. Further, that the attorneys will have been instructed by SARB and thus it was the latter that a) made an extensive – but pointless? – argument about the non-release of the report and b) their inappropriate instruction to “cease your unlawful interference“ without stating any authority per which they can issue such instruction and overlooking your statement in your letter to WCHC that CIPC has no intention of becoming involved (interference) in cases relevant but not directly related to, the PSPC shut-down

Then, in your letter to ADJP, it is pretty obvious that SARB are going to be named as the primary entity responsible for the PSPC shut-down (see attached copy of our Facebook and web site posts on this)

And, in his second letter to ADJP – attached in case you have not already seen it – Deon Pienaar has made definitive statements about SARB’s non-participation in the S41 co-operative process and also alleged (but true?) that they have not even committed to the further process by way of provision of an NDA undertaking

We know that you and Deon interact frequently and exchange information so it seems logical to say that this revealed situation viz a viz SARB has come to him from CIPC

Is this indeed the case and if so, what is to be done about it?

The ADJP’s interest (Justice Goliath?) is a very welcome surprise and although we don’t know how that came about, the big question is: where it will lead?

DoJ is also responsible for Constitutional Development meaning that they have authority over all Constitutional matters and can act regarding S41 issues – specifically, failure by organs of state to participate and co-operate?

This possibility suggests to us that there will be a very senior official within DoJ (ADJP or higher level?) who can address cases of non-participation in an S41 co-operative process and can take up the present matter with SARB and compel them to comply with their obligation as set out in S41?
Is such pressure to meet the Constitutional obligation likely to occur?
If SARB have been responsible for the delay in release of the Interim Report since the completion two years ago, and are now to be pressured to participate, how long is that going to take and how much more delay will it entail?
In his attached letter, Deon states at para 29 that “the approximate 80 000 investors, have been held hostage long enough” and the continuation of this situation is now attributable solely to SARB?
Are there now sufficient grounds to by-pass the required protocols and release the report and move the process forward without SARB, leaving them to deal with the resulting fall out as a consequence of their failure to be part of the process?
We hope that you’ll share information with us but completely understand if this is not possible
>>>>>

Zwane het nie op die e-pos gereageer nie, alhoewel ons hoop dat hy dit sal doen voordat CIPC vir die feestydvakansie sluit

Ons wag ook om te hoor van enige stappe wat hulle geneem het rakende JP Tromp se onlangse onthulling van Nova se aksie om die verbod van Augustus 2022 op die verkoop van bates en die Flora Centre-lening, waarop hulle teruggetree het en aan Capitec Bank Range View en Carletonville Centres as skikking aangebied het, te omseil, wat moontlik die maatskappy se batebasis verder sal verminder met verdere negatiewe impak op sy vooruitsigte en vermoë om die skuldbriewe terug te betaal.

In ons plasing van 5 November het ons ingelig oor CIPC se brief aan die Wes-Kaapse Hooggeregshof (WCHC)

Hulle het verwys na die voorlopige bevindinge van hul ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappye in 2010 en het aan die WCHC voorgestel dat in hofsake wat die aktivis Deon Pienaar en ander relevant tot die sluiting en daaropvolgende gebeure betrek, die howe aandag moet gee aan die inhoud van die brief wanneer hulle getuienis aanhoor en uitsprake formuleer

Die primêre tekste in die brief is:

* “ ….this request for abeyance of the cases in question hinge on the fact that there exists reasonable grounds that the outcomes of the Section 41 Constitutional process (NDCAG: being the CIPC’s Inter-regulatory investigation into the shut-down if the PSPC companies) will have a material bearing on causing/triggering the review and setting aside of various judgements delivered by certain courts over the past decade or so” * “ …,the CIPC identified matters …….. which warrant the sounding of an alarm for the attention of the court” * “Some of the startling statements made by the NPA in regard to the conduct of the SARB have been shared with the SARB’s lead counsel for consideration” * “ … the averments and allegations made by Mr. Pienaar about the conduct of the SARB and/or its former officials, are not farfetched nor baseless” * “The core issues, if ignored, may lead to grave injustices” Besonderhede hiervan kan onder punt 9 van die voorlegging gesien word by <www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-Affidavit-003.pdf> www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-Affidavit-003.pdf). (NDCAG: Ernstige onregte bo en behalwe dié wat reeds al die PSPC-beleggers geraak het)

Dit wil voorkom asof CIPC se brief in Deon se saakverhoor op 18 November geïgnoreer is, aangesien die hofuitslag was dat Deon gesekwestreer is oor die wanbetaling van koste wat in vorige uitsprake teen hom toegeken is, en hy is ook weereens as ‘n lastige litigant (vexatious litigant) geëtiketteer (Google-soekresultate toon dat sulke persone “regstappe teen ander neem in sake sonder enige meriete”)

Na aanleiding van daardie gebeurtenis het die Waarnemende Adjunk-Regterpresident (Acting Deputy Judge President – ADJP) in die Departement van Justisie (DoJ) Deon, Cuma Zwane van CIPC en ander genader en hulle versoek om insette te lewer oor die oorspronklike CIPC-brief

Ons kommentaar hieroor is hieronder ingesluit, maar vir voorbereidende leeswerk, klik op hierdie skakels:

Oospronklike CIPC brief van 28 October: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

Deon Pienaar se voorlegging aan die ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1

Cuma Zwane se voorlegging aan die ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2

* Die toetrede van die ADJP tot die arena:

Waarom?

Ons het nie hul versoek aan Deon en CIPC gesien nie, so ons weet nie die hoekom nie en kan slegs raai oor die rede

Maar hul belangstelling is goeie nuus! Iemand het duidelik die CIPC-brief raakgesien, die belangrikheid daarvan besef en wil meer weet

Volgens die bogenoemde skakels het beide Deon en Zwane gereageer en ons hoop dat die ADJP (en die breër DoJ) die ongeregtighede van die verlede sal besef en verstaan ​​en die noodsaaklikheid om te verseker dat dit omgekeer word en dat die slagofferdirekteure van die betrokke maatskappye behoorlik geregverdig word – met gevolglike voordelige uitkomste vir die beleggers

Ons wag om te hoor wat hulle doen uit die voorleggings wat voortbou op die oorspronklike CIPC-brief, en vertrou dat dit ‘n ommeswaai sal wees wat vereis dat die howe en die regsgemeenskap hul denkwyse oor die PSPC-bedryf (Ponzi-skemas) en Sharemax (wat onwettig as ‘n bank bedryf word) moet laat vaar

* Cuma Zwane se antwoord aan ADJP

Zwane maak ‘n saak vir die CIPC-ondersoek en lig effektief in oor wat die primêre inhoud van die tussentydse verslag – en dus heel moontlik die finale verslag – sal wees wat die benoeming van ‘n skuldige vir die 2010 PSPC-sluiting betref, deur middel van:

Para 13 : CIPC …. opines that the property syndication promotion companies’ business models were far removed from that of a bank. As such, by intercepting the companies in the manner that it did, SARB unduly exerted hegemony over an industry in which it had no jurisdiction

Para 14: “….. evidence suggests that the property syndications promotion companies collapsed due to the interference of the SARB” and “The CIPC merely states that the closest casual [causal?) link to the chain of events that led to financial distress and consequently business rescue and/or liquidations, points to the interference of the SARB.”

Para 17. It is also worth mentioning that the CIPC inter-regulator investigation’s preliminary report suggests that THE PREMISE AND LEGAL PROPOSITIONS RELIED UPON TO LITIGATE AGAINST VARIOUS PROPERTY SYNDICATION PROMOTION COMPANIES; ARE LITTERED WITH A CONFETTI OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL CONTRADICTIONS.” (NDCAG klem)

Ons klem op die vingerwysing na SARB in die bogenoemde beteken nie dat ander entiteite (en persone?) nie ook geïdentifiseer sal word as wesenlik relevant tot die gebeure van 2010 nie, maar dit lyk beslis uit Zwane se ADJP-voorlegging dat die skuld by SARB gelê gaan word

In our post of 5 November, we informed of CIPC’s letter to the Western Cape High Court (WCHC)

They referred to the preliminary findings of their investigation into the shut-down of the PSPC companies in 2010 and suggested to the WCHC that in court cases involving activist Deon Pienaar and others relevant to the shut-down and subsequent events, the Courts should pay heed to the letter’s content when hearing testimony and formulating judgements

The primary texts in the letter are:

* ” ..this request for abeyance of the cases in question hinge on the fact that there exists reasonable grounds that the outcomes of the Section 41 Constitutional process (NDCAG: being the CIPC’s Inter-regulatory investigation into the shut-down if the PSPC companies) will have a material bearing on causing/triggering the review and setting aside of various judgements delivered by certain courts over the past decade or so” * ” .,the CIPC identified matters …. which warrant the sounding of an alarm for the attention of the court” * “Some of the startling statements made by the NPA in regard to the conduct of the SARB have been shared with the SARB’s lead counsel for consideration” * ” . the averments and allegations made by Mr. Pienaar about the conduct of the SARB and/or its former officials, are not farfetched nor baseless” * “The core issues, if ignored, may lead to grave injustices” A list of these can be found under point 9 in the letter at <www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-A ffidavit-003.pdf> www.ndcag.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Kings-WCHC-Letter_SARB-Af fidavit-003.pdf). (NDCAG: Grave injustices over and above those that have already affected all of the PSPC investors)

It would seem that, in Deon’s case hearing on the 18 November, CIPC’s letter was ignored insofar as the court outcome was that Deon has been sequestrated over non-payment of costs awarded in previous judgements against him and he has also, once again, been labelled as a vexatious litigant (Google search results show that such persons “take legal action against others in cases without any merit”)

Following that event the Acting Deputy Judge President (ADJP) in the Department of Justice (DoJ) has approached Deon, Cuma Zwane of CIPC and others requesting them to give inputs on the original CIPC letter

Our comments on these are included below but for preparatory reading, click on these links:

Original CIPC letter of 28 October: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

Deon Pienaar’s submission to the ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-1

Cuma Zwane’s submission to ADJP: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251128-2

* The entry of the ADJP into the arena:

Why?

We have not seen their request to Deon and CIPC so we don’t know the why and can only surmise on the wherefore

But, their interest is good news! Someone has clearly picked up on the CIPC letter, realised its importance and want to know more

As per the above links, both Deon and Zwane have responded and we hope that the ADJP (and the wider DoJ) will realise and understand the injustices of the past and the need to ensure that those are reversed and that the victim directors of the relevant companies are duly vindicated – with consequential beneficial outcomes for the investors

We wait to hear what they do out of the submissions building on the original CIPC letter, and trust that it will be a shake-up requiring the Courts and the legal fraternity to drop their mind-set about the PSPC industry (Ponzi schemes) and Sharemax (illegally operating as a bank)

* Cuma Zwane’s reply to ADJP

Zwane makes a case for the CIPC investigation and effectively, informs of what the primary content of the Interim Report – and thus, quite possibly, the Final Report, will be – as far as naming a culprit for the 2010 PSPC shut-down is concerned, by way of:

Para 13 : CIPC .. opines that the property syndication promotion companies’ business models were far removed from that of a bank. As such, by intercepting the companies in the manner that it did, SARB unduly exerted hegemony over an industry in which it had no jurisdiction

Para 14: “… evidence suggests that the property syndications promotion companies collapsed due to the interference of the SARB” and “The CIPC merely states that the closest casual [causal?) link to the chain of events that led to financial distress and consequently business rescue and/or liquidations, points to the interference of the SARB.”

Para 17. It is also worth mentioning that the CIPC inter-regulator investigation’s preliminary report suggests that THE PREMISE AND LEGAL PROPOSITIONS RELIED UPON TO LITIGATE AGAINST VARIOUS PROPERTY SYNDICATION PROMOTION COMPANIES; ARE LITTERED WITH A CONFETTI OF LEGAL AND FACTUAL CONTRADICTIONS.” (NDCAG emphasis)

Our emphasis on the finger pointing at SARB in the above, does not mean that other entities (and persons?) will not also be identified as materially relevant to the events of 2010 but it certainly seems from Zwane’s ADJP submission that the blame is going to be laid at SARB’s door

Nova Debenture Trustee JP Tromp has posted information on what he describes as a “carefully orchestrated plan by the Board of Directors to circumvent the Compliance Notice issued by the CIPC”

See: www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-p otentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment

This comprises a package of documents including a Response from Dominique Haese, CEO of Nova Propgrow

This content, whilst of specific relevance to holders of Debentures linked to Carletonville and Range View, is also very relevant to all Debenture Holders from the perspective of the solvency and viability of Nova

The Compliance Notice was issued to Nova in August 2022 and it prohibits the sale of any further properties (immovable assets) by the company. This, after some twenty one of the original thirty seven Sharemax properties inherited by Nova in the BRP/SoA process back in 2010/12 were sold (E&OE on these figures). The compliance Notice also triggered CIPC to open an internal investigation into Nova’s repeated failures to meet its obligations under the Companies Act and the failure to repay all of the Debentures by the “10 year deadline” as per the SoAs. (This deadline is contested by Nova). The internal investigation will result in a Companies Tribunal to address the findings with Nova

Whilst some debentures were repaid in 2012/13, the company stopped repaying and, on their own admittance (but , only communicated to Debenture Holders in one of Nova’s Communiques in September 2019), started retaining property sale proceeds to finance ongoing operations and to provide the funds to keep the company afloat amid growing concerns as to its solvency

According to Tromp’s new posting regarding a loan which Nova arranged with Mercantile Bank (since bought by Capitec), for which, they pledged as security, Flora Centre, Carletonville Centre and Range View Centre, but have defaulted on the mortgage payments, Capitec have lodged an application for liquidation of Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, the entity within Nova Propgrow Group that owns Flora Centre and a judgement against Nova could see Flora Centre being attached and sold off to repay the loan

Nova sought and have received “favourable” legal opinion to the effect that if the pledged properties are sold in execution of a court judgement, then such sale is not a circumvention of the CIPC Compliance Notice prohibiting sale of the properties.

Based on this opinion. Nova have proposed to Capitec that that both the Carletonville and Range View properties be accepted as settlement of the loan.

The proposal reads:

“We have taken legal advice from Advocate (blanked out) on how we overcome this prohibition. The advice is that the subject matter property (the surety properties [Carletonville and Range View]) may be disposed of under circumstances of a sale following a Court Order in the form of a judgement and in execution of such judgement. We therefore suggest that a Summons is issued, judgement is obtained, and the property/s sold in pursuance of the judgement”

Tromp suggests that Flora Centre is far more “valuable” as an asset in the company’s books and the board would not want to lose that following Court judgement in favour of Capitec

But, we have here a case of blatant sacrifice of two properties to suit their own interests – with the negative of a court judgement against the company (Nova) on record – and in the process, removing the underlying assets that are supposed be the base off which the Carletonville and Range View debentures can be repaid

We ask: is the pledging of portfolio properties – thus putting them at risk – in itself not a circumvention of the Compliance Notice?

And, we ask: is a taken course of action which they admit is a ploy “to overcome this prohibition” (selling of the portfolio properties) not also a flagrant demonstration of disregard of the authority of CIPC?

Was the taking of the loan, in fact, part of a strategic plan devised by the Board, to bypass CIPC’s asset sell-off prohibition per which they pledged the three properties as security in order to obtain funds to keep the company afloat but with the premeditated intention to default and then sacrifice the two “lesser” properties to the lending bank in settlement of the loan?

And, we have the Board, once again, expending company funds to get legal opinion that supports their strategy and proposed action that is not in the interests of the Debenture Holders!

Tromp goes on to inform that once sold off, these two properties (and any of the other portfolio properties sold) will not exist in the Nova books anymore meaning that the assets that could realise the funds necessary to repay the underlying Debenture liability, have disappeared and Nova’s capability to create the funds necessary to repay has been further diminished. See our October 1 post on “The Missing R414 million” and Tromp’s post on same in his web site

How will CIPC react to this news? Will they accept Tromp’s allegations as being valid and take action? Perhaps bring the Companies Tribunal on Nova into immediate action? Perhaps more stringent action?

Is all lost for the relevant Debenture Holders as Tromp has stated?

Perhaps not, but only if the CIPC Investigation into the 2010 shut-down of the PSPC’s can move forward and deliver the Final Report and if its recommendations (expected to confirm the long-alleged illegalities and the irregularities of the shut-down) are followed through with ultimate restitution and compensation for all Sharemax Investors

We will be sharing this post with Cuma Zwane who is the Senior Investigator: Corporate Compliance and Disclosure Regulation at CIPC, in support of Tromp’s submissions to them

JP Tromp, Trustee van die Nova Debenture Trust, het inligting geplaas oor wat hy beskryf as ‘n sorgvuldig georkestreerde plan deur die Raad van Direkteure om die Nakomingskennisgewing wat deur die CIPC uitgereik is, te omseil (“carefully orchestrated plan by the Board of Directors to circumvent the Compliance Notice issued by the CIPC”)

Sien: <www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-potentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment> www.carian.co.za/post/flora-centre-debenture-holders-stand-to-lose-potentially-up-to-100-of-their-initial-investment

Dit behels ‘n pakket dokumente, insluitend ‘n reaksie vanaf Dominique Haese, uitvoerende hoof van Nova Propgrow

Hierdie inhoud, hoewel van spesifieke relevansie vir houers van skuldbriewe gekoppel aan die Carletonville en Range View eiendomme, is ook baie relevant vir alle skuldbriewehouers vanuit die perspektief van die solvensie en lewensvatbaarheid van Nova

Die Nakomingskennisgewing is in Augustus 2022 aan Nova uitgereik en dit verbied die verkoop van enige verdere eiendomme (onroerende bates) deur die maatskappy. Dit nadat sowat een-en-twintig van die oorspronklike sewe-en-dertig Sharemax-eiendomme wat Nova in die BRP/SoA-proses in 2010/12 geërf het (F.E.W. op hierdie syfers) verkoop is. Die nakomingskennisgewing het ook CIPC aangespoor om ‘n interne ondersoek te open na Nova se herhaalde versuim om sy verpligtinge kragtens die Maatskappywet na te kom en die versuim om al die skuldbriewe teen die “10-jaar-sperdatum” volgens die Reëlingskemas terug te betaal. (Hierdie sperdatum word deur Nova betwis). Die interne ondersoek sal lei tot ‘n Maatskappytribunaal om die bevindinge met Nova aan te spreek

Terwyl sommige skuldbriewe in 2012/13 terugbetaal is, het die maatskappy opgehou om terug te betaal en, na hul eie erkenning (maar eers in September 2019 aan skuldbriefhouers in een van Nova se Communiqué publikasies gekommunikeer), het hulle begin om die opbrengs van eiendomsverkope te behou om voortgesette bedrywighede te finansier en die fondse te verskaf om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou te midde van groeiende kommer oor sy solvensie

Volgens Tromp se nuwe plasing rakende ‘n lening wat Nova met Mercantile Bank (sedertdien deur Capitec gekoop) gereël het, waarvoor hulle as sekuriteit Flora Centre, Carletonville Centre en Range View Centre verpand het, maar wanbetaal het op die verbandbetalings, het Capitec ‘n aansoek ingedien vir likwidasie van Flora Centre Investments (Pty) Limited, die entiteit binne Nova Propgrow Group wat Flora Centre besit, en ‘n vonnis teen Nova kan daartoe lei dat Flora Centre in beslag geneem en verkoop word om die lening terug te betaal

Nova het ‘n “gunstige” regsmening ingewin en ontvang dat indien die verpande eiendomme verkoop word in uitvoering van ‘n hofuitspraak, sodanige verkoop nie ‘n omseiling van die CIPC-nakomingskennisgewing is wat die verkoop van die eiendomme verbied nie.

Gebaseer op hierdie mening, het Nova aan Capitec voorgestel dat beide die Carletonville- en Range View-eiendomme as skikking van die lening aanvaar word.

Die voorstel lui:

“We have taken legal advice from Advocate (blanked out) on how we overcome this prohibition. The advice is that the subject matter property (the surety properties [Carletonville and Range View]) may be disposed of under circumstances of a sale following a Court Order in the form of a judgement and in execution of such judgement. We therefore suggest that a Summons is issued, judgement is obtained, and the property/s sold in pursuance of the judgement”

Tromp stel voor dat Flora Centre baie meer “waardevol” is as ‘n bate in die maatskappy se boeke en die direksie wil dit nie verloor na ‘n hofuitspraak ten gunste van Capitec nie

Maar ons het hier ‘n geval van blatante opoffering van twee eiendomme om hul eie belange te dien – met die negatiewe gevolg van ‘n hofuitspraak teen die maatskappy of rekord – en in die proses, die verwydering van die onderliggende bates wat veronderstel is om die basis te wees waarop die Carletonville- en Range View-skuldbriewe terugbetaal kan word

Ons vra: is die verpanding van portefeulje-eiendomme – wat hulle dus in gevaar stel – op sigself nie ‘n omseiling van die Compliance Notice nie?

En ons vra: is ‘n stap wat hulle erken ‘n plan is om hierdie verbod te oorkom (die verkoop van die portefeulje-eiendomme) nie ook ‘n blatante minagting van die gesag van CIPC nie?

Was die aangaan van die lening in werklikheid deel van ‘n strategiese plan wat deur die Raad opgestel is om CIPC se verbod op die verkoop van bates te omseil, ingevolge waarvan hulle die drie eiendomme as sekuriteit verpand het om fondse te bekom om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou, maar met die voorbedagte bedoeling om in gebreke te bly en dan die twee “minderwaardige” eiendomme aan die lenende bank op te offer ter vereffening van die lening?

En hier het ons die Raad, weereens, wat maatskappyfondse bestee om ‘n regsmening te kry wat hul strategie en voorgestelde aksie ondersteun en wat nie in die belang van die Skuldbriefhouers is nie!

Tromp gaan voort om te deel dat sodra hulle verkoop is, hierdie twee eiendomme (en enige van die ander portefeulje-eiendomme wat verkoop is) nie meer in die Nova-boeke sal bestaan ​​nie, wat beteken dat die bates wat die fondse wat nodig is om die onderliggende skuldbrieflas terug te betaal, kon realiseer, verdwyn het en Nova se vermoë om die fondse te skep wat nodig is om terug te betaal, verder verminder is. Sien ons plasing van 1 Oktober oor “The Missing R414 million” en Tromp se plasing daaroor op sy webwerf

Hoe sal CIPC op hierdie nuus reageer? Sal hulle Tromp se bewerings as waarheid aanvaar en aksie neem? Miskien die Maatskappytribunaal oor Nova onmiddellik tot aksie bring? Miskien strenger optrede?

Is alles verlore vir die betrokke skuldbriefhouers soos Tromp gesê het?

Miskien nie, maar slegs as die CIPC-ondersoek na die sluiting van die PSPC’s in 2010 kan voortuitgang maak en die finale verslag kan lewer en as die aanbevelings daarvan (wat na verwagting die lang beweerde onwettighede en die onreëlmatighede van die PSPC sluiting sal bevestig) opgevolg word met uiteindelike restitusie en vergoeding vir alle Sharemax-beleggers

Ons sal hierdie plasing met Cuma Zwane, die Senior Ondersoeker: Korporatiewe Nakoming en Openbaarmakingsregulering by CIPC deel, ter ondersteuning van Tromp se voorleggings aan hulle.