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

2,438 chars

Court agreed with the defendants and reversed the trial
          court’s decision. Id., 496, 511.
             In reaching its determination, the Appellate Court
          noted that courts routinely have applied the litigation
          privilege to tortious interference and CUTPA claims if
          the allegations supporting those claims are based on
          communications or conduct occurring in the context
          of a judicial or quasi-judicial proceeding. Id., 496–97,
          507–508. The court rejected the plaintiff’s contention
          that ‘‘its complaint does not allege harm based on state-
          ments or communications uttered in the course of [judi-
          cial] proceedings, but [rather] for the wrongful conduct
          of abusing the judicial system to drive down the Con-
          firmit shares’ sale price.’’ (Internal quotation marks
          omitted.) Id., 504. The Appellate Court reasoned that,
          ‘‘[a]lthough the plaintiff’s complaint contains allega-
          tions that the defendant[s], through [their] litigation
          conduct, improperly used and abused the judicial pro-
          cess, unless the plaintiff’s cause of action challenges
          the purpose of the litigation or litigation procedure,
          these allegations do not suffice to establish an improper
          use of the judicial system. A claim of abuse of process
          may be premised on the improper use of a particular
          judicial procedure. But allegations of the improper use
          of judicial procedure do not satisfy the requirement
          that the plaintiff’s cause of action must itself challenge
          the purpose of the underlying litigation or litigation
          procedure.’’ (Emphasis omitted; internal quotation
          marks omitted.) Id., quoting Dorfman v. Smith, 342
          Conn. 582, 598–99, 271 A.3d 53 (2022). The Appellate
          Court concluded that, because the plaintiff’s tortious
          interference and CUTPA claims do not challenge the
          purpose of an underlying judicial proceeding, the litiga-
          tion privilege barred both claims. Deutsche Bank AG
          v. Vik, supra, 214 Conn. App. 506, 509–10.
            The Appellate Court also rejected the plaintiff’s con-
          tention that its complaint was not subject to dismissal
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                         Page 13

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text