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

2,421 chars

the sale of the Confirmit shares. On December 4, 2019,
          the District Court denied her application for a prelimi-
          nary injunction. Two days later, Caroline filed another
          petition, this time with the Oslo Enforcement Court,
          again seeking to enforce the ROFR. This petition also
          was denied. On February 11, 2020, the District Court
          issued an order to show cause why Caroline’s action
          should not be dismissed. In response, Caroline ‘‘volunta-
          rily dismissed’’ the Connecticut District Court action.
             According to the complaint, Caroline’s actions in
          Connecticut and Norway were ‘‘timed specifically to
          interfere with the forced sale of the Confirmit shares
          and the business expectations of [the plaintiff]. . . .
          The execution and attempted enforcement of [Caro-
          line’s] sham ROFR on which she based her requests for
          an injunction [were] for the sole purpose of interfering
          with the . . . sale . . . and had no proper purpose or
          justification.’’ The complaint alleges that, in a recent
          court filing in Norway, Hans Eirik Olav, SHI’s purported
          signatory on the ROFR, stated that he has no recollec-
          tion of ever entering into a ROFR agreement with Caro-
          line and that the document appears to him to be a
          forgery.
             Another tactic allegedly utilized by Alexander to dis-
          rupt, delay, or otherwise interfere with the sale of the
          Confirmit shares was the submission of a fraudulent
          bid to purchase the shares. The complaint alleges that,
          on October 18, 2019, ‘‘[a]fter ABG initiated the first
          phase of the Confirmit sale process, [Alexander] sub-
          mitted an ‘all-cash’ indicative bid to acquire the Con-
          firmit shares for $325 million. He did so . . . in an
          effort to disrupt the sale process, which he intentionally
          manipulated by submitting [the] false bid under the
          cover of yet another shell company,’’ Xcelera, Inc. (Xcel-
          era), a company Alexander knew ‘‘could never have
          realistically advanced [$325 million to purchase the
          Confirmit shares].’’ According to the complaint, Alexan-
May 28, 2024             CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text