Their concerns were misplaced and the outcome lawsuits against the Australian government (they won every time) show how ridiculous the scare campaign about ISDS was.
Not really, the Australian govt's ISDS case wins were largely because the tobacco companies were found to have little business standing to launch their cases from the (few) jurisdictions with who Australia has ISDS-ful treaties. The Phillip Morris case, launched from venue-shopped Hong Kong is an example - the arbitration tribunal refused to hear the case for this reason: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/dec/18/austr...
The TPP would drastically increase the number of nations with reciprocal ISDS agreements. In particular it would have included the US, where many/most of the the tobacco companies are domiciled.
Why the TPP would probably have not included retrospectivity, it could have frustrated any future efforts.
I certainly think the concerns were misplaced, but wasn't the Phillip Morris case dismissed because they were found to have a lack of standing, having reincorporated in Hong Kong specifically to make use of the ISDS provision? While I can't see how the tobacco companies could prevail in any case, history has yet to furnish us with a proper example.
You are correct about the HK case. However there weren't many observers who though Phillip Morris stood a chance. The lawsuit was much more about signalling to other countries considering plain packaging than actually overturning the laws in Australia. There is still a pending WTO arbitration which is also expected to be decided in Australia's favour.
The TPP would drastically increase the number of nations with reciprocal ISDS agreements. In particular it would have included the US, where many/most of the the tobacco companies are domiciled.
Why the TPP would probably have not included retrospectivity, it could have frustrated any future efforts.