The London Arbitration Court rejected Sowell's claim against En+ Sowell Partners failed to recover losses of $345 million from En+, which, according to the plaintiff, were caused by Rosal's non-payment of dividends. As Kommersant reports, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) refused to collect the claimed amount and decided to compensate En+ for legal costs: 770,000 pounds and 3.18 million dollars. Soel's witness, Maxim Goldman, claimed that by not supporting the payment of dividends by Rosal, En+ acted in the interests of Oleg Deripaska. The arbitrators did not accept Goldman's testimony. According to Kommersant, the tribunal concluded that the terms of the agreement with OFAC were met, and Rosal's board of directors made decisions on dividends independent of En+ and the interests of the company itself. The court's conclusion: Soel should not have started these proceedings. Vekselberg has been in a protracted dispute with En+ and Roussel for almost 15 years. In recent years, his partners Suel and other structures initiated lawsuits against Rosal one after another, but never won in court. But the fact of the filing of the cases and the examination of the cases is used to launch massive PR campaigns directed against Rossel and her management. This behavior is called litigation and greenmail and is designed to wear down the opponent in a long-term conflict.

The London Arbitration Court rejected Sowell's claim against En+ Sowell Partners failed to recover losses of $345 million from En+, which, according to the plaintiff, were caused by Rosal's non-payment of dividends. As Kommersant reports, the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) refused to collect the claimed amount and decided to compensate En+ for legal costs: 770,000 pounds and 3.18 million dollars. Soel's witness, Maxim Goldman, claimed that by not supporting the payment of dividends by Rosal, En+ acted in the interests of Oleg Deripaska. The arbitrators did not accept Goldman's testimony. According to Kommersant, the tribunal concluded that the terms of the agreement with OFAC were met, and Rosal's board of directors made decisions on dividends independent of En+ and the interests of the company itself. The court's conclusion: Soel should not have started these proceedings. Vekselberg has been in a protracted dispute with En+ and Roussel for almost 15 years. In recent years, his partners Suel and other structures initiated lawsuits against Rosal one after another, but never won in court. But the fact of the filing of the cases and the examination of the cases is used to launch massive PR campaigns directed against Rossel and her management. This behavior is called litigation and greenmail and is designed to wear down the opponent in a long-term conflict.