Warner WLAF6902 air filter - K&N Replacement for WLAF6902
K&N parts matching Warner WLAF6902 air filter
The Warner WLAF6902 air filter cross references with the K&N air filter parts below. K&N offers compatible air filters for many Warner air filters giving you an alternative.
Michael Norrod, Cheyenne, Wyoming
Kirk Kettridge, Vacaville, California Citizen Alert ZA: The luxurious lives of Sharemax bosses
Sharemax tot weeldemax
"Die Italiaans-ontwerpte Scuba Scene is glo tussen R120 en R150 miljoen werd . Die jag, wat in die Rooi See is, het 13 en-suite kajuite, elk met sy eie televisie en lugreëling. Die boot het ‘n bemanning van veertien, insluitende ‘n maritieme ingenieur" Foto Rapport
Die Italiaans-ontwerpte Scuba Scene is glo tussen R120 en R150 miljoen werd . Die jag, wat in die Rooi See is, het 13 en-suite kajuite, elk met sy eie televisie en lugreëling. Die boot het ‘n bemanning van veertien, insluitende ‘n maritieme ingenieur
’n Superluukse boot van meer as R120 miljoen, wildplase van meer as R100 miljoen en rykmanshuise is ván die weelde waarmee Sharemax se twee topbestuurders hulself omring terwyl duisende beleggers nie meer rente op hul beleggings verdien nie en waarskynlik hul geld kwyt is.
Rapport het R250 miljoen se bates opgespoor wat mnr. Willie Botha, die voormalige besturende direkteur van dié mislukte eiendomsindikaat­, en sy bemarkingsdirekteur, mnr. ­André Brand, gesamentlik besit. Botha en Brand was bykans ’n dekade lank aan die stuur van Sharemax.
In dié tyd het sowat 40 000 beleggers, onder wie talle bejaardes, ’n geraamde R5 miljard in 50 eiendom­sindikate belê.
Die Reserwebank het in Mei verlede jaar bevind Sharemax oortree die bankwet en het onwettig deposito’s van beleggers ingesamel.
Rapport kan ook onthul mnr. Wietz Nell, een van Brand se sakekennisse, het die afgelope week inkriminerende dokumentasie aan die Valke oorhandig.
Die Valke wou nie sê of hulle ’n ondersoek teen Botha en Brand begin het nie.
In dié dokumentasie, wat ook in Rapport se besit is, beskuldig Brand Botha in ’n memorandum daarvan dat hy na bewering R9 miljoen van die beleggers se rentegeld onwettig in sy sak gesteek het.
Brand beweer Botha het benewens die betaling van R9 miljoen ook glo oor ’n tydperk van vier jaar sowat R53 miljoen se “kommissie” van ’n frontmaatskappy van Sharemax ontvang.
Brand sê hy het self nie sy regmatige deel gekry nie en eis R24,5 miljoen van Botha.
Botha het die afgelope week geweier om sy e-posadres aan Rapport te verskaf om vrae te beantwoord.
Teen middernag Vrydag het hy egter ’n reaksie van ses bladsye lank gestuur en die aantyging teen hom ten sterkste ontken.
Brand sê Nell het die dokumentasie onder valse voorwendsels bekom.
Hy het nie die egtheid van die dokumente en dat hy die skrywer van die memorandum is ontken nie.
Brand sê hy het intussen alle onduidelikhede met Botha uitgeklaar en is nou tevrede Botha het dié geld regmatig verdien.
Hy sê hy trek alle aantygings teen Botha terug.
Intussen beplan ’n groep beleggers om vandeesweek ’n dringende interdik in die hooggeregshof in Pretoria te bring om Sharemax bankrot te laat verklaar en Botha en Brand se bates te bevries.
Onder die bates wat die beleggers wil bevries, is Botha se luukse jag wat hy in ’n hawe in Hurghada aan die Rooi See in Egipte hou.
Die Italiaans ontwerpte Scuba Scene is glo tussen R120 en R150 miljoen werd en word deur die Willem Botha-familietrust besit.
Dié boot het sy eie webtuiste waarop dit beskryf word as “43 m se klassieke seevaart-prag en luuksheid” wat aan die verwagting van die kieskeurigste reisiger sal voldoen.
Die Scuba Scene het 13 en suite-kajuite, elk met sy eie TV en lugversorging. Die boot het ’n bemanning van 14, insluitende ’n maritieme ingenieur en ’n sjef.
Die beleggers wil die hof ook vra om Brand te verhinder om Thabo Motswere, sy wildplaas van nagenoeg 3 000ha naby Thabazimbi in Limpopo, te verkoop.
Die plaas is vir R79 miljoen gewaardeer en daar is onder meer kameelperde, elande, gemsbokke, jagluiperds en luiperds.
Die huis op die plaas het meer as R20 miljoen gekos en het die weelde van ’n vyfsterhotel.
Brand – sy dogter is verloof aan die Springbok-senter Wynand Olivier – probeer van die plaas ontslae raak en was verlede maand bereid om dit vir R21,5 miljoen te verkoop.
Hy wou dit in kontant hê.
Botha het ’n ewe luukse en nog groter wildplaas naby Marken in Limpopo wat nog meer werd kan wees omdat hy die Groot Vyf op sy plaas aanhou.
Botha woon in ’n luukse dubbelverdieping-villa in die eksklusiewe Silver Lakes-landgoed in Pretoria.
Brand het pas ’n kontrak onderteken om sy luukse huis in Mooikloof in Pretoria vir R15 miljoen te verkoop.
Nadat die Reserwebank bevind het Sharemax het die bankwet oortree, is Botha van sy pligte “onthef” en hy het as direkteur bedank. Brand het “uitgetree”.
Sharemax is in September verlede jaar onder die Reserwebank se bestuur geplaas.
Die Reserwebank het Sharemax beveel om die beleggers terug te betaal, maar daar was nie geld daarvoor nie.
Die nuwe, sogenaamde onafhanklike bestuur van Sharemax het reeds erken dat beleggers die grootste deel van hul beleggings gaan verloor.
Die dokumentasie in Rapport se besit toon nadat Botha en Brand by Sharemax weg is, het hulle nog bykans R15 miljoen se “kommissie” verdien.
Die maatskappy wat Sharemax namens die Reserwebank bedryf, Frontier Asset Management and Investments, het nie die afgelope week op navrae gereageer nie.
’n Forensiese ouditeur, mnr. ­André Prakke, het die afgelope week Rapport se dokumentasie bestudeer en gesê op sigwaarde is daar aanduidings van bedrog, diefstal en geldwassery.
Prakke ondersoek en bestudeer Sharemax al jare lank en sê hy glo sowat 80% van beleggers se geld is weg.
Hy sê die kommissies waarna Brand in sy briewe aan Botha verwys, is nooit in enige van Sharemax se prospektusse verklaar nie.
Related story to the above..........
The Desk is responsible for the receiving, evaluating and disseminating of suspicious corrupt activities reports which have to be reported by persons in certain positions to any police official in terms of Section 34 of the Prevention of Corrupt Activities, 2004 (Act No. 12 of 2004).
The Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004 (Act No.12 of 2004), came into operation on 27 April 2004.
Reports of corruption or the identified common law offences must be reported to any police official of the SA Police Service. The fact that a person contacted the National Anti-Corruption “hotline” for the Public Service or contacted another law enforcement agency does not exonerate him/her from the obligation to report to the SAPS. Failure to report to the SAPS constitutes an offence.
The police official who receives a report of corruption or the common law offences set out in subsection (1) of the Act must, according to section 34(3) of the Act, “take down the report in the manner directed by the National Commissioner and forthwith provide the person who made the report with an acknowledgement of receipt of such report.”
The National Commissioner’s directions were published in Government Gazette No. 26552 of 16 July 2004, Government Notice No 837. These directions prescribe to police officials who receive a report in respect of corruption or any of the other identified offences in which format they must take down the report and provide an acknowledgement of receipt and what steps they must take to ensure that the report receives dedicated attention with a view to criminal investigation.
Reports can be made in any manner by the person who holds a position of authority and such person may even use another person to report the offence to the SAPS (“cause such knowledge/suspicion to be reported....”). A person who is compelled by the Act to report the identified offences to the SAPS, may, however, not report anonymously, or use the whistleblowing mechanisms of the Protected Disclosures Act, 2000 (Act No. 26 of 2000), to circumvent their responsibilities in terms of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act, 2004.
An open letter to the regulators
Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd and Sharemax Premium (Pty) Ltd
Please reply to my letter
A. General comments and questions
I refer to my previous lettter of 8 October 2006 (copy attached hereto for ease of reference and named Ministers). I have received no reply to that letter.
I again declare my interest in that I am involved in litigation with Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd under case number 3208/2006 in the Pretoria high court. I understand and appreciate that you don't want to get involved in a private court dispute. However, nothing stops the respective regulators to establish the facts independently and act accordingly.
Since I have last corresponded with you, the serious regulatory and compliance issues raised in the Prakke report (Part of the above court record) had become more burning as a result of ongoing and further non-compliance by Sharemax Investments (Pty) Ltd.
I have recently corresponded with Gerry Anderson, Deputy Registrar: Financial Services Providers. He advised me as follows:
"As you are aware, the FSB does not regulate property syndication promoters, but this falls under the Department of Trade and Industry. The proper application of the FAIS Act is our only concern in this area. If you have evidence that any company is involved in deposit taking activities, please liaise directly with the Registrar of Banks."
The correspondence with Mr Anderson and annexed material had been published on the website of Insurance Times and Investments. It is not attached hereto but available here.
I prefer to look at the Sharemax situation holistically. For that reason I address this letter to both the Finance and Trade and Industry Ministries.
Sharemax has gone through three phases in its history. It has now entered the fourth phase.
The first phase during the period 1999-2003 was to raise funds from the public through a so-called trust structure. This was unlawful in terms of section 30 of the Companies Act and later too in terms of the Collective Investments Schemes Act. In October 2003 the Financial Services Board prohibited the further raising of funds through this trust structure. The history of these events are recorded if affidavits by Gerry Anderson and Jurgen Boyd dated respectively 21 February 2006 and 17 February 2006. The affidavits were filed under case number 3208/2006 in the Pretoria high court (Why was this scheme not outlawed much earlier in terms of section 30 of the Companies Act?).
The second phase followed thereafter when funds were raised in terms of prospectuses registered under the Companies Act. Prospectuses did not comply in all respects with Schedule 3 of the Companies Act. Vital disclosures necessary to appraise the risk of property syndications were simply not made. As examples I would like to cite paragraphs 6 (h), 12 (d), 12 (e) and 26 of Schedule 3. . Please also refer to my published article Who regulates unlisted public offers? attached hereto. During this phase an unwillingness to disclose financial statements was exposed. It also transpired that many Sharemax syndications failed to finance interest commitments to investors. Sharemax then funded it with subsidies and/or loans.
The third phase was introduced with the promulgation of the new disclosure requirements for property syndications in Government Gazette 28690 of 30 March 2006. I will return to this later.
The fourth phase has now been introduced with the launch of a new product by Sharemax Premium (Pty) Ltd. Given the practice to subsidise interest payments and given the likely liquidity squeeze once investors consider their investments to be mature, the new product is in all probability designed to meet these cash flow challenges. I will return to this later.
B. Prospectus of Range View Shopping Centre Holdings Limited registration number 2006/028278/06
A copy of the prospectus is attached hereto.[Download this here.] To the best of my knowledge it is the latest prospectus issued by Sharemax. I use this as a case study.
The opening date of the prospectus is 20 February 2007 and the closing date 19 May 2007.
On page 1 it is stated: "The Registrar of Companies has scrutinized the information disclosed in the prospectus". Is this statement factually correct?
On page 1 it is stated: "Range View Shopping Centre Holdings Ltd registered a prospectus on 31 January 2007. That prospectus was not issued after date of registration and has been withdrawn." Why was the prospectus withdrawn?
Furthermore: "The prospectus is a continuation of the property syndication referred to in the prospectus that has been withdrawn." Does that mean that the company was allowed to keep funds being raised earlier with a withdrawn prospectus? If your reply is "yes" do you consider this to be legal in terms of the Companies Act?
According to paragraph 30 on page 29 the following paragraphs (among others) of Schedule 3 of the Companies Act are not applicable: 6 (h) and 26. Why do the Registrar of Companies consider these paragraphs to be "not applicable"? Aren't they vital disclosures?
On page 35 schedules A to P are listed. These schedules does not physically form part of the prospectus (although according to the definition on page 4 it is part of the prospectus) and is "available for inspection at all reasonable times during business hours" at the head office of Sharemax (p. 25). In practicle terms it means that members of the public can't get a copy of schedules A to P. Is the Registrar of Companies satisfied with this arrangement given the fact that many investors are elderly people?
Is there any co-ordination between the Registrar of Companies and the Office of Consumer Protection about disclosure in the prospectus and disclosure in the disclosure document issued in terms of Government Gazette 28690 of 30 March 2006? If so, what is the nature of such co-ordination?
I refer to par. 6 on page 5 of Government Gazette 28690 of 30 March 2006. Have the Minister of Trade and Industry granted any exemption to Sharemax in terms of section 12 (6)(c) of the Consumer Affairs Act? If so, what is the nature of the exemption and on what basis was it granted?
Are you satisfied that the prospectus of Range View Shopping Centre meets the requirements of both Schedule 3 of the Companies Act and Government Gazette 28690 of 30 March 2006?
No easily identifiable separate disclosure document in terms of Government Gazette 28690 of 30 March 2006 has been published by Sharemax on its website. What is your view about this?
Who scrutinizes the disclosure documents in terms of Government Gazette 28690 of 30 March 2006? Are these documents publicly available at the Office of Consumer Protection?
Schedules A to P of the Rangeview prospectus purports to be some of the disclosure required in terms of Government Gazette 28690 of 30 March 2006. Schedules F1 and F2 are merely valuation certificates according to par. 5.4.1 and 5.4.2 on page 11. Does this meet the requirements of par. 6 and 10 of the new disclosure requirements?
C. Sharemax Premium (Pty) Ltd
The document issued by Sharemax is not attached hereto but is available here.
Although a bank account is opened for the client in his own name the client loses control over that account: See paragraph 3 of the client mandate.
Serious debate and soulsearching should be conducted to establish whether the product is not deposit-taking in nature. Is the bank account opened in the name of the client not merely a ruse to disguise the true nature of the product?
The product should also be viewed on a holistic basis taking among others all the current and historic non-disclosures into account.
Refer back to paragraphs A9-A11 above.
Also take into account current attempts to boost liquidity with sales competitions.
The risk profile of banks are closely monitored by the SA Reserve Bank. The same goes for insurance companies who are regulated by the FSB. Who are doing the same or similar in relation to property syndication schemes?.
Lastly, please consider the two reports of the Nel Commission. There are currently some worrying trends reminding me of the Masterbond days. It calls for immediate action.
The legal minefields surrounding the collapse of property syndication company Sharemax Investments are growing. Sharemax’s attorneys, Weavind & Weavind, and Capicol, the developers of the Zambezi Retail Park and The Villa, have both launched independent defamation and damages cases. A criminal case has been lodged against Weavind & Weavind related to the alleged illegal release of Sharemax investor funds from its trust account before the transfer of properties to the syndication vehicles. A demand for repayment has been issued to Weavind & Weavind on behalf of 11 investors in terms of a section of the Companies Act that is normally a precursor to a liquidation application. Claims have been submitted to the fidelity fund of the Law Society of the Northern Provinces and Attorneys Insurance Indemnity Fund, both also related to the release of funds by Weavind & Weavind. Lurking behind the scenes is the finding by an investigation conducted for the registrar of banks that Sharemax’s funding model contravened the Banks Act. Surely at some stage someone is going to be prosecuted for this contravention” The new board of the Sharemax group of companies also plans to seek permission from the high court for an offer of compromise in terms of the Companies Act to creditors in schemes promoted and marketed by the company. However, it has been claimed that this planned offer was seeking to legalise an illegal act and was prejudicial to the rights of “prospective investors”. In fact, doubts have been expressed about whether the Zambezi Retail Park or The Villa schemes had any investors or shareholders because a suspensive condition had not been fulfilled: the transfer of the properties into the syndication vehicle mentioned in the prospectuses for both of these schemes. But can such a scheme of arrangement be applicable to investors and shareholders in the company or only creditors? In terms of a government notice on property syndications, the money deposited by prospective investors into the trust account of Weavind & Weavind must be repaid if the syndication does not proceed. Weavind & Weavind maintains the government prohibition on the release of investor funds for a property syndication prior to the transfer of the property is not applicable to the firm and various clauses in the prospectuses made it “abundantly clear” it was not the intention that investors funds would only be paid out of trust once the property had been transferred. However, the prospectuses also specifically state that investors funds will not be released from its trust account prior to the transfer of the property. What then gives Weavind & Weavind the right to ignore or disregard a mandatory government notice related to property syndications? The share and debenture certificates issued by Sharemax to prospective investors also specifically state that their “investment” would be deposited into Weavind & Weavind’s trust account and “kept there until the investment amount is processed and the property is transferred”. Finally, an arbitration last year concluded Sharemax must pay R64 million, excluding damages, to Capicol. This amount was due for payment by no later than March 7, but the Sharemax board has admitted it is unable to pay it. Does this not mean Sharemax is insolvent? If so, does the rescue plan being hatched by the new Sharemax board mean the company is still trading and the directors of the company could be held liable for reckless trading” It is obvious this saga, involving about 40 000 shareholders who have invested about R4.5 billion in property syndications promoted and marketed by Sharemax, will probably take years to resolve. page 20 The gain in employment that is evident from data releases in the past few quarters is welcome. The modest uptick means there is still a long way to go before the hundreds of thousands of jobs that were lost during the recession are recovered, but it is nevertheless an encouraging start to what is hopefully a sustainable trend. Every bit of good news builds confidence. Since the release of Statistics SA’s Quarterly Labour Force Survey, which showed the unemployment rate in the fourth quarter of last year had fallen to 24 percent from 25.3 percent, and the Quarterly Employment Statistics, which showed 101 000 jobs were created in the formal sector in the fourth quarter following the addition of 23 000 jobs in the third quarter and 46 000 in the second, other data have also reflected gains in employment. The Adcorp employment index for March showed a 5.6 percent gain in employment, and there were gains in all sectors and occupations. But it is disheartening that official statistics show the number of discouraged work-seekers is still rising, by 117 000 people in the fourth quarter, compared with the previous quarter, and by 440 000 compared with a year earlier. There are now well over 2 million discouraged work-seekers, over and above the more than 4 million unemployed. The expanded unemployment rate remains devastatingly high at 35.8 percent. After companies enhanced productivity, cut costs and right-sized to cope with the recession, they will now be cautious in expanding their staff complement. Especially as there are perpetual concerns about the rand, new labour laws and electricity supply constraints, among other things. But even without these concerns greater mechanisation introduced during the recession may mean companies will not need significantly more staff even if the economy starts to really pick up. This of course means that many people, especially those without skills, will remain in desperate circumstances. Edited by Peter DeIonno. With contributions from Roy Cokayne and Samantha Enslin-Payne.
Posted by Tango at 5:58 AM
Labels: Law Society NPA SAPS SAPOA FSB DTI Thaba Motswere Willem Botha Sharemax Andre Brand
Anonymous November 15, 2011 at 1:35 AM
ONE DOES NOT HAVE TO SPECULATE TO WHICH SECRET AFRIKANER ORGANISATION THESE TWO/THREE/FOUR FRAUDSTERS BELONGED!
ARE THESE STILL CLANDESTINE ELEMENTS IN OUR TREASURY TODAY? MAKES SENSE..
ONE WOULD HOPE NOT, THEN ON THE OTHER HAND, WHY NOT!
THEY SEEM TO HAVE INFILTRATED THE ANC CRONY CIRCLES!