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.

Die CIPC het ingegryp in geregtelike prosesse wat aan die gang is teen Deon Pienaar, ‘n langdurige aktivis oor die onwettighede en onreëlmatighede van die PSPC-maatskappy se sluiting in 2010 – wat Sharemax ingesluit het

Ons sluit in hierdie plasing ‘n afskrif van hul onlangse brief in, geskryf aan die Wes-Kaapse Hooggeregshof (WCHC) voor komende hofaksies en beskikbaar hier: www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

Hierdie brief is potensieel betekenisvol vir al die mense wat so negatief geraak is deur die gebeure van 2010. Dit is die eerste keer dat ‘n staatsorgaan (CIPC is ‘n afdeling van die DTIC – Departement van Handel, Nywerheid en Mededinging) na vore gekom en ter tafel gelê het dat hulle tot die gevolgtrekking gekom het dat daar faktore buite die historiese en bestaande regsmenings en drywers is waarvan die howe bewus moet wees

Die brief is slegs in Engels beskikbaar (en sal nie in Afrikaans vertaal word nie uit vrees vir vertaalfoute). Maar lesers moet die potensiële belangrikheid daarvan en wat dit reeds openbaar oor wat waarskynlik uit die ondersoek sal kom, waardeer

Alhoewel die inhoud van die brief daarop gemik is om die speelveld te verander met betrekking tot die spesifiek genoemde Deon Pienaar-sake, het die aksie moontlike implikasies wat betekenisvol kan wees vir die hele sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappy in 2010 en alles wat daaruit voortgevloei het, en dit dui daarop dat die ware storie, soos na verwagting uiteindelik in CIPC ondersoek se finale verslag onthul sal word, reeds enige verwante regsprosesse behoort te rig.

Die brief suggereer ook dat die CIPC seker is van hul saak rakende die bevindinge van hul ondersoek en dat wat hulle nou beskou as die valse narratief wat oor die jare algemeen aanvaar is (maar nie deur die aktiviste en die PSPC-maatskappydirekteure nie en beslis nie deur die beleggerslagoffers nie) nou aangespreek moet word

Die groot vraag in dit alles is egter: Sal die howe hiervan kennis neem en dienooreenkomstig gelei word?

As ‘n voetnoot tot bogenoemde, is ons ook in kennis gestel dat die regsadviseur van die SA Reserwebank (SARB) die CIPC se Cuma Zwane aangespreek het oor sommige bekommernisse wat voortspruit uit sy brief aan WCHC. Zwane het gereageer om die situasie in perspektief te plaas. ‘n Moontlike afleiding kan hieroor gemaak word dat die storie agter hierdie briewe is dat die SARB nie tred gehou het met hierdie saak nie en dat dit moontlik een van die redes kan wees waarom die CIPC ondersoek-tussentydse verslag nog nie vrygestel is nie. Uit die Antwoord wat aan die SARB se regsadviseur gestuur is, kan ook afgelei word dat die CIPC hulle aangesê het om “aan boord te kom”

Hierdie bykomende briewe kan hier gelees word:
(Beskikbaar slegs in Engels)

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2

The CIPC has intervened in judicial processes underway against Deon Pienaar, long-time activist on the illegalities and irregularities of the PSPC company shut-down in 2010 – which included Sharemax

We include in this post, a copy of their recent letter, written to the Western Cape High Court (WCHC) ahead of upcoming court actions and accessible here: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251028-1

This letter is potentially significant for all of the people who have been so negatively affected by the events of 2010. It is the first time that an organ of state (CIPC is a division of the DTIC – Department of Trade & Industry and Competition) has come out and tabled that they have concluded that there are factors outside of the historical and existing legal opinions and drivers that the courts need to be aware of

The letter is only available in English (and will not be translated into Afrikaans for fear of translation error). But readers should appreciate its potential importance and what it already reveals about what is likely to come out of the Investigation

Whilst the content of the letter appears to be aimed at changing the playing field as to the specifically named Deon Pienaar cases, the action has, potentially, implications that could be significant for the whole of the 2010 PSPC company shutdown and all that flowed from it and it suggests that the real story, as is expected to be eventually revealed in CIPC’s Final Report, should already be guiding any related legal processes

The letter also suggests that the CIPC are certain of their case as to the findings of their investigation and that what they now consider to be the false narrative that has been generally accepted (but not by the activists and the PSPC Company directors and certainly not by the investor victims) down the years must now be addressed

As a footnote to the above, we have also been informed that the legal counsel of the SA Reserve Bank (SARB) has addressed CIPCs Cuma Zwane on some concerns arising out of his letter to WCHC and Zwane has responded putting the situation into perspective. It can be deduced from the content that the story behind these letters is that SARB have not been keeping up to speed in this matter and that, possibly, this may be one of the reasons as to why the Investigation’s Interim Report has not yet been released. From the response sent to SARB’s legal counsel it can also be inferred that CIPC has told them to “get with the program”

These additional letters can be read here:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-1

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251103-2

www.moneyweb.co.za/…/nova-suffers-big-blow-in…/
(This original text was updated to include the responses of both Myburgh and Ryk van Niekerk)

Or: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExY0kxWj g3eE9pTVNTeHcybQEebFNKKjeUyeB15RFGf85DcF7OCZ-39vCZtov4rVhYCp3IECbA0qFkYnhE9G g_aem_pmo2ixJIV583reFFDp6Aeg> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015 (NDCAG copy of the original article – without the responses)

We’re presenting below Nova Chair Myburgh’s response to the recent Moneyweb article on the Beneficio loan fiasco (he can respond to Moneyweb – public comment and criticism, after all, – but never a word for the victims to whom he is truly beholden!)

Note: We have inserted comment (NDCAG: bold/italic text) into the responses

>>>>>
Connie Myburgh responds
Following publication, Moneyweb received the following response from Connie Myburgh, which is published below in full. (Also see Ryk van Niekerk’s response to Mr Myburgh’s response below.)
Mr van Niekerk

We note that you published an article without waiting for our response.

We respect the Court’s judgement

The excessively high (usurious) interest rate was the very reason why the Group defended this matter in Court, as was its right to do and as was prudent in the best interests of Debenture Holders, in terms of the bigger picture, noting that no Debentures are linked to the assets securing the claim of Beneficio. On legal advice obtained, the Group was confident that it was correct in its actions to defend the claim, based on the high interest rate, and institute a counterclaim for amounts overpaid

NDCAG: HOW ABOUT JUSTIFYING WHY YOU CONSIDERED IT A GOOD BUSINESS CASE TO ENTER INTO THE LOAN CONTRACT AT A ”USUROUS” INTEREST RATE IN THE FIRST PLACE AND HOW ABOUT PROVIDING EVIDENCE OF WHAT THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE ACTUALLY USED FOR? THEY WERE CERTAINLY NOT SUFFICIENT TO REPAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF THE DEBENTURE LIABILITY RELEVANT TO THE SILVERWATER CROSSING AND MAGALIESKRUIN PROPERTIES AS YOUR SUBMISSION IN THE 2023 COURT RECORD STATES (DEBENTURE LIABILITY 8.4 AND 23.5 MILLION RESPECTIVELY IN THE FIRST – 2012 -AFS AND PROBABLY ALREADY “FAIR VALUE DISCOUNTED” MEANING, WRITTEN DOWNAS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE SOA)

The Group’s position vis a vis Mr Tromp and his views, remains unchanged.
The Group is not in breach of the Companies Act as alleged by you.
You interpret the Companies Act incorrectly. We have had this debate before

NDCAG: YOU’RE NOT GOING TO WIN THIS ONE SO, PLEASE, PLEASE!!!!!, DO NOT WASTE ANY MORE COMPANY MONEY – “OUR MONEY” REMEMBER? (YOUR STATEMENT DURING THE 2021 TRUSTEE ELECTION MEETINGS) – ON A POSITION THAT YOU’RE SURE TO LOSE (AGAIN), NO MATTER HOW FAR YOU MIGHT TAKE IT UP THE APPEAL CHAIN. IT WOULD BE JUST ANOTHER CASE OF YOUR SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE’S MONEY ON TRYING TO MANIPULATE THE LAW IN YOUR OWN INTERESTS

The Group has no obligation to publish its financial statements within six months after its year end. The Group must only prepare its financial statements within six months after its year end, which it has done

The result of the judgement will be dealt with in the financials as an adjusting event, post balance sheet, as required by IFRS

NDCAG: CAN’T WAIT TO SEE HOW YOU DO THIS AND HOW YOUR AUDITOR IS GOING TO HANDLE IT – WHICHEVER AUDITOR YOU HAVE WHEN THE TIME COMES. SEEMS TO US STRANGE THAT, WITH THE HISTORICAL FINALISATION DIFFICULTY, ANY AUDITOR WOULD BE WILLING TO TAKE THE JOB

The financial statements are not outstanding as alleged by you

NDCAG: MAINTAIN THIS STANCE AS MUCH AS YOU LIKE BUT ,WHATEVER, THE POINT REALLY IS, WHY DOES IT ALWAYS TAKE SO LONG TO FINALISE THE AFS? YOU CAN’’T RIGHTLY THINK THAT “LATE” DOESN’T CREATE THE IMPRESSION THAT ALL IS NOT UNDER CONTROL AT YOUR END AND THAT THERE HAS TO BE A LOT OF MANIPULATING, DICUSSION WITH, AND MORE LIKE, PERSUASION OF, THE AUDITORS TO GET THEIR APPROVAL TO RELEASE? DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE DELAYS AND THE NEGATIVE PRESS THAT THEY ENGENDER DOES ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE ZERO-LEVEL CREDIBILITY THAT YOU HAVE?

The financial statements will be published in due course, when required in law

NDCAG: LET’S SEE WHAT CIPC RULES WHEN THE COMPANIES ACT TRIBUNAL TAKES PLACE

Please publish this response verbatim

Connie Myburgh
Chairman
Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Limited

Response from Ryk van Niekerk to Mr Myburgh’s statement:
Dear Mr Myburgh
I am surprised at your interpretation of the Companies Act.
Did you obtain an independent legal opinion regarding whether financial statements must also be audited within six months after Nova’s year-end, or is it your own interpretation?
NDCAG: AND, AT WHAT COST?
The same question can be asked as to whether it was your opinion—or an independent one, referred to in your annual financial statements—that Nova was confident it would win the Beneficio case.
NDCAG: FALSE PROMISE, SMOKE AND MIRRORS, BRAVADO, AND STALLING
Please make these independent legal opinions available to me, or confirm that it is your own interpretation.
Section 30 of the Companies Act clearly states:
30. Annual financial statements
(1) Each year, a company must prepare annual financial statements within six months after the end of its financial year, or such shorter period as may be appropriate to provide the required notice of an annual general meeting in terms of section 61(7).
(2) The annual financial statements must—
(a) be audited, in the case of a public company; or…
(My emphasis)
SAICA and the CIPC have also published statements which offer a simplified and more digestible explanation:
SAICA communication entitled: The CIPC enforcement of the Companies Act (2008)
I have <www.moneyweb.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/SAICA-Media-release.p df> attached the document, but here are the relevant paragraphs for your convenience:
Companies must take note that from 1 May 2011, the Companies Act No 71 of 2008 (Companies Act) requires annual financial statements to be completed within 6 months (section 30(1)) after year-end. If companies are not completing their annual financial statements within the 6-month period they are in breach of the Companies Act.
The annual financial statements will only be viewed as completed when the annual financial statements meet all the requirements in terms of section 30 of the Companies Act and should include the company secretary certificate and the audit committee report, when applicable, as well as the directors’ report and the audit report where a company is audited.
(My emphasis)
The CIPC also issued a statement entitled ‘Preparation and Approval of Annual Financial Statements’ last year. The document is available on the CIPC website and can be accessed <www.cipc.co.za/?p=20882> there.
For your convenience, the relevant paragraphs are:
CIPC has observed that a significant number of companies are not adhering to the requirements of Section 30(1) of the Act by not preparing and approving their annual financial statements within the six-month period after their financial year-end.
In terms of Section 30(1) of the Act, a company must prepare annual financial statements (AFS) each year within six months after the end of its financial year. Within the same six-month period, the annual financial statements must be audited in the case of a public company, state-owned company or any profit or non-profit company, if the company meets the requirements of Regulation 28 of the Companies Regulations of 2011 (“the Regulations”), or if the Memorandum of Incorporation (MOI) requires an audit.
(My emphasis)
The reading of Section 30 of the Act, as well as the communications from SAICA and the CIPC, clearly state that a company must release its financial statements within six months of its year-end, and that these statements must be audited within this period if the company is compelled to do so.
I would therefore appreciate it if you could provide me with an independent legal opinion that differs from these communications.
Your interpretation appears to be a delaying tactic to avoid informing debenture holders and other stakeholders of the company’s financial position. This is in clear contravention of the Companies Act and the principles of King IV, to which Nova apparently proudly subscribes.
Given these unambiguous regulatory interpretations, your assertion that Nova has ‘no obligation to publish its financial statements within six months’ appears to be incorrect in law and inconsistent with both statutory and professional guidance.
Kind regards
Ryk van Niekerk
Having read the above, we point readers to the following that was presented as the Conclusion to the last formal communication from Nova, being the 12 December ’23 Communiqué giving supplementary information for the Debenture Holders as an accompaniment to the 2023 AFS which, incidentally, is the last formal communication (outside of the annual AFS – for what they’re worth in terms of positives for the Debenture Holders) published by the company

>>>>>

Communiqué Nova Group Update 12 December 2023

Conclusion

The Nova Board is committed to continuing building on the positives achieved over the past decade. Nova is confident that it has done everything in its power to securing for its Debenture Holders and Stakeholders the best possible value creation. Nova is looking forward to completing the historic restructuring process, with maximum benefit to its Debenture Holders and Stakeholders

Nova is here because we fundamentally believe we can succeed in getting as much if people’s historical money invested back to them; we work tirelessly in achieving this goal; we have been and are their best chance of getting it done

>>>>>

Reader, Debenture Holder, Shareholder (Not the A Class shareholders – you’re in the pound seats – but the D Class non-voting Shareholders who are the former Sharemax Investors who elected to convert to shares in Nova rather than debentures, whose value in the company probably disappeared a long time ago – if it has ever actually existed), and any other persons and entities who have an interest in and/or are dependent on Nova’s success, make up your own mind (if you have not already) on Nova and its Board being a viable entity capable of fulfilling its mission

For NDCAG, only one word applies to the above: RUBBISH! We doubt that any former Sharemax investor still waiting for delivery out of the business rescue, now running for thirteen years and with the prospects of delivery from the Chairman and the Board ever diminishing, would not agree with us

www.moneyweb.co.za/…/nova-suffers-big-blow-in…/
(Hierdie is die oorspronklike artikel wat met die reaksie van Myburgh en antwoord van Ryk van Niekerk, geopdateer is)

Of: <www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015?fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAYnJpZBExY0kxWjg3eE9pTVNTeHcybQEeCKst_5o2g5j20nitGlGQuE3SjikZuEN_jeYTg0LAMdPy1LHiLc-tNT7H730_aem_Opx1kzYQoodImI8BoX7yVQ> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015 (NDCAG se afskrif van die oorspronklike artikel sonder die reaksies)

Ons bied hieronder Nova-voorsitter Myburgh se reaksie op die onlangse Moneyweb-artikel oor die Beneficio-leningsfiasko aan (hy kan op Moneyweb reageer – openbare kommentaar en kritiek, immers – maar nooit ‘n woord vir die slagoffers aan wie hy werklik verskuldig is nie!)

Let wel: Ons het kommentaar (NDCAG: vetdruk/skuinsdruk teks) in die antwoorde ingevoeg

>>>>>
Connie Myburgh reageer

Na publikasie het Moneyweb die volgende reaksie van Connie Myburgh ontvang, wat hieronder volledig gepubliseer word. (Sien ook Ryk van Niekerk se reaksie op mnr. Myburgh se reaksie hieronder)

Mnr. van Niekerk

Ons neem kennis dat u ‘n artikel gepubliseer het sonder om vir ons reaksie te wag

Ons respekteer die Hof se uitspraak

Die buitensporig hoë (woeker) rentekoers was die rede daarvoor

Die buitensporig hoë (woeker) rentekoers was juis die rede waarom die Groep hierdie saak in die Hof verdedig het, soos dit hul reg was om te doen en soos dit verstandig was in die beste belang van Skuldbriefhouers, in terme van die groter prentjie, en opgemerk het dat geen Skuldbriewe gekoppel is aan die bates wat die eis van Beneficio verseker nie. Op grond van ingewin regsadvies was die Groep vol vertroue dat dit korrek was in sy optrede om die eis te verdedig, gebaseer op die hoë rentekoers, en ‘n teen-eis in te stel vir bedrae wat oorbetaal is

NDCAG: PROBEER OM TE REGVERDIG WAAROM JULLE DIT AS ‘N GOEIE SAKE-ARGUMENT BESKOU HET OM DIE LENINGSKONTRAK TEEN ‘N “WOEKER”-RENTEKOERS IN DIE EERSTE PLEK AAN TE GAAN EN WAT VAN BEWYSE TE LEWER VAN WAARVOOR DIE GELEENDE FONDSE WERKLIK GEBRUIK IS? HULLE WAS BESEKER NIE VOLDOENDE OM DIE VOLLE BEDRAG VAN DIE SKULDBRIEFBELASTING BETREFFEND TOT DIE SILVERWATER CROSSING EN MAGALIESKRUIN EIENDOMME TERUG TE BETAAL SOOS JULLE VOORLEGGING IN DIE 2023-HOFREKORDSTATE (SKULDBRIEFBELASTING ONDERSKEIDELIK 8.4 EN 23.5 MILJOEN IN DIE EERSTE – 2012 -AFS EN WAARSKYNLIK REEDS “BILLIKE WAARDE VERDISSEL” OF NEDERGESKRYF VOLGENS DIE BEPALINGS VAN DIE REELINGSKEMA)

Die Groep se posisie teenoor mnr. Tromp en sy sienings bly onveranderd

Die Groep oortree nie die Maatskappywet soos deur u beweer nie

U interpreteer die Maatskappywet verkeerd. Ons het hierdie debat al voorheen gehad

NDCAG: JULLE GAAN NIE HIERDIE EEN WEN NIE, SO, ASSEBLIEF, ASSEBLIEF!!!!!, MOENIE MEER MAATSKAPPYGELD VERMORS NIE – “ONS GELD” ONTHOU JULLEY? (U VERKLARING VOORSITTER MYBURGH, TYDENS DIE 2021 TRUSTEE-VERKIESINGSVERGADERINGS) – OP ‘N POSISIE WAT JY SEKER GAAN (ALWEER) VERLOOR, MAAK NIE SAAK HOE VER JY DIT IN DIE APPÈLKETTING OPNEEM NIE. DIT SOU NET NOG ‘N GEVAL WEES VAN JY WAT ANDER MENSE SE GELD BESTEDIG OM DIE WET IN JOU EIE BELANGE TE MANIPULEER

Die Groep het geen verpligting om sy finansiële state binne ses maande na die jaareinde te publiseer nie. Die Groep moet sy finansiële state slegs binne ses maande na die jaareinde opstel, wat hulle gedoen het

Die resultaat van die uitspraak sal in die finansiële state as ‘n aanpassingsgebeurtenis na die balansstaat hanteer word, soos vereis deur IFRS

NDCAG: KAN NIE WAG OM TE SIEN HOE JULLE DIT DOEN EN HOE JUL OUDITEUR DIT GAAN HANTEER NIE – WATTER OUDITEUR JULLE OOKAL HET WANNEER DIE TYD AANBREEK. DIT LYK VIR ONS VREEMD DAT, MET DIE HISTORIESE FINALISERINGSMOEITE, ENIGE OUDITEUR BEREID SOU WEES OM DIE WERK AAN TE NEEM

Die finansiële state is nie uitstaande soos deur u beweer nie

NDCAG: HANDHAAF HIERDIE STANDPUNT SOVEEL AS JULLE WIL, MAAR WAT OOKAL, DIE WERKLIKE PUNT IS, HOEKOM NEEM DIT ALTYD SO LANK OM DIE FJS TE FINALISEER? JULLE KAN NIE MET REG DINK DAT “LAAT” NIE DIE INDRUK SKEP DAT ALLES NIE ONDER BEHEER AAN JULLE KANT IS NIE EN DAT DAAR BAIE MANIPULERING, BESPREKING MET, EN ‘N GROOTMAAT OORREDING VAN, DIE OUDITEURE MOET WEES OM HUL GOEDKEURING VIR VRYLATING TE KRY? DINK JULLE REGTIG DAT DIE VERTRAGINGS EN DIE NEGATIEWE PERS WAT DIT VEROORSAAK, ENIGIETS DOEN OM DIE NULVLAK-GELOOFWAARDIGHEID WAT JULLE HET, TE VERBETER?

Die finansiële state sal te gepaste tyd gepubliseer word, wanneer dit wetlik vereis word

NDCAG: KOM ONS WAG OP WAT CIPC SE LAASSTE WOORD HIEROP WANEER DIE MAATSKAPPYWET-TRIBUNAAL PLAASVIND

Publiseer asseblief hierdie antwoord woordelik

Connie Myburgh
Voorsitter
Nova PropGrow Group Holdings Limited

Antwoord van Ryk van Niekerk op mnr. Myburgh se verklaring:

Geagte mnr. Myburgh

Ek is verbaas oor u interpretasie van die Maatskappywet

Het u ‘n onafhanklike regsmening verkry oor die vraag of finansiële state ook binne ses maande na Nova se jaareinde geouditeer moet word, of is dit u eie interpretasie?

NDCAG: EN, TEEN WATTER KOSTE?

Dieselfde vraag kan gevra word of dit u mening was – of ‘n onafhanklike een, waarna in u jaarlikse finansiële state verwys word – dat Nova vol vertroue was dat hulle die Beneficio-saak sou wen

NDCAG: VALSE BELOFTE, ROOK EN SPIEËLS, BRAVADE, EN VERTRAGING

Maak asseblief hierdie onafhanklike regsmenings aan my beskikbaar, of bevestig dat dit u eie interpretasie is

Artikel 30 van die Maatskappywet bepaal duidelik:

30. Jaarlikse finansiële state
(1) Elke jaar moet ‘n maatskappy jaarlikse finansiële state opstel binne ses maande na die einde van sy finansiële jaar, of so ‘n korter tydperk as wat gepas mag wees om die vereiste kennisgewing van ‘n jaarlikse algemene vergadering ingevolge artikel 61(7) te verskaf
(2) Die jaarlikse finansiële state moet—
(a) geouditeer word, in die geval van ‘n publieke maatskappy; of…

(My klem)

SAICA en die CIPC het ook verklarings gepubliseer wat ‘n vereenvoudigde en meer verteerbare verduideliking bied:

SAICA-kommunikasie getiteld: Die CIPC-afdwinging van die Maatskappywet (2008)

Ek het die dokument aangeheg, maar hier is die relevante paragrawe vir u gerief:

Maatskappye moet kennis neem dat die Maatskappywet nr. 71 van 2008 (Maatskappywet) vanaf 1 Mei 2011 vereis dat jaarlikse finansiële state binne 6 maande (artikel 30(1)) na jaareinde voltooi moet word. Indien maatskappye nie hul jaarlikse finansiële state binne die 6-maande-tydperk voltooi nie, oortree hulle die Maatskappywet

Die jaarlikse finansiële state sal slegs as voltooi beskou word wanneer die jaarlikse finansiële state aan al die vereistes ingevolge artikel 30 van die Maatskappywet voldoen en moet die maatskappysekretaris se sertifikaat en die ouditkomiteeverslag insluit, waar van toepassing, sowel as die direkteursverslag en die ouditverslag waar ‘n maatskappy geouditeer word

Die CIPC het ook verlede jaar ‘n verklaring uitgereik met die titel ‘Voorbereiding en Goedkeuring van Jaarlikse Finansiële State’. Die dokument is beskikbaar op die CIPC-webwerf en kan daar verkry word

Vir u gerief is die relevante paragrawe:

CIPC het waargeneem dat ‘n beduidende aantal maatskappye nie voldoen aan die vereistes van Artikel 30(1) van die Wet deur nie hul jaarlikse finansiële state binne die ses maande periode na hul finansiële jaareinde op te stel en goed te keur nie

Ingevolge Artikel 30(1) van die Wet moet ‘n maatskappy jaarlikse finansiële state (JFS) elke jaar binne ses maande na die einde van sy finansiële jaar opstel. Binne dieselfde sesmaandeperiode moet die jaarlikse finansiële state geouditeer word in die geval van ‘n publieke maatskappy, staatsbeheerde maatskappy of enige winsgewende of nie-winsgewende maatskappy, indien die maatskappy aan die vereistes van Regulasie 28 van die Maatskappywetgewings van 2011 (“die Regulasies”) voldoen, of indien die Akte van Oprigting (MOI) ‘n oudit vereis.

(My klem)

Die interpretasie van Artikel 30 van die Wet, sowel as die kommunikasies van SAICA en die CIPC, stel dit duidelik dat ‘n maatskappy sy finansiële state binne ses maande na sy jaareinde moet vrystel, en dat hierdie state binne hierdie tydperk geouditeer moet word indien die maatskappy verplig is om dit te doen

Ek sal dit dus waardeer as u my van ‘n onafhanklike regsmening kan voorsien wat van hierdie kommunikasies verskil

U interpretasie blyk ‘n vertragingstaktiek te wees om te verhoed dat skuldbriefhouers en ander belanghebbendes oor die maatskappy se finansiële posisie ingelig word. Dit is ‘n duidelike stryd met die Maatskappywet en die beginsels van King IV, wat Nova blykbaar met trots onderskryf

Gegewe hierdie ondubbelsinnige regulatoriese interpretasies, blyk u bewering dat Nova ‘geen verpligting het om sy finansiële state binne ses maande te publiseer nie’ regtens verkeerd en strydig met beide statutêre en professionele riglyne te wees.
Vriendelike groete

Ryk van Niekerk

Nadat daar bogenoemde gelees is, verwys ons lesers na die volgende wat aangebied is as die gevolgtrekking van die laaste formele kommunikasie van Nova, synde die Kommunikasie van 12 Desember 2023 wat aanvullende inligting vir die Skuldbriefhouers gee as ‘n bylae tot die 2023-jaarlikse finansiële jaarverslag, wat terloops die laaste formele kommunikasie is (buite die jaarlikse jaarlikse finansiële jaarverslag – vir wat dit werd is in terme van positiewe aspekte vir die Skuldbriefhouers) wat deur die maatskappy gepubliseer is

>>>>>

Kommunikasie: Nova Groep Opdatering 12 Desember 2023

Gevolgtrekking

Die Nova Direksie is daartoe verbind om voort te bou op die positiewe wat oor die afgelope dekade bereik is. Nova is vol vertroue dat hulle alles in hul vermoë gedoen het om vir hul Skuldbriefhouers en Belanghebbendes die beste moontlike waardeskepping te verseker. Nova sien uit na die voltooiing van die historiese herstruktureringsproses, met maksimum voordeel vir hul Skuldbriefhouers en Belanghebbendes

Nova is hier omdat ons fundamenteel glo dat ons daarin kan slaag om soveel as moontlik van mense se historiese geld wat hulle belê het, terug te kry; ons werk onvermoeid om hierdie doelwit te bereik; ons was en is hul beste kans om dit te bereik

>>>>>

Leser, Skuldbriefhouer, Aandeelhouer (Nie die A-klas aandeelhouers nie – julle kan nie kla nie! – maar die D-klas nie-stemgeregtigde aandeelhouers wat die voormalige Sharemax-beleggers is wat gekies het om na aandele in Nova om te skakel eerder as skuldbriewe, wie se waarde in die maatskappy waarskynlik lank gelede verdwyn het – indien dit ooit werklik bestaan ​​het), en enige ander persone en entiteite wat ‘n belang het in en/of afhanklik is van Nova se sukses, maak jou eie besluit (indien julle dit nog nie gedoen het nie) oor Nova en sy Raad as ‘n lewensvatbare entiteit wat in staat is om sy missie te vervul

Want, by NDCAG, is slegs een woord van toepassing op bogenoemde: TWAK! Ons twyfel of enige voormalige Sharemax-belegger wat steeds wag vir lewering uit die sakeredding, wat nou al dertien jaar aan die gang is en met die vooruitsigte op lewering deur die Voorsitter en Raad wat steeds afneem, nie met ons sal saamstem nie

“The money was borrowed as a result of a business decision by the defendants and the NOVA Group to repay debenture holders and to avoid reputational damage – it was a business decision which made sense to the defendants and the NOVA Group”
Vanuit: Beneficio Developments (Pty) Ltd v Tarentaal Centre Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (22258/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 324 (23 May 2023) in die Hooggeregshof van Suid-Afrika, Gauteng Afdeling, Pretoria

Die “Another” is The Village Mall Investments (Pty) Limited, ook in Nelspruit, en die twee maatskappye is die verweerders (defendants) waarna in die bogenoemde aanhaling verwys word.

Die skuldbriewe wat aan hierdie twee eiendomme gekoppel is, is reeds terugbetaal, dus lê hul waarde in hul moontlike verkoop om fondse in te samel vir skuldbriefterugbetaling as hulle nie as sekuriteit vir die lening verpand was nie, en nou is die waarskynlikheid dat hulle verkoop sal word om die terugbetaling van die Beneficio-lening moontlik te maak.

Sien die volledige teks van die hofrekord en bostaande aanhaling in klousule 64.4 op bladsy 27 in die hofrekord wat hier beskikbaar is:
www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.pdf
____________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________

Ryk van Niekerk het gepubliseer oor Nova se mislukking om die Hooggeregshof van Appèl goedkeuring te kry om teen vorige uitsprake van laer howe te appelleer.”

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/nova-suffers-big-blow-in -1-a-week-loan-dispute/

of:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015> www.ndcag.co.za/go/20251015

Enkele vrae hieruit?

– Nadat daar in al die vorige hofguitsprake teen Nova was en nou die verpligting m Beneficio die volle bedrag te betaal (of die verlies van die twee eiendomme wat as sekuriteit gestel is) wat hulle in die gesig te staar, het Nova die vermoë? Hoeveel het vyf jaar se litigasie gekos, wat uiteindelik GELD WAT NIE GOED BESTEE IS NIE?

– Die mees verdoemende is: “Wat verkeerdelik as ‘n ‘ontvangbare’ van R19.7 miljoen aangeteken is, is nou onthul as ‘n betaalbare bedrag van ten minste R67 miljoen, ‘n onderskatting van laste met R86 miljoen” ????!

– Is dit ‘n geval van “boeke kook” en hoe sal CIPC dit beskou?

– Sal ‘n heropgawe van die ’24 Jaarstate om die 19.7 ontvangbare bedrag uit te sluit, die volle bedrag wat aan Beneficio betaalbaar is – insluitend opgehoopte rente – in te sluit, vereis word en sal dit die insolvente status van die maatskappy bevestig?

– Wat is die impak op die – nog ongepubliseerde en weer laat – ’25 Jaarstate? Hoe sal die Beneficio-lening nou daarin getoon word? Hoe sal die ouditeure dit hierdie keer hanteer? Ons wonder of Nova ander syfers sal moet “dokter” om die boeke te balanseer?

– As die boeke gekook is rakende die Beneficio-lening, was dit die eerste keer? Of, hoeveel ander gevalle van “kreatiewe rekeningkunde” het in die verlede plaasgevind?

Lees Skuldbrieftrustee JP Tromp se referaat oor die Beneficio-lening vir ‘n meer diepgaande beeld van die fiasko by:

www.carian.co.za/post/nova-memo-beneficio

“The money was borrowed as a result of a business decision by the defendants and the NOVA Group to repay debenture holders and to avoid reputational damage – it was a business decision which made sense to the defendants and the NOVA Group”

From: Beneficio Developments (Pty) Ltd v Tarentaal Centre Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another (22258/20) [2023] ZAGPPHC 324 (23 May 2023) in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
The “Another” is The Village Mall Investments (Pty) Limited, also in Nelspruit, and the two companies are the defendants referred to in the above quotation. The debentures linked to these two properties have already been repaid so their value lies in their possible sale to raise funds for debenture repayment had they not been pledged as security for the loan and now the likelihood is that they will be sold to enable repayment of the Beneficio loan
See the full text of the court record and the quote in Clause 64.4 on page 27 in the court record accessible here:
www.saflii.org/za/cases/ZAGPPHC/2023/324.pdf

____________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________

Ryk van Niekerk has published on Nova’s failure to get Supreme Court of Appeal OK to appeal the previous judgments handed down by lower courts

www.moneyweb.co.za/news/companies-and-deals/nova-suffers-big-blow-in -1-a-week-loan-dispute/

or

Some take-outs from this?

* Having lost out in all of the previous court actions and now faced with the obligation to pay Beneficio the full amount due (or face the loss of the two properties put up as security), does Nova have the capability? How much has five years of litigation cost that is, ultimately, MONEY NOT WELL SPENT ? * The most damning is: “What was incorrectly recorded as a ‘receivable’ of R19.7 million has now been revealed to be a payable of at least R67 million, an understatement of liabilities by R86 million” ????!
* Is this a case of cooking the books and how will CIPC view it?

* Will a re-statement of the ’24 AFS to exclude the 19.7 receivable, include the full amount payable to Beneficio – including accrued interest – be required and will it confirm the insolvent status of the company?

* What is the impact on the – as yet unpublished and late again – ’25 AFS? How will the Beneficio loan be shown in the AFS now? How will the auditors play it this time around? We wonder if Nova will have to “doctor” other figures to balance the books?

* If the books have been cooked regarding the Beneficio loan, was this the first time? Or, how many other instances of “creative accounting:” have occurred in the past?

Read Debenture Trustee JP Tromp’s paper on the Beneficio loan for a more in-depth picture of the fiasco at:

www.carian.co.za/post/nova-memo-beneficio