Three of the claims in this instalment include a claim for what the Panel considers to be the individual claimant's equity interest in a company.

The majority of the claims in the fourthsecond group of overlapping claims were filed by an E4 claimant and an individual claimant who was a shareholder of the E4 claimant company.

Subsequently, in response to claim development, the individual claimant stated that he had no ownership interest in the company, and that his claim relating to the company was submitted in error by his claim preparer.

Death and Disability and Other Claims Unit

Both the company and the individual claimant acknowledged the existence of the partnership, and the individual claimant's entitlement to a 49 per cent interest in the partnership.

ii. Death and Disability and Other Claims Unit

There are C5 BA and C5 SOS claims in the fourth instalment.

Overlapping claims relate to claims by both the shareholder and the corporate entity for losses pertaining to the same corporate business.

The Panel therefore recommends awardsan award of compensation in respect of one C5 SOS claims and no awards of compensation in respect of C5 SOS claims and all C5 BA claims in the fourth instalment.

With respect to the remaining claim, the only evidence provided by the claimant to prove his authority to file a claim on behalf of the company was a business card describing the claimant as Executive Director Partner and a lease in the name of three individuals who the claimant described as the corporate shareholders.

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.

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.

C5 claims are for losses relating to bank accounts and stocks or securities.

95. The Section is divided into three units, the Contingent Owned Equipment Claims Unit, the Death and Disability and Other Claims Unit and the Systems and Data Analysis Unit, in accordance with functional responsibilities.

2.4 Between 1965 and 1976, the authors filed three claims for compensation with the Federal Compensation Office these were dismissed in 1965, 1971 and 1981, respectively, for lack of sufficient proof of their ownership of the shares.

The Panel further finds that only claimsone claim for C5 SOS areis compensable.

Some claims in the fourth instalment lacked either (a) the claimant's signature affirming the information provided in the claim and the losses being claimed, or (b) evidence of authority on the part of the individual who filed the claim on behalf of the claimant.

The thirtieth instalment also includes four non stand alone E4 claims, which were submitted for filing by the Government of Kuwait pursuant to decision 12 of the Governing Council (S AC.26 1992 12), as the majority or managing shareholder of the Kuwaiti company was detained in Iraq (the corporate detainee claims ).

Three of the claims include D8 D9 (individual business) loss claims for losses sustained by Kuwaiti companies, of which the deceased detainees were shareholders.

No compensation has been recommended for C7 Real Property losses where claimants fail to establish the fact of ownership.

While the claimants in this instalment claimed for D2 and D3 losses more frequently than claimants in the regular category D claims programme and asserted higher claimed amounts, 103 of the 117 claims are not recommended for compensation as the claimants failed to prove the essential requirements of ownership, loss or causation.

This instalment contains a number of competing claims for the losses of the same unincorporated business in Kuwait, some of which involve previously awarded claims.

This compares with an incidence of 48 per cent in the regular category D claims programme as a whole 69 per cent in the regular category D claims filed by Jordan and 44 per cent in the regular category D claims filed by Kuwait.

The affirmation is provided when the claimant or his or her authorized representative signs the claim.

The Palestinian and Jordanian claimants each asserted a one sixth interest in the businesses as at 2 August 1990 while the Kuwaiti claimant asserted that she was their sole owner.

For their part, the Claimants concerned assert that they are entitled to submit claims for public health losses.

Moreover, their claim regarding the IG Farben shares was not examined by the European Court at all.

Some claimants have withdrawn part or all of their claims through the Palestinian Authority.

The Unit is responsible for the administration of claims under the letters of assist arrangements and other claims from Governments as well as those for death, injury, disability and illness of military contingents.

The Governing Council determined in decision 123 that a claim can only be found to be a stand alone claim if the claimant first demonstrates that he or she had the authority to act on behalf of the Kuwaiti company in filing a claim.

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

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.

With one exception, the Panel confirms that these claimants demonstrated that they had authority to file the claim on behalf of the company.

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

As the documents demonstrate that the Palestinian claimants had an ownership interest in the lighting businesses as at 2 August 1990, and as the Kuwaiti claimant has not established that she purchased their ownership interest and their right to claim for compensation in the post liberation period, the Panel finds that the Palestinian claimants are entitled to claim for their percentage of the losses of the lighting businesses and should be compensated for their demonstrated losses.

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

Accordingly, the claimant is entitled to a 12 month period for his claimed D8 D9 (individual business) losses.

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.

Consistent with the regular category C programme, no evidence of authority is required if the claim form is signed by the claimant's spouse or by a parent of a claimant who is a minor.

Paragraph 1(b) of decision 123 directs the Executive Secretary to transfer and process in E4 as Kuwaiti company claims those stand alone claims for which the individual claimant has been found by the D Panels to have authority to file a claim on behalf of the company ( authority to act ).

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