or

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231204> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231204

How does one react to the events reported? It’s not a surprise that Moneyweb editor Ryk van Niekerk editor was barred from entry. Nova does not like opposition, especially Chairman Connie Myburgh. In fact, Nova operates in typical authoritarian manner: shut any opposition out – the best form of defence is attack

Of course, Ms Haese’s statements are all just spin in an attempt to deflect criticism. And, moralising (again!) regarding the money that they owe to Beneficio being “the debenture holder’s money”! The debenture holder’s money was the post-2013 property sale proceeds taken into working capital and which has gone down the drain with never a cent used for repayment

Further, it’s our money but we have no say in managing it. That responsibility lies with you and the rest of the Board. You’re hardly making a good job of it, CEO Haese, whatever your protestations and assurances

What did Nova have to borrow thirty two million for anyway? What was so urgent that they were willing to borrow at that exorbitant interest rate? What they now call a usuary rate was not challenged when they contracted for the borrowing, yes? But, now, they cry foul! Hindsight is 20-20 vision as the saying goes . But, in this matter, where was the foresight that should have been exercised? Does this borrowing therefore, not qualify as reckless trading?

Nova last repaid debentures in 2013. There has been no good news at all in the ensuing ten years and they expect the former Sharemax investors (whether Nova shareholders or Debenture Holders now) and the world at large to swallow their assurances without question?

A while ago Nova introduced a “Latest Property News” feature in its web site (bottom of the Home Page

This could possibly have been done with the aim of improving its (generally negative) image as a commercial property operator, although we believe it is simply a form of “window dressing” by them in an attempt to counter the negativity stemming from the fact that the company is being investigated by the CIPC

In this regard, the latest post in the Nova web site is titled: “Post Office financial crisis”
Firstly, this topic is hardly “Property News” and we suggest, hardly relevant to the commercial property world

Secondly, and here’s the irony: Here we have one entity, which: …

* is considered to be insolvent and has been accused by CIPC of reckless trading, * has sold off more than half of the original property portfolio and taken the sales proceeds into working capital instead of using same to repay debentures and all without informing the Debenture Holders of this departure from its mandate let alone asking for their approval * couldn’t pay its municipal services bills for two of its properties in Nelspruit, * was taken to court for failure to pay for cleaning services provided for a number of malls/centres (resulting in a court order attaching two properties. This has since been resolved between the parties), * failed to repay short term borrowings of thirty two million at punitive interest rates (also resulting in a court judgement against them), * across the life of the business rescue process – put in place precisely to ensure that the original Sharemax investors got their money back – has, largely, failed to do so within the time frame stipulated in the Schemes of Arrangement (Nova disputes this but this only begs the question: Why then, were they in such a hurry to have the new Debenture Trustee appointed and, as his first and immediate, function in the role, approve an extension of the time frame for debenture repayment?) * has, no doubt, expended huge amounts on legal fees to defend the above described and other legal actions brought against it. In this regard, there is an element of hypocrisy present here. Deon Pienaar, a long time activist regarding the illegality of the Sarb’s 2010 action in closing down the property syndication industry, was present at the Debenture Trustee meetings in 2021/22 under proxies given by Debenture Holders. He took the opportunity to address Chairman Myburgh to which Myburgh responded by publicly trashing him, specifically as regards a court judgment in favour of Nova and against him. Under same, Pienaar has to pay Nova court costs of some one point three million (still under appeal as far as we are aware). Myburgh made a point of telling the meeting attendees that the money that Pienaar owes the company under the judgement is “your money” (meaning money that belongs to the Sharemax investors and/or could, perhaps, have been used to repay debentures), Therefore, the money spent on any defending legal actions is also “our money”? And so, by extension, the some forty million that must have been paid to RMB (?) to rescue Myburgh as regards his Cold Creek property personal debt to that bank must also have been “our money”. Had this not taken place, it might have been possible to effect some debenture repayments with the funds used to acquire the asset (which is how Cold Creek appears in the Nova financial statements)? Myburgh did not respond when he was challenged regarding his Cold Creek rescue

.. but sees fit to publish in its web site a story on the failures of another entity

Thirdly, and perhaps an even greater irony, is the fact that the article on the Post Office was originated by Moneyweb.

* Nova and Moneyweb have been at loggerheads for years, * There is no love lost between them because Moneyweb tells it like it is. So much so that, when Moneyweb asks for Nova input ahead of an article publication, Nova do not respond or, seldom does (makes you think?), * Nova chair Connie Myburgh, during one of the 2021/22 Debenture Trustee meetings, referred to the media (specifically inferring Moneyweb) as “gutter press”, * Moneyweb’s Ryk van Niekerk has, at least three times now, been prevented from attending Nova meetings – specifically AGMs where he was present under proxy from a shareholder

And, yet, Nova sees fit to on-publish an article written by a “gutter press” journalist on another distressed entity as part of what appears to be its image building as a responsible commercial property operator?

Is the pot calling the kettle black, or what?

Perhaps the Chairman and the Board are not aware of this Latest News item. Perhaps these posts are not selected and published by Nova themselves but rather outsourced to another entity. But is that an acceptable excuse?

Whatever, we suggest that Nova would do far better as regards improving their image if it were to focus on their mandate which is proper management of the company and repayment of the Debentures

‘n Ruk gelede het Nova ‘n “Latest Property News”-funksie op sy webwerf bekendgestel
( sien onderaan in die tuisblad)

Dit kon moontlik gedoen gewees het met die doel om sy (oor die algemeen negatiewe) beeld as ‘n kommersiële eiendomsoperateur te verbeter, alhoewel ons van mening is dat dit bloot ‘n vorm van “window dressing” deur hulle is in ‘n poging om die negatiewiteit wat voortspruit uit die feit dat die maatskappy deur die CIPC ondersoek word, te bekamp

In hierdie verband is die jongste berig op die Nova-webwerf getiteld: “Post Office financial crisis”

Eerstens, hierdie onderwerp is skaars “Eiendomsnuus” en ons stel voor, kwalik relevant tot die kommersiële eiendomswêreld nie

Tweedens, en hier is die ironie: Hier het ons ‘n entiteit, wat: …..

* word algemeen beskou as insolvent en is deur CIPC van roekelose handeldryf beskuldig, * het meer as die helfte van die oorspronklike eiendomsportefeulje verkoop en die verkoopsopbrengs tot in bedryfskapitaal geneem in plaas daarvan om dit te gebruik om skuldbriewe terug te betaal en alles sonder om die Skuldbriewehouers in kennis daarvan te stel van hierdie afwyking van sy mandaat, of ​​om hul goedkeuring te vra (natuurlik met ‘n toepaslik gemotiveerde versoek) * kon nie sy munisipale dienste rekeninge betaal vir twee van sy eiendomme in Nelspruit nie, * is hof toe geneem vir versuim om te betaal vir skoonmaakdienste wat vir ‘n aantal sentrums in Nelspruit gelewer is (wat gelei het tot ‘n hofbevel wat twee eiendomme beslag gelê het. Dit is intussen tussen deur die partye opgelos), * versuim het om korttermynlenings van twee-en-dertig miljoen teen strafrentekoerse terug te betaal (wat ook gelei het tot ‘n hofuitspraak teen hulle), * oor die lewe van die sakereddingsproses – wat juis ingestel is om te verseker dat die oorspronklike Sharemax-beleggers hul geld terugkry – grootliks versuim het om dit te doen binne die tydsraamwerk wat in die Reëlingskemas bepaal word (Nova betwis dit en dit laat die vraag ontstaan: Waarom was hulle dan so haastig om die nuwe Skuldbrief Trustee aan te stel en, as sy eerste en onmiddellike, aksie in die rol, het hulle ‘n verlenging van die tydsraamwerk vir skuldbriefterugbetaling goedgekeur?) * het ongetwyfeld groot bedrae aan regskoste bestee om bogenoemde en ander regsaksies wat teen hulle ingestel is, te verdedig. In hierdie verband, is daar is ‘n groot element van skynheiligheid aanwesig. Deon Pienaar, ‘n jarelange aktivis oor die onwettigheid van die Sarb se 2010-aksie om die eiendomsindikasiebedryf te sluit, was in 2021/22 by die Skuldbrieftrustee-vergaderings teenwoordig onder volmagte wat deur Skuldbriefhouers gegee is. Hy het van die geleentheid gebruik gemaak om voorsitter Myburgh aan te spreek waarop Myburgh gereageer het deur hom in die openbaar te vermors, spesifiek met betrekking tot ‘n hofuitspraak ten gunste van Nova en teen hom. Ingevolge dieselfde moet Pienaar Nova-hofkoste van sowat een punt drie miljoen betaal (sover ons bewus is, steeds onder appèl). Myburgh het ‘n punt daarvan gemaak om aan die vergaderinggangers te sê dat die geld wat Pienaar die maatskappy ingevolge die uitspraak skuld “jou geld” is (dit beteken geld wat aan die Sharemax-beleggers behoort en/of dalk gebruik kon word om skuldbriewe terug te betaal). Is die geld wat aan enige verdediging van regsaksies bestee word ook “ons geld”? In so geval, is die sowat veertig miljoen wat aan RMB (?) betaal moes gewees het om Myburgh te red ten opsigte van sy Cold Creek-eiendom persoonlike skuld, dan ook nie “ons geld”nie? As dit nie plaasgevind het nie, sou dit moontlik gewees het om skuldbriewe terugbetalings te bewerkstellig met die fondse wat gebruik is om die bate te bekom (dit is hoe Cold Creek in die Nova finansiële state verskyn)? Myburgh het nie gereageer toe hy uitgedaag is oor sy Cold Creek-redding nie

….. maar wat vind dit goed om ‘n storie op sy webwerf te publiseer oor die mislukkings van ‘n ander entiteit!

Derdens, en dalk ‘n selfs groter ironie, is die feit dat die artikel oor die Poskantoor eintlik deur Moneyweb ontstaan ​​het (sien die erkenning vervat in die artikel of lees die oorspronklike hier: www.moneyweb.co.za/news/economy/post-office-dominos-fall-as-state-starts-defaulting-on-debts-to-itself/)

* Nova en Moneyweb is al jare lank onder mekaar, * Daar is geen liefde tussen hulle verlore nie, want Moneyweb vertel dit soos dit is. Soveel so dat, wanneer Moneyweb vir Nova-insette vra voor ‘n artikelpublikasie, Nova reageer nie of selde in elk geval (laat jou dink, né?), * Nova voorsitter Connie Myburgh het tydens een van die 2021/22 Skuldbrief Trustee-vergaderings na die media verwys (wat spesifiek Moneyweb aflei) as “gutter press”. * Moneyweb se Ryk van Niekerk is nou minstens drie keer verhinder om Nova-vergaderings by te woon – spesifiek AJV’s waar hy teenwoordig was onder gevolmagtigde van ‘n aandeelhouer/s

En tog ag Nova dit goed om ‘n artikel geskryf deur ‘n “gutterpress”-joernalis oor ‘n ander benoude entiteit te publiseer as deel van, blykbaar, sy beeldbou as ‘n verantwoordelike kommersiële eiendomsoperateur is?

Verwyt die pot die ketel hier, of wat?

Miskien is die Voorsitter en die Direksie nie bewus van hierdie Latest News item nie. Miskien word hierdie plasings nie deur Nova self gekies en gepubliseer nie, maar eerder aan ‘n ander entiteit uitgekontrakteer. Maar is dit ‘n aanvaarbare verskoning vir so ‘n aksie?

Wat ook al, ons stel voor dat Nova baie beter sal vaar met betrekking tot die verbetering van hul beeld om te fokus op hul mandaat wat behoorlike bestuur van die maatskappy en terugbetaling van die Skuldbriewe is

‘n Potgooi hieroor is te vinde by: iono.fm/e/1379020

(Slegs in Engels beskikbaar)

A podcast on this segment is available at: iono.fm/e/1379020

Moneyweb have done their usual thorough analysis and equally as usual, they “tell it like it is”. The picture that it paints is that Debenture Holders can not realistically expect repayment out of Nova, which, possibly, faces being placed under administration as one of the outcomes of the CIPC investigation into its affairs. This has already been alluded to in CIPC’s media release on the Compliance Notices issued to Nova, in August last year

Is this yet another blow for debenture holders and is there any good news? It’s long been apparent that Nova can’t repay and CIPC stated last year that, in their opinion, Nova has neither the capability nor the intention to do so!

The good news still lies in the potential outcomes of the CIPC’s inter-regulatory investigation into Nova and the wider issues surrounding the Property Syndication Promotion Companies (PSPCs) close-down in 2010 – which included Sharemax

CIPC have “gone public” with an announcement about the SA Reserve Bank & the (then) Financial Services Board’s (FSB) actions back in 2010. They did this (process still underway?) by advising the former directors of those PSPCs that that were shut down, that the 2010 actions of SA Reserve Bank and the FSB were/are illegal. They have also informed those directors that “A preliminary report containing comprehensive detail that establishes the grounds of our averments [refer our post in this page on 27 October] will be published in due course to allow various stakeholders to make submissions that will address the issues requiring attention and cause to be redressed that which various courts wrongfully accepted as truth”

Note the “address the issues” and “cause to be redressed”. It is in the further outflows of the investigation that the best hope of debenture repayment lies. But, it will take time. This is all taking place in the regulatory and legal arenas and much deliberation and decision making still lies ahead as well as the possible need for court orders and/or judgements

Read the Moneyweb AFS analysis here:

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/nova-cannot-repay-former-sharem ax-investors/?mc_cid=7a776e03e7 <www.moneyweb.co.za/news/south-africa/nova-cannot-repay-former-share max-investors/?mc_cid=7a776e03e7&mc_eid=8c2e642ad4> &mc_eid=8c2e642ad4

Or

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231109> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20231109

The Nova AFS can be viewed at: novapropertygroup.co.za/index.php/financial-statements/