As courts worldwide continue to rule against them, experts say the failed $14.9 billion claim against Malaysia might end up costing the claimants more than they ever hoped to gain.

"They went in thinking they were the predators, but now they're looking like the prey," says a senior international law expert, speaking on condition of anonymity. Malaysia's recent shift from defense to offense has flipped the script dramatically.

In a bold June 2023 statement, Malaysia's Minister Azalina dropped a bombshell: the government wouldn't rule out suing the Sulu group for damages. It wasn't an idle threat.

The Terror Connection

In an unexpected twist, at least one purported heir has been listed as a terrorist for alleged connections to the armed group behind the 2013 Lahad Datu incursion. This development has complicated their legal standing in international courts.

"It's hard to pursue a legitimate claim when questions about terrorism connections keep popping up," notes a European security analyst. "Courts take these allegations very seriously."

Doors Slamming Shut

The setbacks have been relentless. First the Paris courts annulled attempts to seize diplomatic buildings, then the Dutch courts blocked asset grabs, right after that the Luxembourg courts rejected Petronas seizures, only to have the French Supreme Court dismissed their final appeal right after. "It's like watching all your escape routes disappear one by one," says a legal observer tracking the case.

Just when things couldn't get worse, Spanish courts delivered another blow. The conviction of their chosen arbitrator, Dr. Gonzalo Stampa, didn't just derail their arbitration – it raised serious questions about their entire legal strategy.

"Getting your arbitrator convicted of contempt? That's not just losing the game, that's knocking over the whole chess board," quips one international arbitration expert.

Money Problems Mount

Sources close to the case suggest the claimants' legal bills are skyrocketing: multiple failed court actions across Europe; mounting adverse cost orders, legal team expenses in various jurisdictions, expert witness fees, administrative costs. And now, they might face countersuits.

Beyond the financial hit, the case has damaged the claimants' credibility. "Every court rejection adds to a growing perception that this was a frivolous claim," says an expert in international dispute resolution.

Even their latest ICSID claim against Spain is being viewed skeptically. "It looks more like desperation than legal strategy," notes one observer.

Malaysia isn't just winning – it's preparing to hit back. Legal teams are reportedly assembling damage claims that could put the claimants in an even deeper hole.

"Malaysia's message is clear," says a regional political analyst. "If you try to abuse our legal system, be prepared to pay the price."

Family Feuds Surface

The pressure has exposed cracks within the claimant group. Sources report growing tensions over strategy and mounting costs.

"Some family members are starting to question whether this was worth it," reveals an insider close to the claimants. "They didn't sign up for a global legal circus."

Even their financial backers are feeling the heat. Litigation funder Therium Capital Management faces scrutiny over its due diligence process, and industry sources suggest other funders are distancing themselves from similar historical claims.

Looking Ahead

As the dust settles, experts predict more troubles ahead for the claimants, besides the potential countersuit damages and the mounting legal costs. "They might have been better off accepting the original annual payments," muses one legal veteran. "Sometimes the bigger you grab, the more you lose."

While the exact cost to the claimants remains unknown, one thing is clear: their billion-dollar dream has become a financial and legal nightmare.

As one diplomatic source puts it: "They went searching for Spanish gold but might end up paying Spanish court costs instead."

For Malaysia and Spain, these developments strengthen their position. Each failed attempt by the claimants adds to a growing body of precedent supporting their defense.

"In the end," concludes a senior legal analyst, "this case might be remembered not for what the claimants tried to win, but for how much they stood to lose."