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

2,404 chars

the complaint, these appeals, and the uncertainty they
         created surrounding Confirmit’s ownership, caused
         Confirmit to lose market share and ‘‘significantly con-
         tributed to reduced [bids] that . . . potential purchas-
         ers submitted during the sales process . . . .’’
            The complaint further alleges that, in September, 2017,
         Erik ‘‘requested that the execution lien be removed from
         the Confirmit shares in the VPS registry, the central
         securities repository in Norway,’’ even though such
         removal was unlawful. According to the complaint,
         ‘‘[Erik’s] request lacked any legitimate basis, and . . .
         was made in coordination with Alexander . . . in fur-
         therance of the long-running scheme to obstruct [the
         plaintiff’s] ability to recover on the English judgment.’’
         The complaint further alleges that, on January 27, 2020,
         ‘‘the Oslo Enforcement Court rejected [Erik’s] plea to
         stop the Confirmit sale [based on the 2017] removal of
         the execution lien from the VPS registry. Noting that
         ‘only the enforcement office may instruct a VPS account
         operator to delete a registered execution lien,’ the Oslo
         enforcement court held that ‘the application made [in]
         September, 2017, by [Erik] for deletion of the execution
         lien was unlawful.’ ’’
           Another tactic allegedly utilized by Alexander to dis-
         rupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with the sale of
         the Confirmit shares was to stack Confirmit’s board of
         directors with Vik family members and close associates.
         According to the complaint, the plaintiff, fearful that
         the newly configured board would deplete Confirmit’s
         assets, filed a petition for a preliminary injunction seek-
         ing to have the Viks and their associates removed from
         the board. On March 30, 2017, the Oslo Enforcement
         Court granted the petition. In doing so, the court
         expressed concern that allowing the Viks or their asso-
         ciates to remain on Confirmit’s board increased the risk
         that ‘‘ ‘bad faith transactions may be implemented [by
         them] that reduce the value of the [company].’ ’’ The
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 7

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text