This is a partial English translation of the document that PWC's lawyer Florin Scrieciu introduced as a response to our lawsuit against COMTIM S.A. and PWC aiming to force them to respond as requested by the law 10/2001.  My commentaries are in italics.

Please refer to the original Romanian document when in doubt.

 

Bottom of page 2, second paragraph from the bottom:

Analyzing the request of the plaintiffs and taking into the account the provision of the law we declare the plaintiffs' request unacceptable as follows:

1. To the notification formulated by SZEKELY GRATIAN and SZEKELY EUGEN no. 61/15.06.2001…skip to page 2 first paragraph ..S.C. COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation had responded through a letter signed by the legal representative of the designated liquidator, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and in respect of the article 23 and others of the Law 10/2001 and the article 23 of Law 64/1995, republished.

As such, that letter was sent to Mr. SZEKELY EUGEN (skip address and DHL references) and Mr. SZEKELY GRATIAN (skip references).

On both documents, there is their confirmed receipt signature.

2. S.C. COMTIM S.A. in liquidation, in its response to the plaintiffs' notification has showed, with respect to the content of the Law 10/2001 that "the return of the house is not possible". (in bold in the original document)

S.C. COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation, based their decision of not returning the house as requested, on four fair and just arguments (please remember that all their arguments were based on PWC's inability to leave the house while they have daily important activity in it. In November 16^th, couple of months later, PWC publicly announces the sell of the house in a package of COMTIM's assets!  Were PWC not in the middle of the transaction when they wrote those just and fair four arguments?  Very likely!).

3. In the same letter, S.C. COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation, with respect to the article 24 of the Law 10/2001 had made the plaintiffs an offer for financial compensation (this offer included no financial offer nor had any reference to the fact that a bankrupt company has no money – my commentary)

As such, S.C. COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation, made known to the two plaintiffs, that relative to the amount of the financial compensation, it will take into account the condition of the house when it was taken over and its value at that time as well, the required improvements made to it, offering, as such, the possibility of a transaction based on the judicial status of the tenant (the bold and the underline is mine – this means that the current tenant in this illegally nationalized house, imposes a transaction on the just owner on its merit of being a tenant!  Not to be topped in absurdity, the same tenant advises the owner of the fact that maintenance expenses incurred through its tenant years are going to be charged to the dispossessed owner for 50 years! – my commentary) to conclude a transaction based (state owned commercial corporation, in liquidation) and the special judicial status of the house.

4. In the context of our defence as presented at points 2 and 3 the request, as formulated by the plaintiffs, is unacceptable due to the following:
1. we have proved that we replied in the delay imposed by law (60 days) from the data of the registered notification to COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation, on 13.08.2001 to the plaintiffs' notification  of 15.06.2001 and received at S.C. COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation, on 18.06.2001
2. the letter signed by the legal representative of the liquidator, with the corresponding arguments to the plaintiffs' notification, represents its decision, although it is not called a decision, as the liquidator couldn't make such decisions as requested by the Law 10/2001.
3. taking into account the judicial status, rather the special status of COMTIM S.A., which on the date of the notification was and is a corporation in judicial liquidation, (as such it) falls under the rule of the Law 64/1995, republished, (and) not under the rule of the Law 10/2001, at most only some of its rulings should be respected (confusing? It means that the law 10/2001 applies only in part and law 64/1995 takes precedence – typical example of the pick and choose Romanian law system – my commentary)  As such, we point out that the Law 10/2001 does not contain rules relative to the handling of houses held (as tenants, again! – my commentary) by such legal entities and if we address the compensation issue, only those that were privatized or those that are about to being privatized (in other words – if the law does not name me, it probably does not apply to me! – my commentary).  As such, we were unable to communicate the plaintiffs the value of the compensation.  (lets clarify this – it means that PWC does not think that the law applies to them for compensation, but it takes that part of the law that allows them to refuse the return of the house.  Based on those arguments the tenant can refuse to return the house to the owner and doesn't have to pay anything for it!  Beautiful!  - my commentary).

That opinion is based as well, on at least two other arguments, as such:

-         the plaintiffs showed, in writing, that the value of the house is 3 million $US, which could lead to the assumption that the value of the compensation would be at the same amount level (ridiculous speculation, even for a lawyer! – the evaluation was based on the value of the loan that COMTIM S.A.  got from the Banca Agricola when it mortgaged the house, as explained in our original notification!  Please note, that this is a moot point as we requested the return of the house and not the compensation! – my commentary)

-         for the evaluation of the house, undoubtedly, a technical and financial evaluation is required in order to determine the value of it (the house), as well as the expenses incurrent for repairs through out the time (please remember this is the legal counsel for Pricewaterhouse Coopers insinuating that they are short of accountants for doing the expertise!?!  Ridiculous, one more time! – my commentary).  As such, no amount could have been specified as compensation, until the above mentioned evaluation would be completed (who is supposed to start such an evaluation? It became clear that the evaluation actually took place during our notification as PWC was ready to sell the house (or rather the judicial right to the house) in November 2001– my commentary).

S.C COMTIM – in liquidation, as we have shown, did not have the requirement to notify the plaintiffs on the value of the compensation, requirement that exists in the law for other type of legal entities that have been privatized already.  In such cases, the compensations are paid by other institutions and not by the legal entity tenant.   (again – the message is clear the law does not apply to us, if the owner is to be compensated, somebody else should do it – my commentary).

5. Relative to the implication of the plaintiffs that the return of the house is possible and that the compensations are not admissible, those (implications) could not make the object of the current action, but that of a formal request (petition) (I think he implies that we had to address a petition again to PWC rejecting their arguments, which funnily enough, we did and they did not reply – that's what started this actions suit.  Catch 22, anyone?  - my commentary), as such the current Court does not have to bother with them.

 

Because the plaintiffs, have not communicated to the defendant, S.C. COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation, any proof nor did they mentioned the date when they have received the reply to their notification (in the request to the Court they admit having received it), we request to compel them to specify the date when they received the reply to their notification, and to prove it, and to log into the current file all documents on which the base their claim (bold in the original text) (well, here he totally lost the object of the current action which is the validity of PWC's reply and not the fact that they made one!! – my commentary).

In its defence, S.C. COMTIM S.A. – in liquidation, requests proof with a written record of an interrogatory of the two plaintiffs, which requested by the procedure to take place at their residences, on the term that you would request (again the same menacing bold, in original) (this is a nice touch by Scrieciu, as he knows that I live in Canada!  Maybe he wants a free trip here? - my commentary).

 

      Based on the new proofs and other documents that the plaintiffs will produce, we will formulate our defence and, if required, will request other proofs (this means – we warned you that we could tie you down in courts for years (see my second meeting with PWC) if you don't play ball with us, well now, watch us do it! - my commentary)

 

For S.C. COMTIM S. A. in liquidation

Lawyer

Conf. Univ. Dr. Scrieciu, Florin

 

Back to the chronology page …