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

2,930 chars

the liability of the other tortfeasors’’); 4 Restatement
       (Second), Torts § 880, p. 325 (1979) (‘‘[i]f two persons
       would otherwise be liable for a harm, one of them is
       not relieved from liability by the fact that the other has
       an absolute privilege to act or an immunity from liability
       to the person harmed’’).
          Caroline’s actions are a different matter, but not as
       they relate to Alexander. As with the judicial proceed-
       ings involving Erik, the complaint does not allege that
       Alexander was a party to or participated in Caroline’s
       actions in a manner that would entitle him to absolute
       immunity from claims arising therefrom.8 The com-
       plaint alleges that Alexander operated ‘‘as puppet mas-
       ter’’ in ‘‘setting the stage’’ for the injunctive actions
       brought by Caroline. He did this, according to the com-
       plaint, by forging a document purporting to grant Caro-
       line an irrevocable right of first refusal to purchase
       the Confirmit shares, which Caroline then presented to
       ABG with the aim of disrupting and/or halting the sale
       of the company. When this failed, he directed Caroline
       to commence actions in Connecticut and Norway against
          8
            We note that the complaint alleges that Alexander filed two affidavits
       in the Connecticut District Court action (not the Norway action) describing
       how he ‘‘personally attempted to participate in the Confirmit sales process
       and [stating] that he had contacted ABG so that he could be considered a
       potential buyer in the process.’’ The complaint further alleges that, ‘‘[a]ccord-
       ing to [these] sworn statement[s], [Alexander] was located in Connecticut
       for a ‘substantial portion’ of his interactions with ABG.’’ These affidavits
       have no bearing on our jurisdictional analysis because the plaintiff is not
       seeking to impose liability on Alexander on the basis of any statement he
       made in the affidavits. The allegations relating to the affidavits are set forth
       in the portion of the complaint titled ‘‘Jurisdiction and Venue’’ and are
       included to establish the court’s personal jurisdiction over Alexander based
       on his statement that he was in Connecticut for a substantial portion of the
       time that he interacted with ABG concerning the sale. Although the complaint
       does seek to hold Alexander liable for his interactions with ABG prior to
       Caroline’s actions, in particular his submission of an allegedly dishonest
       bid to purchase the Confirmit shares, as we explained, Alexander’s conduct
       in this regard is not covered by the litigation privilege because it occurred
       entirely outside the context of any judicial proceeding.
Page 24                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text