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

2,577 chars

ALEXANDER, J. The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG,
has spent the last decade attempting to collect from a
nonparty, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), an approxi-
mately $243 million foreign judgment (English judg-
ment)1 resulting from an unpaid margin call in 2008. In
Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346
Conn. 564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023), the plaintiff unsuccessfully
sought to pierce SHI’s corporate veil and to hold the
defendant Alexander Vik (Alexander) jointly and sever-
ally liable with SHI for the English judgment.2 Id., 568–
69. While that case was pending in the trial court, the
plaintiff commenced the present action against Alexan-
der and his daughter, the defendant Caroline Vik (Caro-
line), alleging tortious interference with business expect-
ancy and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade
Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et
seq., on the basis of the defendants’ alleged efforts to
interfere with the order of a Norwegian court requiring
the sale of SHI’s shares in a Norwegian software com-
pany in partial satisfaction of SHI’s debt to the plaintiff.
The defendants moved to dismiss the action, arguing
that it was barred by the litigation privilege. The trial
court denied the motion, and the defendants appealed
to the Appellate Court, which reversed the trial court’s
decision and directed the trial court to dismiss the plain-
tiff’s complaint in its entirety. See Deutsche Bank AG
1
‘‘The English judgment was rendered by the Queen’s Bench Division of
the High Court of Justice of England and Wales in an action brought by
[the plaintiff] against SHI . . . .’’ Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings,
Inc., 346 Conn. 564, 568 n.1, 294 A.3d 1 (2023).
2
The plaintiff’s complaint in the present case alleges that, ‘‘[d]uring the
period 1988 to 2015, [Alexander] owned 100 [percent] of the shares of SHI,
a corporation incorporated under the laws of the Turks and Caicos Islands
. . . . [Alexander] maintained sole ownership of . . . SHI . . . until
approximately 2015, at which time he gave SHI to an entity controlled by
Hans Eirik Olav, a personal friend and his ‘right-hand’ man for business
dealings in Norway, for no meaningful consideration.’’
Page 4 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL 0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text