## Facts

- W. Jack Buckamier, a U.S. national, filed a claim before the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal against Iran and several Iranian entities, including Tehran Redevelopment Corporation (TRC), Isiran/Army (Isiran), and Bank Mellat (Hejrat Branch, formerly Iran-Arab Bank).
- Buckamier asserted claims both in his personal capacity and in connection with an Iranian non-commercial firm, HNB Industrial and Educational Consultants (HNB), which he alleged he largely owned and through which he conducted business in Iran.
- HNB was involved in designing and installing trash- and materials-handling systems and entered into major projects in Iran before the 1979 revolution, including:
  - a TRC contract for a trash-handling system at the Ekbatan Housing Project involving the supply and installation of trash compactors;
  - an Isiran contract for manufacturing and installing storage racks and bins in multiple military warehouses; and
  - a contract awarded by G.K.I.-Mobag (a general contractor for a Military Industries Organization project) for the supply and installation of trash compactors.
- Buckamier alleged that Iran and state-related entities interfered with or prevented HNB’s performance of these contracts during the revolutionary period, causing him losses that he framed as expropriation of his interest in HNB and, alternatively, as contract-based damages.
- He also advanced additional monetary claims, including unrecovered funds he said he lent to HNB, losses connected to the retention of imported equipment by the Customs Agency, and claimed lost profits from prospective contracts that allegedly did not materialize.
- A central component of the case was Buckamier’s allegation that Bank Mellat failed to execute a transfer of his funds to the United States; the Bank disputed that any such deposit or transfer instruction was proven.
- During the proceedings, Buckamier stated he would establish the existence of the deposit through oral testimony, and later submitted an affidavit asserting that records supporting the deposit were seized or left behind when he fled Iran amid unrest.
- Iran denied liability for expropriation and breach and raised counterclaims (including claims tied to advances and alleged delay damages connected to contract performance).

## Issues

1. Whether Buckamier proved that he had deposited funds with Bank Mellat for transfer abroad, such that the Bank was liable for failing to execute the transfer.
2. Whether the conduct complained of by Buckamier—occurring during the revolutionary upheaval—amounted to an expropriation of his rights or interests in HNB, as opposed to non-compensable disruption or ordinary commercial disputes.
3. Whether Buckamier established, with sufficient evidence, fundamental breach or other contract-based liability by TRC, Isiran, or related entities, including claims framed as denial of access to work sites or prevention of performance.
4. Whether Buckamier could recover personally for losses asserted in connection with HNB’s contracts, and to what extent the Tribunal would treat the claims as those of the individual claimant versus those of the Iranian entity.
5. Whether claimed lost profits (on existing or prospective contracts) were proven with reasonable certainty, including causation and quantum.
6. Whether Iran and the respondent entities established their counterclaims, and what set-off (if any) was warranted.

## Decision

- The Tribunal rejected Buckamier’s claim against Bank Mellat based on the alleged transfer, concluding that he did not meet his burden to prove the existence and amount of the underlying deposit or an enforceable obligation to transfer, and that an affidavit and uncorroborated assertions were not enough.
- The Tribunal did not accept Buckamier’s expropriation theory as presented and treated the dispute primarily through the lens of commercial and contract-related analysis, requiring proof of specific state-attributable measures and a defined deprivation of property rights.
- On claims for substantial lost profits, the Tribunal found the evidentiary record insufficient and declined to award profits that were speculative or not tied to concrete proof of breach, causation, and reasonably certain calculation.
- In addressing the contractual narratives (including the TRC contract), the Tribunal was not persuaded that the record showed a fundamental breach in the manner claimed; it viewed many of the performance problems as stemming from the general conditions of the Iranian revolution rather than identified wrongful conduct meeting the legal threshold for the damages sought.
- The Tribunal addressed counterclaims and allowed only those elements supported by adequate proof, applying set-off principles where appropriate rather than accepting large unsupported sums.

## Legal Principles

- The claimant bears the burden to prove the existence of the right asserted and the amount of compensation sought; substantial monetary claims require reliable supporting evidence, not merely unilateral statements.
- An affidavit may explain the absence of documents (including in revolutionary conditions), but it does not, by itself, establish the existence of a bank deposit or other monetary entitlement where the opposing party contests the underlying fact.
- Expropriation requires more than commercial frustration or generalized turmoil; the claimant must show a state-attributable measure that substantially deprives the claimant of identifiable property rights.
- Contract damages—especially lost profits—must be proven with reasonable certainty as to breach, causation, and quantum; expected gains and projections, including from prospective contracts, are generally not recoverable without concrete support.
- The Tribunal distinguishes between disruptions caused by broad political events and actionable breaches or takings; adverse conditions affecting performance do not automatically create state liability.
- Counterclaims and set-offs are assessed under the same evidentiary standards as claims, and only substantiated amounts may reduce or defeat recovery.

## Conclusion

In Award No. 528-941-3, the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal rejected most of Buckamier’s demands, including his claim that Bank Mellat failed to transfer his funds, because he did not prove the alleged deposit with sufficient corroboration, and it declined to treat revolutionary disruption as proof of expropriation or fundamental breach warranting large lost-profit awards, allowing only those positions (including counterclaims) supported by adequate evidence.


Buckamier v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 528-941-3 (1992)