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

2,425 chars

3, 2019] articulating its growing concerns about acquir-
          ing a company to which [Alexander] and related parties
          claimed rights. Specifically, Verdane noted that the pur-
          ported ROFR, the [Connecticut] District Court [action],
          and the unlawfully deleted registration of the execution
          lien all contributed to what [it] perceived to be an
          increased risk of acquiring Confirmit.’’ The final agreed
          on price when the sale finally closed on February 14,
          2020, was $65 million, which was $5 million less than
          Verdane’s final offer in November, 2019, and $35 million
          to $85 million less than the price ABG had placed on
          the shares in June, 2019.
             Following the sale of the Confirmit shares, the plain-
          tiff commenced the present action seeking damages for
          the defendants’ misconduct resulting in the depressed
          price of the shares. The two count complaint alleged
          claims for tortious interference with business expec-
          tancy and violations of CUPTA predicated on the defen-
          dants’ alleged efforts to interfere in various ways with
          sale of the Confirmit shares. The defendants responded
          by filing a motion to dismiss the action for lack of
          subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the plaintiff’s
          claims were barred by the litigation privilege because
          the claims were based on communications made and
          actions taken in prior judicial proceedings. The trial
          court disagreed and denied the motion. In so doing, the
          trial court observed that the litigation privilege affords
          absolute immunity for statements made in the context
          of judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, even if the
          statements were intentionally false or defamatory. The
          court further noted, however, that the privilege does
          not apply to claims alleging abuse of process, vexatious
          litigation, and malicious prosecution because those
          claims do not seek redress for statements made or
          conduct occurring during the course of a judicial pro-
          ceeding but, rather, allege that the proceeding itself
          was brought for an improper purpose.
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 11

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text