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

2,921 chars

ing that the plaintiff’s claims are barred by the litigation
privilege. The complaint describes a multifaceted cam-
paign by Alexander, undertaken between 2016 and 2020,
to prevent the sale of the Confirmit shares or, failing
that, to depress the sale price of the shares. As the
plaintiff argues, many of the tactics allegedly employed
by him to accomplish these goals occurred outside the
context of any judicial proceeding and are therefore
not covered by the litigation privilege. E.g., Dorfman
v. Smith, supra, 342 Conn. 597 n.6 (‘‘[t]he litigation
privilege does not apply to conduct [or communica-
tions] not made in the course of a judicial proceeding’’);
Hopkins v. O’Connor, supra, 282 Conn. 849 (‘‘[b]ecause
. . . communication was not made pursuant to or in
furtherance of a [judicial] proceeding, the trial court
properly concluded that the defendant was not entitled
to immunity on that basis’’). The claimed extrajudicial
tactics include installing family members and other
close associates on Confirmit’s board of directors, alleg-
edly to deplete the company’s assets; submitting a disin-
genuous bid to acquire the Confirmit shares, allegedly
to deter other bidders; coordinating with Erik to have
the plaintiff’s execution lien deregistered from the VPS
registry, allegedly to disrupt the sales process; and forg-
ing and backdating a document purporting to grant
Caroline a right of first refusal to acquire the Confirmit
shares, allegedly to inject doubt and uncertainty into
the sales process, to deter bidders, and to drive down
the sale price. Because these activities have no connec-
tion or logical relation to any ongoing judicial proceed-
ing, they are not covered by the litigation privilege.4
4
The defendants argue that ‘‘[the Appellate Court’s] conclusion that any
allegations of extrajudicial conduct are inextricably intertwined with [the
plaintiff’s allegations concerning prior judicial proceedings] is entirely con-
sistent with the case law . . . governing application of the litigation privi-
lege.’’ As support for this contention, the defendants direct us to the portion
of their brief describing the test this court has adopted for determining
when a claim, even though it is predicated on statements or other communi-
cative acts occurring in the course of a prior judicial proceeding, is not
barred by the litigation privilege because the claim seeks to hold an individual
0, 0 CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL Page 21

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text