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

2,379 chars

court further stated that ‘‘ ‘Alexander . . . has systemi-
         cally sought to withhold funds from service in payment
         of creditors by transferring assets’ ’’ and that it ‘‘ ‘must
         also be concluded that [his] family members and busi-
         ness advisers will act in accordance with [his] wishes.’ ’’
         (Emphasis omitted.)
            The complaint alleges that the plaintiff’s fears regard-
         ing Alexander’s stacking of Confirmit’s board were real-
         ized in November, 2019, when Caroline, midway
         through the bidding process for the Confirmit shares,
         sought to invoke her rights under a ‘‘sham’’ agreement
         between her and SHI purporting to grant her an irrevo-
         cable right of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase 100 per-
         cent of Confirmit’s shares. According to the complaint,
         SHI and Caroline ‘‘reached this purported agreement
         on the very same day [that the plaintiff] petitioned . . .
         to replace Confirmit’s board . . . .’’ ‘‘As further evi-
         dence of fraud, the existence of the purported ROFR
         was not disclosed until July, 2019, in the midst of negoti-
         ations to sell [the] Confirmit [shares] and despite SHI’s
         obligations to produce or disclose [any] such [agree-
         ment] in the course of various ongoing [litigation]
         between SHI and [the plaintiff].’’
            The complaint alleges that, on November 1, 2019,
         Caroline ‘‘provided ABG with a copy of the fraudulent
         ROFR . . . and requested information about [all]
         offers [to purchase the Confirmit shares, which] she
         claimed to be entitled to under the [agreement].’’
         According to the complaint, after ABG informed Caro-
         line ‘‘that, pursuant to Norwegian law, it could not con-
         sider the ROFR . . . in connection with the sale of
         [the] Confirmit [shares] because the . . . agreement
         was dated after [the plaintiff] . . . register[ed] its exe-
         cution lien,’’ Caroline commenced an action against
         ABG in the United States District Court for the District
         of Connecticut (Connecticut District Court action)
         seeking to enforce the fraudulent ROFR and to enjoin
Page 10                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                 May 28, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text