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

2,429 chars

plish a purpose for which they were not designed,
         namely, to further the aforementioned conspiracy; and
         (4) the plaintiff was not a party to Caroline’s actions,
         and, therefore, the remedies generally available to deter
         misconduct of this nature are either unavailable to the
         plaintiff or are inadequate to address the full range and
         impact of the alleged misconduct. We agree with the
         plaintiff that, under the circumstances of this case,
         affording Caroline absolute immunity with respect to
         the allegations related to her actions is unwarranted.
            We begin our analysis by noting that, even if we were
         to conclude that the allegations at issue are covered by
         the litigation privilege such that the plaintiff is pre-
         cluded from using them against Caroline, Caroline
         would gain little from that determination. This is so
         because the other allegations concerning the fraudulent
         ROFR nevertheless remain in the case, including Caro-
         line’s alleged efforts to pass the document off to ABG
         as genuine. Indeed, even if the complaint were stripped
         of all references to Caroline’s actions, the plaintiff’s
         claims against the defendants would remain virtually
         unchanged, a fact that only underscores the actions’
         lack of centrality to the plaintiff’s claims. It is also
         clear from the complaint that the plaintiff is not seeking
         redress for any statements Caroline made in the actions
         but, rather, seeks to hold her accountable for her role
         in an extrajudicial plot to interfere with the sale of the
         Confirmit shares through a variety of allegedly dishon-
         est means, including the commencement of two actions
         when ABG refused to honor the fraudulent ROFR.
         Indeed, if ABG had honored the ROFR, Caroline would
         have had no reason to file the two actions. Under this
         alternative scenario, however, the plaintiff’s action
         would have proceeded almost unchanged.
            In this way, the present case is readily distinguishable
         from past cases in which we have held that the litigation
         privilege barred a plaintiff’s claims; in those cases, the
Page 28                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                 May 28, 2024

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text