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

2,354 chars

but, rather, for her improper use of the courts to accom-
       plish a purpose for which they were not designed,
       namely, to further the aforementioned conspiracy; and
       (4) the plaintiff was not a party to Caroline’s actions,
       and, therefore, the remedies generally available to deter
       misconduct of this nature are either unavailable to the
       plaintiff or are inadequate to address the full range and
       impact of the alleged misconduct. We agree with the
       plaintiff that, under the circumstances of this case,
       affording Caroline absolute immunity with respect to
       the allegations related to her actions is unwarranted.
          We begin our analysis by noting that, even if we were
       to conclude that the allegations at issue are covered by
       the litigation privilege such that the plaintiff is pre-
       cluded from using them against Caroline, Caroline
       would gain little from that determination. This is so
       because the other allegations concerning the fraudulent
       ROFR nevertheless remain in the case, including Caro-
       line’s alleged efforts to pass the document off to ABG
       as genuine. Indeed, even if the complaint were stripped
       of all references to Caroline’s actions, the plaintiff’s
       claims against the defendants would remain virtually
       unchanged, a fact that only underscores the actions’
       lack of centrality to the plaintiff’s claims. It is also
       clear from the complaint that the plaintiff is not seeking
       redress for any statements Caroline made in the actions
       but, rather, seeks to hold her accountable for her role
       in an extrajudicial plot to interfere with the sale of the
       Confirmit shares through a variety of allegedly dishon-
       est means, including the commencement of two actions
       when ABG refused to honor the fraudulent ROFR.
       Indeed, if ABG had honored the ROFR, Caroline would
       have had no reason to file the two actions. Under this
       alternative scenario, however, the plaintiff’s action
       would have proceeded almost unchanged.
          In this way, the present case is readily distinguishable
       from past cases in which we have held that the litigation
Page 26                   CONNECTICUT LAW JOURNAL                       0, 0

Other Sections in This Document (136)

Full Text