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

2,342 chars

ground because, they argue, the question of whether
          collateral estoppel applies is a question of law subject
          to plenary review, and ‘‘this court may properly decide
          it in the first instance and need not remand to the trial
          court for consideration of its application, especially
          [when] there are no undecided factual findings neces-
          sary for resolution of the claim.’’
             Even if we have jurisdiction in an interlocutory appeal
          to decide an unpleaded and, as yet, unadjudicated claim
          of collateral estoppel, the defendants do not adequately
          explain how any of the trial court’s findings in Deutsche
          Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn.
          564, are preclusive of any issue in this case. The prior
          case involved the narrow question of whether the trial
          court could pierce SHI’s corporate veil and hold Alexan-
          der personally liable for the English judgment on the
          basis of conduct occurring prior to November 1, 2008.
          See id., 568–69. The present case involves whether the
          defendants were involved in a conspiracy between 2016
          and 2020 to halt or delay the sale of a Norwegian soft-
          ware company in order to prevent the plaintiff from
          partially satisfying the English judgment. Because the
          defendants have failed to identify any material factual
          overlap between the two cases, we decline to consider
          the matter further and turn to the merits of the plain-
          tiff’s appeal.
                                       II
             The litigation privilege provides absolute immunity
          from suit and, therefore, implicates the court’s subject
          matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Dorfman v. Smith, supra,
          342 Conn. 594. ‘‘When a . . . court decides a jurisdic-
          tional question raised by a pretrial motion to dismiss,
          it . . . must take the facts to be those alleged in the
          complaint, including those facts necessarily implied
          from the allegations, construing them in a manner most
          favorable to the pleader.’’ (Internal quotation marks
0, 0                    CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                        Page 17

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text