Explanatory note – the underlined dates refer to contacts with the PricewaterhouseCoopers offices in the UK and the US while the others refer to the PricewaterhouseCoopers Romanian office

 

·        June 2001 – I request from COMTIM the restitution of the house as mandated by the Law 10/2001

 

·        June 2001 – letters describing the situation in Romania were sent to the Chairman’s Offices in the US, UK and RomaniaNo acknowledgment or reply was ever received.

 

·        August 2001 – With complete disregard for the Law 10/2001, using ridiculous arguments, PricewaterhouseCoopers Romania, as the named liquidator for COMTIM, through the authority of Emilian Radu (PricewaterhouseCoopers Partner, Head of Corporate Finance & Recovery Services – biography can be seen here http://www.pwcglobal.com/ro/eng/about/press-rm/partners/), refuses the restitution of the house although this is not allowed by the above mentioned law.  The main argument used is that the house needs to be used in the liquidation process

Original Romanian document can be seen here http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/raspPWC1.jpg and http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/raspPWC2.jpg while its English translation was provided in my previous correspondence and can be found on the main Web page.

 

·        September 2001 – I reply to COMTIM, offering to keep the current activity in the house and pointing out that their refusal is illegal.  No reply was ever received.

 

·        At the same time, PwC Romania is negotiating the sale of the „litigious rights” to the house with S.C. Agrotorvis S.R.L. publishing in November 16th, 2003 a public advert in the local newspaper Renasterea Banateana (the advert can be seen here in the Romanian original - http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/renasterea.pdf).  The sale of the “litigious rights” is listed at the F. paragraph.

 

·        26 noiembrie 2001, following the publishing of the advert we notified all the parties (Syndic Judge, COMTIM, PricewaterhouseCoopers and Agrotorvis) about the illegality of this transaction. The letter, in Romanian, to the Syndic Judge can be seen here http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/sindic.jpg.   Following this notification, COMTIM’s lawyer, Mr. Scrieciu declared in Court that this transaction will not take place, however no official reply was received from COMTIM or PricewaterhouseCoopers.

 

·        December 2nd, 2001 – urgent fax to the office of Mr. James J. Schiro, the CEO of PricewaterhouseCoopers about PwC’s Romania illegal attempt to sell the judicial right to the house.  No acknowledgment or reply was ever received.

 

·        13 decembrie 2001, as the Contract of Cession of Credit proves dupa cum dovedeste Contractul de Cesiune de Creanta the same PricewaterhouseCoopers Partner, Mr. Emilian Radu, sells the litigious rights to the house for 80,000US$ (nota bene – the minimum estimated value of the house is 500,000US$) to the same company S.C. Agrotorvis S.R.L. (the English translation of the original Romanian document can be seen here http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/cession.html and the Romanian original here http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/cr1.jpg http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/cr2.jpg http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/cr3.jpg http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/cr4.jpg)   The entire amount of this contract was to be paid in the COMTIM’s liquidation account within 5 days from the date of the contract, December 13th, 2001.  Through this same Contract, Agrotorvis will pay the litigation and COMTIM’s lawyer’s fees in an effort to obtain the house.

 

·        December 16th, 2001 – a second fax was sent to Mr. James J. Schiro re-iterating the same concerns as outlined in the first communication and requesting a confirmation that the illegal sale of the judicial rights was aborted.  No acknowledgment or reply was ever received.

 

·        After December 2001 – as PricewaterhouseCoopers could not pay the maintenance of the house from the depleted funds of COMTIM, the same PricewaterhouseCoopers Partner Emilian Radu, sublets the house through an un-dated Protocol (the original Romanian document can be seen here http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/protocol.jpg and the English translation here http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/protocole.html ) to S.C. Agrotorvis S.R.L. and to S.C. Comtim Group S.R.L. specifying that Agrotorvis is to use the second floor and the annex while COMTIM (in liquidation) and SC Comtim Group SRL will use the rest of the house.  The utility and maintenance fees will be paid in exclusivity by S.C. Comtim Group S.R.L.

Note – This sublet contract is concluded until 2004 showing the confidence of PricewaterhouseCoopers in maintaining the control over the house until that date.

 

·         September 6th, 2002I contacted Mr. Ricciardi, US based attorney for PwC, and presented the current situation in Romania.  He forwarded my message to Mr. Vernon, UK based attorney for PwC, who was supposed to deal with complains that were related to PwC Romania.  My accusations and corroborating documents were posted on the Web site http://www.oocities.org/nationalizare created for this purpose.  Over the next few months I have called and emailed Mr. Vernon asking for the conclusion of his investigation and I was given vague excuses and new dates that were never kept.

 

·         December 18th, 2002 – the entire content of this site, at that time, (here in Word format http://www.oocities.org/nationalizarea/press.doc) exposing in detail the illegality of PwC Romania together with copies of original documents supporting my accusations was sent trough courier to: Mr. Samuel A. DiPiazza Jr. PwC’s Global CEO, Mr. Kieran Poynter, PwC’s UK Senior Partner, Ms. Barbara Kipp, PwC’s Global Leader, Ethics and Business Conduct.  An acknowledgment message was received from Ms. Kipp.

 

·         December 30th, 2002 – shortly after I sent the documents to the Senior PwC Partner in UK and PwC’s CEO in the US, I receive the conclusion of Mr. Vernon’s “professional Investigation” (http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/vernon.html).  As the Web statistics of the page containing my accusations and corroborating documents prove, Mr. Vernon has not once accessed it being content with providing me with the English translation of PwC Romania official position.

 

·         January 19th, 2003 – I send my analysis (http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/vernon.html#jan19_e)of Mr. Vernon’s reply to Mr. Vernon and I copy the following PricewaterhouseCoopers Partners: Mr. Samuel A. DiPiazza Jr, Mr. Kieran Poynter, Ms. Barbara Kipp and Mr. Ricciardi.

 

·         January 31st, 2003 - I receive a reply from Mr. Vernon (http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/vernon.html#jan31_v)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.

 

·         February 14th, 200320 months after we have made the restitution request as mandated by the Law 10/2001. Mrs. Speranta Munteanu, Director of the Liquidation Department in an “offer for a quick resolution to the conflict” refers fro the first time in the procedure based on the Law 10/2001 the need to provide proof that Eugen Klein refers to the same person as Ionas Klein – an exception raised by COMTIM during the first litigation in January 24th, 2001 and eventually dropped in September 2000 by the same lawyer, Mr. Scrieciu (the corroborating documents and the analysis of this situation can be seen here http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/redherring.html).

In the same “offer”, PricewaterhouseCoopers Romania, through Mrs. Speranta Munteanu claims that the house was modified into an office building by COMTIM in 1979, although the same house was an office building since 1967 and based on the previous argument, against the letter of the Law 10/2001 requests compensation for those “modifications”.

 

·         February 25th, 2003I receive Mr. Vernon’s conclusion to the second investigation (http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/vernon.html#feb25_v)done by an “independent” reviewer.  The conclusion, voided of any arguments or references to my accusations, generically states that PwC Romania acted properly in this matter.   It further refers to the identified issues by the reviewer as to the proof of my relationship to Eugen Klein and I quote “has been advised by PwC Romania that it is up to you to prove to the satisfaction of the relevant Court, not merely PwC Romania, that you are the lawful heir of Eugen Klein” (nota bene – PwC Romania found this to be a problem only on February 14th, 2003 although this issue was addressed since January 2000!)

 

·         February 26th, 2003 – I sent my detailed review of Mr. Vernon’s second investigation (http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/vernon.html#feb26_e)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 (http://www.oocities.org/pwcromania/vernon.html#mar4_k), 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!

 

Return to the index