Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)

Citation: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Parent Document: Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120 (2024)
Jurisdiction: Connecticut (state)
Effective Date: 2024-05-28
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10131755/deutsche-bank-ag-v-vik/ ↗

Full Text

3,374 chars

The plaintiff bank sought to recover damages from the defendants, A and
            his daughter, C, for, inter alia, their allegedly tortious interference with
            a business expectancy in connection with the plaintiff’s efforts to collect
            an approximately $243 million foreign judgment that it had obtained
            against S Co., which the plaintiff claimed was a shell company controlled
            by A. The plaintiff previously had brought an action in which it sought
            to pierce S Co.’s corporate veil and to hold A jointly and severally liable
            for the foreign judgment. While that case was pending, the plaintiff
            commenced the present action, alleging, inter alia, that the defendants
            had attempted to interfere with a Norwegian court’s order requiring the
            sale of S Co.’s shares in a Norwegian software company, N Co., to
            partially satisfy the foreign judgment. In its complaint, the plaintiff
            alleged that, beginning in 2016, the defendants had utilized various tactics
            to disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with the court-ordered sale
            of S. Co.’s shares in N Co., including having A’s father, E, file numerous
            appeals challenging the Norwegian court’s order and unlawfully request
            that the plaintiff’s execution lien on the shares be removed from Nor-
            way’s central securities depository to disrupt the sales process. The
            plaintiff also alleged that A had installed family members and close
            associates on N Co.’s board of directors to facilitate a plan to deplete
            N Co.’s assets and that A had submitted a fraudulent bid to purchase
            N Co. Moreover, the plaintiff alleged that A had forged a document
            purporting to grant C an irrevocable right of first refusal to purchase
            N Co., that C then invoked that purported right in an attempt to disrupt
            or halt the sale, and that A had directed C to file actions in a federal
            district court and in a Norwegian court in an attempt to enforce the
            fraudulent right of first refusal and to enjoin the sale of N Co. The plaintiff
            asserted that the defendants’ conduct depressed both the indicative bids
            to purchase and the final sale price of S Co.’s shares in N Co. The
            defendants filed a motion to dismiss the present action for lack of
            subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that the plaintiff’s claims were
            barred by the litigation privilege because they were based on communi-
            cations made and actions taken in prior judicial proceedings. The trial
            court denied the motion to dismiss, and the defendants filed an interlocu-
            tory appeal with the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s
            decision and remanded with direction to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint
            in its entirety. On the granting of certification, the plaintiff appealed to
            this court. After the parties filed their briefs in the present appeal, this
            court issued its decision in Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings,
May 28, 2024                      CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                                      Page 3

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text