1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 16


PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Brian J. Armstrong                                 Office of the General Counsel
                                                   1301 Avenue of the Americas
                                                   New York NY 10019-6013
                                                   Telephone (212) 259 1000
                                                   Facsimile (212) 259 1301
January 4, 2000                                    Direct phone 212-707-6728
                                                   Direct Fax 212-707-6717



Howard W. Brodie, Esq.
Vice President and General Counsel
Emcore Corporation
394 Elizabeth Avenue
Somerset, New Jersey 08873


Re: Emcore Corporation

Dear Mr. Brodie:

In your letter of December 29, 1999 you have requested on behalf of Emcore
Corporation (the "Company") that PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP ("PwC") promptly
furnish the Company with a letter addressed to the Commission stating whether
it agrees with the statements made by the Company in response to this Item
304(a) and, if not, stating the respects in which it does not agree." (A copy
of your letter is enclosed herewith. We also enclose a copy of recent
correspondence between the Company's litigation counsel and PwC.) This is PwC's
response:

         1.   With respect to the first paragraph of the Company's Item 304(a)
              (the "Item"), PwC agrees with the first sentence, but does not
              have sufficient information to know whether the remainder of the
              paragraph is completely accurate.

         2.   With respect to the second paragraph of the Item, PwC does not
              have sufficient information to know whether the paragraph is
              completely accurate. PwC believes that Deloitte & Touche LLP
              was engaged earlier that May 13, 1999, and the Company appears to
              have acknowledged this in the fifth paragraph of the Item.

         3.   The statements in the third paragraph of the Item are accurate.
   2
PricewaterhouseCoopers



Howard W. Brodie, Esq.
January 4, 2000
Page Two



     4.   With respect to the fourth paragraph of the Item, while PwC does not
          have information sufficient to state whether the paragraph is
          completely accurate, PwC is not aware of any "reportable events" as
          defined.

     5.   With respect to the fifth paragraph of the Item, PwC does not have
          sufficient information to know whether the paragraph is completely
          accurate. (See paragraph 2 above.)

     6.   With respect to the sixth paragraph of the Item, PwC disagrees with
          the implication that because PwC has provided consents in the past it
          is obligated to undertake a new engagement with respect to the
          Company's most recent request for a consent.

     7.   With respect to the seventh paragraph of the Item, PwC is not able to
          express a view on the accuracy of the Company's statement concerning
          the Company's belief. However, without regard to whatever the
          Company's belief may be, the statement that "PwC has refused to
          provide a report and written consent solely in retaliation to [sic] a
          lawsuit that the Company recently filed against PwC" is not accurate.
          As PwC previously has advised the Company in writing, the performance
          of procedures necessary to the provision of a written report and
          consent involves a new engagement. PwC is entitled and required to
          make a judgment as to whether it should undertake such a new
          engagement. For reasons that we believe to be sound, PwC has
          determined that it should not undertake the proposed engagement. Among
          other factors, PwC has taken into consideration that the Company has
          accused PwC of "racketeering" and fraud and, more recently, through
          the Company's outside litigation counsel, has threatened PwC with
          further legal action if the requested report and consent are not
          promptly forthcoming. These and other actions for which the management
          of the Company are responsible have led PwC to the conclusion not only
          that it should not, but that it cannot, enter into a new engagement --
          no matter how limited -- with the Company.
   3
PricewaterhouseCoopers



Howard W. Brodie, Esq.
January 4, 2000
Page Three






     8.   With respect to the eighth paragraph of the Item, the first two
          sentences of the paragraph are accurate. PwC does not have sufficient
          information to know whether the final sentence is accurate.


Very truly yours,


/s/ Brian J. Armstrong

Brian J. Armstrong



BJA/mi

Enclosures

cc: W. Scott Bayless, Esq. (with enclosures)