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

2,468 chars

postassessment decline in Confirmit’s price. Thus,
          [although] such earlier-in-time allegations provide
          important color on the [defendants’] propensity for abu-
          sive litigation, they are not a necessary predicate for
          [the plaintiff’s] claims, and the [litigation] privilege
          should therefore not attach to them.’’ According to the
          plaintiff, the only litigation-related conduct that post-
          dates Confirmit’s June, 2019 valuation involves Caro-
          line’s actions, which are not covered by the privilege
          because they do not seek to impose liability for anything
          Caroline did or said in those proceedings; rather, they
          seek to impose liability for her improper use of the
          judicial system as part of a ‘‘long-running and multi-
          pronged conspiracy, conceived and executed mainly
          out of court, to halt the Confirmit sale or, failing that,
          to depress Confirmit’s sale price.’’ The plaintiff finally
          argues that, even if we conclude that some of the allega-
          tions in the complaint are covered by the litigation
          privilege, the proper remedy is to strike the offending
          allegations from the complaint, not to dismiss the com-
          plaint in its entirety.
             The defendants counter that the Appellate Court cor-
          rectly determined that the plaintiff’s entire complaint
          is barred by the litigation privilege. The defendants argue
          that the plaintiff’s brief mischaracterizes the Appellate
          Court’s decision and misapprehends this court’s ‘‘clear
          [pronouncements] . . . as to when and where the liti-
          gation privilege applies.’’ The defendants further con-
          tend that the plaintiff is simply attempting to rewrite
          its complaint on appeal in order to make it seem that
          the allegations related to the defendants’ extrajudicial
          conduct are central to its claims when, in fact, they are
          not. According to the defendants, the plaintiff’s con-
          tention that most of the litigation-related allegations
          are included solely to provide color and background to
          the parties’ dispute does not withstand scrutiny. The
          defendants maintain, rather, that ‘‘the entire complaint
0, 0                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       Page 15

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text