In March 2001, I was
contacted by Mr. Scrieciu and Mr. Bufan,
expressing their intent, again, to deal in an expedient matter with this issue,
as outlined by the new law. They
requested a suspension of my current appeal as a condition to this
meeting. I have agreed as I considered
that the new law clears the eventual doubt on the “legality” of the
nationalization.
In an un-official meeting
one day earlier, requested by Mr. Radu Bufan, he
stated that his intention is now to sell the house, as PwC
The next day meeting, after
the suspension of the current Court case, Mr. Bufan
was less direct than in the un-official meeting, but in the presence of Mr. Scrieciu (PwC Romania legal counsel in this case) and two
other junior PwC Romania consultants a similar message was conveyed; the
restitution of the house will be made very difficult by PwC Romania if I don’t
go along with their offer to sell the house.
I followed with an official
request (a copy is included in the booklet) through which I requested the
restitution of the house as indicated by the law 10/2001. At the same time, I sent registered letters
to the Chairman’s offices in the
In August 2001, I received a
reply to my request for the restitution of the house from PwC
a. the
house was and is the headquarters of COMTIM,
b. the
house is absolutely essential to the activity of COMTIM; in it the activity of
the entire personnel of the liquidator takes place and it also holds the
archives and all COMTIM’s documentation. All the activities part of
the liquidation process and other complex activities, technical, economical,
financial and administrative take place daily in it.
c. the
company is currently in the process of liquidating the assets of COMTIM, assets
that are very numerous and with a high degree of complexity. In this process take part the Liquidation
Judge, the creditors and the liquidator.
At this moment the liquidation of the assets, supervised by the judge,
is only 40% done.
d. the
house was structurally modified and improved since the date it was taken in 1950.
As the law mandates that an
offer for compensation has to be made in the extreme cases when the house
cannot be returned to the rightful owner, Mr. Emilian
writes: ”we make you the offer of restitution through
equivalent, in the form of monies.”
I couldn’t accept this reply
as it did not comply with the rules outlined by the law 10/2001 and through my
lawyer I sent a letter advising PwC
In addition, we stress that
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
We never received a reply to
our previous letter and again as a last recourse, in November 2001, I take
legal action against PwC
On November 16th,
2001 an advertisement appears in the local newspaper notifying that a basket of
assets part of COMTIM are being sold to S.C. Agrotorvis
S.A. At the position F. in the list of
assets being sold are the judicial rights to my grandfather’s house. It turns out the Mr. Bufan
was not throwing around just empty words, but was ready to follow with
actions. However, this action
invalidates all the reasons that were enumerated by Mr. Emilian
in order to make his case against the restitution of the house. As well, it shows that PwC never had the
intention of dealing in an ethical and honest way with the restitution request
as it is imposed by the law!
Upon being notified by this
latest maneuver of PwC to elude the just restitution of my grandfather’s house
I have faxed urgently a plea to Mr. James Schiro in
UK and my lawyer sent registered letters to the Judge in charge of COMTIM’s liquidation, PwC Romania and the potential buyer
of the lot of assets. No acknowledgment
or official reply was ever received from any of them, however in the
I followed up with a second
letter addressed to Mr. James J. Schiro where I
express again concerns with the way PwC
In April 19th,
2002 we win our case in front of the first Court, PwC Romania is found guilty
of non-compliance with the law and it is asked to issue a decision that would
follow the rules set by the law 10/2001.
Compensation is allocated to us for any delay.
Upon this decision, PwC
-
PricewaterhouseCoopers
-
PricewaterhouseCoopers
-
PricewaterhouseCoopers
-
PricewaterhouseCoopers
In September 2002, I try to
contact again a member of PwC that could take an interest in what I consider an
unethical behavior of PwC
In September 2002, totally
out of his character, Mr. Scrieciu, does not attempt
to delay through all means but, insists that a decision be made in the first
court date of the appeal! The decision
announced two days later goes in PwC
We appealed the decision and
following another session of delays initiated by PwC
Read on… chronology of recent events
or go back to the main page