In Nurhima Kiram Fornan and others v. Spain, an ICSID tribunal dismissed all claims brought by the heirs of the Sultan of Sulu against Spain under the 1993 Philippines-Spain BIT. The dispute arose from a prior ad hoc arbitration the Claimants had initiated against Malaysia based on an 1878 agreement. That arbitration, which resulted in a multi-billion dollar award against Malaysia, was initially seated in Madrid after the sole arbitrator, Gonzalo Stampa, was appointed by Spanish courts. The Claimants alleged that Spain subsequently breached the BIT through a series of judicial and executive actions, including the annulment of the arbitrator's appointment and his criminal prosecution, which they argued interfered with their investment. The Claimants defined their investment in Spain as the legal fees paid to Spanish lawyers to secure the arbitrator's appointment and their monetary interest in the resulting award against Malaysia. They claimed violations of fair and equitable treatment, full protection and security, and a denial of justice. In its award of November 6, 2025, the Tribunal upheld Spain's preliminary objection under ICSID Arbitration Rule 41, finding the claims to be manifestly without legal merit. The Tribunal concluded that it lacked jurisdiction because the Claimants had failed to establish the existence of a protected 'investment' in the territory of Spain, a prerequisite for the state's consent to arbitration under the BIT. The Tribunal reasoned that money spent on legal fees constituted an expense, not an asset or an investment. Furthermore, it found that the arbitral award against Malaysia, which concerned a historical lease of territory in Borneo and was ultimately rendered in France after the seat was moved, lacked the necessary territorial connection to Spain to qualify as an investment under the treaty. The Tribunal dismissed all claims on this basis and ordered the Claimants to pay Spain's costs for the arbitration.