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

2,303 chars

court further stated that ‘‘ ‘Alexander . . . has systemi-
       cally sought to withhold funds from service in payment
       of creditors by transferring assets’ ’’ and that it ‘‘ ‘must
       also be concluded that [his] family members and busi-
       ness advisers will act in accordance with [his] wishes.’ ’’
       (Emphasis omitted.)
          The complaint alleges that the plaintiff’s fears regard-
       ing Alexander’s stacking of Confirmit’s board were real-
       ized in November, 2019, when Caroline, midway
       through the bidding process for the Confirmit shares,
       sought to invoke her rights under a ‘‘sham’’ agreement
       between her and SHI purporting to grant her an irrevo-
       cable right of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase 100 per-
       cent of Confirmit’s shares. According to the complaint,
       SHI and Caroline ‘‘reached this purported agreement
       on the very same day [that the plaintiff] petitioned . . .
       to replace Confirmit’s board . . . .’’ ‘‘As further evi-
       dence of fraud, the existence of the purported ROFR
       was not disclosed until July, 2019, in the midst of negoti-
       ations to sell [the] Confirmit [shares] and despite SHI’s
       obligations to produce or disclose [any] such [agree-
       ment] in the course of various ongoing [litigation]
       between SHI and [the plaintiff].’’
          The complaint alleges that, on November 1, 2019,
       Caroline ‘‘provided ABG with a copy of the fraudulent
       ROFR . . . and requested information about [all]
       offers [to purchase the Confirmit shares, which] she
       claimed to be entitled to under the [agreement].’’
       According to the complaint, after ABG informed Caro-
       line ‘‘that, pursuant to Norwegian law, it could not con-
       sider the ROFR . . . in connection with the sale of
       [the] Confirmit [shares] because the . . . agreement
       was dated after [the plaintiff] . . . register[ed] its exe-
       cution lien,’’ Caroline commenced an action against
       ABG in the United States District Court for the District
       of Connecticut (Connecticut District Court action)
       seeking to enforce the fraudulent ROFR and to enjoin
Page 8                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text