The BRP is the responsibility of Nova Property who acquired the Sharemax property assets in order to manage and grow them so as to enable debenture repayment

Fourteen years later and we are still waiting for repayment and this waiting has been the name of the game for most of that time

Right now, we await:

* The 2024 Annual Financial Statements which should have been published by 31 August (we side with the CIPC in the interpretation of the Companies Act content as regards the deadline for AFS publication). This delay occurs every year and it leaves questions about the viability of Nova and the chances of debenture repayment each time * We await communication from Nova as to the status and state of the commercial properties and the residential developments. We all know, of course, that the Nova methodology is to communicate as little as possible – and then often, only when forced to do so. Nova inform the Debenture Holders of the status of the properties and developments only once per year via their “Communiqué Nova Group Update” documents that they publish simultaneously with the AFS. A quick review of the 2023 Communiqué in the Nova web site (www.novaproopertygroup.co.za <www.novaproopertygroup.co.za> ) will show how inadequate these are and do nothing to create any form of confidence in the company

Of course, we also await repayment of the remaining debentures listed at 2.24 billion in the ‘23 AFS. There has been no repayment since 2013 when Nova started selling off properties in the portfolio with the aim of creating working capital to keep the company afloat. There was no consultation with the Debenture Holders and certainly, no permission was sought of or given by any body. As an early outcome of their investigation into Nova, CIPC put a stop to property sales in order to preserve what real estate assets remained on the books

And, we also await action from the Debenture Trustee, JP Tromp

Tromp was elected as the new Trustee at a series of meetings late in 2021 and early 2022

NDCAG remains convinced that this election was rigged. The meetings were chaired by Connie Mybyurgh (Nova Chairman) and it appeared right from the start that the total number of proxy votes ostensibly given by Debenture Holders to Nova and empowering Nova to vote on their behalf seemed way out of line. Myburgh declined to share any information on the proxy votes received by the company ahead of the meetings

Further, NDCAG challenged Myburgh’s right to convene the election meetings due to the fact that the period for setting up such meetings as laid down in the Debenture Trust Deed had expired and as a result, the replacement election arrangements had by default, passed into the hands of the Debenture Holders

Myburgh pre-empted our challenge through manipulation of the recording of the previous Trustee’s resignation. In reaction to media posts and other speculation he insisted that the company had not accepted the previous Trustee’s resignation until a much later date which meant that the capability/responsibility to convene the election process was still that of the company (and, dates and time frames can be provided after further research)

This was pure manipulation on Myburgh’s part and the only reason that he eventually called for election of the new Trustee was to get CIPC off his back – over the non-payment of the debentures by January 2022. He needed to have a Trustee in place in order to railroad a Debenture repayment extension through and which required a Trustee’s approval

Putting that challenge to the meeting, NDCAG also proposed that Deon Pienaar (long time activist in the sphere of the alleged illegalities and irregularities of the shut-down of the Property Syndication Promotion Companies – including Sharemax) would be a more appropriate Trustee and one who would definitely put the interests of the Debenture Holders before any other. Our objection to Tromp was that, for our part and by extension, that of the Debenture Holders, he was an unknown quantity

Why did Myburgh pick him for the Trustee role in the first place? It may well have been because he was an “insider” in the whole alleged plot (which it is expected, will be confirmed in the CIPC reports) to engineer the shut-down of the PSPC companies and open the door to capture the participant company assets

Why did Myburgh choose him for the Trustee role in the first place? This was possible because he was known to Myburgh, with whom Myburgh was already intimately related, business-wise, and an “insider” in the whole alleged plot (expected to be confirmed in the CIPC reports) to close the PSPC companies and open the door to capture the PSPC company’s assets

Our challenge and proposal were both rejected by Myburgh and Tromp was duly elected. His first action was to approve Nova’s proposed extension of the debenture repayment due date – which is now an open-ended period. He subsequently informed us that the reason for this action was that, with Nova unable to repay at that time, an extension would mean that the obligation to repay would remain and that an extension would allow time for better operations success and consequent improved possibility of repayment – which he deemed, at the time, to be in the best interests of the Debenture Holders

Overarching all of this is the fact that the Debenture Trust Deed is a sham. It is absolutely evident form a reading of same that the Trust Deed was put in place to cater for the needs of Nova and not for the needs and protection of the Debenture Holders. It’s also clear that the Trustee is in place only to rubber-stamp whatever Myburgh needs to do relevant to the Debentures and the Debenture Holders

Further, the Trust Deed has never been registered. Why not? How was the Trust Deed approved as part of the BRP and Section 311 (Companies Act) documentation? Was this deliberate? Why did Court officials (apparently) not pick this up? Does failure to have registered the Trust Deed make it null and void if not illegal?

During the election meetings Tromp was given the opportunity to address the audience and he made very clear statements about understanding the needs of the Debenture Holders and undertook to look after their interests. Prior to this, he must have had the opportunity to study the Trust Deed and determine its true nature and its shortcomings viz a viz the interests of the Debenture Holders. Further, as a registered Chartered Accountant, we’re sure that he will have requested access to all of the records of the Trust only to discover again, surely, that in reality, it has no standing

Following this NDCAG initiated a discussion with him and tabled our issues regarding the absence of debenture repayment and the shortcomings of the whole Trust Deed and its provisions or lack of same

Out of that meeting we received an undertaking from Tromp to address the issues and give us feedback. Despite a number of reminders and requests for a further meeting – we’re still waiting today

There has been new contact with Tromp and a meeting has been agreed upon. This will be tomorrow 17th October and we will report on what he has to tell us thereafter

At this late stage of the CIPC investigation into Nova and the shut-down of Sharemax and the imminent release of the Interim Report which will be followed by a Final Report of findings and required actions, can we look forward to the end of the waiting?

The time is drawing nearer when the investigation outcomes will be made public, when fingers will be pointed, when persons and entities will be called to account and whereafter, just maybe, prosecutions will be initiated

We are of the opinion that transgressors must be prosecuted, that statutory and oversight bodies which have contributed to the woes of the Sharemax Investors must be called to account and, most important, that the investors must received restitution and fair compensation after all the years of deprivation and waiting with finalisation and resolution in the very near future

Veertien jaar later wag ons steeds vir terugbetaling en hierdie wag was die “name if the game” vir die grootste deel van dié tydperk

Op die oomblik wag ons op:

– Die 2024 Finansiële Jaarstate wat teen 31 Augustus gepubliseer moes gewees het (ons skaar ons by die CIPC in die interpretasie van die Maatskappywet-inhoud wat die sperdatum vir AFS-publikasie betref). Hierdie vertraging vind elke jaar plaas en dit laat vrae oor die lewensvatbaarheid van Nova en die kanse op skuldskuld terugbetaling elke keer

– Ons wag op kommunikasie van Nova oor die status en toestand van die kommersiële eiendomme en die residensiële ontwikkelings. Ons weet almal natuurlik dat die Nova-metodologie is om so min as moontlik te kommunikeer – en dan dikwels, net wanneer gedwing word om dit te doen. Nova lig die Skuldbriewehouers slegs een keer per jaar in oor die status van die eiendomme en ontwikkelings via hul “Communiqué Nova Group Update” dokumente wat hulle gelyktydig met die Jaarstate publiseer. ’n Vinnige oorsig van die 2023-kommunikasie op die Nova-webwerf ( <www.novapropertygroup.co.za> www.novapropertygroup.co.za) sal wys hoe onvoldoende dit is en niks doen om enige vorm van vertroue in die maatskappy te skep nie

Natuurlik wag ons ook op die terugbetaling van die oorblywende skuldbriewe wat teen 2,24 miljard in die ’23 Jaarstate gelys is. Daar was geen terugbetaling sedert 2013 toe Nova die eiendomme in die portefeulje begin verkoop het met die doel om bedryfskapitaal te skep om die maatskappy aan die gang te hou nie. Daar was geen konsultasie met die Skuldbriewehouers nie en beslis, geen toestemming is by enige liggaam gevra of gegee nie. As ‘n vroeë uitkoms van hul ondersoek na Nova, het CIPC ‘n einde gemaak aan eiendomsverkope om die eiendomsbates wat op die boeke oorgebly het te bewaar.

En ons wag ook op optrede van die Skuldbriefkurator (Trustee), JP Tromp

Tromp is tydens ‘n reeks vergaderings laat in 2021 en vroeg in 2022 as die nuwe Trustee verkies

NDCAG bly oortuig dat hierdie verkiesing gemanipuleer was om ‘n gunstige uitkoms vir Nova te verseker. Die vergaderings is gelei deur Connie Mybyurgh (Nova-voorsitter) en dit het reg van die begin af geblyk dat die totale aantal gevolmagtigde stemme wat oënskynlik deur Skuldbriewehouers aan Nova gegee is en Nova bemagtig het om namens hulle te stem, ver uit lyn gelyk het. Myburgh het geweier om enige inligting oor die volmagstemme wat die maatskappy ontvang het, voor die vergaderings, te deel

Verder het NDCAG Myburgh se reg om die verkiesingsvergaderings byeen te roep, betwis vanweë die feit dat die tydperk vir die opstel van sulke vergaderings soos neergelê in die Skuldbrieftrustakte verstryk het en gevolglik het die vervangingsverkiesingsreëlings by verstek in die hande oorgegaan van die Skuldbriewehouers

Myburgh het ons uitdaging vooruitgeloop deur die opname van die vorige Trustee se bedanking te manipuleer. In reaksie op mediaplasings en ander bespiegelings het hy daarop aangedring dat die maatskappy nie die vorige Trustee se bedanking aanvaar het tot ‘n baie later datum nie, wat beteken het dat die vermoë/verantwoordelikheid om die verkiesingsproses te belê steeds dié van die maatskappy was (datums en tydraamwerke kan verskaf word na verdere navorsing)

Dit was pure manipulasie aan Myburgh se kant en die enigste rede waarom hy uiteindelik vir die verkiesing van die nuwe Trustee gevra het, was om CIPC van sy rug af te kry – oor die wanbetaling van die skuldbriewe teen Januarie 2022. Hy moes ‘n Trustee in plek hê om ‘n Skuldbriefterugbetalingsverlenging deur te spoor en wat ‘n Trustee se goedkeuring vereis het

Om daardie uitdaging aan die vergadering te stel, het NDCAG ook voorgestel dat Deon Pienaar (‘n jarelange aktivis op die gebied van die beweerde onwettighede en onreëlmatighede van die sluiting van die Eiendomsindikasie-bevorderingsmaatskappye – die PSPC’s en insluitend Sharemax – ‘n meer gepaste Trustee en een wat sal beslis die belange van die Skuldbriewehouers voor enige ander stel. Ons beswaar teen Tromp was dat hy van ons kant en by uitbreiding dié van die Skuldbriefhouers, ‘n onbekende persoon was.

Hoekom het Myburgh vir Tromp in die eerste plek vir die Trustee-rol gekies? Dit was moontlik omdat hy was aan Myburgh bekend, iemand met wie Myburgh reeds ook, besigheidsgewys, intiem verwant was en ‘n “insider” in die hele beweerde komplot (wat na verwagting in die CIPC-verslae bevestig sal word) om die sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappye te bewerkstellig en die deur oop te maak om die PSPC maatskappy se bates vas te trek

Ons uitdaging en voorstel is albei deur Myburgh verwerp en Tromp was hertoglik verkies. Sy eerste aksie was om Nova se voorgestelde verlenging van die skuldbrief-terugbetalingsdatum goed te keur – wat nou ‘n oop-einde tydperk is. Hy het ons daarna meegedeel dat die rede vir hierdie aksie was dat, met Nova nie in staat om op daardie tydstip terug te betaal nie, ‘n verlenging sou beteken dat die verpligting om terug te betaal sal in plek bly en dat ‘n verlenging tyd sal ruimte gee vir beter bedrywighede sukses en gevolglike verbeterde moontlikheid van terugbetaling – wat hy destyds geag het in die beste belang van die skuldbriefhouers te wees

Oorkoepelend is die feit dat die skuldbrieftrustakte ‘n skyn is. Dit is absoluut duidelik uit ‘n lees daarvan dat die Trustakte ingestel is om in die behoeftes van Nova te voorsien en nie vir die behoeftes en beskerming van die Skuldbriewehouers nie. Dit is ook duidelik dat die Trustee slegs in plek is om te rubberstempel wat Myburgh ook al moet doen met betrekking tot die Skuldbriewe en die Skuldbriewehouers

Verder is die Trustakte nooit geregistreer nie. Hoekom nie? Hoe is die Trustakte goedgekeur as deel van die BRP en Artikel 311 (Maatskappywet) dokumentasie? Was dit doelbewus? Waarom het Hofbeamptes dit (blykbaar) nie opgetel nie? Maak die versuim om die Trustakte te registreer dit nietig indien nie onwettig nie?

Tydens die verkiesingsvergaderings is Tromp die geleentheid gebied om die gehoor toe te spreek en hy het baie duidelike stellings gemaak oor sy begrip van die behoeftes van die Skuldbriewehouers en onderneem om na hul belange om te sien. Voor dit moes hy sekerlik die geleentheid gehad het om die Trustakte te bestudeer en die ware aard daarvan en die tekortkominge daarvan te bepaal in verband met die belange van die Skuldbriewehouers. Verder, as ‘n geregistreerde Geoktrooieerde Rekenmeester, is ons seker dat hy toegang tot al die rekords van die Trust sou versoek het net om sekerlik weer te ontdek dat dit in werklikheid geen status het nie

Hierna het die NDCAG ‘n gesprek met hom begin en ons kwessies oor die afwesigheid van skuldbriefterugbetaling en die tekortkominge van die hele Trustakte en sy bepalings of gebrek daaraan ter tafel gelê

Uit daardie vergadering het ons ‘n onderneming van Tromp ontvang om die kwessies aan te spreek en ons terugvoer te gee. Ten spyte van ‘n aantal aanmanings en versoeke vir ‘n verdere vergadering – wag ons vandag nog

Daar was onlangs nuwe kontak met Tromp en daar is ooreengekom op ‘n vergadering. Dit sal môre 17 Oktober plaasvind en ons sal daarna verslag doen oor wat hy vir ons vertel

Op hierdie laat stadium van die CIPC-ondersoek na Nova en die sluiting van Sharemax en die naderende vrystelling van die Tussentydse Verslag wat gevolg sal word deur ‘n Finale Verslag van bevindings en vereiste aksies, kan ons nou uitsien na die einde van die wag?

Die tyd kom nader wanneer die ondersoekuitslae bekend gemaak sal word, wanneer vingers gewys sal word, wanneer persone en entiteite tot verantwoording geroep sal word en waarna, net miskien, vervolgings begin sal word

Ons is van mening dat oortreders vervolg moet word, dat statutêre en toesighoudende liggame wat bygedra het tot die ellende van die Sharemax Beleggers tot verantwoording geroep moet word en, bowenal, dat die beleggers restitusie en billike vergoeding moet ontvang na al die jare van ontneming en wag met finalisering en oplossing in die baie nabye toekoms