Read here:

<www.ndcag.co.za/go/12-nov-24-letter-to-cuma-zwane-cipc-ex-herman> www.ndcag.co.za/go/12-nov-24-letter-to-cuma-zwane-cipc-ex-herman

We have received a reply from Mr Zwane, viz:

“Thank you for the email and letter, the content of which is duly noted.

The release of the preliminary report is receiving the requisite attention.

We will surely click the ‘send’ button as soon as practically possible. There are no external factors or forces hindering the release.

Kindly bear with us.”

That there are “no external factors or forces hindering the release” is good news but this suggests there is a hang-up within CIPC. We have to hope that it’s only bureaucratic matters and that these can be resolved quickly

Lees hier:
<www.ndcag.co.za/go/12-nov-24-letter-to-cuma-zwane-cipc-ex-herman> www.ndcag.co.za/go/12-nov-24-letter-to-cuma-zwane-cipc-ex-herman

(Brief inhoud slegs in Engels beskikbaar)

Mnr Zwane het geantwoord met:

“Thank you for the email and letter, the content of which is duly noted.

The release of the preliminary report is receiving the requisite attention.

We will surely click the ‘send’ button as soon as practically possible. There are no external factors or forces hindering the release.

Kindly bear with us.”

Dat daar geen eksterne faktore of kragte is wat die vrystelling verhinder nie is goeie nuus, maar dit dui daarop dat die vertraging interne vereistes binne CIPC is. Ons moet maar hoop dat dit slegs iets burokraties is en wat vinning uitgeklaar sal word

1. Nova-direkteur André Fourie het bedank
2. Nova-prokureur Diaan Ellis van Faber, Goertz, Ellis, Austen Inc (FGEA) is dood (nadat hy sy eie lewe geneem het)
3. Ons het (via the grapevine) gehoor dat FGEA die firma se verhouding met Nova beëindig het

Wat beteken hierdie drie gebeurtenisse?

Het Fourie bedank in ‘n poging om hom te distansieer van wat hy dalk ervaar as ‘n groot moeilikheid wat Nova se pad inslaan?

Het Ellis sy lewe om dieselfde rede beëindig? Hy was die “go-to” prokureur vir Nova en hy sou baie keer opgeroep gewees het om Nova-aangeleenthede en -aksies te hanteer wat die dekking van regsmening nodig gehad het

Dat FGEA die verhouding beëindig het, spreek tot die interne situasie (oor baie jare?) binne die firma. Dit dui sterk daarop dat die ander direkteure ongemaklik was (of so geword het) met die verbintenis met Nova, dat die verbinding nie deur al die direkteure onderskryf was nie (alhoewel die firma aansienlike inkomste sou verkry het uit Nova-aangeleenthede wat Ellis aangespreek het) en dat hulle distansieer hulle ook

Kan enige persoon of entiteit hulself werklik distansieer in enige situasie wat regstappe en gevolglike reputasieskade tot gevolg kan hê?

1. Nova Director André Fourie has resigned 2. Nova attorney Diaan Ellis of Faber, Goertz, Ellis, Austen Inc (FGEA) has died (after taking his own life) 3. We have heard via the grapevine that FGEA have terminated the firm’s association with Nova

What do these three events signify?

Did Fourie resign in an attempt to distance himself from what he, perhaps, perceives as big trouble heading Nova’s way?

Did Ellis terminate his life for the same reason? He was the go-to attorney for Nova and he would have been called upon many times to handle Nova matters and actions that needed the cover of legal opinion

That FGEA have terminated the relationship speaks to the inside situation over many years within the firm. It strongly suggests that the other Directors were (or grew) uncomfortable with the connection with Nova, that the connection was not endorsed bay all of the Directors (although the firm will have derived considerable revenue out of Nova matters which Ellis addressed) and that they too are distancing themselves

Can any person or entity really distance themselves in any situation which might result in legal action and consequent reputational damage?

On 18 October, we posted a list of questions that we had sent to Tromp regarding his activities as Trustee during his tenure

He has replied and we provide same below

It will be noticed that he has not actually answered any of the questions but note in the final paragraph, that he has stated that he has initiated a “very lengthy legal process”

What does that comprise of?

We have responded to him and requested information on. We wait for his further inputs which we will share when received

Op 18 Oktober het ons ‘n lys vrae geplaas wat ons aan Tromp gestuur het oor sy aktiwiteite as Trustee tydens sy ampstermyn

Hy het geantwoord en ons verskaf dieselfde hieronder

Dit sal opgemerk word dat hy nie eintlik enige van die vrae beantwoord het nie, maar let op in die laaste paragraaf dat hy verklaar het dat hy ‘n “baie lang regsproses” begin het

Waaruit bestaan ​​dit?

Ons het op hom gereageer en inligting daaroor aangevra en ons wag vir sy verdere wat ons sal deel wanneer ontvang

Submission of completed registration information is not accepted and a critical system error pop-up appears

We have reported this to our server hosts and hope that the issue will be fixed soon

Indiening van voltooide registrasie-inligting word nie aanvaar nie en daar verskyn ‘n opwipboodskap oor ‘n kritieke stelselfout

Ons het dit aan ons bedienergashere gerapporteer en hoop dat die probleem binnekort reggestel sal word

– Die omstrede Trustee-aanstelling
– Wat die Trustee gedurende die afgelope twee jaar gedoen het met betrekking tot die belange van die Skuldbriewehouers
– Wat die Trustee gedurende daardie tydperk ervaar en bespeur het wat die belange van die Skuldbriefhouers kon beïnvloed het en wat dit kan wees

Dus het ons die volgende aan hom gestuur en ook hier sal ons sy antwoorde deel wat, hy adviseer, in die loop van die week wat voorlê sal wees:

1. Waarom het jy nie ons uitdaging ondersteun of ten minste gevra vir verduidelikende insette oor Myburgh en/of die maatskappy se geskiktheid om die Trustee-verkiesingsproses byeen te roep en te bestuur nie? Dit ten spyte van die feit dat jy “slegs” die kandidaat was en as ’n “newbie” moontlik gevoel het dat jy nie by magte was om dit te doen nie?

2. Tydens een van die verkiesingsvergaderings het Myburgh in die openbaar verklaar, in verband met ‘n onopgeloste hofuitspraak teen Deon Pienaar, dat die betrokke bedrag “ons geld” is, wat beteken fondse wat aan die Skuldbriewehouers behoort. Voortspruitend hieruit is jy die laaste twee en ‘n half jaar of wat met ons geld vergoed. As jy die siening dat jou funksie nie was om na die belange van die Skuldbriewehouers om te sien nie – soos blyk uit die inhoud en gebrek aan spesifiek definiërende inhoud – in die Trustakte opsy te skuif, wat het jy gedurende hierdie tyd gedoen om betaling met “ons geld” te verdien?

3. Ons stel voor dat jy die Trustakte as ‘n skyndokument moes erken het met die eerste lees daarvan? Het jy besluit om toepaslike stappe te neem om dit reg te stel en wat het daardie aksie behels? Indien nie, wat was jou redes om dit nie aan te spreek nie?

4. Hoekom het dit jou so lank geneem, sedert vroeg 2022, om terug te kom na NDCAG ná ons aanvanklike besprekings?

5. Vertel asseblief weer van u redes waarom u werklik ingestem het tot en afgeteken het, die 2022-bestuursvoorstel om die finale skuldbriefbetalingsdatum na Januarie 2022 te verleng

6. Wat was jou siening van die betwiste finale betaling sperdatum – die “tien jaar na implementering van die BRP” soos per die SoA’s en huldig jy steeds daardie menings. In watter mate het jy die punt met Myburgh en/of die Raad beredeneer of gedebatteer, wat was jou argumente, voordat jy ingestem het en wat was hul reaksie?

7. Gegewe ons siening dat Myburgh ‘n voornemende Trustee kies uit die groep verbonde persone wat gereeld interaksie gehad het met die groep persone wat die kabaal vorm wat die sluiting van die PSPC-maatskappye ontwerp het en hul bates vasgelê het, sou u meld dat dieselfde geld vir die aanstelling van die maatskappy se ouditeure?

8. As jy saamstem dat die huidige en moontlik al die vorige ouditeure “connected insiders” was, wat is jou siening as ‘n Geoktrooieerde
Rekenmeester, van hul prestasie, hul verslae wat in die Jaarstate ingesluit is en die geldigheid en integriteit van hul oudits?

9. As ‘n Trustee van ‘n geregistreerde Trust, sou jy ‘n plig hê om die belange van die Trust se begunstigdes te versorg en te beskerm en ‘n verpligting om enige wanpraktyke, onreëlmatighede of onwettigheid wat in die Trust se aktiwiteite bespeur word, aan te meld. Na jou mening, geld hierdie standaardverantwoordelikhede selfs in die geval van die ongeregistreerde Skuldbrieftrust en sal jy saamstem dat jy moet reageer en dienooreenkomstig voortgaan in die geval van opsporing van enige wanpraktyke, onreëlmatighede of onwettigheid wat, na jou mening, beide as Trustee en Geoktrooieerde Rekenmeester, ‘n negatiewe impak op die belange van die Skuldbriewehouers hê?

10. Jy moet seker ‘n idee hê van die maatskappy se vermoë op hierdie tydstip om die skuldbriewe of andersins terug te betaal. Wat is daardie situasie tans (in die afwesigheid, sedert die laaste Finansiële Jaarstate soos op 28 Februarie 2023 en byna 20 maande nou sonder enige betekenisvolle kommunikasie aan die Skuldbriefhouers intussen), en wat is die stand en status van die maatskappy en die vermoë om, of vordering tot, skuldbrief terugbetaling?

* The contentious Trustee appointment * What the Trustee has been doing during the last two years as regards the interests of the Debenture Holders * What the Trustee has experienced and detected during that period which might have affected the interests of the Debenture Holders and what such might be

So, we have sent the following to him and here too, we will share his responses which, he has advised, will be forthcoming in the course of the week ahead

1. Why did you not support our challenge or at least ask for clarifying inputs, about Myburgh’s and/or the company’s eligibility to convene and manage the Trustee election process? This despite the fact that you were “only” the candidate and as a “newbie” possibly feeling that you were not in a position to do so? 2. During one of the election meetings, Myburgh stated publicly, in connection with an unsettled court judgement against Deon Pienaar, that the amount in question was “our money” meaning funds that belong to the Debenture Holders. Arising from this, you have, for the last two and a half years or so, been remunerated with our money. Putting aside the view that your function was not to look after the interests of the Debenture Holders – as evidenced by the content and lack of specifically defining content – in the Trust Deed, what did you do during this time to earn payment with our money? 3. We suggest that you must have recognized the Trust Deed as a sham document upon first reading it? Did you determine to take appropriate action to rectify this and what did that action comprise? If not, what were your reasons for not addressing it? 4. Why has it taken you so long, since early 2022, to come back to NDCAG after our initial discussions? 5. Please advise again your reasons for actually agreeing to and signing off, the 2022 Executive proposal to extend the final Debenture payment date beyond January 2022 6. What was your view of the disputed final payment deadline – the “ten years after implementation of the BRP” as per the SoA’s and do you still hold those views. To what extent did you argue or debate the point with Myburgh and/or the Board, what were your arguments, before agreeing and what was their response? 7. Given our view that Myburgh hand-picks the Trustee out of the group of connected persons who have had frequent interaction with the group of persons who form the cabal which engineered the shut-down of the PSPC companies and captured their assets, would you state that the same applies to the appointment of the company’s auditors? 8. If you agree that the current and possibly all of the previous auditors have been connected insiders what are your views as a Chartered Accountant, of their performance, their annual reports that are included in the AFS and the validity and integrity of their audits? 9. As a Trustee of a registered Trust, you would have a duty to care for and protect the interests of the Trust’s beneficiaries and an obligation to report any malpractice, irregularity or illegality detected in the Trust’s activities. In your opinion do these standard responsibilities apply even in the case of the unregistered Debenture Trust and would you agree that you should be reacting and proceeding accordingly in the event of detection of any malpractice, irregularity or illegality that, in your opinion, both as Trustee and Chartered Accountant, have a negative impact on the interests of the Debenture Holders? 10. You should have some idea of the company’s capability to repay the Debentures or otherwise. What is that situation right now in the absence, since the last Annual Financial statements as at 28 February 2023 and nearly 20 months now without any meaningful communication to the Debenture Holders in the interim, that would indicate the state and standing of the company and ability to or progress towards, debenture repayment?