Chronology of recent events
pertinent to my case
- December
1989, the Romanian "revolution"
- 1995,
the new law 112/1995 compensates the nationalized property owners with a
capped amount. The return of the
property is not possible.
- June
1999, COMTIM is forced into bankruptcy
- July
1999, PWC takes over the judicial liquidation procedure of COMTIM's assets
- September
1999, PWC publishes an add for the sale of my grandfather's
house
- September
1999, we start a court action against the Romanian
State and COMTIM for the
correction of the house's deed based on the illegality of the 1950's nationalization
- January
2000, a meeting is initiated by PWC's
representative, Radu Bufan, to find "an
easy and expedient solution to this trial" – no such solution was
offered, but rather PWC's intent was to size-up
the opponent!
- January
2000, we win in the first court!
- January
2000, the Romanian State's
counsel and the COMTIM's counsel (PWC's) appeal the decision
- September
2000, we lose the appeal! The judge
ignores the fact that my grandfather was a small business owner, exempt
under the nationalization decree, and "judges" that he was a
"house exploiter" (perceived a rent from tenants) renting 7 of
his 9 apartments as proven by the 1950's documentation (reminder – the
house had only 2 apartments of 3 rooms each as it can be seen in the blue
prints!). In addition the same
judge, Romulus Proks, assumes that my
grandfather agreed with the decision, as he didn't appeal it in 1955 (this
is the post Stalin era in a Communist country!)
- October
2000, we appeal this decision
- January
2001, the law 10/2001
(in Romanian) is passed through the
Parliament and signed by the Romanian President
- March
2001, PWC's lawyer initiates a second contact
with the promise of a mutually satisfactory solution to the problem. This turned to be an intimidation
session. Mr. Bufan
was offering to sell the house through the liquidation procedure and split
the financial outcome. Upon my
refusal to discuss any such joint venture and being adamant about my
request for the return of the house he implied that he could tie me down
for years to come in courts or he could even sell just the judiciary right
to the house which will make my goal impossible (see the November 16th, 2001
entry).
- March
2001, the court action initiated in September 1999 is suspended for the
procedural alternative given by the law 10/2001
- March
2001, we send a notification for the return of the house to Timisoara's
town hall
- June
2001, we send a second notification to the COMTIM legal representative,
PWC, as we were unofficially told by the town hall's representative that
it is not their competence to address our request, but, as the law 10/2001
ambiguously states, to the current tenant that the notification is to be
addressed.
- June
2001, we sent registered letters to the Chairman's Office of PWC Romania, Canada and the USA
with a description of our case and stressing the morally corrupt position
of PWC Romania and the fact that they deal with stolen property! No
reply was ever received from any of them.
- July
2001, we receive an official
notification that Timisoara
town hall is not competent to deal with our request. Please note that in case of lack of
competence the law 10/2001 requests an official reply after 30 days (art.
26.2) and not after 96 days!
- August
2001, we receive a reply from PWC Romania through which the return of our
house is deemed impossible as "there is currently a very complex activity
that goes on in it"! Acting as
if they are complying with the law 10/2001 they make a theoretical offer
of compensation (what is the financial power of a bankrupt company?),
without specifying an amount. You
can view the original document in Romanian here: page 1 and page 2.
- September
2001, we send a reply letter (you can see it in the Romanian version here:
page
1 and page 2) to
the above communication from PWC Romania stating the following:
- the
letter received from PWC Romania does not comply to the requirement of
the law 10/2001 as it is not an official decision by the decision council
of the COMTIM S.A. corporation and fails to specify the amount of the
compensation offered for the house
- the
four arguments against the return of the house are invalid as:
- the
liquidation of COMTIM cannot be an argument against the return of the
house, but for it,
- the
fact that the house is the headquarter of COMTIM or the fact that the
liquidator uses it for its operation are irrelevant,
- the
house had not its structure modified since it was illegally dispossessed
from Eugen Klein and any modifications brought to the house were for the
benefit of the tenant and cannot be charged to the now legal owner.
- the
offer for financial compensation is not an offer as it does not specify
the amount of the compensation nor does it specify how a bankrupt
corporation can make such an offer.
As well, we request from PWC
Romania, the return of the house as it is morally and lawfully just (more so,
as there is no legal impediment against it).
We guarantee in return, the continuation of their current activity in
the house as tenants, for a negotiable rate based on the current rent market
rates.
·
November 2001, after waiting in vain for an
answer to our previous request, we sue PWC Romania for failing to properly
reply to our official notification for the return of our property. We request moral and financial compensation
for every day of delay. The lawsuit was
logged with the "Judecatoria Timisoara"
file number 24748/2001. First audience was set for November 27th, 2001.
·
November
16th, 2001, PWC Romania publishes in two Romanian
newspapers, a notice
of sale for a number of COMTIM's assets. The object of the advert is to validate that
there are no better offers for the package.
The sale will be transacted upon the expiry of 20 days since the
publishing of the advert.
In the package, our house is listed
as item 7 and the sale is for the judiciary rights to the house! We were not advised by anyone of PWC's intent!
Please note that in their officious reply to our formal request for the
return of the house to us based on the law 10/2001, PWC Romania had four
reasons why that was not possible in August 2001; one of them was that only for
40% of their work was completed!
·
November 21st, 2001, PWC's Romania legal representative, Mr. Florin Scrieciu, send in, by fax, his answer to our lawsuit (can
be viewed here in Romanian page 1, page
2, page 3, page 4 and page 5). You can
view a partial English translation here. He requests a postponement for December 11th, 2001 as
he's unable to attend.
·
November
25th, 2001, our lawyer notifies us about PWC's newspaper advert and on November 26th, 2001 we officially notify:
COMTIM S.A.,
PWC Romania, the liquidation Judge for COMTIM S.A.
and the potential buyer – S.C. Agrotorvis S.A. that
any transaction with the house that we requested is illegal and is expressly
forbidden by the law 10/2001. A copy of
the original Romanian document can be found here.
·
December
2nd, 2001, I send an urgent fax message to the Office of Mr. James J. Schiro, the CEO of PricewaterhouseCoopers, requesting
an investigation of the illegal activity of PWC Romania, related to this
case. I attached my previous message
sent in June 2001, requesting the same thing from the Chairman's Office in Canada,
USA and Romania.
·
December
11th, 2001, PWC's Romania
lawyer, Scrieciu, raises technical objections,
unrelated to the object of the case, in the first audience in front of a
Judge. The position of PWC Romania
remains the one expressed in Mr. Scrieciu's answer
dated November 21st, 2001. The sale transaction is being assumed to have
been completed as we did not receive any notification on the contrary.
·
December
16th, 2001, I sent another fax to the Office of Mr. James J. Schiro, the CEO of
PricewaterhouseCoopers, expressing my worries with regards to the
continuation of the stalling policy of PWC Romania and their obvious lack of
good faith in this case. I referenced
this Web site for a more comprehensive view of events and documents.
·
April
19th, 2002, we win the lawsuit in the first instance,
against all the feet dragging approach used by PWC’s Romania
lawyer, Scrieciu.
PWC Romania was found non-compliant with the current
Romanian law 10/2001 relative to the returned of nationalized real estate. As requested by us, PWC Romania was found liable for penalties for each day of delay.
·
June 6th,
2002, PWC Romania through their legal representative Mr. Scrieciu appeals the decision, using a lengthy (8 pages
long) appeal. The same arguments used in
Mr. Scrieciu’s fax of November 21st, 2001 are re-used again and the
represent the current official position
of PWC Romania in this matter. In can be summarized in one single phrase – PWC
Romania does not recognize the competency of the current Court of Law to rule
on this issue, however for the sake of argument it points that PWC Romania
cannot be held responsible for its decisions on this matter while all along it
can dispose of the house as it sees fit, without being accountable for any of
its actions.
·
September 6th, 2002, in the fifth attempt to find someone in the
global PWC organization that is willing to upheld its Code of Ethics in Romania
I contacted Mr. Walter G. Ricciardi (PWC lawyer in
the US) who forwarded my message to his UK counter-part Mr. Anthony Vernon.
·
September
29th, 2002, in the first audience of the appeal, Mr. Scrieciu (COMTIM and PWC’s legal
representative) insists to have a decision made without any delay (contrary to
his stalling strategy that he used in all the court dates up to that
point!). To everyone’s dismay the
decision favors COMTIM and PWC Romania! Mihaela Marioara Marusteru’s (the Presiding Judge) reasons behind the
decision were copied from Mr. Scrieciu’s arguments
and are a reminder of where the Romanian Justice system is going.
·
October
8th, 2002, through my lawyer, we promptly appeal this
absurd decision and we are given a trial date on November 15th, 2002.
·
October
25th, 2002, I followed-up on my message to Mr. Anthony
Vernon (PWC UK)
and he mentioned that he sent my message to PWC Romania and he will get back to
me…
·
November
15th, 2002 COMTIM and PWC Romania request a delay; the
new date is set for December 6th,
2002.
·
December
6th, 2002, very large presence in
court from PWC Romania’s side, in addition to Mr. Scrieciu,
present were Mr. Bufan (PWC Romania’s resource
that handles the COMTIM’s liquidation) and another
legal counsel. All three argued that the
decision should be postponed as they are about to make me an offer (as mandated
by the law 10/2001). The decision was
not postponed, however the Court has decided that it does not have competency
to rule over this matter and turned the case to a different Court. The PCW representatives have promised that
their long-overdue offer for compensation is going to be delivered next week.
·
December
18th, 2002 I sent an information package (here) together with detailed letters outlining my case
against PwC Romania
to the following key PwC partners: Mr. Samuel A. DiPiazza
Jr. - CEO of PwC, Mr. Kieran Poynter – UK’s
Senior Partner and Ms. Barbara Kipp – PwC’s Global Ethics Leader.
The receipt of my documents was acknowledged by Ms. Kipp.
·
December
30th, 2002, after a long delay and after seeing my
recent complaint to Mr. Kieran Poynter I have
received a reply from Mr. Anthony Vernon from the Office of General
Counsel. You can see the content here together
with my detailed analysis.
·
I receive an “unofficial communication” from Mr.
Bufan where I am invited to find a buyer for the
house, give PwC Romania the agreed price of the sale, which they would use to
make me an offer of compensation, deducting the amount of improvements that
COMTIM made to the house since 1950 (the law is formal on this issue allowing
for discussions on the value of improvements only in the case of residential
building and not that of commercial as is in this case!). He adds that without a buyer he (PwC Romania)
cannot make me an offer for compensation (all this will he ignores that PwC
Romania gave me 4 reasons why they cannot return the house to me)! There is no need to comment further on the
absurdity of this offer!
·
January
21st, 2003, I sent my
reply to Mr. Vernon’s response to the same key PwC Partners that I
contacted in December 18th,
2002 in an effort to show the blatant omissions and subjective
content of Mr. Vernon’s investigation. I
brought forward documents as proof for all the arguments that I make against
the vacuous denials of any wrong doings by PwC Romania
which sums up Mr. Vernon’s conclusion.
·
January
31st, 2003, I receive a
reply from Mr. Vernon following my analysis of his investigation. Although “more than satisfied with the work of the reviewers and the
conclusions reached in the initial review”, Mr. Vernon has decided to further
ask for a review of my accusations made by someone independent of PwC Romania.
The review will take place on the week of February 3rd and I
was promised a conclusion by the end of the week commencing on February
10th, 2002.
·
January 31, 2003, we receive an official
notification that the first Court date was set for February
13th, 2003 at 8:00am. This substantiates my
statement made in the analysis of Mr. Vernon’s conclusion, that the Court in Romania has moved the lawsuit into a
different jurisdiction (under the paragraph Further Misinformation from Romania).
This goes contrary to the information provided by PwC Romania which I quote from Mr. Vernon’s
message: "the appeal court of Timisoara has voided your subsequent
appeal". My communication with Mr.
Vernon can be found here.
·
February 11th, 2003, coverage of my case against PwC Romania was initiated today by one of the largest national
newspapers in Romania – Evenimentul
Zilei. The
Romanian version of the article can be seen online or in a scanned version. You can see the English translation here.
·
February 25th, 2003 – I receive Mr. Vernon’s
conclusion to the second investigation done by an “independent” (of whom?)
reviewer. The conclusion, voided of any
arguments or references to my accusations, generically states that PwC Romania
acted properly in this matter.
·
February 26th, 2003 – I sent my detailed
review of Mr. Vernon’s second investigation to Ms. Kipp,
PwC’s Global Ethics Leader pointing out that this
second review, like the first, ignores my supporting proof to the accusations
against PwC Romania and uses just generic statements to proclaim the
propriety of PwC Romania’s actions in this case.
·
March 4th, 2003 – Ms. Kipp
endorses Mr. Vernon’s conclusion, declaring the matter close. In reply to my accusations of impropriety of
the second investigation, Ms Kipp declares: “It is not our policy to share the details of any
investigations with complainants”. This matter is considered closed for PwC!
Last changed on March 25, 2003
go back to the main
page