Interrelated contracts and multiple claimants. The purported investments were all substantially derived from the contracts. The Inmaris Companies brought proceedings jointly and presented claims on behalf of all of them arising out of the interrelated contracts. The tribunal found that there was an investment in the transaction as a whole. It was not necessary to consider whether each component part of the overall transaction would satisfy the requirements of the BIT. The question was whether the arrangements could properly be considered to be "part of an integrated, unitary operation that comprises an investment over which the tribunal has jurisdiction". On the facts, the tribunal held that this requirement was satisfied.

Did payments made by the Inmaris Companies to the Ukraine constitute investments for the purposes of grounding jurisdiction? The tribunal concluded that it was necessary to identify an "asset" which constituted an investment protected by the BIT. The payment streams under the contracts did not necessarily constitute an investment for the purposes of founding jurisdiction. The investment was the asset acquired by the investor, typically as a result of such payments, and it could be tangible or intangible, such as a claim to money or claim to performance, as was the case here.

Were the alleged investments undertaken or invested in the territory of the Ukraine? Whether the BIT was treated as including a territoriality requirement as an overarching jurisdictional limit, or as including territorial limits among the elements of substantive protections underlying the claims, it was necessary to examine the territorial nexus of the Inmaris Companies' investments. The tribunal concluded on the facts that the investments met the former more exacting standard and, therefore, it did not need to decide the exact nature of the BIT's territorial requirement.