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

2,394 chars

transfer those same shares, this time to his father, Erik
         Martin Vik [Erik], while the shares were the subject of
         litigation with [the plaintiff].’’
            The complaint alleges that, on April 13, 2016, the Oslo
         Court of Probate, Bankruptcy, and Enforcement (Oslo
         Enforcement Court) issued a decision declaring the
         English judgment to be an enforceable judgment in
         Norway. On April 26, 2016, the Oslo Enforcement Court
         granted the plaintiff’s petition to execute a lien on the
         Confirmit shares. On December 21, 2016, following a
         trial, the Oslo Enforcement Court confirmed the validity
         of the plaintiff’s execution lien and invalidated Alexan-
         der’s transfer of the shares to himself in 2008 and to
         his father in 2015. As a result, the shares reverted to
         SHI and were thus subject to enforcement. Two years
         later, on May 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of Norway
         affirmed the Oslo Enforcement Court’s ruling. On June
         12, 2019, the enforcement officer issued a decision to
         commence the sale of the Confirmit shares and to
         appoint ABG Sundal Collier ASA (ABG) to oversee the
         sale. In June, 2019, as part of the sales process, ABG
         assessed the shares and determined their value to be
         between $100 and $150 million. During the first phase
         of the sale, ABG ‘‘communicated with approximately
         [seventy-two] potential buyers. By October, 2019, ten
         interested parties submitted indicative bids for the
         [shares]. In November, 2019, during the second phase of
         the sales process, two companies submitted final bids.’’
           The complaint alleges that, as soon as the plaintiff
         obtained its execution lien in 2016, Alexander, operating
         through various Vik related entities and family mem-
         bers, engaged ‘‘in a series of vindictive maneuvers’’
         intended to disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with
         the sale. Specifically, after the Oslo Enforcement Court
         ruled that SHI was the true owner of the shares, Erik,
         at the behest of Alexander, filed numerous baseless
         appeals challenging that determination. According to
Page 8                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                 May 28, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text