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

2,290 chars

der’s bid, which was ‘‘exponentially higher than [Con-
       firmit’s] estimated value,’’ was ‘‘not a serious [bid]
       . . . .’’
          The complaint further alleges that ABG informed
       Alexander that ‘‘[t]he situation with Xcelera . . . as a
       potential buyer . . . [when] the validity of the sales
       process is being challenged by legal persons and individ-
       uals associated with [that company], requires certain
       specific procedures to be complied with and measures
       to be taken in order to ensure [the integrity of the sales
       process].’’ (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Con-
       cerned that Xcelera was controlled by Alexander, ABG
       requested that he provide information regarding Xcel-
       era’s ownership structure, board members, employees,
       and proof that it had sufficient funds to purchase the
       Confirmit shares. ABG also sought confirmation that
       Xcelera, SHI, and Alexander would not challenge the
       legality of the sales process. According to the complaint,
       no such information or assurances were forthcoming
       from Alexander. Instead, Alexander responded to
       ABG’s request for information by asking ABG how it
       intended to ‘‘deal . . . with the rights of first refusal
       that exist [in connection with] the Confirmit shares.’’
       (Internal quotation marks omitted.)
          The complaint finally alleges that, ‘‘[f]ollowing their
       repeated attempts to disrupt and otherwise interfere
       with the Confirmit sale process, the defendants suc-
       ceeded in driving down both the indicative bids and
       final sale price for [the company].’’ Specifically, the
       complaint alleges that, ‘‘[a]s a direct result of the defen-
       dants’ misconduct, the value of Confirmit, which was
       originally projected to be between $100 . . . and $150
       million, fell to only $65 million, reducing the amount
       of debt that [the plaintiff] was able to recover by tens
       of millions of dollars.’’ According to the complaint, Ver-
       dane, a European capital fund that ultimately purchased
       the Confirmit shares, ‘‘sent ABG a letter [on December
Page 10                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                      0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text