Accordingly, the Panel recommends no award of compensation for business losses.

The Panel therefore recommends no award of compensation in respect of business losses.

The Panel also subjected claims for business losses over USD 1,000,000 to heightened scrutiny.

Notwithstanding the verified business licences, the Panel recommends no award of compensation for the asserted business losses in each of these three claims.

The Panel reviewed approximately 300 claims for D8 D9 (individual business) losses in this instalment.

With respect to the first business, the Panel finds that the evidence does not support the claimant's ownership of the business as at 2 August 1990.

As a result of these findings, the Panel recommends no award of compensation for the asserted business losses.

Speculation abounds that the panel might recommend outsourcing Doing Business, removing its rankings of countries for the ease of doing business in them, or even eliminating the report altogether.

The Panel concludes that the claimant has not demonstrated that he was the owner of the business and therefore recommends no award of compensation for the alleged business losses.

The Panel notes that these documents would have been sufficient to establish the existence and ownership of the business.

Although the category D Panel (the D' Panel ) began its review of claims in 1996, the first five instalments of category D claims did not include any claims for business losses.

Although the D1 Panel began its review of claims in 1996, the first five instalments of category D claims submitted to the D1 Panel did not include any claims for business losses.

MADRID This month, an independent review panel is expected to release its findings regarding the World Bank s Doing Business report.

The Panel finds that the claimant has failed to prove his claim for business losses and recommends no award of compensation.

The Panel recognizes that audited accounts are generally considered reliable evidence of the value of business assets on the date of audit.

After adjustments for evidentiary deficiencies, the Panel recommends an award of compensation for business income only, in the amount of USD 17,500.

The Panel noted that these claimants generally provided documentary evidence such as business licences, rent a permit agreements, insurance policies, purchase and sales invoices and audited financial statements in support of their business losses.

At the direction of the Panel, all business licences submitted by claimants as proof of the existence of a business in Kuwait were forwarded to the Kuwait Ministry of Commerce and Industry for verification.

The Panel considers that the international business community should be encouraged, through their corporate social responsibility schemes, to provide resources to meet these needs.

The Panel reviewed the Kuwaiti claim in the tenth instalment of category D claims and recommended an award of USD 1,444,446 for business losses.

The Panel notes that the police report provided that describes a fire that consumed the business during the period of Iraq's occupation of Kuwait clearly indicates that the owner of the business was the Kuwaiti licence holder.

With respect to the claims for loss of tangible business property and loss of business income, the Panel finds that the evidence supports recommended awards of compensation in the respective amounts of USD 7,005 and USD 17,500.

Indeed, the evidence suggests to the Panel that the Kuwaiti licence holder was the owner of the business if it existed on 2 August 1990.

In the absence of satisfactory evidence of the existence of the business as at 2 August 1990, the Panel recommends no awards of compensation for the asserted business losses in these claims, which total approximately USD 45 million.

With respect to the second business, the Panel finds that the claimant has provided insufficient evidence to prove its existence as at 2 August 1990, as all documents referencing the business are dated after the liberation of Kuwait.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Panel finds that the Palestinian claimant was the owner of the business as at 2 August 1990 and therefore recommends an award of compensation for the demonstrated losses of the business.

The Panel finds that all of the evidence and reference in the individual's original claim form, including all of the supporting documents, pertained to the business entity identified in the E claim and not to a separate, unincorporated business.

Based on the above, the Panel finds that the category D claim filed by the individual claimant was in respect of losses of the business of the E4 claimant and not in respect of a separate and unrelated business.

If non Kuwaiti claimants provided these documents to the Commission and no competing claims for the business were identified after database cross checks, the Panel was generally satisfied that the non Kuwaiti claimant was the true owner of the business.

With respect to the business losses, the Panel finds that while the claimant is able to establish the existence and his ownership of a business as at 2 August 1990, the evidence is insufficient to support most of the amount claimed.

In particular, the D2 Panel noted that these claimants were non Kuwaiti nationals and typically asserted a complete breakdown of the business relationship with their Kuwaiti partner.

In the light of these irregularities, the Panel finds that the claimant has failed to prove his claim for business losses and recommends no award of compensation.

The category C Panel reviewed the category C claim in the Seventh C Report and recommended an award of USD 58,805 for the losses of the business.

The Commission s New Climate Economy project brings together seven leading policy research institutes from six continents, overseen by a panel of former heads of government and finance ministers and prominent business leaders, and advised by a panel of leading economists from across the world.

Having considered all of the evidence, the Panel is satisfied that the claimant has established the existence and his ownership of the business as at 2 August 1990.

The Panel reviewed the Kuwaiti claimant's claim in the eleventh instalment of category D claims and recommended an award of USD 379,782 for the losses of the printing business.

The Panel reviewed the statistical data indicating that these claimants claimed more frequently for business losses and for substantially higher amounts than claimants in the regular category D claims programme.

The Panel is aware that the Governing Council is considering the issue of duplication of awards resulting from, inter alia, related or competing claims for the ownership of a business.

With respect to the claims in this instalment, the Panel notes that in some cases the only credible evidence of the claimant's ownership of the business is either a pre or post invasion attestation from the licence holder attesting to the claimant's ownership of the business.

The Panel further notes that the Kuwaiti claimant was unable to explain how the business operated or what equipment he had, and he also made contradictory statements concerning his relationship with the Palestinian claimant, the nature of his business and the documentary support for his claim.

panel

Third, the Panel noted that two claimants who filed competing claims for the same business provided audited financial statements from the same auditing firm for the same year with different figures.

At the direction of the Panel, the secretariat also contacted various third parties including suppliers, employers, business licence holders and witnesses, to verify the authenticity of documents submitted by the claimants.

In this way the members of the panel of chairmen would have enough time to compile their studies and enable the delegates to continue their business and attend to social affairs.

Community Panel