In an important ruling involving Swiss asset-freeze laws and settlement agreements, the Cantonal Court of Vaud (Switzerland) rejected an appeal by Interlink Metals and Chemicals SA (“Interlink”) and upheld a lower court decision canceling a temporary asset freeze against PJSC VSMPO-AVISMA Corporation (“VSMPO”).
The March 6, 2026, ruling, which was formally issued on March 9–10, involved approximately CHF 20.3 million (about USD $22.7 million) in assets that Interlink had attempted to freeze. The decision highlights the standards Swiss courts use when deciding whether to approve or maintain asset freezes, especially in disputes where the parties had previously signed broad settlement agreements releasing each other from future claims.
Background and the 2020 Settlement Agreement
VSMPO, headquartered in Verkhnyaya Salda, Russia, is a major producer of titanium products. Interlink, based in the Fribourg canton, Switzerland, markets metals and related products. Tirus International SA, a Swiss entity based in Mont-sur-Lausanne, previously acted as a distributor for VSMPO products.
The parties maintained a longstanding commercial relationship governed by several framework agreements, including a 2015 Long Term Sales Agreement and a 2016 Long Term Framework Agreement. Disputes arose in 2020, resulting in litigation, arbitration, and prior sequestration proceedings.
On September 30, 2020, VSMPO, Interlink, and Tirus entered into a Swiss law-governed Settlement Agreement intended to comprehensively resolve the disputes. The parties agreed to specified payments and to withdraw pending proceedings. Articles 8 and 9 included broad mutual releases covering all claims relating to prior contracts, pricing, performance, and related disputes, with the parties expressly agreeing to take “no issue whatsoever” with such matters.
The agreement also included provisions addressing future conduct. Clause 7.3 addressed “Criminal Allegations” connected to Russian investigations, while Clause 10 imposed confidentiality obligations.
The 2024 Sequestration Proceedings
In December 2024, Interlink sought a new sequestration order under Art. 271 para. 4 LP before the Justice of the Peace of the District of Lausanne. Interlink alleged that VSMPO had breached the 2020 Settlement Agreement by failing to prevent or halt Russian criminal proceedings involving consultant Igor Raykhelson and related publicity.
Interlink claimed damages totaling CHF 20,303,253 and sought attachment of alleged VSMPO-linked assets, including shares in Tirus International SA and claims allegedly held by VSMPO against Tirus.
The ex parte sequestration order was granted on December 20, 2024, subject to a CHF 100,000 security deposit.
VSMPO subsequently objected, arguing that the 2020 Settlement Agreement barred the claims and that Interlink had failed to establish either a plausible debt or attachable assets. Following a briefing and a May 2025 hearing, the Justice of the Peace revoked the sequestration order.
Interlink appealed.
The Cantonal Court’s Decision
The Cantonal Court affirmed the lower court’s ruling and dismissed the appeal.
Procedural Issues
The Court first rejected Interlink’s argument that VSMPO’s objection was untimely or abusive. Relying on Swiss Federal Supreme Court precedent, including ATF 135 III 232, the Court confirmed that the 10-day objection period under Art. 278(1) LP runs from the formal notification of the sequestration report to the debtor.
The Court also strictly applied Swiss procedural rules governing new evidence (“nova”). Several Russian criminal documents and translations submitted by Interlink were excluded because Interlink failed to show that they could not have been produced earlier through reasonable diligence.
Failure to Establish a Plausible Claim
The central issue was whether Interlink had made a sufficient prima facie showing of an enforceable claim under Art. 272 LP.
The Court concluded it had not.
Interlink’s damages theory relied on the difference between profits allegedly available under pre-2020 agreements and actual economic results under the post-settlement contracts executed in September 2020.
The Court held that this theory was incompatible with Swiss principles governing contractual damages. Even assuming a breach of Clause 7.3, proper performance of that clause would not have restored the parties’ earlier contractual arrangements or undone the Settlement Agreement itself. The parties would still have remained bound by the post-2020 contractual framework.
The Court further held that Interlink’s theory effectively attempted to recover economic value tied to claims and pricing disputes that had already been expressly waived under Articles 8 and 9 of the Settlement Agreement.
The decision also noted deficiencies regarding causation and proof of damages, including reliance on framework agreements without fixed quantities and Excel calculations lacking sufficient evidentiary support.
Assets in Switzerland
Although the Court found some indication of potential Swiss-based assets through Tirus-related connections, it held that this issue was ultimately immaterial because Interlink had failed to establish a plausible underlying claim.
Disposition
The Court: Dismissed the appeal insofar as admissible; confirmed revocation of the sequestration; ordered Interlink to pay CHF 3,000 in appellate court costs; and ordered Interlink to pay CHF 8,000 in appellate party costs.
The judgment was declared immediately enforceable.
Implications
The ruling highlights several recurring themes in Swiss commercial litigation and enforcement proceedings:
- Swiss courts are likely to enforce broad settlement releases according to their terms, particularly in sophisticated cross-border commercial agreements.
- Even in summary sequestration proceedings, Swiss courts require a legally coherent damages theory supported by plausible causation and evidentiary grounding.
- Procedural requirements concerning timeliness and admissibility of evidence are applied rigorously.
- While Switzerland remains an important forum for cross-border asset attachment, unsupported or speculative sequestration claims may expose applicants to substantial adverse cost awards.
VSMPO was represented by White & Case in Geneva. Wilk Auslander LLP represents VSMPO in the United States.
