Accordingly, the WBC Claim as amended amounts to US 950,715,662.

The WBC Claim as amended by the Claimant can be analyzed as follows

Subsequent to the oral proceedings the Claimant amended the WBC Claim, which resulted in a reduction of the amount claimed by US 915,209.

Recalling that the Panel of Commissioners for the well blowout control claim was appointed specifically in light of the claim apos s special nature and special circumstances,

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS MADE BY THE PANEL OF COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO REVIEW THE WELL BLOWOUT CONTROL CLAIM

This documentation is only a fraction of the documentation underlying the WBC Claim.

The work described above is referred to by the Claimant as the Well Blowout Control ( WBC ) Exercise.

The bulk of the costs claimed in the WBC Claim were incurred in United States dollars.

GE.96 64795 Introduction On 30 July 1993, KUWAIT OIL COMPANY (K.S.C.) ( KOC or the Claimant ) filed with the United Nations Compensation Commission (the UNCC or the Commission ) a claim referred to by the Claimant as the Well Blowout Control Claim (the WBC Claim ).

This issue and the related issue of the Claimant s standing to pursue the WBC Claim are considered by the Panel as preliminary issues.

The issue arose in the course of the proceedings as to whether the WBC Claim can properly be categorized as a category E (corporate) claim.

In view of the complexity of the issues raised, the volume of documentation underlying the Claim and the amount of compensation sought by the Claimant, the Panel in its first Procedural Order of 27 November 1995 classified the WBC Claim as an unusually large or complex claim within the meaning of article 38 (d) of the Rules.

With regard to the proper categorization of the WBC Claim, the Panel finds that the categorization of a claim as a category E or F claim does not entail any substantive consequences in terms of the law to be applied.

The Panel notes that under the heading Support facilities the Claimant seeks compensation for costs incurred in removing unexploded ordnance during the period covered by the WBC Claim.

The Claimant explains that, potentially, the whole of the documentation that could be submitted in support of the WBC Claim is vast and could not feasibly be dealt with other than on a computerized basis.

The Panel determines that the loss, damage or injury for which compensation is being sought in the WBC Claim is compensable in this Claim in the amount of US 610,048,547.

The following Claims were filed by Governments for certain of their political subdivisions, agencies, ministries, instrumentalities or controlled entities with the approximate amount claimed noted in parenthesis The approximate amounts claimed are stated in United States dollars, although many of the Claims were originally stated in other currencies.

The latter figure represents the full cost of capital items purchased in the period covered by the WBC Claim.

Third party liability temporal and financial limitations

Third party liability temporal and financial limitations

Iran, therefore, could have included these claim units in the submissions that it filed within these deadlines.

This claimant seeks compensation in the amount of USD 171,000,600 for D8 D9 business losses allegedly sustained by his unincorporated business as a direct result of Iraq's invasion and occupation of Kuwait.

At times the claim preparers appeared to be more familiar with the claims than the claimants.

In the view of the Panel, this should involve the services of a qualified senior epidemiologist.

Having received in accordance with article 38 of the Provisional Rules for Claims Procedure, the executive summary of the report and recommendations of the Panel of Commissioners appointed to review the well blowout control claim (the quot executive summary quot ),The text of the executive summary is contained in document S AC.26 1996 5.

Of these claims, the Panel recommends awards of compensation for two claims, while no awards are recommended for the remaining 16 claims.

One claim in the sixth instalment was found to be a duplicate of a claim awarded compensation in the fifth instalment.

The Office found that claimants had abused the system by filing false claims with the assistance of accounting companies in Kuwait.

A total of 37 confirmed matches were identified, which related either to claims filed by the same claimant within the bedoun programme or to claims filed by the same claimant in different claim categories.

The individual claimant whose claim had been identified as potentially overlapping with the E4 claim provided additional evidence and claimed for losses in addition to those losses claimed by the E4 claimant.

Third F4 instalment, claim No. 5000450 and fourth F4 instalment, claim Nos. 5000454 and 5000466.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3012259 the claimant seeks compensation of USD 4,930,795 for business losses.

The fourthsecond group of overlapping claims initially consisted of E4 claims related to 39seven category C claims and 24 category C and D claims.

These claims lack either the claimant's signature or evidence of authority to act on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

Thus, all claimants have the right to pursue their claims through other mechanisms. This includes claimants covered by paragraph 5 of Decision 43, taken on 1 October 1997, concerning the Egyptian Workers Claims.

In total, over 45,000 duplicate claims in category A claims had been corrected through the mechanisms designed by the category A Panel.

For example, in UNCC claim No. 3011224 the claimant asserted, in addition to her own losses, a salary loss on behalf of her husband.

a. The Claimant KUWAIT OIL COMPANY (the Claimant ), on behalf of Kuwait s public oil sector as a whole, is to be paid the amount of US 610,048,547 as compensation for the costs incurred in the execution of the Well Blowout Control Exercise as a direct result of Iraq s invasion and occupation of Kuwait

First F4 instalment, claim No. 5000405.

In twofive of the individual claims identified as potentially overlapping with E4 claims, the Panel considers that the claim wass were not overlapping as the individual claimant was weres claiming losses that were related to the E4 claimant companies but were not overlapping losses (for example, where the individual claimant is seeking compensation for a loss of salary or management fee from the E4 claimant).

The average amount claimed for the claims in this instalment is about USD 2 million, compared to about USD 820,000 for all claims, about USD 934,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 861,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme.

The median amount claimed is about USD 470,000 for claims in this instalment, compared with about USD 263,000 for all claims, about USD 335,000 for Jordanian claims and about USD 276,000 for Kuwaiti claims in the regular category D claims programme Approximately 75 per cent of the claims in this instalment contain D8 D9 business losses in relation to unincorporated establishments in Kuwait.

Specifically, the secretariat, in valuing the claimant's D6 (loss of income) claim, incorrectly treated it as a duplicate of the claimant's C6 (salary loss) claim, resulting in an erroneous reduction of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant for his C6 claim.

duplicate claims Two or more claims filed by a claimant under the late claims programme in the same category.

There are also three claimants in this instalment whose individual claims for C8 Business losses were determined to be claims for corporate losses.