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

3,437 chars

See, e.g., Fiondella v. Meriden, 186 Conn. App. 552,
562–63, 200 A.3d 196 (2018) (litigation privilege was
inapplicable to ‘‘allegations . . . not predicated on
statements made during the course of litigation, but
[that were] based on the defendants’ intentional con-
duct that did not occur during a judicial proceeding’’),
cert. denied, 330 Conn. 961, 199 A.3d 20 (2019).
Turning to the litigation-related allegations, we note
as a threshold matter that all of the allegations underly-
ing the plaintiff’s claims concern legal challenges advanc-
ed either by Erik or Caroline.5 With respect to Erik’s
legal challenges, which constitute the majority of the
judicial proceedings referenced in the complaint,6 it
liable for the improper use of the courts. See MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti,
supra, 310 Conn. 629–31. We disagree that this portion of the defendants’
brief supports their argument that the extrajudicial conduct at issue in the
present case is covered by the privilege under an ‘‘inextricably intertwined’’
theory. Certainly, this court has not applied such a theory to deprive parties
of their day in court, and the authority the defendants rely on does not
suggest otherwise.
5
The ‘‘background’’ section of the plaintiff’s complaint includes six para-
graphs describing the 2013 English action that resulted in the English judg-
ment, which is the judgment the plaintiff sought to enforce in Norway
beginning around 2016. Those six paragraphs contain eight subparagraphs
detailing the English court’s ‘‘various factual findings concerning [Alexan-
der’s] wrongful conduct, including that he had lied under oath, fabricated
evidence, and instructed SHI’s lawyers to pursue contrived arguments to
support its case.’’ The present action, however, is not predicated on the
English court’s findings; nor does it seek to impose liability on the defendants
for anything that transpired in that case. Instead, it seeks to impose liability
on the basis of events that occurred between 2016 and 2020 relating to the
plaintiff’s effort to enforce the English judgment in Norway. Although the
background concerning the English action may be relevant to the present
case, that background does not implicate the litigation privilege.
6
Paragraphs 58, 65 through 73, 85, and 95 through 98 of the complaint
all reference legal challenges undertaken by Erik between 2016 and 2020.
As the Appellate Court noted, ‘‘many, if not the majority, of the plaintiff’s
allegations alleging frivolous or meritless litigation [tactics] arise out of
[actions] commenced by the plaintiff itself. The complained of litigation
primarily concerns [Erik’s] conduct in defense of those [actions] and the
prosecution of appeals.’’ Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 214 Conn. App.
505 n.7.
We note that the complaint also alludes to two additional appeals taken
by SHI, in 2016 and 2017, related to the Oslo Enforcement Court’s recognition
Page 24 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL May 28, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text