Writing off of losses of property

The Kuwaiti claimant asserted that he was the sole owner of the entire business as at 2 August 1990 and claimed for tangible property, stock and loss of profits.

D7 (real property) losses

Claim No. 5000304 Loss of natural resources Claim No. 5000304 comprises five claim units, with an asserted value of USD 4,330,635,352, for depletion of natural resources as a result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

D4 (personal property) and D4 (motor vehicle) losses

As stated above, the eligible category D Palestinian late claims have a higher number of loss types per claim and substantially higher amounts claimed than claims in the regular category D claims programme.

Claim No. 5000460 Loss of natural resources Claim No. 5000460 comprises three claim units, with a total asserted value of USD 967,831,391, for loss of ecological and human services resulting from damage to or depletion of terrestrial, marine and groundwater resources.

Recommended award for claim No. 5000460 81

New or greater losses asserted and new evidence included in the individual claim supporting an adjustment to the original E4 award

The claimant also seeks compensation for lost personal property, lost wages, and losses associated with his release from prison.

Iraq stated that the claimant did not provide proof of his alleged personal losses.

Furthermore, Iraq contends that some of these losses have already been claimed in claim No. 5000288.

Iran has neither fully explained the nature of the losses nor distinguished them from other similar losses for which it claims compensation in other claim units of this claim or in its other claims.

At the Panel's direction, the company was contacted regarding the claimant's alleged loss.

He was also able to describe in detail the operations of the business and the nature of the asserted losses.

Following the consolidation of the losses, the Panel applied the claims review procedures developed by the category E4 Panels, taking into consideration that the individual claimant may not have been able to provide the same level of documentary evidence in support of the losses asserted as could be provided by the E4 claimant.

One claim was for an unspecified property loss and the other was for property purchased in Iraq in 1993.

(a) The Registrar may, after full investigation, authorize the writing off of losses of property of the Tribunal, and adjust the record to bring the balance shown into conformity with actual, physical property.

The Panel reviewed the overlapping claims together to determine which of the losses claimed by the category C claimant should be consolidated with the E4 claim for review.

The Panel finds that the evidence provided to support this claim unit is not sufficient to demonstrate the circumstances of the loss claimed.

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

Review of the E2 claim Applying the procedures described in paragraph 67, the Panel reviewed the E2 claim in this instalment according to the loss types identified below.

In his accompanying personal statement, the claimant described the tangible business property as a fleet of heavy and specialised machinery, vehicles and equipment situated in Iraq and used to carry out the projects.

The largest part of the claimant's asserted losses relates to KWD 4,772,030 (USD 16,512,214) for Kuwaiti dinars that the claimant says that he received in trading his stock during the invasion and occupation period.

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 the claimant provided inconsistent descriptions of his personal property losses and finds that he has failed to prove the existence of these losses.

After considering all of the evidence provided, the Panel determines that the claimant has failed to prove the alleged loss and recommends no award of compensation.

The total insured property loss of Katrina, 34.4 billion according to an insurance industry estimate, even if expanded to represent uninsured losses, represents a miniscule fraction of world wealth.

The E4 Panel recommended compensation for loss of tangible property, but not for loss of stock, when it reviewed the claim.

Having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that the claimant has not established the loss of tangible business property as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

The claimant asserted his claim on the category D claim form as follows USD 112,600,000 for loss of tangible business property, USD 54,725,600 for loss of business income and USD 3,675,000 for payment of relief to others.

The claimant seeks compensation for losses suffered in connection with a wholesale food business located in Kuwait in the amount of USD 24,763,322.

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 finds that the category C claimant did not assert any losses additional to those previously claimed by the E4 claimant and did not provide any new evidence.

The other claim did not contain the claimant's affirmation concerning the losses claimed although the claimant was given an opportunity to remedy this formal deficiency.

Iraq argues that Saudi Arabia has no standing to bring this claim before the Commission because it was animal breeders who suffered the alleged losses.

Saudi Arabia proposes to undertake several compensatory projects to cover all the losses referred to in the various claim units of Claim No. 5000463.

OTHER ISSUES Deduction of category A , B and C awards The awards of compensation recommended by the Panel are reduced by the amount of any category A , B and C awards paid to the same claimant for the same losses.

Finally, the Panel recommends no award of compensation with respect to the support losses, as it is only the recipients of such support who are able to claim for such losses.

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.

In each case, the Panel reviewed the evidence to determine whether the claimant established that the losses were a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

As a preliminary objection, Iraq contends that Saudi Arabia has no standing to submit this claim, as it is not the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia but individual farmers who suffered the alleged losses.

THE STAND ALONE CLAIMS Applying the procedures described above, the Panel has reviewed the stand alone claims according to the nature and type of loss identified.

The claimant seeks USD 13,192,938 for personal property losses and business losses sustained in connection with five scrap and auto parts businesses in Kuwait.

If the financial statements appear to be reliable, and are consistent with the other evidence submitted by the claimant, the Panel's verification and valuation of the asserted losses is relatively straightforward.