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

2,451 chars

v. Vik, 214 Conn. App. 487, 511, 281 A.3d 12 (2022).
We granted the plaintiff’s petition for certification to
appeal, limited to the issue of whether the Appellate
Court correctly determined that the plaintiff’s com-
plaint was barred by the litigation privilege. See
Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 345 Conn. 964, 964–65, 285
A.3d 388 (2022). During oral argument before this court,
the defendants argued that this case was rendered moot
by our decision in Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Hold-
ings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 564, which we issued after
the parties had filed their briefs in this case. We con-
clude that the case is not moot and that the plaintiff’s
complaint is not barred by the litigation privilege.
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the Appel-
late Court.
The plaintiff’s complaint alleges the following rele-
vant facts.3 ‘‘Since 2013, [the plaintiff] has vigorously
sought to collect [the English] judgment debt by under-
taking a global enforcement effort, which include[d]
filing actions in Connecticut, New York, Delaware,
Pennsylvania, the United Kingdom, and Norway. At all
times, SHI has claimed that it lacks sufficient assets to
satisfy the English judgment. . . .
‘‘This action concerns one such asset: shares in a
Norwegian software company, Confirmit AS (Confirmit).
In 2008, [Alexander] wrongfully caused SHI to transfer
the shares in Confirmit to his personal account in order
to keep those shares beyond [the plaintiff’s] reach. . . .
[With respect to] the English judgment, the . . . court
found that the shares of Confirmit were one portion of
the approximately $1 billion of assets that [Alexander]
drained from SHI to avoid paying [the plaintiff] amounts
owed. . . . In 2015, [Alexander] again purported to
3
‘‘Because . . . we review the trial court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss,
we take the facts to be those alleged in the complaint, construing them in
a manner most favorable to the pleader.’’ Beecher v. Mohegan Tribe of
Indians of Connecticut, 282 Conn. 130, 132, 918 A.2d 880 (2007).
May 28, 2024 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text