not just being made whole after some action from a participant country inflicts a loss.
If Corporation X makes some investment that is severely damaged by some rules change from Country Y, I have no objection to Corporation X suing Country Y to recover the loss.
I do have a problem with Corporation X suing Country Y to recover the loss PLUS some arbitrary amount of future "expected profits" that cannot be proven because the profits have not yet been realized. That would especially be the case when such investment is very late in the development phase, i.e. much capital has been expended upon it, but has not yet generated revenue. The corporation should be able to recover what it expended on the project (including the cost of repaying any loans it took out to make the investment) plus legal costs, but NOT the revenue or profits that it had been expecting from it as the latter is impossible to prove. The latter is what TPP permits; it removes nearly all risk from foreign investment, and is one of the major objections to it (along with IP sticking points, expressly permitting"evergreening" patents to keep medicines expensive for longer, and so on).
Even worse is what happens when Corporation X makes an investment in Country Y and it just flops? Like say, Target in Canada to use an actual example? (That only lasted a couple years before Target withdrew because of low sales in Canada.) Would TPP then invite Corporation X's lawyers to troll for some minor legislative change that they could sue and try to pin their entire loss on, when the loss was really due to market forces and Country Y was not at fault? Patent trolling is already a thing in the US, and I could see similar "investment trolling" occurring under TPP's overly permissive rules towards protecting investments.