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:
    1. 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
    2. the four arguments against the return of the house are invalid as:
      1. the liquidation of COMTIM cannot be an argument against the return of the house, but for it,
      2. the fact that the house is the headquarter of COMTIM or the fact that the liquidator uses it for its operation are irrelevant,
      3. 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.
    3. 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