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

2,365 chars

der’s bid, which was ‘‘exponentially higher than [Con-
         firmit’s] estimated value,’’ was ‘‘not a serious [bid]
         . . . .’’
            The complaint further alleges that ABG informed
         Alexander that ‘‘[t]he situation with Xcelera . . . as a
         potential buyer . . . [when] the validity of the sales
         process is being challenged by legal persons and individ-
         uals associated with [that company], requires certain
         specific procedures to be complied with and measures
         to be taken in order to ensure [the integrity of the sales
         process].’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Con-
         cerned that Xcelera was controlled by Alexander, ABG
         requested that he provide information regarding Xcel-
         era’s ownership structure, board members, employees,
         and proof that it had sufficient funds to purchase the
         Confirmit shares. ABG also sought confirmation that
         Xcelera, SHI, and Alexander would not challenge the
         legality of the sales process. According to the complaint,
         no such information or assurances were forthcoming
         from Alexander. Instead, Alexander responded to
         ABG’s request for information by asking ABG how it
         intended to ‘‘deal . . . with the rights of first refusal
         that exist [in connection with] the Confirmit shares.’’
         (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
            The complaint finally alleges that, ‘‘[f]ollowing their
         repeated attempts to disrupt and otherwise interfere
         with the Confirmit sale process, the defendants suc-
         ceeded in driving down both the indicative bids and
         final sale price for [the company].’’ Specifically, the
         complaint alleges that, ‘‘[a]s a direct result of the defen-
         dants’ misconduct, the value of Confirmit, which was
         originally projected to be between $100 . . . and $150
         million, fell to only $65 million, reducing the amount
         of debt that [the plaintiff] was able to recover by tens
         of millions of dollars.’’ According to the complaint, Ver-
         dane, a European capital fund that ultimately purchased
         the Confirmit shares, ‘‘sent ABG a letter [on December
Page 12                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                 May 28, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text