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

2,320 chars

transfer those same shares, this time to his father, Erik
       Martin Vik [Erik], while the shares were the subject of
       litigation with [the plaintiff].’’
          The complaint alleges that, on April 13, 2016, the Oslo
       Court of Probate, Bankruptcy, and Enforcement (Oslo
       Enforcement Court) issued a decision declaring the
       English judgment to be an enforceable judgment in
       Norway. On April 26, 2016, the Oslo Enforcement Court
       granted the plaintiff’s petition to execute a lien on the
       Confirmit shares. On December 21, 2016, following a
       trial, the Oslo Enforcement Court confirmed the validity
       of the plaintiff’s execution lien and invalidated Alexan-
       der’s transfer of the shares to himself in 2008 and to
       his father in 2015. As a result, the shares reverted to
       SHI and were thus subject to enforcement. Two years
       later, on May 24, 2019, the Supreme Court of Norway
       affirmed the Oslo Enforcement Court’s ruling. On June
       12, 2019, the enforcement officer issued a decision to
       commence the sale of the Confirmit shares and to
       appoint ABG Sundal Collier ASA (ABG) to oversee the
       sale. In June, 2019, as part of the sales process, ABG
       assessed the shares and determined their value to be
       between $100 and $150 million. During the first phase
       of the sale, ABG ‘‘communicated with approximately
       [seventy-two] potential buyers. By October, 2019, ten
       interested parties submitted indicative bids for the
       [shares]. In November, 2019, during the second phase of
       the sales process, two companies submitted final bids.’’
         The complaint alleges that, as soon as the plaintiff
       obtained its execution lien in 2016, Alexander, operating
       through various Vik related entities and family mem-
       bers, engaged ‘‘in a series of vindictive maneuvers’’
       intended to disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with
       the sale. Specifically, after the Oslo Enforcement Court
       ruled that SHI was the true owner of the shares, Erik,
       at the behest of Alexander, filed numerous baseless
       appeals challenging that determination. According to
Page 6                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text