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 Romania has an investor interested in the purchase, and to split the proceeds with me.  I adamantly refused any such arrangement, stating again that the only possible solution to my request is the restitution of my grandfather’s house.  He said that if I do not change my position, PwC has the resources to tie this case in court for years and it is not in my interest not to accept their offer.  As well, if I do not want “to play ball” with them he could also sell the judicial rights (not the deed as COMTIM does not hold it, but the right to follow the case in Court) to someone else which will make my quest to get back the house impossible.  I will let you judge, if this type of tactic used by Mr. Bufan, PwC Romania representative, corresponds to the ethical norms of 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 US, Canada and Romania asking them to look into this unethical position taken by PwC Romania (copies are included in the booklet).  I have not received any answer from any of the above mentioned offices.

 

In August 2001, I received a reply to my request for the restitution of the house from PwC Romania.  The letter was signed by Mr. Radu Emilian in his role of liquidator for COMTIM.  The restitution of my gradfather’s house is denied by him on the following four counts:

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 Romania of their incompliance.  We requested an official decision by the decision council of the COMTIM S.A. Corporation.  In the same letter we argue that the four arguments against the restitution of the house are invalid as:

  1. the liquidation of COMTIM cannot be an argument against the restitution 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 rightful owner who was not in possession of the house.

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 Romania, the restitution 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.

 

We never received a reply to our previous letter and again as a last recourse, in November 2001, I take legal action against PwC Romania for their incompliance with the law 10/2001.  We request damages against PwC for delaying the restitution process.   The first date in Court is set for November 27th, 2001.

 

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 first Court date Mr. Scrieciu denied in front of the Presiding Judge that any such sale is going to take place.

 

I followed up with a second letter addressed to Mr. James J. Schiro where I express again concerns with the way PwC Romania is handling the situation of my grandfather’s house.  Again no response is ever received and the legal counsel in Romania continues to delay the judgment by all possible ways and means.

 

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 Romania through their legal counsel, Mr. Scrieciu appeals the decision and argues vehemently in a lengthy diatribe that:

-          PricewaterhouseCoopers Romania can dispose of my grandfather’s house in any way it sees fit without being responsible for its actions,

-          PricewaterhouseCoopers Romania gave me an answer to my restitution request,

-          PricewaterhouseCoopers Romania did not mention the amount of the compensation because it is not the duty of the tenant of the house to compensate the owner if it refuses to restitute the house, but rather of a State Ministry (that Mr. Scrieciu fails to name – my note),

-          PricewaterhouseCoopers Romania needs to evaluate the value of the house which is a very lengthy and complex process (PwC Romania was in the process of selling it, so obviously it knew the value at least at that moment – my note).

 

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 Romania personnel.  As such, I contacted Mr. Ricciardi in New York who referred me to Mr. Anthony Vernon a UK lawyer that is handling European maters.  I forwarded them a message that outlines my complaint and I referenced my Web site that I created for this purpose.  Although I have called both of them repeatedly, I have not received any reply that deals with the situation in Romania.

 

 

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 Romania favor as the Judge accepts without any reserves Mr. Scrieciu’s arguments.  It is a unique ruling that admits that an offer of compensation can be considered as such without specifying the amount of the compensation, and this was argued by the liquidator of COMTIM, the one that knows the value of all assets of the bankrupt company!

 

We appealed the decision and following another session of delays initiated by PwC Romania’s legal counsel Mr. Scrieciu, the second court date set for December 6th, 2002.  The entire panel of PwC Romania present at the session tells the Judge that an offer is about to be made and requests a delay.  Present in court for PwC Romania are Mr. Scrieciu, another legal counsel and Mr. Bufan.  The Judge does not agree with a further delay, but defers the competence of the Court in this case to a different Court (Romanian legal system).  Although, this is a ruling that allows PwC Romania to continue to benefit from the usage of my grandfather’s house, Mr. Bufan told my lawyer that an offer is going to be made next week.  No offer was received to date.

 

Read on… chronology of recent events

or go back to the main page