{ "attribution": { "source": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21", "cite_as": "NovaCopilot, legal.exploreworldai.com (https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21)", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/revision", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "fingerprint": "ewai:us:e7344b", "proof": "sha256:8afcf5997c49b816f6bfb8f3033911c3b24d0bd29f66db40b4810749bac45886", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "publisher": "NovaCopilot by ExploreWorld Legal", "terms": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/om" }, "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "item": { "schema_version": "1.0.0", "id": "us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21", "jurisdiction": "us", "lang": "en", "brand_source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "brand": { "product": "NovaCopilot", "platform": "ExploreWorldAI", "infrastructure": "ExploreWorld Legal", "infrastructure_url": "legal.exploreworldai.com", "legal_entity": "Valkiv Ventures AB", "permanent_url": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/novacopilot", "source": "Source: NovaCopilot", "powered_by": "Powered by NovaCopilot", "license": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/licensvillkor" }, "sections": [ { "title": "", "paragraphs": [ "para_1" ] }, { "title": "The “officially released” date that appears near the", "paragraphs": [ "para_3", "para_4", "para_5", "para_6", "para_7", "para_8" ] }, { "title": "All opinions are subject to modification and technical", "paragraphs": [ "para_10", "para_11" ] }, { "title": "Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event", "paragraphs": [ "para_13", "para_14" ] }, { "title": "Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports", "paragraphs": [ "para_16", "para_17" ] }, { "title": "The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an", "paragraphs": [ "para_19", "para_20" ] }, { "title": "Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced", "paragraphs": [ "para_23", "para_24", "para_25", "para_26" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikDEUTSCHE BANK AG v. CAROLINE", "paragraphs": [ "para_28" ] }, { "title": "(AC 48622)", "paragraphs": [ "para_30" ] }, { "title": "Syllabus", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The plaintiff bank appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the", "paragraphs": [ "para_33", "para_34", "para_35", "para_36" ] }, { "title": "The trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judg-", "paragraphs": [ "para_38", "para_39", "para_40", "para_41", "para_42", "para_43" ] }, { "title": "The trial court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact", "paragraphs": [ "para_45", "para_46", "para_47", "para_48", "para_49" ] }, { "title": "This court concluded that the trial court improperly determined that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_51", "para_52" ] }, { "title": "Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.), as the public policy goals of the doctrine", "paragraphs": [ "para_54" ] }, { "title": "The trial court improperly concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel", "paragraphs": [ "para_56", "para_57", "para_58", "para_59", "para_60", "para_61" ] }, { "title": "Argued March 16—officially released July 21, 2026", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Procedural History", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Action to recover damages for, inter alia, tortious", "paragraphs": [ "para_65", "para_66", "para_67" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikgranted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_69", "para_70" ] }, { "title": "David G. Januszewski, with whom were Thomas Gold-", "paragraphs": [ "para_72" ] }, { "title": "Sesi V. Garimella, pro hac vice, John W. Cerreta, and", "paragraphs": [ "para_74" ] }, { "title": "Monte E. Frank, with whom were Dana M. Hrelic", "paragraphs": [ "para_76" ] }, { "title": "Opinion", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ELGO, J. This is the latest chapter in a long running", "paragraphs": [ "para_79", "para_80", "para_81", "para_82", "para_83", "para_84", "para_85", "para_86" ] }, { "title": "General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.;2 and (2) the doctrine", "paragraphs": [ "para_88", "para_89" ] }, { "title": "Mindful of the procedural posture of this case, we set", "paragraphs": [ "para_91", "para_92", "para_93" ] }, { "title": "1For clarity, we refer to Caroline Vik and Alexander Vik individually", "paragraphs": [ "para_95" ] }, { "title": "2CUTPA is “a remedial statute that broadly prohibits unfair methods", "paragraphs": [ "para_97", "para_98", "para_99", "para_100", "para_101", "para_102", "para_103", "para_104", "para_105", "para_106", "para_107" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikFusi, 290 Conn. 347, 350, 963 A.2d 640 (2009). The", "paragraphs": [ "para_109" ] }, { "title": "Germany, with an office in New York City. Alexander", "paragraphs": [ "para_111", "para_112" ] }, { "title": "Alexander’s adult daughter and also resides in Green-", "paragraphs": [ "para_114" ] }, { "title": "Alexander is a billionaire and sophisticated inves-", "paragraphs": [ "para_116", "para_117" ] }, { "title": "Inc. (SHI), a corporation formed under the laws of the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Turks and Caicos Islands, is one such company. From", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1988 to 2015, Alexander owned 100 percent of the shares", "paragraphs": [ "para_121", "para_122" ] }, { "title": "SHI became a client of Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA, a", "paragraphs": [ "para_124" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Conn. 564, 569, 294 A.3d 1 (2023). In 2006, the plaintiff", "paragraphs": [ "para_127", "para_128", "para_129", "para_130" ] }, { "title": "Id., 569–70. From 2006 to 2008, SHI was extremely", "paragraphs": [ "para_132", "para_133", "para_134" ] }, { "title": "3As our Supreme Court noted in a related appeal, SHI was “run from", "paragraphs": [ "para_136" ] }, { "title": "Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346 Conn. 564, 569, 294 A.3d", "paragraphs": [ "para_138" ] }, { "title": "4As our Supreme Court observed in a related appeal, a “global finan-", "paragraphs": [ "para_140" ] }, { "title": "Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 331 Conn. 379, 381, 204 A.3d 664 (2019);", "paragraphs": [ "para_142" ] }, { "title": "SE, 763 F.3d 198, 204 (2d Cir. 2014) (“the global financial crisis became", "paragraphs": [ "para_144" ] }, { "title": "5“A margin call is a demand by a broker that an investor deposit addi-", "paragraphs": [ "para_146" ] }, { "title": "A margin deficiency results when the equity in an investor's account is", "paragraphs": [ "para_148" ] }, { "title": "The purpose of margin call rules is to protect brokers from the risks", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikOn October 7, 2008, Alexander met with the plaintiff’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_151", "para_152" ] }, { "title": "Id., 572. During the week of October 13, the plaintiff’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_154", "para_155", "para_156" ] }, { "title": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 576. From Octo-", "paragraphs": [ "para_158", "para_159", "para_160" ] }, { "title": "Confusion thereafter arose as to the precise amount of", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SHI assets held by the plaintiff. As our Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_163", "para_164", "para_165", "para_166", "para_167", "para_168", "para_169", "para_170", "para_171", "para_172", "para_173", "para_174", "para_175", "para_176", "para_177", "para_178", "para_179", "para_180", "para_181", "para_182", "para_183", "para_184", "para_185", "para_186", "para_187", "para_188" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik“In an internal . . . teleconference on October 22 . . . [the", "paragraphs": [ "para_190", "para_191" ] }, { "title": "SHI’s portfolio manager], SHI’s account balances had", "paragraphs": [ "para_193", "para_194", "para_195", "para_196", "para_197", "para_198", "para_199", "para_200", "para_201", "para_202", "para_203", "para_204", "para_205", "para_206", "para_207", "para_208", "para_209", "para_210", "para_211", "para_212", "para_213", "para_214", "para_215" ] }, { "title": "SHI received an additional margin call from the plaintiff", "paragraphs": [ "para_217", "para_218" ] }, { "title": "In January 2009, the plaintiff commenced an action", "paragraphs": [ "para_220" ] }, { "title": "Court of Justice of England and Wales to collect amounts", "paragraphs": [ "para_222", "para_223", "para_224" ] }, { "title": "Id. Following a trial, the court found in favor of the", "paragraphs": [ "para_226", "para_227" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikon November 8, 2013. Id. The court rendered judgment", "paragraphs": [ "para_229", "para_230" ] }, { "title": "When SHI failed to pay that judgment, the plaintiff", "paragraphs": [ "para_232" ] }, { "title": "SHI and Alexander in Connecticut to enforce the Eng-", "paragraphs": [ "para_234", "para_235", "para_236", "para_237", "para_238", "para_239" ] }, { "title": "Judgments Recognition Act [(act)], General Statutes", "paragraphs": [ "para_241" ] }, { "title": "While the 2013 action to pierce the corporate veil was", "paragraphs": [ "para_243" ] }, { "title": "Probate, Bankruptcy, and Enforcement in Norway (Oslo", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Enforcement Court) to enforce the English judgment in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Norway (Norway enforcement action). The Oslo Enforce-", "paragraphs": [ "para_247", "para_248", "para_249", "para_250", "para_251", "para_252" ] }, { "title": "6The plaintiff registered the English judgment with the Connecticut", "paragraphs": [ "para_254" ] }, { "title": "7That statutory claim was premised on the plaintiff’s veil piercing", "paragraphs": [ "para_256", "para_257", "para_258" ] }, { "title": "AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., Docket No. CV-13-5014167-S, 2021", "paragraphs": [ "para_260" ] }, { "title": "564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023); see also General Statutes § 50a-33 (“a foreign", "paragraphs": [ "para_262", "para_263", "para_264", "para_265", "para_266", "para_267" ] }, { "title": "Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, *26. The court thus reasoned that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Alexander could be held liable under the act if the plaintiff established", "paragraphs": [ "para_270" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikIn 2008, SHI owned 100 percent of the shares of Confir-", "paragraphs": [ "para_272", "para_273" ] }, { "title": "(October 2008 transfers). See id., 575 n.3. Among those", "paragraphs": [ "para_275", "para_276" ] }, { "title": "15, 2008. Alexander allegedly maintained ownership of", "paragraphs": [ "para_278", "para_279" ] }, { "title": "On May 31, 2016, the Execution and Enforcement Com-", "paragraphs": [ "para_281", "para_282" ] }, { "title": "Oslo Enforcement Court confirmed the validity of that", "paragraphs": [ "para_284", "para_285", "para_286", "para_287", "para_288", "para_289", "para_290" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiff then filed a petition with the Oslo Enforce-", "paragraphs": [ "para_292", "para_293" ] }, { "title": "June 12, 2019, the commissioner granted that petition", "paragraphs": [ "para_295" ] }, { "title": "(ABG), a Nordic investment bank, as the sales assistant", "paragraphs": [ "para_297", "para_298" ] }, { "title": "As our Supreme Court noted in Deutsche Bank AG", "paragraphs": [ "para_300", "para_301", "para_302", "para_303", "para_304", "para_305", "para_306" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik[shares]. In November, 2019, during the second phase", "paragraphs": [ "para_308", "para_309", "para_310", "para_311", "para_312", "para_313", "para_314", "para_315" ] }, { "title": "Erik, at the behest of Alexander, filed numerous baseless", "paragraphs": [ "para_317", "para_318", "para_319", "para_320", "para_321", "para_322", "para_323" ] }, { "title": "2017, Erik requested that the execution lien be removed", "paragraphs": [ "para_325", "para_326", "para_327", "para_328", "para_329", "para_330", "para_331", "para_332", "para_333", "para_334", "para_335", "para_336", "para_337" ] }, { "title": "Enforcement Court held that the application made [in]", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "September, 2017, by [Erik] for deletion of the execution", "paragraphs": [ "para_340", "para_341", "para_342", "para_343", "para_344" ] }, { "title": "According to the complaint, the plaintiff, fearful that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_346", "para_347", "para_348", "para_349", "para_350", "para_351", "para_352", "para_353", "para_354", "para_355", "para_356", "para_357", "para_358", "para_359", "para_360", "para_361", "para_362", "para_363", "para_364", "para_365", "para_366", "para_367" ] }, { "title": "Caroline reached this purported agreement on the very", "paragraphs": [ "para_369" ] }, { "title": "Confirmit’s board . . . . As further evidence of fraud, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_371" ] }, { "title": "July, 2019, in the midst of negotiations to sell [the] Con-", "paragraphs": [ "para_373", "para_374", "para_375", "para_376" ] }, { "title": "Caroline provided ABG with a copy of the fraudulent", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ROFR . . . and requested information about [all] offers", "paragraphs": [ "para_379", "para_380", "para_381", "para_382", "para_383", "para_384" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik. . . register[ed] its execution lien, Caroline commenced", "paragraphs": [ "para_386" ] }, { "title": "Court for the District of Connecticut (Connecticut Dis-", "paragraphs": [ "para_388", "para_389" ] }, { "title": "On December 4, 2019, the District Court denied her", "paragraphs": [ "para_391" ] }, { "title": "Caroline filed another petition, this time with the Oslo", "paragraphs": [ "para_393", "para_394", "para_395", "para_396" ] }, { "title": "Caroline voluntarily dismissed the Connecticut District", "paragraphs": [ "para_398", "para_399", "para_400", "para_401", "para_402", "para_403", "para_404", "para_405", "para_406", "para_407", "para_408", "para_409" ] }, { "title": "ROFR agreement with Caroline and that the document", "paragraphs": [ "para_411", "para_412", "para_413" ] }, { "title": "Confirmit shares was the submission of a fraudulent bid", "paragraphs": [ "para_415" ] }, { "title": "October 18, 2019, [a]fter ABG initiated the first phase", "paragraphs": [ "para_417", "para_418", "para_419", "para_420", "para_421", "para_422", "para_423" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikmillion to purchase the Confirmit shares]. According to", "paragraphs": [ "para_425", "para_426", "para_427", "para_428" ] }, { "title": "Alexander that [t]he situation with Xcelera . . . as a", "paragraphs": [ "para_430", "para_431", "para_432", "para_433", "para_434", "para_435" ] }, { "title": "ABG requested that he provide information regarding", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Xcelera’s ownership structure, board members, employ-", "paragraphs": [ "para_438", "para_439" ] }, { "title": "Xcelera, SHI, and Alexander would not challenge the", "paragraphs": [ "para_441", "para_442", "para_443", "para_444", "para_445", "para_446", "para_447", "para_448", "para_449", "para_450", "para_451", "para_452", "para_453", "para_454", "para_455", "para_456", "para_457", "para_458" ] }, { "title": "ABG a letter [on December 3, 2019] articulating its", "paragraphs": [ "para_460", "para_461", "para_462" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik[Connecticut] District Court [action], and the unlawfully", "paragraphs": [ "para_464", "para_465" ] }, { "title": "Confirmit. The final agreed on price when the sale finally", "paragraphs": [ "para_467", "para_468" ] }, { "title": "2019, and $35 million to $85 million less than the price", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "ABG had placed on the shares in June, 2019.” (Internal", "paragraphs": [ "para_471", "para_472", "para_473" ] }, { "title": "In its two count complaint, the plaintiff alleged tortious", "paragraphs": [ "para_475", "para_476", "para_477" ] }, { "title": "The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants’ conduct", "paragraphs": [ "para_479", "para_480", "para_481" ] }, { "title": "On October 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to", "paragraphs": [ "para_483", "para_484", "para_485", "para_486", "para_487", "para_488", "para_489", "para_490" ] }, { "title": "8At that time, the trial in the 2013 action had concluded, but no deci-", "paragraphs": [ "para_492", "para_493", "para_494", "para_495" ] }, { "title": "2021 WL 4482154, *1 (Conn. Super. September 7, 2021) (“trial before", "paragraphs": [ "para_497", "para_498" ] }, { "title": "9In separate motions to dismiss filed that same day, the defendants", "paragraphs": [ "para_500", "para_501", "para_502", "para_503" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Viktion privilege barred the plaintiff’s tortious interference", "paragraphs": [ "para_505", "para_506" ] }, { "title": "120, 314 A.3d 583 (2024). Our Supreme Court granted", "paragraphs": [ "para_508", "para_509", "para_510", "para_511", "para_512" ] }, { "title": "Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 139–40. The Supreme Court thus", "paragraphs": [ "para_514", "para_515", "para_516" ] }, { "title": "At the time of those appeals before this court and our", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Supreme Court, a concurrent appeal arose regarding", "paragraphs": [ "para_519", "para_520", "para_521", "para_522", "para_523", "para_524", "para_525", "para_526" ] }, { "title": "SHI to breach its contractual obligations to [the plain-", "paragraphs": [ "para_528", "para_529", "para_530", "para_531" ] }, { "title": "SHI’s corporate veil and holding Alexander jointly and", "paragraphs": [ "para_533", "para_534" ] }, { "title": "In a subsequent memorandum of decision dated Septem-", "paragraphs": [ "para_536" ] }, { "title": "Islands law, a plaintiff seeking to pierce a corporate veil", "paragraphs": [ "para_538", "para_539", "para_540", "para_541" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikspecific intent by the wrongdoer to leave the corporation", "paragraphs": [ "para_543", "para_544", "para_545", "para_546", "para_547", "para_548", "para_549", "para_550", "para_551", "para_552", "para_553", "para_554", "para_555", "para_556", "para_557", "para_558", "para_559", "para_560", "para_561" ] }, { "title": "Holdings, Inc., Docket No. CV-13-5014167-S, 2021 WL", "paragraphs": [ "para_563" ] }, { "title": "346 Conn. 564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023). More specifically, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_565", "para_566", "para_567", "para_568", "para_569" ] }, { "title": "AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 584;", "paragraphs": [ "para_571", "para_572", "para_573" ] }, { "title": "From that judgment, the plaintiff filed an appeal with", "paragraphs": [ "para_575", "para_576" ] }, { "title": "Book § 65-1. In a decision released on May 30, 2023, our", "paragraphs": [ "para_578" ] }, { "title": "Id., 604. In so doing, the court concluded that the trial", "paragraphs": [ "para_580" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikand to hold [Alexander] jointly and severally liable with", "paragraphs": [ "para_582" ] }, { "title": "That decision, in turn, precipitated the summary judg-", "paragraphs": [ "para_584", "para_585", "para_586", "para_587", "para_588" ] }, { "title": "AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 139–48; the defendants", "paragraphs": [ "para_590", "para_591", "para_592", "para_593", "para_594", "para_595", "para_596", "para_597", "para_598" ] }, { "title": "In its subsequent memorandum of decision, the court", "paragraphs": [ "para_600" ] }, { "title": "Solon v. Slater, 345 Conn. 794, 825, 287 A.3d 574 (2023);", "paragraphs": [ "para_602", "para_603" ] }, { "title": "In addition, the court stated that the motion for summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_605", "para_606", "para_607", "para_608", "para_609", "para_610", "para_611", "para_612" ] }, { "title": "10The court also rejected the plaintiff’s evidentiary challenge regard-", "paragraphs": [ "para_614", "para_615", "para_616" ] }, { "title": "11Those exhibits included copies of various pleadings from the 2013", "paragraphs": [ "para_618" ] }, { "title": "12In so concluding, the court summarily stated that Caroline, who", "paragraphs": [ "para_620" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikOctober 2008, was proper; and (3) that [Alexander] was", "paragraphs": [ "para_622", "para_623", "para_624", "para_625" ] }, { "title": "As a preliminary matter, we note certain well estab-", "paragraphs": [ "para_627", "para_628", "para_629" ] }, { "title": "Miami Beach Assn., 216 Conn. App. 379, 390–92, 288", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A.3d 629 (2022), cert. denied, 346 Conn. 919, 291 A.3d", "paragraphs": [ "para_632", "para_633", "para_634" ] }, { "title": "460, 998 A.2d 766 (2010). “The doctrines of collateral", "paragraphs": [ "para_636", "para_637", "para_638", "para_639", "para_640", "para_641", "para_642", "para_643", "para_644", "para_645", "para_646", "para_647", "para_648", "para_649", "para_650", "para_651", "para_652", "para_653" ] }, { "title": "318, 460 A.2d 1277 (1983). Notable among those other", "paragraphs": [ "para_655", "para_656", "para_657", "para_658", "para_659" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Viknot properly pleaded.” Singhaviroj v. Board of Educa-", "paragraphs": [ "para_661", "para_662" ] }, { "title": "1040 (2024) (“a claim that an action or claim is barred by", "paragraphs": [ "para_664", "para_665", "para_666", "para_667" ] }, { "title": "See State v. Knight, 266 Conn. 658, 664, 835 A.2d 47", "paragraphs": [ "para_669", "para_670" ] }, { "title": "629 A.2d 1116 (1993). The applicability of res judicata or", "paragraphs": [ "para_672", "para_673", "para_674", "para_675" ] }, { "title": "I", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "RES JUDICATA", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We begin with the plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_679", "para_680", "para_681", "para_682", "para_683", "para_684", "para_685", "para_686", "para_687", "para_688" ] }, { "title": "A", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "It is well established that, “[u]nder Connecticut law, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_692", "para_693" ] }, { "title": "392; see also Practice Book § 10-50 (res judicata is spe-", "paragraphs": [ "para_695" ] }, { "title": "Waterbury, 185 Conn. 445, 451, 441 A.2d 131 (1981)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“[a] prior judgment which would be a bar to a later", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikaction, as res adjudicata, is a defense which must be", "paragraphs": [ "para_699" ] }, { "title": "When a party fails to plead that defense, it is subject to", "paragraphs": [ "para_701", "para_702" ] }, { "title": "At no time since the commencement of this action in", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "2020 have the defendants filed an answer to the plain-", "paragraphs": [ "para_705", "para_706", "para_707", "para_708" ] }, { "title": "120. Following a remand for further proceedings, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_710", "para_711", "para_712", "para_713", "para_714", "para_715" ] }, { "title": "Casualty Co., 236 Conn. 863, 867 n.8, 675 A.2d 441", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(1996) (“a party may move for summary judgment at any", "paragraphs": [ "para_718", "para_719", "para_720", "para_721", "para_722", "para_723", "para_724", "para_725" ] }, { "title": "Barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata.”13", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "13We note that, after stating that the plaintiff’s claims against Alex-", "paragraphs": [ "para_728", "para_729", "para_730", "para_731", "para_732", "para_733", "para_734", "para_735", "para_736", "para_737", "para_738", "para_739", "para_740", "para_741", "para_742", "para_743", "para_744", "para_745", "para_746", "para_747", "para_748" ] }, { "title": "In their November 1, 2024 reply to the plaintiff’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_750", "para_751", "para_752", "para_753", "para_754", "para_755", "para_756", "para_757" ] }, { "title": "In its subsequent memorandum of decision, the court", "paragraphs": [ "para_759", "para_760", "para_761" ] }, { "title": "(Emphasis added.)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "That determination cannot be reconciled with the", "paragraphs": [ "para_764", "para_765", "para_766", "para_767", "para_768", "para_769" ] }, { "title": "14Because the defendants never offered argument or evidence to sup-", "paragraphs": [ "para_771", "para_772", "para_773", "para_774", "para_775", "para_776" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Viknot asserting such a defense on her behalf, we agree with", "paragraphs": [ "para_778" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We also disagree with the two distinct determinations", "paragraphs": [ "para_781", "para_782", "para_783" ] }, { "title": "In its memorandum of decision, the court found that", "paragraphs": [ "para_785", "para_786", "para_787" ] }, { "title": "2024 motion for summary judgment and accompanying", "paragraphs": [ "para_789", "para_790", "para_791", "para_792" ] }, { "title": "SHI. Second, in its opposition to the motion for summary", "paragraphs": [ "para_794", "para_795", "para_796", "para_797", "para_798", "para_799", "para_800", "para_801", "para_802" ] }, { "title": "Also untenable is the court’s determination that “[Car-", "paragraphs": [ "para_804", "para_805", "para_806", "para_807", "para_808", "para_809", "para_810", "para_811", "para_812", "para_813" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikin the same question or in proving or disproving the", "paragraphs": [ "para_815", "para_816", "para_817", "para_818", "para_819", "para_820" ] }, { "title": "240 Conn. 799, 813–14, 695 A.2d 1010 (1997). “A key", "paragraphs": [ "para_822", "para_823", "para_824" ] }, { "title": "813. “[O]ne person is in privity with another and is bound", "paragraphs": [ "para_826", "para_827", "para_828", "para_829", "para_830", "para_831" ] }, { "title": "146, 167, 129 A.3d 677 (2016) (“[b]ecause parties may", "paragraphs": [ "para_833", "para_834", "para_835" ] }, { "title": "The 2013 action concerned Alexander’s conduct in", "paragraphs": [ "para_837", "para_838" ] }, { "title": "Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 564. Caroline had no legal inter-", "paragraphs": [ "para_840", "para_841", "para_842", "para_843", "para_844", "para_845", "para_846", "para_847", "para_848", "para_849", "para_850", "para_851", "para_852", "para_853" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikin 2016. The issue in this case is whether that conduct", "paragraphs": [ "para_855", "para_856" ] }, { "title": "Given those critical distinctions, we conclude that", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Caroline does not share the same legal right in this action", "paragraphs": [ "para_859" ] }, { "title": "There is no allegation that Caroline had any connection", "paragraphs": [ "para_861", "para_862", "para_863", "para_864", "para_865", "para_866" ] }, { "title": "B", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We next consider whether the court properly con-", "paragraphs": [ "para_869", "para_870", "para_871", "para_872", "para_873", "para_874", "para_875", "para_876", "para_877", "para_878" ] }, { "title": "156–57. In the present case, the first two elements are", "paragraphs": [ "para_880", "para_881" ] }, { "title": "1", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We begin with the question of whether the present", "paragraphs": [ "para_884", "para_885", "para_886", "para_887", "para_888", "para_889", "para_890" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikaction] includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies", "paragraphs": [ "para_892", "para_893", "para_894", "para_895", "para_896", "para_897", "para_898", "para_899", "para_900", "para_901", "para_902", "para_903" ] }, { "title": "Judgments § 24, comment (b), pp. 198–99 (1982) (trans-", "paragraphs": [ "para_905", "para_906", "para_907" ] }, { "title": "The purpose of the transactional test is “to measure", "paragraphs": [ "para_909", "para_910" ] }, { "title": "511 A.2d 333 (1986); so as to “strike a delicate balance", "paragraphs": [ "para_912", "para_913", "para_914", "para_915" ] }, { "title": "69 Conn. App. 279, 298, 794 A.2d 1029 (2002). It oper-", "paragraphs": [ "para_917", "para_918", "para_919", "para_920", "para_921", "para_922", "para_923", "para_924", "para_925", "para_926" ] }, { "title": "15For that reason, the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff “pro-", "paragraphs": [ "para_928", "para_929", "para_930" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikmarks omitted.) Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual", "paragraphs": [ "para_932" ] }, { "title": "The 2013 action was brought to pierce the corporate", "paragraphs": [ "para_934" ] }, { "title": "English judgment against it. The facts giving rise to that", "paragraphs": [ "para_936", "para_937", "para_938", "para_939", "para_940", "para_941" ] }, { "title": "Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 583–84. The present case, by", "paragraphs": [ "para_943", "para_944", "para_945", "para_946", "para_947", "para_948", "para_949", "para_950", "para_951", "para_952", "para_953", "para_954", "para_955", "para_956", "para_957", "para_958", "para_959", "para_960", "para_961" ] }, { "title": "Furthermore, as we previously noted, the defendants did not file an", "paragraphs": [ "para_963", "para_964", "para_965", "para_966", "para_967", "para_968", "para_969", "para_970", "para_971", "para_972" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikthe English judgment.” (Citation omitted.) Deutsche", "paragraphs": [ "para_974" ] }, { "title": "In addition, the present case involves a distinct and", "paragraphs": [ "para_976", "para_977", "para_978", "para_979", "para_980" ] }, { "title": "App. 792, 804, 25 A.3d 721 (res judicata barred second", "paragraphs": [ "para_982", "para_983" ] }, { "title": "29 A.3d 467 (2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1260, 132", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "S. Ct. 1745, 182 L. Ed. 2d 530 (2012); cf. Lighthouse", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Conn. 325, 350–51, 15 A.3d 601 (2011) (res judicata", "paragraphs": [ "para_988", "para_989", "para_990", "para_991", "para_992" ] }, { "title": "(emphasis in original)). Moreover, the present action", "paragraphs": [ "para_994", "para_995", "para_996", "para_997", "para_998", "para_999", "para_1000", "para_1001" ] }, { "title": "604. For those reasons, the court improperly concluded", "paragraphs": [ "para_1003", "para_1004" ] }, { "title": "2", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "The plaintiff also claims that the court improperly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1007", "para_1008", "para_1009" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik“[T]he essential concept of the modern rule of claim", "paragraphs": [ "para_1011", "para_1012", "para_1013", "para_1014", "para_1015", "para_1016", "para_1017", "para_1018", "para_1019", "para_1020", "para_1021", "para_1022" ] }, { "title": "A.3d 30 (2014). When a party did not have a full and fair", "paragraphs": [ "para_1024", "para_1025", "para_1026" ] }, { "title": "In its memorandum of decision, the court addressed", "paragraphs": [ "para_1028", "para_1029", "para_1030", "para_1031", "para_1032", "para_1033", "para_1034", "para_1035", "para_1036", "para_1037", "para_1038", "para_1039" ] }, { "title": "311 Conn. 282, 290, 87 A.3d 534 (2014); indicates that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1041", "para_1042" ] }, { "title": "Confirmit shares in 2008. Rather, it is the defendants’", "paragraphs": [ "para_1044", "para_1045", "para_1046" ] }, { "title": "The claims advanced in the present case require the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1048" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vika result of the defendants’ interference with the sale of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1050", "para_1051" ] }, { "title": "320 (2008) (“to be entitled to any relief under CUTPA, a", "paragraphs": [ "para_1053", "para_1054", "para_1055", "para_1056", "para_1057", "para_1058", "para_1059" ] }, { "title": "284 Conn. 901, 931 A.2d 261 (2007). In its complaint, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1061", "para_1062", "para_1063", "para_1064" ] }, { "title": "For that reason, the pecuniary injury allegedly sus-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1066" ] }, { "title": "2020, when the sale of the Confirmit shares closed for", "paragraphs": [ "para_1068" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 125–30. As", "paragraphs": [ "para_1070", "para_1071", "para_1072", "para_1073", "para_1074", "para_1075", "para_1076" ] }, { "title": "Conn. App. 492, 533, 187 A.3d 486 (“[s]peculation and", "paragraphs": [ "para_1078", "para_1079" ] }, { "title": "We therefore disagree with the defendants that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1081", "para_1082", "para_1083", "para_1084", "para_1085", "para_1086" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik2013 action on November 19, 2019.16 See footnote 8 of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1088" ] }, { "title": "We also note that, prior to trial in the 2013 action, the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1090", "para_1091", "para_1092", "para_1093", "para_1094", "para_1095", "para_1096", "para_1097", "para_1098" ] }, { "title": "In light of that order and the fact that the plaintiff’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1100", "para_1101" ] }, { "title": "2020—months after the trial in the 2013 action con-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1103", "para_1104", "para_1105" ] }, { "title": "16For example, the plaintiff alleges in its complaint in the present case", "paragraphs": [ "para_1107" ] }, { "title": "Confirmit shares, Caroline commenced the Connecticut District Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_1109", "para_1110", "para_1111" ] }, { "title": "6, 2019, Caroline filed a petition for a preliminary injunction with the", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Oslo Enforcement Court to stop the sale of the Confirmit shares. The", "paragraphs": [ "para_1114", "para_1115", "para_1116", "para_1117", "para_1118", "para_1119", "para_1120", "para_1121", "para_1122" ] }, { "title": "In concluding that res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims in the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1124", "para_1125", "para_1126", "para_1127", "para_1128", "para_1129" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik(2) to add Caroline as a party; (3) to reopen discovery;", "paragraphs": [ "para_1131", "para_1132", "para_1133", "para_1134", "para_1135", "para_1136", "para_1137", "para_1138", "para_1139" ] }, { "title": "In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the defen-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1141", "para_1142", "para_1143", "para_1144", "para_1145", "para_1146" ] }, { "title": "3", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Lastly, we emphasize that res judicata is a flexible doc-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1149", "para_1150", "para_1151", "para_1152" ] }, { "title": "(83–DE), supra, 190 Conn. 318. As our Supreme Court", "paragraphs": [ "para_1154", "para_1155", "para_1156", "para_1157", "para_1158", "para_1159", "para_1160", "para_1161", "para_1162", "para_1163", "para_1164" ] }, { "title": "158. In this case, we believe that the public policy goals", "paragraphs": [ "para_1166", "para_1167", "para_1168" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikConn. 465; are outweighed by the plaintiff’s interest in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1170", "para_1171", "para_1172", "para_1173" ] }, { "title": "II", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "We next consider the plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s", "paragraphs": [ "para_1177", "para_1178", "para_1179", "para_1180", "para_1181", "para_1182", "para_1183", "para_1184", "para_1185", "para_1186", "para_1187" ] }, { "title": "The doctrine of collateral estoppel expresses “the fun-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1189", "para_1190" ] }, { "title": "Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is that aspect of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1192", "para_1193", "para_1194", "para_1195", "para_1196", "para_1197", "para_1198", "para_1199", "para_1200" ] }, { "title": "Corp. v. Board of Tax Review, 228 Conn. 23, 32, 633 A.2d", "paragraphs": [ "para_1202" ] }, { "title": "Riley, 354 Conn. 66, 80, 349 A.3d 551 (2026) (collateral", "paragraphs": [ "para_1204", "para_1205", "para_1206", "para_1207" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikjudgment, and the determination is essential to the judg-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1209", "para_1210", "para_1211", "para_1212", "para_1213", "para_1214", "para_1215", "para_1216", "para_1217" ] }, { "title": "Busconi v. Dighello, 39 Conn. App. 753, 767–68, 668", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "A.2d 716 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 903, 670 A.2d", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "321 (1996). In this case, the defendants, as the parties", "paragraphs": [ "para_1221", "para_1222", "para_1223", "para_1224", "para_1225" ] }, { "title": "A", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Liability for the English Judgment", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded", "paragraphs": [ "para_1229", "para_1230", "para_1231", "para_1232", "para_1233" ] }, { "title": "The court’s determination is rooted in its misunder-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1235", "para_1236", "para_1237", "para_1238", "para_1239", "para_1240", "para_1241", "para_1242" ] }, { "title": "Confirmit shares from 2016, when the Norway enforce-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1244", "para_1245" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikconduct regarding a different transaction than those at", "paragraphs": [ "para_1247", "para_1248", "para_1249", "para_1250", "para_1251", "para_1252", "para_1253", "para_1254" ] }, { "title": "A.2d 533 (2004); see also Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Commission, 256 Conn. 249, 261, 773 A.2d 300 (2001)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“collateral estoppel has no application in the absence", "paragraphs": [ "para_1258", "para_1259", "para_1260" ] }, { "title": "2016 to 2020—differs dramatically from the issues", "paragraphs": [ "para_1262", "para_1263", "para_1264", "para_1265", "para_1266", "para_1267", "para_1268", "para_1269" ] }, { "title": "Moreover, we note that the trial court in the 2013", "paragraphs": [ "para_1271", "para_1272", "para_1273", "para_1274", "para_1275", "para_1276", "para_1277" ] }, { "title": "As our Supreme Court observed in an earlier appeal in", "paragraphs": [ "para_1279", "para_1280", "para_1281", "para_1282" ] }, { "title": "141 n.5. Whether Alexander may be held personally liable", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikfor the English judgment, therefore, is irrelevant to the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1285" ] }, { "title": "B", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "October 2008 Transfers", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded", "paragraphs": [ "para_1289", "para_1290", "para_1291", "para_1292" ] }, { "title": "As our Supreme Court explained, “[e]ven when an", "paragraphs": [ "para_1294", "para_1295", "para_1296", "para_1297", "para_1298", "para_1299", "para_1300", "para_1301", "para_1302", "para_1303", "para_1304", "para_1305", "para_1306" ] }, { "title": "The introductory paragraph to the trial court’s memo-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1308", "para_1309", "para_1310", "para_1311", "para_1312", "para_1313", "para_1314" ] }, { "title": "In resolving that question, the court expressly adopted", "paragraphs": [ "para_1316" ] }, { "title": "SHI’s corporate veil was justified, which required proof", "paragraphs": [ "para_1318" ] }, { "title": "SHI, (2) commingled SHI’s assets with his own, and (3)", "paragraphs": [ "para_1320", "para_1321" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikcourt further determined that “the test of specific intent", "paragraphs": [ "para_1323", "para_1324", "para_1325", "para_1326" ] }, { "title": "Applying that tripartite test, the court found that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1328", "para_1329", "para_1330", "para_1331", "para_1332", "para_1333", "para_1334", "para_1335", "para_1336", "para_1337", "para_1338" ] }, { "title": "In reaching that determination, the court reasoned:", "paragraphs": [ "para_1340", "para_1341", "para_1342", "para_1343", "para_1344", "para_1345", "para_1346", "para_1347", "para_1348", "para_1349", "para_1350", "para_1351", "para_1352", "para_1353", "para_1354", "para_1355", "para_1356", "para_1357", "para_1358", "para_1359", "para_1360" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikit.17 . . . [The plaintiff] cannot successfully contend that", "paragraphs": [ "para_1362", "para_1363", "para_1364", "para_1365", "para_1366", "para_1367", "para_1368", "para_1369", "para_1370" ] }, { "title": "This was not an unreasonable action given what he knew", "paragraphs": [ "para_1372", "para_1373", "para_1374", "para_1375", "para_1376", "para_1377", "para_1378" ] }, { "title": "Id., *31. For that reason, the court concluded that the", "paragraphs": [ "para_1380", "para_1381", "para_1382", "para_1383" ] }, { "title": "We agree with the trial court that Alexander’s purpose", "paragraphs": [ "para_1385", "para_1386", "para_1387", "para_1388" ] }, { "title": "17“A quantitative analyst or ‘quant’ is a specialist who applies math-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1390", "para_1391", "para_1392" ] }, { "title": "18In discussing equitable considerations regarding whether to pierce", "paragraphs": [ "para_1394", "para_1395", "para_1396", "para_1397", "para_1398", "para_1399", "para_1400", "para_1401" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikcourt in its memorandum of decision expressly stated", "paragraphs": [ "para_1403", "para_1404", "para_1405", "para_1406" ] }, { "title": "846 A.2d 849 (2004) (“[i]ssue preclusion arises when", "paragraphs": [ "para_1408", "para_1409", "para_1410" ] }, { "title": "The court’s memorandum of decision in the 2013 action", "paragraphs": [ "para_1412", "para_1413", "para_1414", "para_1415", "para_1416", "para_1417", "para_1418", "para_1419", "para_1420", "para_1421", "para_1422", "para_1423", "para_1424", "para_1425", "para_1426", "para_1427", "para_1428" ] }, { "title": "Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley, supra, 354 Conn. 80. For", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "19The present case thus resembles illustration 13 to § 27 of the Restate-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1431", "para_1432", "para_1433", "para_1434", "para_1435" ] }, { "title": "A had given such a release but that B was not induced by A’s fraud to", "paragraphs": [ "para_1437" ] }, { "title": "After the note matures A brings an action against B for the principal of", "paragraphs": [ "para_1439", "para_1440", "para_1441" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikthat reason, the trial court in the present case improperly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1443" ] }, { "title": "C", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "Ownership of Confirmit Shares", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "In its memorandum of decision, the court also con-", "paragraphs": [ "para_1447", "para_1448", "para_1449", "para_1450" ] }, { "title": "First, the issue of precisely who owned the Confirmit", "paragraphs": [ "para_1452", "para_1453", "para_1454", "para_1455", "para_1456", "para_1457" ] }, { "title": "2008 transfers with the specific intent of rendering", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "SHI unable to pay its margin calls to the plaintiff. See", "paragraphs": [ "para_1460" ] }, { "title": "346 Conn. 584. The court found that the plaintiff had", "paragraphs": [ "para_1462", "para_1463" ] }, { "title": "Confirmit shares that were transferred in October 2008", "paragraphs": [ "para_1465", "para_1466" ] }, { "title": "Second, Alexander’s ownership of the Confirmit shares", "paragraphs": [ "para_1468", "para_1469", "para_1470", "para_1471" ] }, { "title": "20In neither their appellate brief nor their oral argument before this", "paragraphs": [ "para_1473", "para_1474", "para_1475" ] }, { "title": "Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364, 378–79, 727 A.2d 1245 (1999)", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "(“[a]s the moving party seeking summary judgment, it [is] incumbent", "paragraphs": [ "para_1478", "para_1479", "para_1480" ] }, { "title": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik. . . .”21 The plaintiff further averred that, on December", "paragraphs": [] }, { "title": "21, 2016, the Oslo Enforcement Court “held that SHI", "paragraphs": [ "para_1483", "para_1484", "para_1485", "para_1486", "para_1487", "para_1488", "para_1489", "para_1490", "para_1491", "para_1492", "para_1493", "para_1494", "para_1495", "para_1496", "para_1497", "para_1498", "para_1499" ] }, { "title": "The present case involves whether the defendants were", "paragraphs": [ "para_1501", "para_1502", "para_1503", "para_1504", "para_1505" ] }, { "title": "For those reasons, we conclude that the court improperly", "paragraphs": [ "para_1507", "para_1508", "para_1509" ] }, { "title": "The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for", "paragraphs": [ "para_1511", "para_1512" ] }, { "title": "21In its complaint in the 2013 action, the plaintiff similarly alleged", "paragraphs": [ "para_1514", "para_1515", "para_1516" ] } ], "paragraphs": [ { "text": "************************************************", "paragraph_id": "para_1" }, { "text": "The “officially released” date that appears near the", "paragraph_id": "para_2" }, { "text": "beginning of an opinion is the date the opinion will be", "paragraph_id": "para_3" }, { "text": "published in the Connecticut Law Journal or the date it", "paragraph_id": "para_4" }, { "text": "is released as a slip opinion. The operative date for the", "paragraph_id": "para_5" }, { "text": "beginning of all time periods for the filing of postopinion", "paragraph_id": "para_6" }, { "text": "motions and petitions for certification is the “officially", "paragraph_id": "para_7" }, { "text": "released” date appearing in the opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_8" }, { "text": "All opinions are subject to modification and technical", "paragraph_id": "para_9" }, { "text": "correction prior to official publication in the Connecti-", "paragraph_id": "para_10" }, { "text": "cut Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_11" }, { "text": "Reports or Connecticut Appellate Reports. In the event", "paragraph_id": "para_12" }, { "text": "of discrepancies between the advance release version of", "paragraph_id": "para_13" }, { "text": "an opinion and the version appearing in the Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_14" }, { "text": "Law Journal and subsequently in the Connecticut Reports", "paragraph_id": "para_15" }, { "text": "or Connecticut Appellate Reports, the latest version is", "paragraph_id": "para_16" }, { "text": "to be considered authoritative.", "paragraph_id": "para_17" }, { "text": "The syllabus and procedural history accompanying an", "paragraph_id": "para_18" }, { "text": "opinion that appear in the Connecticut Law Journal and", "paragraph_id": "para_19" }, { "text": "subsequently in the Connecticut Reports or Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_20" }, { "text": "Appellate Reports are copyrighted by the Secretary of the", "paragraph_id": "para_21" }, { "text": "State, State of Connecticut, and may not be reproduced", "paragraph_id": "para_22" }, { "text": "or distributed without the express written permission of", "paragraph_id": "para_23" }, { "text": "the Commission on Official Legal Publications, Judicial", "paragraph_id": "para_24" }, { "text": "Branch, State of Connecticut.", "paragraph_id": "para_25" }, { "text": "************************************************", "paragraph_id": "para_26" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikDEUTSCHE BANK AG v. CAROLINE", "paragraph_id": "para_27" }, { "text": "VIK ET AL.", "paragraph_id": "para_28" }, { "text": "(AC 48622)", "paragraph_id": "para_29" }, { "text": "Elgo, Clark and Wilson, Js.", "paragraph_id": "para_30" }, { "text": "Syllabus", "paragraph_id": "para_31" }, { "text": "The plaintiff bank appealed from the trial court’s judgment granting the", "paragraph_id": "para_32" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants, A and C, on the", "paragraph_id": "para_33" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s complaint alleging, inter alia, tortious interference with business", "paragraph_id": "para_34" }, { "text": "expectancy. The plaintiff claimed, inter alia, that the court improperly deter-", "paragraph_id": "para_35" }, { "text": "mined that the doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims. Held:", "paragraph_id": "para_36" }, { "text": "The trial court erred in granting the defendants’ motion for summary judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_37" }, { "text": "ment as to C on the ground that that the plaintiff’s complaint was barred by", "paragraph_id": "para_38" }, { "text": "the doctrine of res judicata, as the defendants waived that defense because", "paragraph_id": "para_39" }, { "text": "they did not plead the special defense with respect to C before the court", "paragraph_id": "para_40" }, { "text": "and expressly indicated that they were not asserting such a defense on her", "paragraph_id": "para_41" }, { "text": "behalf, and the court erred in its conclusion that C was in privity with A for", "paragraph_id": "para_42" }, { "text": "res judicata purposes.", "paragraph_id": "para_43" }, { "text": "The trial court improperly concluded that no genuine issue of material fact", "paragraph_id": "para_44" }, { "text": "existed as to whether res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims with respect", "paragraph_id": "para_45" }, { "text": "to A, as the court improperly concluded that the present case involved the", "paragraph_id": "para_46" }, { "text": "same underlying claims as a previous action for res judicata purposes and", "paragraph_id": "para_47" }, { "text": "that the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to fully litigate the claims", "paragraph_id": "para_48" }, { "text": "advanced in the present action in the previous action.", "paragraph_id": "para_49" }, { "text": "This court concluded that the trial court improperly determined that the", "paragraph_id": "para_50" }, { "text": "doctrine of res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims of tortious interference", "paragraph_id": "para_51" }, { "text": "with business expectancy and violations of the Connecticut Unfair Trade", "paragraph_id": "para_52" }, { "text": "Practices Act (§ 42-110a et seq.), as the public policy goals of the doctrine", "paragraph_id": "para_53" }, { "text": "were outweighed by the plaintiff’s interest in the vindication of a just claim.", "paragraph_id": "para_54" }, { "text": "The trial court improperly concluded that the doctrine of collateral estoppel", "paragraph_id": "para_55" }, { "text": "applied to the issues in present action, as the present action was predicated", "paragraph_id": "para_56" }, { "text": "on different conduct regarding a different transaction than the transactions", "paragraph_id": "para_57" }, { "text": "at issue in the previous action, the court’s adjudication of the issue in the", "paragraph_id": "para_58" }, { "text": "previous action was not necessary to the judgment in that action, and the", "paragraph_id": "para_59" }, { "text": "requisite identity of issues between the previous action and the present action", "paragraph_id": "para_60" }, { "text": "necessary to advance a collateral estoppel defense was lacking.", "paragraph_id": "para_61" }, { "text": "Argued March 16—officially released July 21, 2026", "paragraph_id": "para_62" }, { "text": "Procedural History", "paragraph_id": "para_63" }, { "text": "Action to recover damages for, inter alia, tortious", "paragraph_id": "para_64" }, { "text": "interference with business expectancy, and for other", "paragraph_id": "para_65" }, { "text": "relief, brought to the Superior Court in the judicial dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_66" }, { "text": "trict of Stamford-Norwalk, where the court, Ozalis, J.,", "paragraph_id": "para_67" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikgranted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_68" }, { "text": "and rendered judgment thereon, from which the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_69" }, { "text": "appealed to this court. Reversed; further proceedings.", "paragraph_id": "para_70" }, { "text": "David G. Januszewski, with whom were Thomas Gold-", "paragraph_id": "para_71" }, { "text": "berg and, on the brief, Sheila C. Ramesh, pro hac vice,", "paragraph_id": "para_72" }, { "text": "Sesi V. Garimella, pro hac vice, John W. Cerreta, and", "paragraph_id": "para_73" }, { "text": "Kayla M. Sinko, for the appellant (plaintiff).", "paragraph_id": "para_74" }, { "text": "Monte E. Frank, with whom were Dana M. Hrelic", "paragraph_id": "para_75" }, { "text": "and Meagan A. Cauda, for the appellees (defendants).", "paragraph_id": "para_76" }, { "text": "Opinion", "paragraph_id": "para_77" }, { "text": "ELGO, J. This is the latest chapter in a long running", "paragraph_id": "para_78" }, { "text": "saga regarding the collection of a foreign judgment. The", "paragraph_id": "para_79" }, { "text": "plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, appeals from the sum-", "paragraph_id": "para_80" }, { "text": "mary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of", "paragraph_id": "para_81" }, { "text": "the defendants, Caroline Vik and Alexander Vik.1 On", "paragraph_id": "para_82" }, { "text": "appeal, the plaintiff contends that the court improperly", "paragraph_id": "para_83" }, { "text": "determined that (1) the doctrine of res judicata barred its", "paragraph_id": "para_84" }, { "text": "tortious interference with business expectancy and Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_85" }, { "text": "necticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA) claims; see", "paragraph_id": "para_86" }, { "text": "General Statutes § 42-110a et seq.;2 and (2) the doctrine", "paragraph_id": "para_87" }, { "text": "of collateral estoppel barred it from relitigating certain", "paragraph_id": "para_88" }, { "text": "issues. We reverse the judgment of the trial court.", "paragraph_id": "para_89" }, { "text": "Mindful of the procedural posture of this case, we set", "paragraph_id": "para_90" }, { "text": "forth the following facts as gleaned from the pleadings,", "paragraph_id": "para_91" }, { "text": "affidavits, and other proof submitted, viewed in the light", "paragraph_id": "para_92" }, { "text": "most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Martinelli v.", "paragraph_id": "para_93" }, { "text": "1For clarity, we refer to Caroline Vik and Alexander Vik individually", "paragraph_id": "para_94" }, { "text": "by first name and collectively as the defendants in this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_95" }, { "text": "2CUTPA is “a remedial statute that broadly prohibits unfair methods", "paragraph_id": "para_96" }, { "text": "of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_97" }, { "text": "of any trade or commerce. . . . The act provides for more robust remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_98" }, { "text": "than those available under analogous common-law causes of action,", "paragraph_id": "para_99" }, { "text": "including punitive damages . . . and attorney's fees and costs, and, in", "paragraph_id": "para_100" }, { "text": "addition to damages or in lieu of damages, injunctive or other equitable", "paragraph_id": "para_101" }, { "text": "relief. . . . [It] establishes a private cause of action, available to [a]ny", "paragraph_id": "para_102" }, { "text": "person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or property, real", "paragraph_id": "para_103" }, { "text": "or personal, as a result of the use or employment of a method, act or", "paragraph_id": "para_104" }, { "text": "practice prohibited by [General Statutes §] 42-110b.” (Citations omit-", "paragraph_id": "para_105" }, { "text": "ted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Marinos v.", "paragraph_id": "para_106" }, { "text": "Poirot, 308 Conn. 706, 712–13, 66 A.3d 860 (2013).", "paragraph_id": "para_107" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikFusi, 290 Conn. 347, 350, 963 A.2d 640 (2009). The", "paragraph_id": "para_108" }, { "text": "plaintiff is a corporation organized under the laws of", "paragraph_id": "para_109" }, { "text": "Germany, with an office in New York City. Alexander", "paragraph_id": "para_110" }, { "text": "is a Norwegian national whose primary residence and", "paragraph_id": "para_111" }, { "text": "domicile has been in Greenwich since 1988. Caroline is", "paragraph_id": "para_112" }, { "text": "Alexander’s adult daughter and also resides in Green-", "paragraph_id": "para_113" }, { "text": "wich.", "paragraph_id": "para_114" }, { "text": "Alexander is a billionaire and sophisticated inves-", "paragraph_id": "para_115" }, { "text": "tor who uses various companies to hold his assets and", "paragraph_id": "para_116" }, { "text": "make investments on his behalf. Sebastian Holdings,", "paragraph_id": "para_117" }, { "text": "Inc. (SHI), a corporation formed under the laws of the", "paragraph_id": "para_118" }, { "text": "Turks and Caicos Islands, is one such company. From", "paragraph_id": "para_119" }, { "text": "1988 to 2015, Alexander owned 100 percent of the shares", "paragraph_id": "para_120" }, { "text": "of SHI, was its sole director, and controlled all aspects", "paragraph_id": "para_121" }, { "text": "of its operations and financial transactions.3", "paragraph_id": "para_122" }, { "text": "SHI became a client of Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA, a", "paragraph_id": "para_123" }, { "text": "wholly owned subsidiary of the plaintiff, in 2004. See", "paragraph_id": "para_124" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346", "paragraph_id": "para_125" }, { "text": "Conn. 564, 569, 294 A.3d 1 (2023). In 2006, the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_126" }, { "text": "entered into a foreign exchange prime brokerage agree-", "paragraph_id": "para_127" }, { "text": "ment and various related agreements with SHI to provide", "paragraph_id": "para_128" }, { "text": "back-office capabilities for foreign exchange trading", "paragraph_id": "para_129" }, { "text": "conducted by Klaud Said, a portfolio manager for SHI.", "paragraph_id": "para_130" }, { "text": "Id., 569–70. From 2006 to 2008, SHI was extremely", "paragraph_id": "para_131" }, { "text": "profitable. Id., 571. Things changed in October 20084", "paragraph_id": "para_132" }, { "text": "when the plaintiff issued a series of margin calls to SHI.5", "paragraph_id": "para_133" }, { "text": "Id., 576.", "paragraph_id": "para_134" }, { "text": "3As our Supreme Court noted in a related appeal, SHI was “run from", "paragraph_id": "para_135" }, { "text": "an office annex attached to [Alexander’s] home in Greenwich.” Deutsche", "paragraph_id": "para_136" }, { "text": "Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 346 Conn. 564, 569, 294 A.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_137" }, { "text": "1 (2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_138" }, { "text": "4As our Supreme Court observed in a related appeal, a “global finan-", "paragraph_id": "para_139" }, { "text": "cial crisis unfolded in the autumn of 2008 . . . .” Deutsche Bank AG v.", "paragraph_id": "para_140" }, { "text": "Sebastian Holdings, Inc., 331 Conn. 379, 381, 204 A.3d 664 (2019);", "paragraph_id": "para_141" }, { "text": "see also Parkcentral Global Hub Ltd. v. Porsche Automobile Holdings", "paragraph_id": "para_142" }, { "text": "SE, 763 F.3d 198, 204 (2d Cir. 2014) (“the global financial crisis became", "paragraph_id": "para_143" }, { "text": "increasingly serious in late October 2008”).", "paragraph_id": "para_144" }, { "text": "5“A margin call is a demand by a broker that an investor deposit addi-", "paragraph_id": "para_145" }, { "text": "tional cash or securities to eliminate or reduce a margin deficiency. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_146" }, { "text": "A margin deficiency results when the equity in an investor's account is", "paragraph_id": "para_147" }, { "text": "less than that required by law to support the account’s liabilities. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_148" }, { "text": "The purpose of margin call rules is to protect brokers from the risks", "paragraph_id": "para_149" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikOn October 7, 2008, Alexander met with the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_150" }, { "text": "bank officials, who informed him that SHI’s holdings", "paragraph_id": "para_151" }, { "text": "with the plaintiff totaled approximately $974 million.", "paragraph_id": "para_152" }, { "text": "Id., 572. During the week of October 13, the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_153" }, { "text": "employees that administered SHI’s accounts “scrambled", "paragraph_id": "para_154" }, { "text": "to properly calculate the risk on . . . [its] trades, which", "paragraph_id": "para_155" }, { "text": "led to . . . massive margin calls during the week ahead.”", "paragraph_id": "para_156" }, { "text": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., 576. From Octo-", "paragraph_id": "para_157" }, { "text": "ber 13 to 17, SHI received multiple margin calls totaling", "paragraph_id": "para_158" }, { "text": "approximately $511 million, which it paid with assets", "paragraph_id": "para_159" }, { "text": "held by the plaintiff. Id., 577–78.", "paragraph_id": "para_160" }, { "text": "Confusion thereafter arose as to the precise amount of", "paragraph_id": "para_161" }, { "text": "SHI assets held by the plaintiff. As our Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_162" }, { "text": "recounted: “After satisfying the fifth margin call, due", "paragraph_id": "para_163" }, { "text": "to the information provided by [the plaintiff] on Octo-", "paragraph_id": "para_164" }, { "text": "ber 7 indicating total holdings of approximately [$974]", "paragraph_id": "para_165" }, { "text": "million, [Alexander] thought SHI had several [hundred", "paragraph_id": "para_166" }, { "text": "million dollars] left in its [accounts with the plaintiff] .", "paragraph_id": "para_167" }, { "text": ". . . [At trial, Alexander’s] experts calculated that assets", "paragraph_id": "para_168" }, { "text": "worth approximately $280 million should have remained", "paragraph_id": "para_169" }, { "text": "in the [accounts] as of October 21 . . . [a figure that the", "paragraph_id": "para_170" }, { "text": "plaintiff] did not contest . . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_171" }, { "text": "“Between October 17, and October 21, [2008, the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_172" }, { "text": "tiff] did not make another margin call . . . . [An officer", "paragraph_id": "para_173" }, { "text": "with the plaintiff] stated in [an] internal correspondence", "paragraph_id": "para_174" }, { "text": "that [as of October 21] minimal SHI trades remained in", "paragraph_id": "para_175" }, { "text": "its system, and everything seeme[d] good . . . . However,", "paragraph_id": "para_176" }, { "text": "at the same time, the team responsible for setting the", "paragraph_id": "para_177" }, { "text": "margins discovered that the SHI cash balance in [the", "paragraph_id": "para_178" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s] system was not [accurately] reflecting the", "paragraph_id": "para_179" }, { "text": "payments being made in connection with SHI’s futures", "paragraph_id": "para_180" }, { "text": "trading . . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_181" }, { "text": "associated with insufficiently secured accounts, and to prevent custom-", "paragraph_id": "para_182" }, { "text": "ers from carrying vast exposure in their accounts without adequate", "paragraph_id": "para_183" }, { "text": "capital to cover their positions. . . . If investors fail to meet margin calls", "paragraph_id": "para_184" }, { "text": "in their accounts, their brokers, pursuant to contract, may liquidate", "paragraph_id": "para_185" }, { "text": "their positions to satisfy the margin calls.” (Citations omitted; internal", "paragraph_id": "para_186" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.) Levine v. Advest, Inc., 244 Conn. 732, 738", "paragraph_id": "para_187" }, { "text": "n.4, 714 A.2d 649 (1998).", "paragraph_id": "para_188" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik“In an internal . . . teleconference on October 22 . . . [the", "paragraph_id": "para_189" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s] officers realized that, because of [a] failure", "paragraph_id": "para_190" }, { "text": "to properly evaluate and enter . . . [the] trades [made by", "paragraph_id": "para_191" }, { "text": "SHI’s portfolio manager], SHI’s account balances had", "paragraph_id": "para_192" }, { "text": "been overstated by at least . . . $320 million, leaving", "paragraph_id": "para_193" }, { "text": "SHI underwater by hundreds of millions of dollars. . .", "paragraph_id": "para_194" }, { "text": ". [The plaintiff’s officers] on the call agreed to tell . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_195" }, { "text": "[Alexander] that they had performed a reconciliation", "paragraph_id": "para_196" }, { "text": "[that] had identified a shortfall but not to explain [the", "paragraph_id": "para_197" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s] mistakes. The call transcript, however, shows", "paragraph_id": "para_198" }, { "text": "that [they] had not performed a reconciliation; they had", "paragraph_id": "para_199" }, { "text": "[merely] identified an error in [the plaintiff’s] systems.", "paragraph_id": "para_200" }, { "text": "“Later on October 22 . . . [Alexander] participated", "paragraph_id": "para_201" }, { "text": "in two high-level telephone calls with [the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_202" }, { "text": "officials] in which he was informed that the correction", "paragraph_id": "para_203" }, { "text": "of computational errors in SHI’s accounts revealed that", "paragraph_id": "para_204" }, { "text": "[there] was in fact [a] deficit and that, as a result, [the", "paragraph_id": "para_205" }, { "text": "plaintiff] was seeking a further margin payment of $300", "paragraph_id": "para_206" }, { "text": "million to $350 million. . . . When [the plaintiff] informed", "paragraph_id": "para_207" }, { "text": ". . . [Alexander] that there was a deficit of [approximately", "paragraph_id": "para_208" }, { "text": "$300 million to $350 million] in the accounts . . . [Alex-", "paragraph_id": "para_209" }, { "text": "ander] . . . was plainly shocked. When . . . [Alexander]", "paragraph_id": "para_210" }, { "text": "asked how this was possible, [an officer with the plaintiff]", "paragraph_id": "para_211" }, { "text": "told him [the plaintiff] had been counting things possibly", "paragraph_id": "para_212" }, { "text": "slightly incorrectly but did not explain the cause of the", "paragraph_id": "para_213" }, { "text": "error.” (Footnote omitted; internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_214" }, { "text": "omitted.) Id., 578–79. Following those telephone calls,", "paragraph_id": "para_215" }, { "text": "SHI received an additional margin call from the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_216" }, { "text": "for more than $300 million, which it did not satisfy. Id.,", "paragraph_id": "para_217" }, { "text": "579–80.", "paragraph_id": "para_218" }, { "text": "In January 2009, the plaintiff commenced an action", "paragraph_id": "para_219" }, { "text": "against SHI in the Queen’s Bench Division of the High", "paragraph_id": "para_220" }, { "text": "Court of Justice of England and Wales to collect amounts", "paragraph_id": "para_221" }, { "text": "owed pursuant to the unpaid margin call, as well as inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_222" }, { "text": "est and costs. Id., 580. In response, SHI asserted coun-", "paragraph_id": "para_223" }, { "text": "terclaims against the plaintiff and various defenses.", "paragraph_id": "para_224" }, { "text": "Id. Following a trial, the court found in favor of the", "paragraph_id": "para_225" }, { "text": "plaintiff on its claims for damages and rejected SHI’s", "paragraph_id": "para_226" }, { "text": "counterclaims and defenses in a 431 page decision issued", "paragraph_id": "para_227" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikon November 8, 2013. Id. The court rendered judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_228" }, { "text": "in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $243,023,089", "paragraph_id": "para_229" }, { "text": "plus interest (English judgment). Id., 580–81.", "paragraph_id": "para_230" }, { "text": "When SHI failed to pay that judgment, the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_231" }, { "text": "commenced an action on December 20, 2013, against", "paragraph_id": "para_232" }, { "text": "SHI and Alexander in Connecticut to enforce the Eng-", "paragraph_id": "para_233" }, { "text": "lish judgment (2013 action).6 Id., 581. In its two count", "paragraph_id": "para_234" }, { "text": "complaint, the plaintiff “sought a declaratory judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_235" }, { "text": "piercing SHI’s corporate veil and holding [Alexander]", "paragraph_id": "para_236" }, { "text": "jointly and severally liable with SHI for the English", "paragraph_id": "para_237" }, { "text": "judgment. It also sought to enforce the English judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_238" }, { "text": "against [Alexander] under the Uniform Foreign Money-", "paragraph_id": "para_239" }, { "text": "Judgments Recognition Act [(act)], General Statutes", "paragraph_id": "para_240" }, { "text": "§ 50a-30 et seq.”7 Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_241" }, { "text": "While the 2013 action to pierce the corporate veil was", "paragraph_id": "para_242" }, { "text": "pending, the plaintiff filed a petition in the Oslo Court of", "paragraph_id": "para_243" }, { "text": "Probate, Bankruptcy, and Enforcement in Norway (Oslo", "paragraph_id": "para_244" }, { "text": "Enforcement Court) to enforce the English judgment in", "paragraph_id": "para_245" }, { "text": "Norway (Norway enforcement action). The Oslo Enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_246" }, { "text": "ment Court issued a decision on April 13, 2016, in which", "paragraph_id": "para_247" }, { "text": "it recognized the English judgment as an enforceable", "paragraph_id": "para_248" }, { "text": "judgment in Norway. The plaintiff then filed a petition", "paragraph_id": "para_249" }, { "text": "in the Oslo Enforcement Court to execute a lien on the", "paragraph_id": "para_250" }, { "text": "shares of Confirmit AS (Confirmit), a Norwegian soft-", "paragraph_id": "para_251" }, { "text": "ware company.", "paragraph_id": "para_252" }, { "text": "6The plaintiff registered the English judgment with the Connecticut", "paragraph_id": "para_253" }, { "text": "Superior Court on December 10, 2013.", "paragraph_id": "para_254" }, { "text": "7That statutory claim was premised on the plaintiff’s veil piercing", "paragraph_id": "para_255" }, { "text": "claim. As the trial court noted in its memorandum of decision in the 2013", "paragraph_id": "para_256" }, { "text": "action, a party generally cannot be held liable for a foreign judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_257" }, { "text": "under the act unless it was a party to the foreign action. Deutsche Bank", "paragraph_id": "para_258" }, { "text": "AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., Docket No. CV-13-5014167-S, 2021", "paragraph_id": "para_259" }, { "text": "WL 4482154, *26 (Conn. Super. September 7, 2021), aff'd, 346 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_260" }, { "text": "564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023); see also General Statutes § 50a-33 (“a foreign", "paragraph_id": "para_261" }, { "text": "judgment meeting the requirements of section 50a-32 is conclusive", "paragraph_id": "para_262" }, { "text": "between the parties to the extent that it grants or denies recovery of a", "paragraph_id": "para_263" }, { "text": "sum of money”). The court further explained that an exception to that", "paragraph_id": "para_264" }, { "text": "general rule exists, stating: “Connecticut courts have enforced [a for-", "paragraph_id": "para_265" }, { "text": "eign] judgment against a person or entity where piercing the corporate", "paragraph_id": "para_266" }, { "text": "veil of the judgment defendant is appropriate.” Deutsche Bank AG v.", "paragraph_id": "para_267" }, { "text": "Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, *26. The court thus reasoned that", "paragraph_id": "para_268" }, { "text": "Alexander could be held liable under the act if the plaintiff established", "paragraph_id": "para_269" }, { "text": "its veil piercing claim. Id., *27.", "paragraph_id": "para_270" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikIn 2008, SHI owned 100 percent of the shares of Confir-", "paragraph_id": "para_271" }, { "text": "mit. In October 2008, Alexander caused SHI to transfer", "paragraph_id": "para_272" }, { "text": "approximately one billion dollars of assets out of SHI", "paragraph_id": "para_273" }, { "text": "(October 2008 transfers). See id., 575 n.3. Among those", "paragraph_id": "para_274" }, { "text": "assets were all of the shares of Confirmit, which were", "paragraph_id": "para_275" }, { "text": "transferred to Alexander’s personal account on October", "paragraph_id": "para_276" }, { "text": "15, 2008. Alexander allegedly maintained ownership of", "paragraph_id": "para_277" }, { "text": "those shares until 2015. He subsequently transferred the", "paragraph_id": "para_278" }, { "text": "Confirmit shares to his father, Erik Martin Vik (Erik).", "paragraph_id": "para_279" }, { "text": "On May 31, 2016, the Execution and Enforcement Com-", "paragraph_id": "para_280" }, { "text": "missioner in Oslo (commissioner) registered an execu-", "paragraph_id": "para_281" }, { "text": "tion lien on the Confirmit shares. Following a trial, the", "paragraph_id": "para_282" }, { "text": "Oslo Enforcement Court confirmed the validity of that", "paragraph_id": "para_283" }, { "text": "execution lien and held that SHI was the true owner of", "paragraph_id": "para_284" }, { "text": "the Confirmit shares at the time the execution lien was", "paragraph_id": "para_285" }, { "text": "established in 2016. After a series of unsuccessful appeals", "paragraph_id": "para_286" }, { "text": "by Erik, the Supreme Court of Norway, on May 24, 2019,", "paragraph_id": "para_287" }, { "text": "affirmed the Oslo Enforcement Court’s determination", "paragraph_id": "para_288" }, { "text": "that SHI was the true owner of the Confirmit shares at", "paragraph_id": "para_289" }, { "text": "the time the execution lien was established.", "paragraph_id": "para_290" }, { "text": "The plaintiff then filed a petition with the Oslo Enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_291" }, { "text": "ment Court seeking a forced sale of the Confirmit shares", "paragraph_id": "para_292" }, { "text": "as part of its efforts to enforce the English judgment. On", "paragraph_id": "para_293" }, { "text": "June 12, 2019, the commissioner granted that petition", "paragraph_id": "para_294" }, { "text": "and, on July 8, 2019, named ABG Sundal Collier ASA", "paragraph_id": "para_295" }, { "text": "(ABG), a Nordic investment bank, as the sales assistant", "paragraph_id": "para_296" }, { "text": "responsible for conducting the sale of the Confirmit", "paragraph_id": "para_297" }, { "text": "shares.", "paragraph_id": "para_298" }, { "text": "As our Supreme Court noted in Deutsche Bank AG", "paragraph_id": "para_299" }, { "text": "v. Vik, 349 Conn. 120, 314 A.3d 583 (2024), a prior", "paragraph_id": "para_300" }, { "text": "appeal in this case, “[i]n June, 2019, as part of the sales", "paragraph_id": "para_301" }, { "text": "process, ABG assessed the shares and determined their", "paragraph_id": "para_302" }, { "text": "value to be between $100 and $150 million. During the", "paragraph_id": "para_303" }, { "text": "first phase of the sale, ABG communicated with approxi-", "paragraph_id": "para_304" }, { "text": "mately [seventy-two] potential buyers. By October, 2019,", "paragraph_id": "para_305" }, { "text": "ten interested parties submitted indicative bids for the", "paragraph_id": "para_306" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik[shares]. In November, 2019, during the second phase", "paragraph_id": "para_307" }, { "text": "of the sales process, two companies submitted final bids.", "paragraph_id": "para_308" }, { "text": "“[In its complaint, the plaintiff] alleges that, as soon as", "paragraph_id": "para_309" }, { "text": "the plaintiff obtained its execution lien in 2016, Alexan-", "paragraph_id": "para_310" }, { "text": "der, operating through various Vik related entities and", "paragraph_id": "para_311" }, { "text": "family members, engaged in a series of vindictive maneu-", "paragraph_id": "para_312" }, { "text": "vers intended to disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere", "paragraph_id": "para_313" }, { "text": "with the sale. Specifically, after the Oslo Enforcement", "paragraph_id": "para_314" }, { "text": "Court ruled that SHI was the true owner of the shares,", "paragraph_id": "para_315" }, { "text": "Erik, at the behest of Alexander, filed numerous baseless", "paragraph_id": "para_316" }, { "text": "appeals challenging that determination. According to", "paragraph_id": "para_317" }, { "text": "the complaint, these appeals, and the uncertainty they", "paragraph_id": "para_318" }, { "text": "created surrounding Confirmit’s ownership, caused Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_319" }, { "text": "firmit to lose market share and significantly contributed", "paragraph_id": "para_320" }, { "text": "to reduced [bids] that . . . potential purchasers submitted", "paragraph_id": "para_321" }, { "text": "during the sales process . . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_322" }, { "text": "“The complaint further alleges that, in September,", "paragraph_id": "para_323" }, { "text": "2017, Erik requested that the execution lien be removed", "paragraph_id": "para_324" }, { "text": "from the Confirmit shares in the VPS registry, the cen-", "paragraph_id": "para_325" }, { "text": "tral securities repository in Norway, even though such", "paragraph_id": "para_326" }, { "text": "removal was unlawful. According to the complaint,", "paragraph_id": "para_327" }, { "text": "[Erik’s] request lacked any legitimate basis, and . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_328" }, { "text": "was made in coordination with Alexander . . . in fur-", "paragraph_id": "para_329" }, { "text": "therance of the long-running scheme to obstruct [the", "paragraph_id": "para_330" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s] ability to recover on the English judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_331" }, { "text": "The complaint further alleges that, on January 27, 2020,", "paragraph_id": "para_332" }, { "text": "the Oslo Enforcement Court rejected [Erik’s] plea to", "paragraph_id": "para_333" }, { "text": "stop the Confirmit sale [based on the 2017] removal of", "paragraph_id": "para_334" }, { "text": "the execution lien from the VPS registry. Noting that", "paragraph_id": "para_335" }, { "text": "only the enforcement office may instruct a VPS account", "paragraph_id": "para_336" }, { "text": "operator to delete a registered execution lien, the Oslo", "paragraph_id": "para_337" }, { "text": "Enforcement Court held that the application made [in]", "paragraph_id": "para_338" }, { "text": "September, 2017, by [Erik] for deletion of the execution", "paragraph_id": "para_339" }, { "text": "lien was unlawful.", "paragraph_id": "para_340" }, { "text": "“Another tactic allegedly utilized by Alexander to", "paragraph_id": "para_341" }, { "text": "disrupt, delay, and otherwise interfere with the sale of", "paragraph_id": "para_342" }, { "text": "the Confirmit shares was to stack Confirmit’s board of", "paragraph_id": "para_343" }, { "text": "directors with Vik family members and close associates.", "paragraph_id": "para_344" }, { "text": "According to the complaint, the plaintiff, fearful that the", "paragraph_id": "para_345" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Viknewly configured board would deplete Confirmit’s assets,", "paragraph_id": "para_346" }, { "text": "filed a petition for a preliminary injunction seeking to", "paragraph_id": "para_347" }, { "text": "have the Viks and their associates removed from the", "paragraph_id": "para_348" }, { "text": "board. On March 30, 2017, the Oslo Enforcement Court", "paragraph_id": "para_349" }, { "text": "granted the petition. In doing so, the court expressed", "paragraph_id": "para_350" }, { "text": "concern that allowing the Viks or their associates to", "paragraph_id": "para_351" }, { "text": "remain on Confirmit’s board increased the risk that bad", "paragraph_id": "para_352" }, { "text": "faith transactions may be implemented [by them] that", "paragraph_id": "para_353" }, { "text": "reduce the value of the [company]. The court further", "paragraph_id": "para_354" }, { "text": "stated that Alexander . . . has systemically sought to", "paragraph_id": "para_355" }, { "text": "withhold funds from service in payment of creditors by", "paragraph_id": "para_356" }, { "text": "transferring assets and that it must also be concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_357" }, { "text": "that [his] family members and business advisers will act", "paragraph_id": "para_358" }, { "text": "in accordance with [his] wishes. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_359" }, { "text": "“The complaint alleges that the plaintiff’s fears regard-", "paragraph_id": "para_360" }, { "text": "ing Alexander’s stacking of Confirmit’s board were real-", "paragraph_id": "para_361" }, { "text": "ized in November, 2019, when Caroline, midway through", "paragraph_id": "para_362" }, { "text": "the bidding process for the Confirmit shares, sought to", "paragraph_id": "para_363" }, { "text": "invoke her rights under a sham agreement between her", "paragraph_id": "para_364" }, { "text": "and SHI purporting to grant her an irrevocable right", "paragraph_id": "para_365" }, { "text": "of first refusal (ROFR) to purchase 100 percent of Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_366" }, { "text": "firmit’s shares. According to the complaint, SHI and", "paragraph_id": "para_367" }, { "text": "Caroline reached this purported agreement on the very", "paragraph_id": "para_368" }, { "text": "same day [that the plaintiff] petitioned . . . to replace", "paragraph_id": "para_369" }, { "text": "Confirmit’s board . . . . As further evidence of fraud, the", "paragraph_id": "para_370" }, { "text": "existence of the purported ROFR was not disclosed until", "paragraph_id": "para_371" }, { "text": "July, 2019, in the midst of negotiations to sell [the] Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_372" }, { "text": "firmit [shares] and despite SHI’s obligations to produce", "paragraph_id": "para_373" }, { "text": "or disclose [any] such [agreement] in the course of vari-", "paragraph_id": "para_374" }, { "text": "ous ongoing [litigation] between SHI and [the plaintiff].", "paragraph_id": "para_375" }, { "text": "“The complaint alleges that, on November 1, 2019,", "paragraph_id": "para_376" }, { "text": "Caroline provided ABG with a copy of the fraudulent", "paragraph_id": "para_377" }, { "text": "ROFR . . . and requested information about [all] offers", "paragraph_id": "para_378" }, { "text": "[to purchase the Confirmit shares, which] she claimed to", "paragraph_id": "para_379" }, { "text": "be entitled to under the [agreement]. According to the", "paragraph_id": "para_380" }, { "text": "complaint, after ABG informed Caroline that, pursuant", "paragraph_id": "para_381" }, { "text": "to Norwegian law, it could not consider the ROFR . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_382" }, { "text": "in connection with the sale of [the] Confirmit [shares]", "paragraph_id": "para_383" }, { "text": "because the . . . agreement was dated after [the plaintiff]", "paragraph_id": "para_384" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik. . . register[ed] its execution lien, Caroline commenced", "paragraph_id": "para_385" }, { "text": "an action against ABG in the United States District", "paragraph_id": "para_386" }, { "text": "Court for the District of Connecticut (Connecticut Dis-", "paragraph_id": "para_387" }, { "text": "trict Court action) seeking to enforce the fraudulent", "paragraph_id": "para_388" }, { "text": "ROFR and to enjoin the sale of the Confirmit shares.", "paragraph_id": "para_389" }, { "text": "On December 4, 2019, the District Court denied her", "paragraph_id": "para_390" }, { "text": "application for a preliminary injunction. Two days later,", "paragraph_id": "para_391" }, { "text": "Caroline filed another petition, this time with the Oslo", "paragraph_id": "para_392" }, { "text": "Enforcement Court, again seeking to enforce the ROFR.", "paragraph_id": "para_393" }, { "text": "This petition also was denied. On February 11, 2020,", "paragraph_id": "para_394" }, { "text": "the District Court issued an order to show cause why", "paragraph_id": "para_395" }, { "text": "Caroline’s action should not be dismissed. In response,", "paragraph_id": "para_396" }, { "text": "Caroline voluntarily dismissed the Connecticut District", "paragraph_id": "para_397" }, { "text": "Court action.", "paragraph_id": "para_398" }, { "text": "“According to the complaint, Caroline’s actions in Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_399" }, { "text": "necticut and Norway were timed specifically to interfere", "paragraph_id": "para_400" }, { "text": "with the forced sale of the Confirmit shares and the busi-", "paragraph_id": "para_401" }, { "text": "ness expectations of [the plaintiff]. . . . The execution and", "paragraph_id": "para_402" }, { "text": "attempted enforcement of [Caroline’s] sham ROFR on", "paragraph_id": "para_403" }, { "text": "which she based her requests for an injunction [were] for", "paragraph_id": "para_404" }, { "text": "the sole purpose of interfering with the . . . sale . . . and", "paragraph_id": "para_405" }, { "text": "had no proper purpose or justification. The complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_406" }, { "text": "alleges that, in a recent court filing in Norway, Hans", "paragraph_id": "para_407" }, { "text": "Eirik Olav, SHI’s purported signatory on the ROFR,", "paragraph_id": "para_408" }, { "text": "stated that he has no recollection of ever entering into a", "paragraph_id": "para_409" }, { "text": "ROFR agreement with Caroline and that the document", "paragraph_id": "para_410" }, { "text": "appears to him to be a forgery.", "paragraph_id": "para_411" }, { "text": "“Another tactic allegedly utilized by Alexander to", "paragraph_id": "para_412" }, { "text": "disrupt, delay, or otherwise interfere with the sale of the", "paragraph_id": "para_413" }, { "text": "Confirmit shares was the submission of a fraudulent bid", "paragraph_id": "para_414" }, { "text": "to purchase the shares. The complaint alleges that, on", "paragraph_id": "para_415" }, { "text": "October 18, 2019, [a]fter ABG initiated the first phase", "paragraph_id": "para_416" }, { "text": "of the Confirmit sale process, [Alexander] submitted an", "paragraph_id": "para_417" }, { "text": "all-cash indicative bid to acquire the Confirmit shares", "paragraph_id": "para_418" }, { "text": "for $325 million. He did so . . . in an effort to disrupt", "paragraph_id": "para_419" }, { "text": "the sale process, which he intentionally manipulated by", "paragraph_id": "para_420" }, { "text": "submitting [the] false bid under the cover of yet another", "paragraph_id": "para_421" }, { "text": "shell company, Xcelera, Inc. (Xcelera), a company Alex-", "paragraph_id": "para_422" }, { "text": "ander knew could never have realistically advanced [$325", "paragraph_id": "para_423" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikmillion to purchase the Confirmit shares]. According to", "paragraph_id": "para_424" }, { "text": "the complaint, Alexander’s bid, which was exponentially", "paragraph_id": "para_425" }, { "text": "higher than [Confirmit’s] estimated value, was not a", "paragraph_id": "para_426" }, { "text": "serious [bid] . . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_427" }, { "text": "“The complaint further alleges that ABG informed", "paragraph_id": "para_428" }, { "text": "Alexander that [t]he situation with Xcelera . . . as a", "paragraph_id": "para_429" }, { "text": "potential buyer . . . [when] the validity of the sales pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_430" }, { "text": "cess is being challenged by legal persons and individuals", "paragraph_id": "para_431" }, { "text": "associated with [that company], requires certain specific", "paragraph_id": "para_432" }, { "text": "procedures to be complied with and measures to be taken", "paragraph_id": "para_433" }, { "text": "in order to ensure [the integrity of the sales process]. . .", "paragraph_id": "para_434" }, { "text": ". Concerned that Xcelera was controlled by Alexander,", "paragraph_id": "para_435" }, { "text": "ABG requested that he provide information regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_436" }, { "text": "Xcelera’s ownership structure, board members, employ-", "paragraph_id": "para_437" }, { "text": "ees, and proof that it had sufficient funds to purchase", "paragraph_id": "para_438" }, { "text": "the Confirmit shares. ABG also sought confirmation that", "paragraph_id": "para_439" }, { "text": "Xcelera, SHI, and Alexander would not challenge the", "paragraph_id": "para_440" }, { "text": "legality of the sales process. According to the complaint,", "paragraph_id": "para_441" }, { "text": "no such information or assurances were forthcoming", "paragraph_id": "para_442" }, { "text": "from Alexander. Instead, Alexander responded to ABG’s", "paragraph_id": "para_443" }, { "text": "request for information by asking ABG how it intended", "paragraph_id": "para_444" }, { "text": "to deal . . . with the rights of first refusal that exist [in", "paragraph_id": "para_445" }, { "text": "connection with] the Confirmit shares. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_446" }, { "text": "“The complaint finally alleges that, [f]ollowing their", "paragraph_id": "para_447" }, { "text": "repeated attempts to disrupt and otherwise interfere with", "paragraph_id": "para_448" }, { "text": "the Confirmit sale process, the defendants succeeded in", "paragraph_id": "para_449" }, { "text": "driving down both the indicative bids and final sale price", "paragraph_id": "para_450" }, { "text": "for [the company]. Specifically, the complaint alleges", "paragraph_id": "para_451" }, { "text": "that, [a]s a direct result of the defendants’ misconduct,", "paragraph_id": "para_452" }, { "text": "the value of Confirmit, which was originally projected", "paragraph_id": "para_453" }, { "text": "to be between $100 . . . and $150 million, fell to only $65", "paragraph_id": "para_454" }, { "text": "million, reducing the amount of debt that [the plaintiff]", "paragraph_id": "para_455" }, { "text": "was able to recover by tens of millions of dollars. Accord-", "paragraph_id": "para_456" }, { "text": "ing to the complaint, Verdane, a European capital fund", "paragraph_id": "para_457" }, { "text": "that ultimately purchased the Confirmit shares, sent", "paragraph_id": "para_458" }, { "text": "ABG a letter [on December 3, 2019] articulating its", "paragraph_id": "para_459" }, { "text": "growing concerns about acquiring a company to which", "paragraph_id": "para_460" }, { "text": "[Alexander] and related parties claimed rights. Spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_461" }, { "text": "cifically, Verdane noted that the purported ROFR, the", "paragraph_id": "para_462" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik[Connecticut] District Court [action], and the unlawfully", "paragraph_id": "para_463" }, { "text": "deleted registration of the execution lien all contributed", "paragraph_id": "para_464" }, { "text": "to what [it] perceived to be an increased risk of acquiring", "paragraph_id": "para_465" }, { "text": "Confirmit. The final agreed on price when the sale finally", "paragraph_id": "para_466" }, { "text": "closed on February 14, 2020, was $65 million, which was", "paragraph_id": "para_467" }, { "text": "$5 million less than Verdane’s final offer in November,", "paragraph_id": "para_468" }, { "text": "2019, and $35 million to $85 million less than the price", "paragraph_id": "para_469" }, { "text": "ABG had placed on the shares in June, 2019.” (Internal", "paragraph_id": "para_470" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.) Id., 125–30.", "paragraph_id": "para_471" }, { "text": "Months after the sale of the Confirmit shares closed,", "paragraph_id": "para_472" }, { "text": "the plaintiff commenced the present action in June 2020.8", "paragraph_id": "para_473" }, { "text": "In its two count complaint, the plaintiff alleged tortious", "paragraph_id": "para_474" }, { "text": "interference with business expectancy and CUTPA viola-", "paragraph_id": "para_475" }, { "text": "tions on the part of the defendants due to their alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_476" }, { "text": "efforts to interfere with the sale of the Confirmit shares.", "paragraph_id": "para_477" }, { "text": "The plaintiff further alleged that the defendants’ conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_478" }, { "text": "“depressed the value of the Confirmit shares,” which", "paragraph_id": "para_479" }, { "text": "prevented the plaintiff “from recovering up to $85 mil-", "paragraph_id": "para_480" }, { "text": "lion of [the English judgment] debt.”", "paragraph_id": "para_481" }, { "text": "On October 22, 2020, the defendants filed a motion to", "paragraph_id": "para_482" }, { "text": "dismiss the present action, in which they argued that the", "paragraph_id": "para_483" }, { "text": "litigation privilege deprived the court of subject matter", "paragraph_id": "para_484" }, { "text": "jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s action because the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_485" }, { "text": "tiff’s claims were predicated on communications made", "paragraph_id": "para_486" }, { "text": "and actions taken in prior judicial proceedings.9 The trial", "paragraph_id": "para_487" }, { "text": "court denied that motion. The defendants then filed an", "paragraph_id": "para_488" }, { "text": "interlocutory appeal with this court, which reversed the", "paragraph_id": "para_489" }, { "text": "judgment of the trial court and concluded that the litiga-", "paragraph_id": "para_490" }, { "text": "8At that time, the trial in the 2013 action had concluded, but no deci-", "paragraph_id": "para_491" }, { "text": "sion had been rendered by the trial court. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik,", "paragraph_id": "para_492" }, { "text": "supra, 349 Conn. 123 (noting that plaintiff commenced present case", "paragraph_id": "para_493" }, { "text": "“[w]hile [the 2013 action] was pending in the trial court”); Deutsche", "paragraph_id": "para_494" }, { "text": "Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., Docket No. CV-13-5014167-S,", "paragraph_id": "para_495" }, { "text": "2021 WL 4482154, *1 (Conn. Super. September 7, 2021) (“trial before", "paragraph_id": "para_496" }, { "text": "this court [in the 2013 action] was held over five days in November and", "paragraph_id": "para_497" }, { "text": "December 2019”), aff'd, 346 Conn. 564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023).", "paragraph_id": "para_498" }, { "text": "9In separate motions to dismiss filed that same day, the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_499" }, { "text": "argued that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Alexander and", "paragraph_id": "para_500" }, { "text": "that the plaintiff’s action should be dismissed pursuant to both the", "paragraph_id": "para_501" }, { "text": "prior pending action doctrine and the forum non conveniens doctrine.", "paragraph_id": "para_502" }, { "text": "The defendants subsequently withdrew those motions.", "paragraph_id": "para_503" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Viktion privilege barred the plaintiff’s tortious interference", "paragraph_id": "para_504" }, { "text": "and CUTPA claims. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, 214", "paragraph_id": "para_505" }, { "text": "Conn. App. 487, 281 A.3d 12 (2022), rev’d, 349 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_506" }, { "text": "120, 314 A.3d 583 (2024). Our Supreme Court granted", "paragraph_id": "para_507" }, { "text": "the plaintiff’s petition for certification to appeal and", "paragraph_id": "para_508" }, { "text": "thereafter concluded, “construing the complaint in the", "paragraph_id": "para_509" }, { "text": "light most favorable to the plaintiff,” that this court had", "paragraph_id": "para_510" }, { "text": "improperly determined that the plaintiff’s claims were", "paragraph_id": "para_511" }, { "text": "barred by the litigation privilege. Deutsche Bank AG v.", "paragraph_id": "para_512" }, { "text": "Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 139–40. The Supreme Court thus", "paragraph_id": "para_513" }, { "text": "reversed the judgment of this court and remanded it to", "paragraph_id": "para_514" }, { "text": "this court with direction to affirm the judgment of the", "paragraph_id": "para_515" }, { "text": "trial court. Id., 148.", "paragraph_id": "para_516" }, { "text": "At the time of those appeals before this court and our", "paragraph_id": "para_517" }, { "text": "Supreme Court, a concurrent appeal arose regarding", "paragraph_id": "para_518" }, { "text": "the 2013 action to pierce the corporate veil of SHI. In", "paragraph_id": "para_519" }, { "text": "its complaint in the 2013 action, the plaintiff alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_520" }, { "text": "in relevant part that, “on or before October 9, 2008,", "paragraph_id": "para_521" }, { "text": "and through October 30, 2008, [Alexander] caused SHI", "paragraph_id": "para_522" }, { "text": "to transfer funds to him and other entities owned and", "paragraph_id": "para_523" }, { "text": "controlled by him and/or his immediate family in order", "paragraph_id": "para_524" }, { "text": "to shield SHI’s assets from [the plaintiff] . . . . Through", "paragraph_id": "para_525" }, { "text": "his domination and control of SHI, [Alexander] caused", "paragraph_id": "para_526" }, { "text": "SHI to breach its contractual obligations to [the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_527" }, { "text": "tiff] and to fraudulently convey funds to third parties", "paragraph_id": "para_528" }, { "text": "for the inequitable purpose of shielding SHI’s assets and", "paragraph_id": "para_529" }, { "text": "defrauding [the plaintiff] out of [money] owed.” The", "paragraph_id": "para_530" }, { "text": "plaintiff thus sought a declaratory judgment piercing", "paragraph_id": "para_531" }, { "text": "SHI’s corporate veil and holding Alexander jointly and", "paragraph_id": "para_532" }, { "text": "severally liable with SHI for the English judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_533" }, { "text": "A five day trial on the 2013 action was held in late 2019.", "paragraph_id": "para_534" }, { "text": "In a subsequent memorandum of decision dated Septem-", "paragraph_id": "para_535" }, { "text": "ber 7, 2021, the court found that, under Turks and Caicos", "paragraph_id": "para_536" }, { "text": "Islands law, a plaintiff seeking to pierce a corporate veil", "paragraph_id": "para_537" }, { "text": "“must demonstrate three things: (1) domination and", "paragraph_id": "para_538" }, { "text": "control of the corporation by the alleged wrongdoer, (2)", "paragraph_id": "para_539" }, { "text": "commingling of the corporation’s assets with those of", "paragraph_id": "para_540" }, { "text": "the wrongdoer or with entities controlled by him, and (3)", "paragraph_id": "para_541" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikspecific intent by the wrongdoer to leave the corporation", "paragraph_id": "para_542" }, { "text": "unable to pay its debts. Applying this standard to the", "paragraph_id": "para_543" }, { "text": "evidence adduced at trial, the trial court concluded that", "paragraph_id": "para_544" }, { "text": "[the plaintiff] had met the first two prongs of the test. The", "paragraph_id": "para_545" }, { "text": "court found that the evidence established unequivocally", "paragraph_id": "para_546" }, { "text": "that SHI had no separate mind of its own from [Alex-", "paragraph_id": "para_547" }, { "text": "ander] and that [Alexander] completely dominated and", "paragraph_id": "para_548" }, { "text": "controlled SHI. The court also found that the evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_549" }, { "text": "established that [Alexander] regularly used SHI funds", "paragraph_id": "para_550" }, { "text": "for personal expenses and pet projects and regularly", "paragraph_id": "para_551" }, { "text": "transferred massive funds between [SHI] and his other", "paragraph_id": "para_552" }, { "text": "companies without any formality at all, as if transferring", "paragraph_id": "para_553" }, { "text": "money from one pocket to another.” (Internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_554" }, { "text": "marks omitted.) Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Hold-", "paragraph_id": "para_555" }, { "text": "ings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 583–84. The court neverthe-", "paragraph_id": "para_556" }, { "text": "less concluded that the plaintiff had “failed to satisfy", "paragraph_id": "para_557" }, { "text": "its burden of proof to justify piercing SHI’s corporate", "paragraph_id": "para_558" }, { "text": "veil and that [Alexander] diverted SHI’s assets with the", "paragraph_id": "para_559" }, { "text": "specific intent of rendering it unable to pay its margin", "paragraph_id": "para_560" }, { "text": "calls to [the plaintiff].” Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian", "paragraph_id": "para_561" }, { "text": "Holdings, Inc., Docket No. CV-13-5014167-S, 2021 WL", "paragraph_id": "para_562" }, { "text": "4482154, *1 (Conn. Super. September 7, 2021), aff’d,", "paragraph_id": "para_563" }, { "text": "346 Conn. 564, 294 A.3d 1 (2023). More specifically, the", "paragraph_id": "para_564" }, { "text": "court concluded that the plaintiff had failed to demon-", "paragraph_id": "para_565" }, { "text": "strate that Alexander “acted with the specific intent to", "paragraph_id": "para_566" }, { "text": "leave SHI unable to pay its debts to [the plaintiff]” when", "paragraph_id": "para_567" }, { "text": "he caused SHI to transfer approximately one billion dol-", "paragraph_id": "para_568" }, { "text": "lars of assets out of SHI in October 2008. Deutsche Bank", "paragraph_id": "para_569" }, { "text": "AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 584;", "paragraph_id": "para_570" }, { "text": "see also id., 575 n.3. Accordingly, the trial court “rejected", "paragraph_id": "para_571" }, { "text": "[the plaintiff’s] claim that [Alexander] should be held", "paragraph_id": "para_572" }, { "text": "personally liable for the English judgment.” Id., 583.", "paragraph_id": "para_573" }, { "text": "From that judgment, the plaintiff filed an appeal with", "paragraph_id": "para_574" }, { "text": "this court, which was transferred to our Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_575" }, { "text": "pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199 (c) and Practice", "paragraph_id": "para_576" }, { "text": "Book § 65-1. In a decision released on May 30, 2023, our", "paragraph_id": "para_577" }, { "text": "Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court.", "paragraph_id": "para_578" }, { "text": "Id., 604. In so doing, the court concluded that the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_579" }, { "text": "court properly “declined to pierce SHI’s corporate veil", "paragraph_id": "para_580" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikand to hold [Alexander] jointly and severally liable with", "paragraph_id": "para_581" }, { "text": "SHI for the English judgment.”10 Id., 569.", "paragraph_id": "para_582" }, { "text": "That decision, in turn, precipitated the summary judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_583" }, { "text": "ment that underlies this appeal. On remand to the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_584" }, { "text": "court following our Supreme Court’s determination", "paragraph_id": "para_585" }, { "text": "that the plaintiff’s tortious interference with business", "paragraph_id": "para_586" }, { "text": "expectancy and CUTPA claims in the present case were", "paragraph_id": "para_587" }, { "text": "not barred by the litigation privilege; see Deutsche Bank", "paragraph_id": "para_588" }, { "text": "AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 139–48; the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_589" }, { "text": "filed a motion for summary judgment. In that motion,", "paragraph_id": "para_590" }, { "text": "the defendants argued that the doctrines of res judicata", "paragraph_id": "para_591" }, { "text": "and collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff’s action. That", "paragraph_id": "para_592" }, { "text": "motion was accompanied by a memorandum of law and", "paragraph_id": "para_593" }, { "text": "several exhibits.11 The plaintiff filed an opposition to the", "paragraph_id": "para_594" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment, as well as a memorandum", "paragraph_id": "para_595" }, { "text": "of law. The defendants filed a reply to that opposition,", "paragraph_id": "para_596" }, { "text": "and the court held a hearing on the motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_597" }, { "text": "judgment on December 4, 2024.", "paragraph_id": "para_598" }, { "text": "In its subsequent memorandum of decision, the court", "paragraph_id": "para_599" }, { "text": "first concluded that all four elements of res judicata; see", "paragraph_id": "para_600" }, { "text": "Solon v. Slater, 345 Conn. 794, 825, 287 A.3d 574 (2023);", "paragraph_id": "para_601" }, { "text": "had been met. The court thus granted the motion for sum-", "paragraph_id": "para_602" }, { "text": "mary judgment on that ground “as to both defendants.”12", "paragraph_id": "para_603" }, { "text": "In addition, the court stated that the motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_604" }, { "text": "judgment “on the ground that such claims are barred", "paragraph_id": "para_605" }, { "text": "by the doctrine of collateral estoppel is granted in part,", "paragraph_id": "para_606" }, { "text": "denied in part. [The plaintiff] is collaterally estopped", "paragraph_id": "para_607" }, { "text": "from relitigating the following issues: (1) the personal lia-", "paragraph_id": "para_608" }, { "text": "bility of [Alexander] to [the plaintiff] under the English", "paragraph_id": "para_609" }, { "text": "judgment and the enforcement of the English judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_610" }, { "text": "against him; (2) whether the transfer of SHI’s assets,", "paragraph_id": "para_611" }, { "text": "including shares of Confirmit from SHI to [Alexander] in", "paragraph_id": "para_612" }, { "text": "10The court also rejected the plaintiff’s evidentiary challenge regard-", "paragraph_id": "para_613" }, { "text": "ing the admission of certain testimony from Alexander at trial in the", "paragraph_id": "para_614" }, { "text": "2013 action. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_615" }, { "text": "346 Conn. 595–604.", "paragraph_id": "para_616" }, { "text": "11Those exhibits included copies of various pleadings from the 2013", "paragraph_id": "para_617" }, { "text": "action.", "paragraph_id": "para_618" }, { "text": "12In so concluding, the court summarily stated that Caroline, who", "paragraph_id": "para_619" }, { "text": "was not a party to the 2013 action, “is in privity with [Alexander].”", "paragraph_id": "para_620" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikOctober 2008, was proper; and (3) that [Alexander] was", "paragraph_id": "para_621" }, { "text": "the owner of the Confirmit shares in October 2008. It is", "paragraph_id": "para_622" }, { "text": "denied as to all other remaining issues.” Accordingly,", "paragraph_id": "para_623" }, { "text": "the court rendered summary judgment in favor of the", "paragraph_id": "para_624" }, { "text": "defendants, and this appeal followed.", "paragraph_id": "para_625" }, { "text": "As a preliminary matter, we note certain well estab-", "paragraph_id": "para_626" }, { "text": "lished principles that are relevant to our consideration of", "paragraph_id": "para_627" }, { "text": "the plaintiff’s claims. Res judicata and collateral estop-", "paragraph_id": "para_628" }, { "text": "pel are doctrines of preclusion; see generally Tracey v.", "paragraph_id": "para_629" }, { "text": "Miami Beach Assn., 216 Conn. App. 379, 390–92, 288", "paragraph_id": "para_630" }, { "text": "A.3d 629 (2022), cert. denied, 346 Conn. 919, 291 A.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_631" }, { "text": "1040 (2023); that are “judicially created rules of reason .", "paragraph_id": "para_632" }, { "text": ". . enforced on public policy grounds . . . .” (Internal quo-", "paragraph_id": "para_633" }, { "text": "tation marks omitted.) Weiss v. Weiss, 297 Conn. 446,", "paragraph_id": "para_634" }, { "text": "460, 998 A.2d 766 (2010). “The doctrines of collateral", "paragraph_id": "para_635" }, { "text": "estoppel and res judicata, also known as issue preclusion", "paragraph_id": "para_636" }, { "text": "and claim preclusion, respectively, have been described", "paragraph_id": "para_637" }, { "text": "as related ideas on a continuum. . . . Both doctrines", "paragraph_id": "para_638" }, { "text": "share common purposes, namely, to protect the finality", "paragraph_id": "para_639" }, { "text": "of judicial determinations, [to] conserve the time of the", "paragraph_id": "para_640" }, { "text": "court, and [to] prevent wasteful litigation . . . .” (Cita-", "paragraph_id": "para_641" }, { "text": "tion omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Solon", "paragraph_id": "para_642" }, { "text": "v. Slater, supra, 345 Conn. 810. Collateral estoppel and", "paragraph_id": "para_643" }, { "text": "res judicata are grounded in “the fundamental principle", "paragraph_id": "para_644" }, { "text": "that once a matter has been fully and fairly litigated,", "paragraph_id": "para_645" }, { "text": "and finally decided, it comes to rest.” State v. Ellis, 197", "paragraph_id": "para_646" }, { "text": "Conn. 436, 465, 497 A.2d 974 (1985). At the same time,", "paragraph_id": "para_647" }, { "text": "our Supreme Court has cautioned that those doctrines of", "paragraph_id": "para_648" }, { "text": "preclusion “should be flexible and must give way when", "paragraph_id": "para_649" }, { "text": "their mechanical application would frustrate other social", "paragraph_id": "para_650" }, { "text": "policies based on values equally or more important than", "paragraph_id": "para_651" }, { "text": "the convenience afforded by finality in legal controver-", "paragraph_id": "para_652" }, { "text": "sies.” In re Juvenile Appeal (83-DE), 190 Conn. 310,", "paragraph_id": "para_653" }, { "text": "318, 460 A.2d 1277 (1983). Notable among those other", "paragraph_id": "para_654" }, { "text": "policies is a party’s interest in the vindication of a just", "paragraph_id": "para_655" }, { "text": "claim. See, e.g., Isaac v. Truck Service, Inc., 253 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_656" }, { "text": "416, 422, 752 A.2d 509 (2000).", "paragraph_id": "para_657" }, { "text": "“It is well established that res judicata and collateral", "paragraph_id": "para_658" }, { "text": "estoppel are affirmative defenses that may be waived if", "paragraph_id": "para_659" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Viknot properly pleaded.” Singhaviroj v. Board of Educa-", "paragraph_id": "para_660" }, { "text": "tion, 124 Conn. App. 228, 233, 4 A.3d 851 (2010); see", "paragraph_id": "para_661" }, { "text": "also M&T Bank v. Lewis, 349 Conn. 9, 19 n.6, 312 A.3d", "paragraph_id": "para_662" }, { "text": "1040 (2024) (“a claim that an action or claim is barred by", "paragraph_id": "para_663" }, { "text": "res judicata or collateral estoppel must be raised in the", "paragraph_id": "para_664" }, { "text": "trial court through appropriate pleadings”). The party", "paragraph_id": "para_665" }, { "text": "asserting a defense of res judicata or collateral estop-", "paragraph_id": "para_666" }, { "text": "pel bears the burden of establishing its applicability.", "paragraph_id": "para_667" }, { "text": "See State v. Knight, 266 Conn. 658, 664, 835 A.2d 47", "paragraph_id": "para_668" }, { "text": "(2003); Commissioner of Environmental Protection v.", "paragraph_id": "para_669" }, { "text": "Connecticut Building Wrecking Co., 227 Conn. 175, 195,", "paragraph_id": "para_670" }, { "text": "629 A.2d 1116 (1993). The applicability of res judicata or", "paragraph_id": "para_671" }, { "text": "collateral estoppel in a given case presents a question of", "paragraph_id": "para_672" }, { "text": "law, over which our review is plenary. See Independent", "paragraph_id": "para_673" }, { "text": "Party of CT-State Central v. Merrill, 330 Conn. 681,", "paragraph_id": "para_674" }, { "text": "712, 200 A.3d 1118 (2019).", "paragraph_id": "para_675" }, { "text": "I", "paragraph_id": "para_676" }, { "text": "RES JUDICATA", "paragraph_id": "para_677" }, { "text": "We begin with the plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_678" }, { "text": "application of the doctrine of res judicata. The plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_679" }, { "text": "tiff contends that the court improperly granted the", "paragraph_id": "para_680" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment on that ground “as to", "paragraph_id": "para_681" }, { "text": "both defendants,” despite the fact that the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_682" }, { "text": "did not plead that defense with respect to Caroline, and", "paragraph_id": "para_683" }, { "text": "that it improperly concluded that Caroline was in privity", "paragraph_id": "para_684" }, { "text": "with Alexander. The plaintiff also argues that the court", "paragraph_id": "para_685" }, { "text": "improperly concluded, with respect to Alexander, that", "paragraph_id": "para_686" }, { "text": "no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether", "paragraph_id": "para_687" }, { "text": "res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims. We agree.", "paragraph_id": "para_688" }, { "text": "A", "paragraph_id": "para_689" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_690" }, { "text": "It is well established that, “[u]nder Connecticut law, the", "paragraph_id": "para_691" }, { "text": "doctrine of res judicata is pleaded as a special defense.”", "paragraph_id": "para_692" }, { "text": "Tracey v. Miami Beach Assn., supra, 216 Conn. App.", "paragraph_id": "para_693" }, { "text": "392; see also Practice Book § 10-50 (res judicata is spe-", "paragraph_id": "para_694" }, { "text": "cial defense that “must be specially pleaded”); Beccia v.", "paragraph_id": "para_695" }, { "text": "Waterbury, 185 Conn. 445, 451, 441 A.2d 131 (1981)", "paragraph_id": "para_696" }, { "text": "(“[a] prior judgment which would be a bar to a later", "paragraph_id": "para_697" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikaction, as res adjudicata, is a defense which must be", "paragraph_id": "para_698" }, { "text": "specially pleaded by the party who seeks its benefit”).", "paragraph_id": "para_699" }, { "text": "When a party fails to plead that defense, it is subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_700" }, { "text": "waiver. See Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_701" }, { "text": "124 Conn. App. 233.", "paragraph_id": "para_702" }, { "text": "At no time since the commencement of this action in", "paragraph_id": "para_703" }, { "text": "2020 have the defendants filed an answer to the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_704" }, { "text": "tiff’s complaint. Instead, they first moved to dismiss the", "paragraph_id": "para_705" }, { "text": "action on various grounds, including the litigation privi-", "paragraph_id": "para_706" }, { "text": "lege, which culminated in the decision of our Supreme", "paragraph_id": "para_707" }, { "text": "Court in Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_708" }, { "text": "120. Following a remand for further proceedings, the", "paragraph_id": "para_709" }, { "text": "defendants then filed a motion for summary judgment,", "paragraph_id": "para_710" }, { "text": "as was their prerogative. See Practice Book § 17-44 (“any", "paragraph_id": "para_711" }, { "text": "party may move for a summary judgment as to any cause", "paragraph_id": "para_712" }, { "text": "of action or defense as a matter of right at any time if", "paragraph_id": "para_713" }, { "text": "no scheduling order exists and the case has not been", "paragraph_id": "para_714" }, { "text": "assigned for trial”); Joe’s Pizza, Inc. v. Aetna Life &", "paragraph_id": "para_715" }, { "text": "Casualty Co., 236 Conn. 863, 867 n.8, 675 A.2d 441", "paragraph_id": "para_716" }, { "text": "(1996) (“a party may move for summary judgment at any", "paragraph_id": "para_717" }, { "text": "time”); Nash v. Roland Dumont Agency, Inc., Docket", "paragraph_id": "para_718" }, { "text": "No. CV-18-5018054-S, 2018 WL 6721442, *1 (Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_719" }, { "text": "Super. November 21, 2018) (“[p]rior to filing an answer,", "paragraph_id": "para_720" }, { "text": "the defendants filed a motion for summary judgment, as", "paragraph_id": "para_721" }, { "text": "permitted by Practice Book § 17-44”). In the heading to", "paragraph_id": "para_722" }, { "text": "part III B of their memorandum of law in support of their", "paragraph_id": "para_723" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment, the defendants stated:", "paragraph_id": "para_724" }, { "text": "“The Claims Made in This Case Against [Alexander] are", "paragraph_id": "para_725" }, { "text": "Barred by the Doctrine of Res Judicata.”13", "paragraph_id": "para_726" }, { "text": "13We note that, after stating that the plaintiff’s claims against Alex-", "paragraph_id": "para_727" }, { "text": "ander were barred by the doctrine of res judicata and reciting familiar", "paragraph_id": "para_728" }, { "text": "precepts of that doctrine, the defendants curiously stated: “Consider-", "paragraph_id": "para_729" }, { "text": "ation of the four elements of res judicata demonstrates conclusively", "paragraph_id": "para_730" }, { "text": "that it applies to bar both counts of the 2020 complaint against the", "paragraph_id": "para_731" }, { "text": "[defendants].” The defendants then proceeded to apply the four ele-", "paragraph_id": "para_732" }, { "text": "ments of res judicata with respect to Alexander, noting that “both [the", "paragraph_id": "para_733" }, { "text": "plaintiff] and [Alexander] were parties to the [2013 action] and are", "paragraph_id": "para_734" }, { "text": "parties in this case.” Notably, the defendants did not discuss Caroline", "paragraph_id": "para_735" }, { "text": "in the res judicata portion of their memorandum of law in support of", "paragraph_id": "para_736" }, { "text": "their motion for summary judgment and did not argue that she was in", "paragraph_id": "para_737" }, { "text": "privity with a party to the 2013 action.", "paragraph_id": "para_738" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikIn its opposition to the motion for summary judgment,", "paragraph_id": "para_739" }, { "text": "the plaintiff argued that Caroline was neither a party to", "paragraph_id": "para_740" }, { "text": "the 2013 action nor in privity with the parties to that", "paragraph_id": "para_741" }, { "text": "action. It further noted that it was “unclear whether", "paragraph_id": "para_742" }, { "text": "the defendants contend that res judicata bars the claims", "paragraph_id": "para_743" }, { "text": "against [Caroline]. The heading of their res judicata argu-", "paragraph_id": "para_744" }, { "text": "ment states only that the claims against [Alexander] are", "paragraph_id": "para_745" }, { "text": "barred.” The plaintiff further argued that “res judicata", "paragraph_id": "para_746" }, { "text": "cannot bar [the plaintiff’s] claims against [Caroline]” in", "paragraph_id": "para_747" }, { "text": "the present case.", "paragraph_id": "para_748" }, { "text": "In their November 1, 2024 reply to the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_749" }, { "text": "opposition, the defendants clarified that they “have not", "paragraph_id": "para_750" }, { "text": "advanced a claim that res judicata applies to bar the pres-", "paragraph_id": "para_751" }, { "text": "ent claims against [Caroline]. Rather, the claims against", "paragraph_id": "para_752" }, { "text": "her are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel.” For", "paragraph_id": "para_753" }, { "text": "that reason, the plaintiff’s counsel apprised the court at", "paragraph_id": "para_754" }, { "text": "the December 4, 2024 hearing on the motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_755" }, { "text": "judgment that the defendants “are not asserting [res", "paragraph_id": "para_756" }, { "text": "judicata] on behalf of [Caroline] but only [Alexander].”14", "paragraph_id": "para_757" }, { "text": "In its subsequent memorandum of decision, the court", "paragraph_id": "para_758" }, { "text": "nevertheless granted the motion for summary judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_759" }, { "text": "“on the ground that [the plaintiff’s] claims are barred", "paragraph_id": "para_760" }, { "text": "by the doctrine of res judicata as to both defendants.”", "paragraph_id": "para_761" }, { "text": "(Emphasis added.)", "paragraph_id": "para_762" }, { "text": "That determination cannot be reconciled with the", "paragraph_id": "para_763" }, { "text": "record before us, particularly the defendants’ averment", "paragraph_id": "para_764" }, { "text": "in their November 1, 2024 reply to the plaintiff’s opposi-", "paragraph_id": "para_765" }, { "text": "tion that they were not pleading res judicata with respect", "paragraph_id": "para_766" }, { "text": "to Caroline. Because the defendants did not plead that", "paragraph_id": "para_767" }, { "text": "special defense with respect to Caroline at any time before", "paragraph_id": "para_768" }, { "text": "the trial court and expressly indicated that they were", "paragraph_id": "para_769" }, { "text": "14Because the defendants never offered argument or evidence to sup-", "paragraph_id": "para_770" }, { "text": "port a res judicata defense with respect to Caroline—as the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_771" }, { "text": "reminded the court in its October 11, 2024 opposition to the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_772" }, { "text": "motion for summary judgment and at the December 4, 2024 hearing on", "paragraph_id": "para_773" }, { "text": "that motion—this is not a case in which the court properly could con-", "paragraph_id": "para_774" }, { "text": "sider that defense despite the defendants’ failure to specifically plead", "paragraph_id": "para_775" }, { "text": "it. See Singhaviroj v. Board of Education, supra, 124 Conn. App. 234.", "paragraph_id": "para_776" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Viknot asserting such a defense on her behalf, we agree with", "paragraph_id": "para_777" }, { "text": "the plaintiff that the defendants waived that defense.", "paragraph_id": "para_778" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_779" }, { "text": "We also disagree with the two distinct determinations", "paragraph_id": "para_780" }, { "text": "made by the court regarding the privity element of res", "paragraph_id": "para_781" }, { "text": "judicata.", "paragraph_id": "para_782" }, { "text": "a", "paragraph_id": "para_783" }, { "text": "In its memorandum of decision, the court found that", "paragraph_id": "para_784" }, { "text": "“[t]here is . . . no dispute that [the privity requirement is]", "paragraph_id": "para_785" }, { "text": "met.” (Emphasis added.) The record indicates otherwise.", "paragraph_id": "para_786" }, { "text": "First, the defendants never alleged in their August 27,", "paragraph_id": "para_787" }, { "text": "2024 motion for summary judgment and accompanying", "paragraph_id": "para_788" }, { "text": "memorandum of law, their November 1, 2024 reply to the", "paragraph_id": "para_789" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s opposition, or their argument at the December", "paragraph_id": "para_790" }, { "text": "1, 2024 hearing on the motion for summary judgment,", "paragraph_id": "para_791" }, { "text": "that Caroline was in privity with either Alexander or", "paragraph_id": "para_792" }, { "text": "SHI. Second, in its opposition to the motion for summary", "paragraph_id": "para_793" }, { "text": "judgment, the plaintiff specifically argued that “the par-", "paragraph_id": "para_794" }, { "text": "ties to the [2013 action] are not . . . in privity with the", "paragraph_id": "para_795" }, { "text": "parties in this action.” (Emphasis added.) In its reply to", "paragraph_id": "para_796" }, { "text": "that opposition, the defendants averred that they “have", "paragraph_id": "para_797" }, { "text": "not advanced a claim that res judicata applies to bar the", "paragraph_id": "para_798" }, { "text": "present claims against [Caroline].” That record belies the", "paragraph_id": "para_799" }, { "text": "court’s determination that there was “no dispute” that", "paragraph_id": "para_800" }, { "text": "the privity requirement was satisfied in the present case.", "paragraph_id": "para_801" }, { "text": "b", "paragraph_id": "para_802" }, { "text": "Also untenable is the court’s determination that “[Car-", "paragraph_id": "para_803" }, { "text": "oline] is in privity with [Alexander].” The court offered no", "paragraph_id": "para_804" }, { "text": "analysis or explication of that element of res judicata. As", "paragraph_id": "para_805" }, { "text": "our Supreme Court has observed, “[p]rivity is a difficult", "paragraph_id": "para_806" }, { "text": "concept to define precisely. . . . There is no prevailing", "paragraph_id": "para_807" }, { "text": "definition of privity to be followed automatically in every", "paragraph_id": "para_808" }, { "text": "case. It is not a matter of form or rigid labels; rather it is", "paragraph_id": "para_809" }, { "text": "a matter of substance. In determining whether privity", "paragraph_id": "para_810" }, { "text": "exists, we employ an analysis that focuses on the func-", "paragraph_id": "para_811" }, { "text": "tional relationships of the parties. Privity is not estab-", "paragraph_id": "para_812" }, { "text": "lished by the mere fact that persons may be interested", "paragraph_id": "para_813" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikin the same question or in proving or disproving the", "paragraph_id": "para_814" }, { "text": "same set of facts. Rather, it is, in essence, a shorthand", "paragraph_id": "para_815" }, { "text": "statement for the principle that [the doctrines of preclu-", "paragraph_id": "para_816" }, { "text": "sion] should be applied only when there exists such an", "paragraph_id": "para_817" }, { "text": "identification in interest of one person with another as", "paragraph_id": "para_818" }, { "text": "to represent the same legal rights so as to justify preclu-", "paragraph_id": "para_819" }, { "text": "sion.” (Citation omitted.) Mazziotti v. Allstate Ins. Co.,", "paragraph_id": "para_820" }, { "text": "240 Conn. 799, 813–14, 695 A.2d 1010 (1997). “A key", "paragraph_id": "para_821" }, { "text": "consideration in determining the existence of privity is", "paragraph_id": "para_822" }, { "text": "the sharing of the same legal right by the parties alleg-", "paragraph_id": "para_823" }, { "text": "edly in privity.” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.,", "paragraph_id": "para_824" }, { "text": "813. “[O]ne person is in privity with another and is bound", "paragraph_id": "para_825" }, { "text": "by and entitled to the benefits of a judgment as though", "paragraph_id": "para_826" }, { "text": "he was a party when there is such an identification of", "paragraph_id": "para_827" }, { "text": "interest between the two as to represent the same legal", "paragraph_id": "para_828" }, { "text": "right . . . .” (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Collins", "paragraph_id": "para_829" }, { "text": "v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 34 F.3d 172, 176 (3d", "paragraph_id": "para_830" }, { "text": "Cir. 1994); cf. Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC, 320 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_831" }, { "text": "146, 167, 129 A.3d 677 (2016) (“[b]ecause parties may", "paragraph_id": "para_832" }, { "text": "share some legal rights and not others, parties may be", "paragraph_id": "para_833" }, { "text": "in privity with respect to some claims, but not others,", "paragraph_id": "para_834" }, { "text": "for res judicata purposes”).", "paragraph_id": "para_835" }, { "text": "The 2013 action concerned Alexander’s conduct in", "paragraph_id": "para_836" }, { "text": "transferring assets from SHI during the 2008 financial", "paragraph_id": "para_837" }, { "text": "crisis. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings,", "paragraph_id": "para_838" }, { "text": "Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 564. Caroline had no legal inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_839" }, { "text": "est in that action—she was not a party, and it did not", "paragraph_id": "para_840" }, { "text": "concern her conduct in any way. The issue in the 2013", "paragraph_id": "para_841" }, { "text": "action was whether the plaintiff had the legal right to", "paragraph_id": "para_842" }, { "text": "pierce the corporate veil of SHI and hold Alexander,", "paragraph_id": "para_843" }, { "text": "the sole director of SHI who controlled all aspects of its", "paragraph_id": "para_844" }, { "text": "operations and financial transactions, personally liable", "paragraph_id": "para_845" }, { "text": "for the English judgment due to his conduct. In resolving", "paragraph_id": "para_846" }, { "text": "that issue, the critical question was whether Alexander", "paragraph_id": "para_847" }, { "text": "“acted with the specific intent to leave SHI unable to", "paragraph_id": "para_848" }, { "text": "pay its debts to [the plaintiff]” when he caused SHI to", "paragraph_id": "para_849" }, { "text": "transfer approximately one billion dollars of assets out", "paragraph_id": "para_850" }, { "text": "of SHI in October 2008. Id., 584. The present case, by", "paragraph_id": "para_851" }, { "text": "contrast, concerns the defendants’ alleged efforts to", "paragraph_id": "para_852" }, { "text": "interfere with the sale of the Confirmit shares beginning", "paragraph_id": "para_853" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikin 2016. The issue in this case is whether that conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_854" }, { "text": "constitutes tortious interference with business expec-", "paragraph_id": "para_855" }, { "text": "tancy and violations of CUTPA.", "paragraph_id": "para_856" }, { "text": "Given those critical distinctions, we conclude that", "paragraph_id": "para_857" }, { "text": "Caroline does not share the same legal right in this action", "paragraph_id": "para_858" }, { "text": "as that which belonged to Alexander in the 2013 action.", "paragraph_id": "para_859" }, { "text": "There is no allegation that Caroline had any connection", "paragraph_id": "para_860" }, { "text": "to SHI or that she engaged in any conduct with respect", "paragraph_id": "para_861" }, { "text": "to that entity at any time. Accordingly, she lacks the", "paragraph_id": "para_862" }, { "text": "requisite identification of interest with Alexander with", "paragraph_id": "para_863" }, { "text": "respect to the issues adjudicated in the 2013 action. The", "paragraph_id": "para_864" }, { "text": "court, therefore, improperly concluded that Caroline", "paragraph_id": "para_865" }, { "text": "is in privity with Alexander for res judicata purposes.", "paragraph_id": "para_866" }, { "text": "B", "paragraph_id": "para_867" }, { "text": "We next consider whether the court properly con-", "paragraph_id": "para_868" }, { "text": "cluded that no genuine issue of material fact existed", "paragraph_id": "para_869" }, { "text": "as to whether res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims", "paragraph_id": "para_870" }, { "text": "with respect to Alexander. “Generally, for res judicata to", "paragraph_id": "para_871" }, { "text": "apply, four elements must be met: (1) the judgment must", "paragraph_id": "para_872" }, { "text": "have been rendered on the merits by a court of competent", "paragraph_id": "para_873" }, { "text": "jurisdiction; (2) the parties to the prior and subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_874" }, { "text": "actions must be the same or in privity; (3) there must", "paragraph_id": "para_875" }, { "text": "have been an adequate opportunity to litigate the mat-", "paragraph_id": "para_876" }, { "text": "ter fully; and (4) the same underlying claim must be at", "paragraph_id": "para_877" }, { "text": "issue.” Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC, supra, 320 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_878" }, { "text": "156–57. In the present case, the first two elements are", "paragraph_id": "para_879" }, { "text": "not in dispute. We therefore focus our attention on the", "paragraph_id": "para_880" }, { "text": "third and fourth elements of that doctrine of preclusion.", "paragraph_id": "para_881" }, { "text": "1", "paragraph_id": "para_882" }, { "text": "We begin with the question of whether the present", "paragraph_id": "para_883" }, { "text": "case involves the same claim as the 2013 action. For", "paragraph_id": "para_884" }, { "text": "res judicata to apply, the same underlying claim must", "paragraph_id": "para_885" }, { "text": "be at issue. Id., 157. Our Supreme Court has adopted a", "paragraph_id": "para_886" }, { "text": "transactional test “as a guide to determining whether an", "paragraph_id": "para_887" }, { "text": "action involves the same claim as an earlier action so as", "paragraph_id": "para_888" }, { "text": "to trigger operation of the doctrine of res judicata. [T]he", "paragraph_id": "para_889" }, { "text": "claim [that is] extinguished [by the judgment in the first", "paragraph_id": "para_890" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikaction] includes all rights of the plaintiff to remedies", "paragraph_id": "para_891" }, { "text": "against the defendant with respect to all or any part of", "paragraph_id": "para_892" }, { "text": "the transaction, or series of connected transactions, out", "paragraph_id": "para_893" }, { "text": "of which the action arose. What factual grouping con-", "paragraph_id": "para_894" }, { "text": "stitutes a transaction, and what groupings constitute a", "paragraph_id": "para_895" }, { "text": "series, are to be determined pragmatically, giving weight", "paragraph_id": "para_896" }, { "text": "to such considerations as whether the facts are related", "paragraph_id": "para_897" }, { "text": "in time, space, origin, or motivation, whether they form", "paragraph_id": "para_898" }, { "text": "a convenient trial unit, and whether their treatment as", "paragraph_id": "para_899" }, { "text": "a unit conforms to the parties’ expectations or business", "paragraph_id": "para_900" }, { "text": "understanding or usage.” (Internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_901" }, { "text": "omitted.) Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., 282 Conn. 594, 604,", "paragraph_id": "para_902" }, { "text": "922 A.2d 1073 (2007); see also 1 Restatement (Second),", "paragraph_id": "para_903" }, { "text": "Judgments § 24, comment (b), pp. 198–99 (1982) (trans-", "paragraph_id": "para_904" }, { "text": "actional test “is not capable of a mathematically precise", "paragraph_id": "para_905" }, { "text": "definition; it invokes a pragmatic standard to be applied", "paragraph_id": "para_906" }, { "text": "with attention to the facts of the cases”).", "paragraph_id": "para_907" }, { "text": "The purpose of the transactional test is “to measure", "paragraph_id": "para_908" }, { "text": "the preclusive effect of a prior judgment”; Duhaime v.", "paragraph_id": "para_909" }, { "text": "American Reserve Life Ins. Co., 200 Conn. 360, 365,", "paragraph_id": "para_910" }, { "text": "511 A.2d 333 (1986); so as to “strike a delicate balance", "paragraph_id": "para_911" }, { "text": "between . . . the interests of the defendant and of the", "paragraph_id": "para_912" }, { "text": "courts in bringing litigation to a close and . . . the inter-", "paragraph_id": "para_913" }, { "text": "est of the plaintiff in the vindication of a just claim.”", "paragraph_id": "para_914" }, { "text": "(Internal quotation marks omitted.) Cadle Co. v. Gabel,", "paragraph_id": "para_915" }, { "text": "69 Conn. App. 279, 298, 794 A.2d 1029 (2002). It oper-", "paragraph_id": "para_916" }, { "text": "ates as a screening mechanism to prevent a party from", "paragraph_id": "para_917" }, { "text": "obtaining “a second bite at the apple . . . [when] the pres-", "paragraph_id": "para_918" }, { "text": "ent claims are ones arising from the same transaction", "paragraph_id": "para_919" }, { "text": "that the parties, exercising reasonable diligence, could", "paragraph_id": "para_920" }, { "text": "have raised but did not in the [prior action].” (Internal", "paragraph_id": "para_921" }, { "text": "quotation marks omitted.) Larry v. Powerski, 148 F.", "paragraph_id": "para_922" }, { "text": "Supp. 3d 584, 597 (E.D. Mich. 2015).", "paragraph_id": "para_923" }, { "text": "“In applying the transactional test, we compare the", "paragraph_id": "para_924" }, { "text": "complaint in the second action with the pleadings and", "paragraph_id": "para_925" }, { "text": "the judgment in the earlier action.”15 (Internal quotation", "paragraph_id": "para_926" }, { "text": "15For that reason, the defendants’ argument that the plaintiff “pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_927" }, { "text": "vided no evidence at all of any of the proceedings” in the Norway enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_928" }, { "text": "ment action is of no moment. The issue before the court on summary", "paragraph_id": "para_929" }, { "text": "judgment was not whether the defendants committed the acts alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_930" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikmarks omitted.) Delahunty v. Massachusetts Mutual", "paragraph_id": "para_931" }, { "text": "Life Ins. Co., 236 Conn. 582, 590, 674 A.2d 1290 (1996).", "paragraph_id": "para_932" }, { "text": "The 2013 action was brought to pierce the corporate", "paragraph_id": "para_933" }, { "text": "veil of SHI and hold Alexander personally liable for the", "paragraph_id": "para_934" }, { "text": "English judgment against it. The facts giving rise to that", "paragraph_id": "para_935" }, { "text": "action pertain to Alexander’s conduct as the sole director", "paragraph_id": "para_936" }, { "text": "of SHI who controlled all aspects of its operations and", "paragraph_id": "para_937" }, { "text": "financial transactions. More specifically, the 2013 action", "paragraph_id": "para_938" }, { "text": "concerned the transfer of approximately one billion dol-", "paragraph_id": "para_939" }, { "text": "lars of assets out of SHI in October 2008 at Alexander’s", "paragraph_id": "para_940" }, { "text": "direction. See Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings,", "paragraph_id": "para_941" }, { "text": "Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 583–84. The present case, by", "paragraph_id": "para_942" }, { "text": "contrast, does not concern Alexander’s actions in 2008,", "paragraph_id": "para_943" }, { "text": "his liability for the English judgment, or the transfer of", "paragraph_id": "para_944" }, { "text": "the Confirmit shares from SHI. Rather, it pertains to the", "paragraph_id": "para_945" }, { "text": "defendants’ alleged interference with the court-ordered", "paragraph_id": "para_946" }, { "text": "sale of those shares years later. As our Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_947" }, { "text": "observed in an earlier appeal in this case: “The [2013", "paragraph_id": "para_948" }, { "text": "action] involved the narrow question of whether the trial", "paragraph_id": "para_949" }, { "text": "court could pierce SHI’s corporate veil and hold Alex-", "paragraph_id": "para_950" }, { "text": "ander personally liable for the English judgment on the", "paragraph_id": "para_951" }, { "text": "basis of conduct occurring prior to November 1, 2008. . .", "paragraph_id": "para_952" }, { "text": ". The present case involves whether the defendants were", "paragraph_id": "para_953" }, { "text": "involved in a conspiracy between 2016 and 2020 to halt", "paragraph_id": "para_954" }, { "text": "or delay the sale of a Norwegian software company in", "paragraph_id": "para_955" }, { "text": "order to prevent the plaintiff from partially satisfying", "paragraph_id": "para_956" }, { "text": "with respect to the Norway enforcement action; the issue was whether", "paragraph_id": "para_957" }, { "text": "the affirmative defenses of res judicata and collateral estoppel barred", "paragraph_id": "para_958" }, { "text": "the plaintiff’s action. In resolving that query, the court necessarily", "paragraph_id": "para_959" }, { "text": "compared the complaint and judgment in the 2013 action with the", "paragraph_id": "para_960" }, { "text": "allegations of the complaint in the present case.", "paragraph_id": "para_961" }, { "text": "Furthermore, as we previously noted, the defendants did not file an", "paragraph_id": "para_962" }, { "text": "answer prior to moving for summary judgment and thus have not denied", "paragraph_id": "para_963" }, { "text": "the allegations contained in the plaintiff’s complaint regarding those", "paragraph_id": "para_964" }, { "text": "foreign proceedings. They likewise did not dispute the material allega-", "paragraph_id": "para_965" }, { "text": "tions in the plaintiff’s complaint regarding the Norway enforcement", "paragraph_id": "para_966" }, { "text": "action in their motion for summary judgment but, rather, argued that", "paragraph_id": "para_967" }, { "text": "res judicata and collateral estoppel barred the plaintiff’s action. In its", "paragraph_id": "para_968" }, { "text": "memorandum of decision, the court neither noted nor attributed any", "paragraph_id": "para_969" }, { "text": "significance to the fact that the plaintiff had not submitted documenta-", "paragraph_id": "para_970" }, { "text": "tion from the Norway enforcement action. Instead, the court relied on", "paragraph_id": "para_971" }, { "text": "the allegations set forth in the plaintiff’s complaint.", "paragraph_id": "para_972" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikthe English judgment.” (Citation omitted.) Deutsche", "paragraph_id": "para_973" }, { "text": "Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 136.", "paragraph_id": "para_974" }, { "text": "In addition, the present case involves a distinct and", "paragraph_id": "para_975" }, { "text": "separate injury from that alleged in the 2013 action—the", "paragraph_id": "para_976" }, { "text": "alleged loss of $85 million stemming from the diminu-", "paragraph_id": "para_977" }, { "text": "tion in value of the Confirmit shares due to the conduct", "paragraph_id": "para_978" }, { "text": "of the defendants between 2016 and 2020. See, e.g.,", "paragraph_id": "para_979" }, { "text": "Summitwood Development, LLC v. Roberts, 130 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_980" }, { "text": "App. 792, 804, 25 A.3d 721 (res judicata barred second", "paragraph_id": "para_981" }, { "text": "action because claims arose from same facts and sought", "paragraph_id": "para_982" }, { "text": "redress for same injury), cert. denied, 302 Conn. 942,", "paragraph_id": "para_983" }, { "text": "29 A.3d 467 (2011), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 1260, 132", "paragraph_id": "para_984" }, { "text": "S. Ct. 1745, 182 L. Ed. 2d 530 (2012); cf. Lighthouse", "paragraph_id": "para_985" }, { "text": "Landings, Inc. v. Connecticut Light & Power Co., 300", "paragraph_id": "para_986" }, { "text": "Conn. 325, 350–51, 15 A.3d 601 (2011) (res judicata", "paragraph_id": "para_987" }, { "text": "barred plaintiff’s misrepresentation and CUTPA claims", "paragraph_id": "para_988" }, { "text": "because “the facts and theories . . . alleged in the [prior", "paragraph_id": "para_989" }, { "text": "action and the present action] were the same” and “all", "paragraph_id": "para_990" }, { "text": "of the allegations and theories asserted in both actions", "paragraph_id": "para_991" }, { "text": "were intended to support the single underlying claim”", "paragraph_id": "para_992" }, { "text": "(emphasis in original)). Moreover, the present action", "paragraph_id": "para_993" }, { "text": "involves an additional defendant who (1) was not a party", "paragraph_id": "para_994" }, { "text": "to the 2013 action, (2) had no legal interest in that action,", "paragraph_id": "para_995" }, { "text": "and (3) was not involved in the facts and transactions", "paragraph_id": "para_996" }, { "text": "underlying that action in any manner. In light of the", "paragraph_id": "para_997" }, { "text": "foregoing, we conclude that the material facts of the 2013", "paragraph_id": "para_998" }, { "text": "action and the present one are not related in time, space,", "paragraph_id": "para_999" }, { "text": "origin, or motivation and do not form a convenient trial", "paragraph_id": "para_1000" }, { "text": "unit. See Powell v. Infinity Ins. Co., supra, 282 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1001" }, { "text": "604. For those reasons, the court improperly concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_1002" }, { "text": "that the present case involves the same underlying claim", "paragraph_id": "para_1003" }, { "text": "as the 2013 action.", "paragraph_id": "para_1004" }, { "text": "2", "paragraph_id": "para_1005" }, { "text": "The plaintiff also claims that the court improperly", "paragraph_id": "para_1006" }, { "text": "concluded that the plaintiff had an adequate opportunity", "paragraph_id": "para_1007" }, { "text": "to fully litigate the claims advanced in the present action", "paragraph_id": "para_1008" }, { "text": "in the 2013 action. We agree.", "paragraph_id": "para_1009" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik“[T]he essential concept of the modern rule of claim", "paragraph_id": "para_1010" }, { "text": "preclusion is that a judgment against [the] plaintiff is", "paragraph_id": "para_1011" }, { "text": "preclusive not simply when it is on the merits but when", "paragraph_id": "para_1012" }, { "text": "the procedure in the first action afforded [the] plaintiff a", "paragraph_id": "para_1013" }, { "text": "fair opportunity to get to the merits. . . . [T]he appropri-", "paragraph_id": "para_1014" }, { "text": "ate inquiry with respect to [claim] preclusion is whether", "paragraph_id": "para_1015" }, { "text": "the party had an adequate opportunity to litigate the", "paragraph_id": "para_1016" }, { "text": "matter in the earlier proceeding . . . . [T]he doctrine of", "paragraph_id": "para_1017" }, { "text": "res judicata does not preclude a plaintiff from pursu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1018" }, { "text": "ing claims that it previously had not been afforded the", "paragraph_id": "para_1019" }, { "text": "opportunity to litigate.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in", "paragraph_id": "para_1020" }, { "text": "original; internal quotation marks omitted.) In re Pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_1021" }, { "text": "bate Appeal of Cadle Co., 152 Conn. App. 427, 437, 100", "paragraph_id": "para_1022" }, { "text": "A.3d 30 (2014). When a party did not have a full and fair", "paragraph_id": "para_1023" }, { "text": "opportunity to litigate a matter in the earlier proceeding,", "paragraph_id": "para_1024" }, { "text": "“res judicata is inappropriate.” Cayer Enterprises, Inc. v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1025" }, { "text": "DiMasi, 84 Conn. App. 190, 194, 852 A.2d 758 (2004).", "paragraph_id": "para_1026" }, { "text": "In its memorandum of decision, the court addressed", "paragraph_id": "para_1027" }, { "text": "that element of res judicata as follows: “The court . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1028" }, { "text": "finds that the third element—that there must have been", "paragraph_id": "para_1029" }, { "text": "an adequate opportunity to litigate the matter fully—", "paragraph_id": "para_1030" }, { "text": "was met. [The plaintiff] had a full and fair opportunity", "paragraph_id": "para_1031" }, { "text": "to litigate the enforcement of the English judgment as", "paragraph_id": "para_1032" }, { "text": "against [Alexander] relating to the transfer of the Con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1033" }, { "text": "firmit shares and sufficient assets in SHI in 2008 to pay", "paragraph_id": "para_1034" }, { "text": "[the plaintiff], which judgment formed the basis of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1035" }, { "text": "[Norway enforcement action].” That reasoning exhibits a", "paragraph_id": "para_1036" }, { "text": "fundamental misunderstanding of the claims asserted in", "paragraph_id": "para_1037" }, { "text": "this case. Our plenary review of the pleadings; see Meyers", "paragraph_id": "para_1038" }, { "text": "v. Livingston, Adler, Pulda, Meiklejohn & Kelly, P.C.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1039" }, { "text": "311 Conn. 282, 290, 87 A.3d 534 (2014); indicates that", "paragraph_id": "para_1040" }, { "text": "the conduct giving rise to the plaintiff’s tortious interfer-", "paragraph_id": "para_1041" }, { "text": "ence and CUTPA claims is not Alexander’s transfer of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1042" }, { "text": "Confirmit shares in 2008. Rather, it is the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_1043" }, { "text": "alleged interference with the forced sale of those shares", "paragraph_id": "para_1044" }, { "text": "from 2016, when the Norway enforcement action was", "paragraph_id": "para_1045" }, { "text": "commenced, until 2020, when that sale closed.", "paragraph_id": "para_1046" }, { "text": "The claims advanced in the present case require the", "paragraph_id": "para_1047" }, { "text": "plaintiff to plead and prove that it sustained damages as", "paragraph_id": "para_1048" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vika result of the defendants’ interference with the sale of", "paragraph_id": "para_1049" }, { "text": "the Confirmit shares. See, e.g., Artie’s Auto Body, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_1050" }, { "text": "v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 287 Conn. 208, 218, 947 A.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_1051" }, { "text": "320 (2008) (“to be entitled to any relief under CUTPA, a", "paragraph_id": "para_1052" }, { "text": "plaintiff must first prove that he has suffered an ascer-", "paragraph_id": "para_1053" }, { "text": "tainable loss due to a CUTPA violation” (internal quota-", "paragraph_id": "para_1054" }, { "text": "tion marks omitted)); American Diamond Exchange, Inc.", "paragraph_id": "para_1055" }, { "text": "v. Alpert, 101 Conn. App. 83, 97, 920 A.2d 357 (“[i]t is", "paragraph_id": "para_1056" }, { "text": "an essential element of the tort of unlawful interference", "paragraph_id": "para_1057" }, { "text": "with business relations that the plaintiff suffered actual", "paragraph_id": "para_1058" }, { "text": "loss” (internal quotation marks omitted)), cert. denied,", "paragraph_id": "para_1059" }, { "text": "284 Conn. 901, 931 A.2d 261 (2007). In its complaint, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1060" }, { "text": "plaintiff alleges that the defendants’ efforts to interfere", "paragraph_id": "para_1061" }, { "text": "with the sale of the Confirmit shares “depressed [their]", "paragraph_id": "para_1062" }, { "text": "value” and thereby prevented the plaintiff from recover-", "paragraph_id": "para_1063" }, { "text": "ing $85 million from that sale.", "paragraph_id": "para_1064" }, { "text": "For that reason, the pecuniary injury allegedly sus-", "paragraph_id": "para_1065" }, { "text": "tained by the plaintiff did not accrue until February", "paragraph_id": "para_1066" }, { "text": "2020, when the sale of the Confirmit shares closed for", "paragraph_id": "para_1067" }, { "text": "millions of dollars below ABG’s initial valuation. See", "paragraph_id": "para_1068" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 125–30. As", "paragraph_id": "para_1069" }, { "text": "the plaintiff aptly notes in its principal appellate brief,", "paragraph_id": "para_1070" }, { "text": "“if the sale of the Confirmit shares had been completed", "paragraph_id": "para_1071" }, { "text": "without any diminution in the price caused by [the defen-", "paragraph_id": "para_1072" }, { "text": "dants’ alleged conduct], then [the plaintiff] would have", "paragraph_id": "para_1073" }, { "text": "had no claim to assert.” Put simply, the plaintiff had no", "paragraph_id": "para_1074" }, { "text": "case until the court-ordered sale of the Confirmit shares", "paragraph_id": "para_1075" }, { "text": "ultimately closed. See, e.g., Jepsen v. Camassar, 181", "paragraph_id": "para_1076" }, { "text": "Conn. App. 492, 533, 187 A.3d 486 (“[s]peculation and", "paragraph_id": "para_1077" }, { "text": "conjecture do not suffice for proof of pecuniary loss”),", "paragraph_id": "para_1078" }, { "text": "cert. denied, 329 Conn. 909, 186 A.3d 12 (2018).", "paragraph_id": "para_1079" }, { "text": "We therefore disagree with the defendants that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1080" }, { "text": "plaintiff could have amended its complaint in the 2013", "paragraph_id": "para_1081" }, { "text": "action to include tortious interference with business", "paragraph_id": "para_1082" }, { "text": "expectancy and CUTPA claims. Significantly, the alleg-", "paragraph_id": "para_1083" }, { "text": "edly tortious conduct of the defendants continued into", "paragraph_id": "para_1084" }, { "text": "late 2019—after discovery deadlines had passed, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1085" }, { "text": "pleadings had closed, and the trial commenced in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1086" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik2013 action on November 19, 2019.16 See footnote 8 of", "paragraph_id": "para_1087" }, { "text": "this opinion.", "paragraph_id": "para_1088" }, { "text": "We also note that, prior to trial in the 2013 action, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1089" }, { "text": "defendants filed a motion in limine to preclude evidence", "paragraph_id": "para_1090" }, { "text": "related to conduct outside of the October 2008 time", "paragraph_id": "para_1091" }, { "text": "period alleged in the complaint in the 2013 action. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1092" }, { "text": "trial court granted that motion, stating in relevant part:", "paragraph_id": "para_1093" }, { "text": "“The court exercises its discretion to maintain the focus", "paragraph_id": "para_1094" }, { "text": "of the trial on the transactions occurring in October 2008", "paragraph_id": "para_1095" }, { "text": "as alleged in the complaint. Given the global extent of", "paragraph_id": "para_1096" }, { "text": "[Alexander’s] financial dealings, pursuit without time", "paragraph_id": "para_1097" }, { "text": "limitation could lead to a virtually endless proceeding.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1098" }, { "text": "In light of that order and the fact that the plaintiff’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1099" }, { "text": "causes of action for tortious interference with business", "paragraph_id": "para_1100" }, { "text": "expectancy and CUTPA did not accrue until February", "paragraph_id": "para_1101" }, { "text": "2020—months after the trial in the 2013 action con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1102" }, { "text": "cluded—the plaintiff would have been required to obtain", "paragraph_id": "para_1103" }, { "text": "permission from the court (1) to amend its complaint", "paragraph_id": "para_1104" }, { "text": "posttrial to add those tort and statutory causes of action;", "paragraph_id": "para_1105" }, { "text": "16For example, the plaintiff alleges in its complaint in the present case", "paragraph_id": "para_1106" }, { "text": "that, as part of the defendants’ efforts to interfere with the sale of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1107" }, { "text": "Confirmit shares, Caroline commenced the Connecticut District Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1108" }, { "text": "action on November 13, 2019, “at a critical moment of negotiations”", "paragraph_id": "para_1109" }, { "text": "in the sale of those shares, and that she did not voluntarily dismiss", "paragraph_id": "para_1110" }, { "text": "that action until February 11, 2020. It also alleges that, on December", "paragraph_id": "para_1111" }, { "text": "6, 2019, Caroline filed a petition for a preliminary injunction with the", "paragraph_id": "para_1112" }, { "text": "Oslo Enforcement Court to stop the sale of the Confirmit shares. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1113" }, { "text": "plaintiff further alleges that, in a letter dated October 18, 2019, Alex-", "paragraph_id": "para_1114" }, { "text": "ander informed ABG that he intended to bid on the Confirmit shares;", "paragraph_id": "para_1115" }, { "text": "that he subsequently refused to comply with ABG’s subsequent request", "paragraph_id": "para_1116" }, { "text": "for information and documentation related to his purported bid; that,", "paragraph_id": "para_1117" }, { "text": "on November 26, 2019, he declared that he “decided to bid for Confirmit", "paragraph_id": "para_1118" }, { "text": "[himself],” rather than through a corporate entity; that his bid “was not", "paragraph_id": "para_1119" }, { "text": "a serious offer to purchase the Confirmit shares” and “was 400 percent", "paragraph_id": "para_1120" }, { "text": "higher than the average of the other indicative bids”; and that “[t]he sole", "paragraph_id": "para_1121" }, { "text": "purpose of [Alexander’s] bid was to disrupt the Confirmit sale process.”", "paragraph_id": "para_1122" }, { "text": "In concluding that res judicata barred the plaintiff’s claims in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1123" }, { "text": "present case, the court stated: “While some facts in the [present case]", "paragraph_id": "para_1124" }, { "text": "relating to the [Norway enforcement action] had not yet occurred at the", "paragraph_id": "para_1125" }, { "text": "time the [2013 action] was instituted in 2013, they had occurred well", "paragraph_id": "para_1126" }, { "text": "prior to trial in the [2013 action] such that they could have been pled", "paragraph_id": "para_1127" }, { "text": "in the [2013 action].” (Emphasis added.) As the foregoing examples", "paragraph_id": "para_1128" }, { "text": "demonstrate, the court was plainly mistaken in that regard.", "paragraph_id": "para_1129" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik(2) to add Caroline as a party; (3) to reopen discovery;", "paragraph_id": "para_1130" }, { "text": "and (4) to reopen evidence at trial, despite the fact that", "paragraph_id": "para_1131" }, { "text": "those claims are utterly distinct from the equitable claim", "paragraph_id": "para_1132" }, { "text": "to pierce the corporate veil that the plaintiff pursued in", "paragraph_id": "para_1133" }, { "text": "the 2013 action. We are not aware of any case in which", "paragraph_id": "para_1134" }, { "text": "such a series of posttrial requests have been granted by", "paragraph_id": "para_1135" }, { "text": "a trial court and the defendants have not identified such", "paragraph_id": "para_1136" }, { "text": "authority. On the facts and circumstances of this case,", "paragraph_id": "para_1137" }, { "text": "we cannot ascribe fault to the plaintiff for failing to seek", "paragraph_id": "para_1138" }, { "text": "such extraordinary posttrial recourse.", "paragraph_id": "para_1139" }, { "text": "In light of the foregoing, we conclude that the defen-", "paragraph_id": "para_1140" }, { "text": "dants have not demonstrated that the plaintiff had a full", "paragraph_id": "para_1141" }, { "text": "and fair opportunity to litigate its tortious interference", "paragraph_id": "para_1142" }, { "text": "with business expectancy and CUTPA claims in the 2013", "paragraph_id": "para_1143" }, { "text": "action. For that reason, res judicata is inappropriate.", "paragraph_id": "para_1144" }, { "text": "See Cayer Enterprises, Inc. v. DiMasi, supra, 84 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1145" }, { "text": "App. 194.", "paragraph_id": "para_1146" }, { "text": "3", "paragraph_id": "para_1147" }, { "text": "Lastly, we emphasize that res judicata is a flexible doc-", "paragraph_id": "para_1148" }, { "text": "trine that “must give way when [its] mechanical applica-", "paragraph_id": "para_1149" }, { "text": "tion would frustrate other social policies based on values", "paragraph_id": "para_1150" }, { "text": "equally or more important than the convenience afforded", "paragraph_id": "para_1151" }, { "text": "by finality in legal controversies.” In re Juvenile Appeal", "paragraph_id": "para_1152" }, { "text": "(83–DE), supra, 190 Conn. 318. As our Supreme Court", "paragraph_id": "para_1153" }, { "text": "has observed, “application of the doctrine [of res judicata]", "paragraph_id": "para_1154" }, { "text": "can yield harsh results, especially in the context of claims", "paragraph_id": "para_1155" }, { "text": "that were not actually litigated and parties that were not", "paragraph_id": "para_1156" }, { "text": "actually involved in the prior action. . . . The decision of", "paragraph_id": "para_1157" }, { "text": "whether res judicata should bar such claims should be", "paragraph_id": "para_1158" }, { "text": "based upon a consideration of the doctrine’s underlying", "paragraph_id": "para_1159" }, { "text": "policies, namely, the interests of the defendant and of", "paragraph_id": "para_1160" }, { "text": "the courts in bringing litigation to a close . . . and the", "paragraph_id": "para_1161" }, { "text": "competing interest of the plaintiff in the vindication of a", "paragraph_id": "para_1162" }, { "text": "just claim.” (Citation omitted; internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_1163" }, { "text": "omitted.) Wheeler v. Beachcroft, LLC, supra, 320 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1164" }, { "text": "158. In this case, we believe that the public policy goals", "paragraph_id": "para_1165" }, { "text": "of “promoting judicial economy, minimizing repetitive", "paragraph_id": "para_1166" }, { "text": "litigation, preventing inconsistent judgments and pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_1167" }, { "text": "viding repose to parties”; Weiss v. Weiss, supra, 297", "paragraph_id": "para_1168" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. VikConn. 465; are outweighed by the plaintiff’s interest in", "paragraph_id": "para_1169" }, { "text": "the vindication of a just claim. We therefore conclude", "paragraph_id": "para_1170" }, { "text": "that the court improperly determined that res judicata", "paragraph_id": "para_1171" }, { "text": "barred the plaintiff’s tortious interference with business", "paragraph_id": "para_1172" }, { "text": "expectancy and CUTPA claims.", "paragraph_id": "para_1173" }, { "text": "II", "paragraph_id": "para_1174" }, { "text": "COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL", "paragraph_id": "para_1175" }, { "text": "We next consider the plaintiff’s challenge to the court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1176" }, { "text": "application of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. In its", "paragraph_id": "para_1177" }, { "text": "memorandum of decision, the court concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1178" }, { "text": "plaintiff is collaterally estopped from relitigating (1)", "paragraph_id": "para_1179" }, { "text": "“the personal liability of [Alexander] to the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_1180" }, { "text": "under the English judgment and the enforcement of", "paragraph_id": "para_1181" }, { "text": "the English judgment against him,” (2) “whether the", "paragraph_id": "para_1182" }, { "text": "transfer of SHI’s assets, including shares of Confirmit", "paragraph_id": "para_1183" }, { "text": "from SHI to [Alexander] in October 2008, was proper,”", "paragraph_id": "para_1184" }, { "text": "and (3) “that [Alexander] was the owner of the Confirmit", "paragraph_id": "para_1185" }, { "text": "shares in October 2008.” On appeal, the plaintiff contests", "paragraph_id": "para_1186" }, { "text": "the propriety of those determinations.", "paragraph_id": "para_1187" }, { "text": "The doctrine of collateral estoppel expresses “the fun-", "paragraph_id": "para_1188" }, { "text": "damental principle that once a matter has been fully and", "paragraph_id": "para_1189" }, { "text": "fairly litigated, and finally decided, it comes to rest. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1190" }, { "text": "Collateral estoppel, or issue preclusion, is that aspect of", "paragraph_id": "para_1191" }, { "text": "res judicata which prohibits the relitigation of an issue", "paragraph_id": "para_1192" }, { "text": "when that issue was actually litigated and necessarily", "paragraph_id": "para_1193" }, { "text": "determined in a prior action between the same parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1194" }, { "text": "upon a different claim. . . . For an issue to be subject to", "paragraph_id": "para_1195" }, { "text": "collateral estoppel, it must have been fully and fairly", "paragraph_id": "para_1196" }, { "text": "litigated in the first action. It also must have been actu-", "paragraph_id": "para_1197" }, { "text": "ally decided and the decision must have been necessary to", "paragraph_id": "para_1198" }, { "text": "the judgment.” (Citations omitted; emphasis in original;", "paragraph_id": "para_1199" }, { "text": "internal quotation marks omitted.) Carol Management", "paragraph_id": "para_1200" }, { "text": "Corp. v. Board of Tax Review, 228 Conn. 23, 32, 633 A.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_1201" }, { "text": "1368 (1993); see also Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1202" }, { "text": "Riley, 354 Conn. 66, 80, 349 A.3d 551 (2026) (collateral", "paragraph_id": "para_1203" }, { "text": "estoppel requires proof that issue was “actually litigated", "paragraph_id": "para_1204" }, { "text": "and decided” in prior action); 1 Restatement (Second),", "paragraph_id": "para_1205" }, { "text": "supra, § 27, p. 250 (“[w]hen an issue of fact or law is", "paragraph_id": "para_1206" }, { "text": "actually litigated and determined by a valid and final", "paragraph_id": "para_1207" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikjudgment, and the determination is essential to the judg-", "paragraph_id": "para_1208" }, { "text": "ment, the determination is conclusive in a subsequent", "paragraph_id": "para_1209" }, { "text": "action between the parties, whether on the same or a", "paragraph_id": "para_1210" }, { "text": "different claim”). Accordingly, to successfully invoke", "paragraph_id": "para_1211" }, { "text": "the doctrine of collateral estoppel, a party must dem-", "paragraph_id": "para_1212" }, { "text": "onstrate that (1) the issue was fully and fairly litigated", "paragraph_id": "para_1213" }, { "text": "in the prior action, (2) the issue was actually litigated", "paragraph_id": "para_1214" }, { "text": "and decided in the prior action, and (3) the issue was", "paragraph_id": "para_1215" }, { "text": "necessary to the judgment in the prior action. See Virgo", "paragraph_id": "para_1216" }, { "text": "v. Lyons, 209 Conn. 497, 501, 551 A.2d 1243 (1988);", "paragraph_id": "para_1217" }, { "text": "Busconi v. Dighello, 39 Conn. App. 753, 767–68, 668", "paragraph_id": "para_1218" }, { "text": "A.2d 716 (1995), cert. denied, 236 Conn. 903, 670 A.2d", "paragraph_id": "para_1219" }, { "text": "321 (1996). In this case, the defendants, as the parties", "paragraph_id": "para_1220" }, { "text": "asserting the defense of collateral estoppel in a motion", "paragraph_id": "para_1221" }, { "text": "for summary judgment, bore the burden of establishing", "paragraph_id": "para_1222" }, { "text": "that no genuine issue of material fact existed as to each", "paragraph_id": "para_1223" }, { "text": "of those requirements. See Coyle Crete, LLC v. Nevins,", "paragraph_id": "para_1224" }, { "text": "137 Conn. App. 540, 547–48, 49 A.3d 770 (2012).", "paragraph_id": "para_1225" }, { "text": "A", "paragraph_id": "para_1226" }, { "text": "Liability for the English Judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_1227" }, { "text": "In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_1228" }, { "text": "that collateral estoppel precluded the plaintiff from", "paragraph_id": "para_1229" }, { "text": "relitigating “the personal liability of [Alexander] to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1230" }, { "text": "plaintiff under the English judgment and the enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_1231" }, { "text": "ment of the English judgment against him . . . .” We", "paragraph_id": "para_1232" }, { "text": "disagree that collateral estoppel applies to that issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_1233" }, { "text": "The court’s determination is rooted in its misunder-", "paragraph_id": "para_1234" }, { "text": "standing of the claims asserted by the plaintiff in this", "paragraph_id": "para_1235" }, { "text": "case. As previously noted, the alleged conduct that under-", "paragraph_id": "para_1236" }, { "text": "lies the plaintiff’s tortious interference and CUTPA", "paragraph_id": "para_1237" }, { "text": "claims does not concern the October 2008 transfers at", "paragraph_id": "para_1238" }, { "text": "issue in the 2013 action or any conduct by the defendants", "paragraph_id": "para_1239" }, { "text": "related thereto. The plaintiff’s tortious interference", "paragraph_id": "para_1240" }, { "text": "and CUTPA claims in this case concern the defendants’", "paragraph_id": "para_1241" }, { "text": "alleged interference with the court-ordered sale of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1242" }, { "text": "Confirmit shares from 2016, when the Norway enforce-", "paragraph_id": "para_1243" }, { "text": "ment action was commenced, to 2020, when that sale", "paragraph_id": "para_1244" }, { "text": "closed. The present action is thus predicated on different", "paragraph_id": "para_1245" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikconduct regarding a different transaction than those at", "paragraph_id": "para_1246" }, { "text": "issue in the 2013 action.", "paragraph_id": "para_1247" }, { "text": "“Before collateral estoppel applies . . . there must be an", "paragraph_id": "para_1248" }, { "text": "identity of issues between the prior and subsequent pro-", "paragraph_id": "para_1249" }, { "text": "ceedings. To invoke collateral estoppel the issues sought", "paragraph_id": "para_1250" }, { "text": "to be litigated in the new proceeding must be identical to", "paragraph_id": "para_1251" }, { "text": "those considered in the prior proceeding.” (Emphasis in", "paragraph_id": "para_1252" }, { "text": "original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Corcoran", "paragraph_id": "para_1253" }, { "text": "v. Dept. of Social Services, 271 Conn. 679, 689, 859", "paragraph_id": "para_1254" }, { "text": "A.2d 533 (2004); see also Gladysz v. Planning & Zoning", "paragraph_id": "para_1255" }, { "text": "Commission, 256 Conn. 249, 261, 773 A.2d 300 (2001)", "paragraph_id": "para_1256" }, { "text": "(“collateral estoppel has no application in the absence", "paragraph_id": "para_1257" }, { "text": "of an identical issue”). The issue sought to be litigated", "paragraph_id": "para_1258" }, { "text": "in the present case—whether the defendants interfered", "paragraph_id": "para_1259" }, { "text": "with the court-ordered sale of the Confirmit shares from", "paragraph_id": "para_1260" }, { "text": "2016 to 2020—differs dramatically from the issues", "paragraph_id": "para_1261" }, { "text": "presented in the 2013 action to pierce the corporate veil,", "paragraph_id": "para_1262" }, { "text": "which concerned whether Alexander exercised dominion", "paragraph_id": "para_1263" }, { "text": "and control over SHI, whether he commingled its assets", "paragraph_id": "para_1264" }, { "text": "with his own, and whether he instigated the October 2008", "paragraph_id": "para_1265" }, { "text": "transfers with the specific intent of rendering SHI unable", "paragraph_id": "para_1266" }, { "text": "to pay its margin calls to the plaintiff. See Deutsche Bank", "paragraph_id": "para_1267" }, { "text": "AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 346 Conn. 584.", "paragraph_id": "para_1268" }, { "text": "In such instances, collateral estoppel has no application.", "paragraph_id": "para_1269" }, { "text": "Moreover, we note that the trial court in the 2013", "paragraph_id": "para_1270" }, { "text": "action concluded that, because the plaintiff failed to", "paragraph_id": "para_1271" }, { "text": "demonstrate that Alexander acted with the specific intent", "paragraph_id": "para_1272" }, { "text": "necessary to pierce the corporate veil, he could not be", "paragraph_id": "para_1273" }, { "text": "held personally liable for the English judgment. See", "paragraph_id": "para_1274" }, { "text": "id., 583–84. In the present action, the plaintiff has not", "paragraph_id": "para_1275" }, { "text": "contested that determination and does not seek to hold", "paragraph_id": "para_1276" }, { "text": "Alexander personally liable for the English judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_1277" }, { "text": "As our Supreme Court observed in an earlier appeal in", "paragraph_id": "para_1278" }, { "text": "this case, “[t]he present action . . . is not predicated on", "paragraph_id": "para_1279" }, { "text": "the English court’s findings; nor does it seek to impose", "paragraph_id": "para_1280" }, { "text": "liability on the defendants for anything that transpired", "paragraph_id": "para_1281" }, { "text": "in that case.” Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn.", "paragraph_id": "para_1282" }, { "text": "141 n.5. Whether Alexander may be held personally liable", "paragraph_id": "para_1283" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikfor the English judgment, therefore, is irrelevant to the", "paragraph_id": "para_1284" }, { "text": "present action.", "paragraph_id": "para_1285" }, { "text": "B", "paragraph_id": "para_1286" }, { "text": "October 2008 Transfers", "paragraph_id": "para_1287" }, { "text": "In its memorandum of decision, the court concluded", "paragraph_id": "para_1288" }, { "text": "that collateral estoppel precluded the plaintiff from relit-", "paragraph_id": "para_1289" }, { "text": "igating “whether the transfer of SHI’s assets, including", "paragraph_id": "para_1290" }, { "text": "shares of Confirmit from SHI to [Alexander] in October", "paragraph_id": "para_1291" }, { "text": "2008, was proper . . . .” We do not agree.", "paragraph_id": "para_1292" }, { "text": "As our Supreme Court explained, “[e]ven when an", "paragraph_id": "para_1293" }, { "text": "issue is actually litigated and decided in a prior action,", "paragraph_id": "para_1294" }, { "text": "collateral estoppel does not apply unless the trial court’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1295" }, { "text": "adjudication of that issue was necessary to the judgment.", "paragraph_id": "para_1296" }, { "text": ". . . [A]n issue is necessary to the judgment if, in the", "paragraph_id": "para_1297" }, { "text": "absence of a determination of the issue, the judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_1298" }, { "text": "could not have been validly rendered. . . . If an issue has", "paragraph_id": "para_1299" }, { "text": "been determined, but the judgment is not dependent", "paragraph_id": "para_1300" }, { "text": "[on] the determination of the issue, the parties may", "paragraph_id": "para_1301" }, { "text": "relitigate the issue in a subsequent action. . . . Findings", "paragraph_id": "para_1302" }, { "text": "on nonessential issues usually have the characteristics", "paragraph_id": "para_1303" }, { "text": "of dicta.” (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks", "paragraph_id": "para_1304" }, { "text": "omitted.) Torrington Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley, supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_1305" }, { "text": "354 Conn. 80.", "paragraph_id": "para_1306" }, { "text": "The introductory paragraph to the trial court’s memo-", "paragraph_id": "para_1307" }, { "text": "randum of decision in the 2013 action indicates that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1308" }, { "text": "central question in that action was whether the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_1309" }, { "text": "satisfied “its burden of proof to justify piercing SHI’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1310" }, { "text": "corporate veil [because Alexander] diverted SHI’s assets", "paragraph_id": "para_1311" }, { "text": "with the specific intent of rendering it unable to pay its", "paragraph_id": "para_1312" }, { "text": "margin calls to [the plaintiff].” Deutsche Bank AG v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1313" }, { "text": "Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 2021 WL 4482154, *1.", "paragraph_id": "para_1314" }, { "text": "In resolving that question, the court expressly adopted", "paragraph_id": "para_1315" }, { "text": "a tripartite test to determine whether the piercing of", "paragraph_id": "para_1316" }, { "text": "SHI’s corporate veil was justified, which required proof", "paragraph_id": "para_1317" }, { "text": "that Alexander (1) exercised dominion and control of", "paragraph_id": "para_1318" }, { "text": "SHI, (2) commingled SHI’s assets with his own, and (3)", "paragraph_id": "para_1319" }, { "text": "drained SHI’s assets “with the specific intent of leaving", "paragraph_id": "para_1320" }, { "text": "the corporation unable to pay its debts.” Id., *19–20. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1321" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikcourt further determined that “the test of specific intent", "paragraph_id": "para_1322" }, { "text": "requires a subjective finding of a defendant’s ‘conscious", "paragraph_id": "para_1323" }, { "text": "object’ to commit the harm alleged, in this case, i.e., that", "paragraph_id": "para_1324" }, { "text": "[Alexander] consciously sought to render SHI unable to", "paragraph_id": "para_1325" }, { "text": "satisfy its margin calls from [the plaintiff].” Id., *22.", "paragraph_id": "para_1326" }, { "text": "Applying that tripartite test, the court found that", "paragraph_id": "para_1327" }, { "text": "the plaintiff had satisfied its first two prongs, stating in", "paragraph_id": "para_1328" }, { "text": "relevant part: “[T]he court does not hesitate to conclude", "paragraph_id": "para_1329" }, { "text": "that, as to the [October 2008 transfers], SHI had no", "paragraph_id": "para_1330" }, { "text": "separate mind of its own or that [Alexander] completely", "paragraph_id": "para_1331" }, { "text": "dominated and controlled SHI. . . . [T]he court finds that", "paragraph_id": "para_1332" }, { "text": "[the plaintiff] provided ample evidence of commingling", "paragraph_id": "para_1333" }, { "text": "between SHI, [Alexander] and entities he controlled.” Id.,", "paragraph_id": "para_1334" }, { "text": "*28–29. The court nevertheless found, with respect to", "paragraph_id": "para_1335" }, { "text": "the third prong of that test, that Alexander did not act", "paragraph_id": "para_1336" }, { "text": "with the specific intent to render SHI unable to pay its", "paragraph_id": "para_1337" }, { "text": "margin calls to the plaintiff. Id., *31.", "paragraph_id": "para_1338" }, { "text": "In reaching that determination, the court reasoned:", "paragraph_id": "para_1339" }, { "text": "“[O]ne salient fact stands out: [Alexander] left more than", "paragraph_id": "para_1340" }, { "text": "$500 million in SHI’s accounts at [the plaintiff]. In fact,", "paragraph_id": "para_1341" }, { "text": "he could have credibly believed that he had retained as", "paragraph_id": "para_1342" }, { "text": "much as $780 million in SHI’s accounts at [the plain-", "paragraph_id": "para_1343" }, { "text": "tiff]. SHI used this money to cover the first five margin", "paragraph_id": "para_1344" }, { "text": "calls during the week of October 13. [The plaintiff’s]", "paragraph_id": "para_1345" }, { "text": "contention that [Alexander] drained SHI’s assets with", "paragraph_id": "para_1346" }, { "text": "the specific intent of rendering it unable to pay its mar-", "paragraph_id": "para_1347" }, { "text": "gin calls is undermined by this salient fact, which [the", "paragraph_id": "para_1348" }, { "text": "plaintiff] chooses to ignore. If [Alexander] had specifi-", "paragraph_id": "para_1349" }, { "text": "cally intended to prevent payment of SHI’s debts to [the", "paragraph_id": "para_1350" }, { "text": "plaintiff], he went about it in a remarkably incompetent", "paragraph_id": "para_1351" }, { "text": "way, and [Alexander] did not strike the court as finan-", "paragraph_id": "para_1352" }, { "text": "cially incompetent.", "paragraph_id": "para_1353" }, { "text": "“Further, [Alexander] had no reason to think that", "paragraph_id": "para_1354" }, { "text": "the margin calls would exceed the nominal $780 mil-", "paragraph_id": "para_1355" }, { "text": "lion remaining in SHI’s accounts at [the plaintiff]. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1356" }, { "text": "defendants’ forensic accountant [testified] that ‘[i]t took", "paragraph_id": "para_1357" }, { "text": "an army of quants’ to calculate the final balance of [the]", "paragraph_id": "para_1358" }, { "text": "derivative trades [made by SHI’s portfolio manager] and", "paragraph_id": "para_1359" }, { "text": "that it was unlikely [Alexander] could have calculated", "paragraph_id": "para_1360" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikit.17 . . . [The plaintiff] cannot successfully contend that", "paragraph_id": "para_1361" }, { "text": "[Alexander] acted with specific intent to deprive it of", "paragraph_id": "para_1362" }, { "text": "funds when he initiated the [October 2008 transfers] at a", "paragraph_id": "para_1363" }, { "text": "time when neither he nor [the plaintiff] knew the extent", "paragraph_id": "para_1364" }, { "text": "of the losses that were eventually calculated.", "paragraph_id": "para_1365" }, { "text": "“Ultimately, [Alexander’s] purpose in directing the", "paragraph_id": "para_1366" }, { "text": "[October 2008 transfers] is irrelevant to the decisive", "paragraph_id": "para_1367" }, { "text": "issue in this case, considering that he actually reserved", "paragraph_id": "para_1368" }, { "text": "over half a billion dollars to cover SHI’s unspecified", "paragraph_id": "para_1369" }, { "text": "debts to [the plaintiff], if not as much as $780 million.", "paragraph_id": "para_1370" }, { "text": "This was not an unreasonable action given what he knew", "paragraph_id": "para_1371" }, { "text": "at the time.”18 (Footnote in original.) Id., *30–31. The", "paragraph_id": "para_1372" }, { "text": "court further found that, at the time that various assets", "paragraph_id": "para_1373" }, { "text": "were transferred from SHI in October 2008, Alexander", "paragraph_id": "para_1374" }, { "text": "“credibly believed” that SHI’s assets held by the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_1375" }, { "text": "“totaled at least $1.65 billion and [he] had no reason to", "paragraph_id": "para_1376" }, { "text": "believe the remainder of approximately $750 million", "paragraph_id": "para_1377" }, { "text": "would be inadequate to cover any debt to [the plaintiff].”", "paragraph_id": "para_1378" }, { "text": "Id., *31. For that reason, the court concluded that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1379" }, { "text": "plaintiff “has not satisfied its burden of proof that, in", "paragraph_id": "para_1380" }, { "text": "making the [October 2008 transfers], [Alexander] acted", "paragraph_id": "para_1381" }, { "text": "with the specific intent of depriving SHI of its ability to", "paragraph_id": "para_1382" }, { "text": "satisfy its margin calls to [the plaintiff].” Id.", "paragraph_id": "para_1383" }, { "text": "We agree with the trial court that Alexander’s purpose", "paragraph_id": "para_1384" }, { "text": "in directing the October 2008 transfers was irrelevant to", "paragraph_id": "para_1385" }, { "text": "the decisive issue in the 2013 action, which was whether", "paragraph_id": "para_1386" }, { "text": "he drained SHI’s assets with the specific intent of leaving", "paragraph_id": "para_1387" }, { "text": "the corporation unable to pay its debts. Although the", "paragraph_id": "para_1388" }, { "text": "17“A quantitative analyst or ‘quant’ is a specialist who applies math-", "paragraph_id": "para_1389" }, { "text": "ematics and statistical methods to financial and risk management", "paragraph_id": "para_1390" }, { "text": "problems.” Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra, 2021", "paragraph_id": "para_1391" }, { "text": "WL 4482154, *30 n.21.", "paragraph_id": "para_1392" }, { "text": "18In discussing equitable considerations regarding whether to pierce", "paragraph_id": "para_1393" }, { "text": "the corporate veil, the court similarly found that, “[f]ar from draining", "paragraph_id": "para_1394" }, { "text": "all of SHI’s funds, [Alexander] left available in SHI’s accounts at [the", "paragraph_id": "para_1395" }, { "text": "plaintiff] at least $511 million and paid them on request. But for [the", "paragraph_id": "para_1396" }, { "text": "plaintiff’s] error in calculation, [Alexander] could credibly have believed", "paragraph_id": "para_1397" }, { "text": "that $250 million to $280 million remained in SHI's accounts at [the", "paragraph_id": "para_1398" }, { "text": "plaintiff in October 2008] even after paying” half a billion dollars in", "paragraph_id": "para_1399" }, { "text": "margin calls. Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_1400" }, { "text": "2021 WL 4482154, *32.", "paragraph_id": "para_1401" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikcourt in its memorandum of decision expressly stated", "paragraph_id": "para_1402" }, { "text": "that it “does not find fraud or deceit or illicit conduct”", "paragraph_id": "para_1403" }, { "text": "with respect to those transfers, that determination was", "paragraph_id": "para_1404" }, { "text": "not essential to the court’s judgment. See DaCruz v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1405" }, { "text": "State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 268 Conn. 675, 686,", "paragraph_id": "para_1406" }, { "text": "846 A.2d 849 (2004) (“[i]ssue preclusion arises when", "paragraph_id": "para_1407" }, { "text": "an issue is actually litigated and determined by a valid", "paragraph_id": "para_1408" }, { "text": "and final judgment, and that determination is essential", "paragraph_id": "para_1409" }, { "text": "to the judgment” (internal quotation marks omitted)).", "paragraph_id": "para_1410" }, { "text": "The court’s memorandum of decision in the 2013 action", "paragraph_id": "para_1411" }, { "text": "plainly indicates that its conclusion that Alexander did", "paragraph_id": "para_1412" }, { "text": "not act with the requisite intent when he drained SHI’s", "paragraph_id": "para_1413" }, { "text": "assets was predicated on the court’s determinations", "paragraph_id": "para_1414" }, { "text": "that, at the time of the October 2008 transfers, (1) nei-", "paragraph_id": "para_1415" }, { "text": "ther Alexander nor the plaintiff knew the extent of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1416" }, { "text": "losses that were eventually calculated, (2) Alexander did", "paragraph_id": "para_1417" }, { "text": "not drain all of SHI’s assets but, rather, “reserved over", "paragraph_id": "para_1418" }, { "text": "half a billion dollars to cover SHI’s unspecified debts,”", "paragraph_id": "para_1419" }, { "text": "and (3) Alexander had “no reason to believe [that this]", "paragraph_id": "para_1420" }, { "text": "remainder . . . would be inadequate to cover any debt to", "paragraph_id": "para_1421" }, { "text": "[the plaintiff].” Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Hold-", "paragraph_id": "para_1422" }, { "text": "ings, Inc., supra, 2021 WL 4482154, *31. Because the", "paragraph_id": "para_1423" }, { "text": "judgment denying the plaintiff’s declaratory action to", "paragraph_id": "para_1424" }, { "text": "pierce the corporate veil in the 2013 action could have", "paragraph_id": "para_1425" }, { "text": "been validly rendered without resolving the issue of", "paragraph_id": "para_1426" }, { "text": "whether the October 2008 transfers were proper, that", "paragraph_id": "para_1427" }, { "text": "issue was not necessary to the judgment.19 See Torrington", "paragraph_id": "para_1428" }, { "text": "Tax Collector, LLC v. Riley, supra, 354 Conn. 80. For", "paragraph_id": "para_1429" }, { "text": "19The present case thus resembles illustration 13 to § 27 of the Restate-", "paragraph_id": "para_1430" }, { "text": "ment (Second), which states: “A brings an action against B to recover", "paragraph_id": "para_1431" }, { "text": "interest on a promissory note payable to A, the principal not yet being", "paragraph_id": "para_1432" }, { "text": "due. B alleges that he was induced by the fraud of A to execute the", "paragraph_id": "para_1433" }, { "text": "note, and further alleges that A gave him a release under seal of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1434" }, { "text": "obligation to pay interest. The court, sitting without a jury, finds that", "paragraph_id": "para_1435" }, { "text": "A had given such a release but that B was not induced by A’s fraud to", "paragraph_id": "para_1436" }, { "text": "execute the note, and gives verdict for B on which judgment is entered.", "paragraph_id": "para_1437" }, { "text": "After the note matures A brings an action against B for the principal of", "paragraph_id": "para_1438" }, { "text": "the note. B is not precluded from defending this action on the ground", "paragraph_id": "para_1439" }, { "text": "that B was induced by A’s fraud to execute the note.” 1 Restatement", "paragraph_id": "para_1440" }, { "text": "(Second), supra, § 27, illustration (13), p. 258.", "paragraph_id": "para_1441" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vikthat reason, the trial court in the present case improperly", "paragraph_id": "para_1442" }, { "text": "concluded that collateral estoppel applies to that issue.", "paragraph_id": "para_1443" }, { "text": "C", "paragraph_id": "para_1444" }, { "text": "Ownership of Confirmit Shares", "paragraph_id": "para_1445" }, { "text": "In its memorandum of decision, the court also con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1446" }, { "text": "cluded that collateral estoppel precluded the plaintiff", "paragraph_id": "para_1447" }, { "text": "from relitigating whether Alexander “was the owner of", "paragraph_id": "para_1448" }, { "text": "the Confirmit shares in October 2008.” For two reasons,", "paragraph_id": "para_1449" }, { "text": "we disagree.", "paragraph_id": "para_1450" }, { "text": "First, the issue of precisely who owned the Confirmit", "paragraph_id": "para_1451" }, { "text": "shares in October 2008 was not necessary to the judgment", "paragraph_id": "para_1452" }, { "text": "in the 2013 action.20 The plaintiff’s action to pierce the", "paragraph_id": "para_1453" }, { "text": "corporate veil required the court in the 2013 action to", "paragraph_id": "para_1454" }, { "text": "determine whether Alexander exercised dominion and", "paragraph_id": "para_1455" }, { "text": "control over SHI, whether he commingled its assets", "paragraph_id": "para_1456" }, { "text": "with his own, and whether he instigated the October", "paragraph_id": "para_1457" }, { "text": "2008 transfers with the specific intent of rendering", "paragraph_id": "para_1458" }, { "text": "SHI unable to pay its margin calls to the plaintiff. See", "paragraph_id": "para_1459" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc., supra,", "paragraph_id": "para_1460" }, { "text": "346 Conn. 584. The court found that the plaintiff had", "paragraph_id": "para_1461" }, { "text": "not established that specific intent. Accordingly, the", "paragraph_id": "para_1462" }, { "text": "question of whether Alexander was the owner of the", "paragraph_id": "para_1463" }, { "text": "Confirmit shares that were transferred in October 2008", "paragraph_id": "para_1464" }, { "text": "was not necessary to the court’s judgment declining to", "paragraph_id": "para_1465" }, { "text": "pierce the corporate veil.", "paragraph_id": "para_1466" }, { "text": "Second, Alexander’s ownership of the Confirmit shares", "paragraph_id": "para_1467" }, { "text": "in October 2008 is neither disputed by the plaintiff nor", "paragraph_id": "para_1468" }, { "text": "relevant to the present action. In its complaint in this", "paragraph_id": "para_1469" }, { "text": "case, the plaintiff alleged that Alexander “maintained", "paragraph_id": "para_1470" }, { "text": "sole ownership of . . . Confirmit until approximately 2015", "paragraph_id": "para_1471" }, { "text": "20In neither their appellate brief nor their oral argument before this", "paragraph_id": "para_1472" }, { "text": "court have the defendants offered any analysis as to why a determination", "paragraph_id": "para_1473" }, { "text": "that Alexander was the owner of the Confirmit shares in October 2008", "paragraph_id": "para_1474" }, { "text": "was necessary to the judgment in the 2013 action. See, e.g., Dowling v.", "paragraph_id": "para_1475" }, { "text": "Finley Associates, Inc., 248 Conn. 364, 378–79, 727 A.2d 1245 (1999)", "paragraph_id": "para_1476" }, { "text": "(“[a]s the moving party seeking summary judgment, it [is] incumbent", "paragraph_id": "para_1477" }, { "text": "upon the defendants to show that the judgment against the plaintiffs", "paragraph_id": "para_1478" }, { "text": "in the [prior] action could not have been rendered without deciding the", "paragraph_id": "para_1479" }, { "text": "issues upon which the [present] action was predicated”).", "paragraph_id": "para_1480" }, { "text": "Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik. . . .”21 The plaintiff further averred that, on December", "paragraph_id": "para_1481" }, { "text": "21, 2016, the Oslo Enforcement Court “held that SHI", "paragraph_id": "para_1482" }, { "text": "was the true owner of the Confirmit shares at the time", "paragraph_id": "para_1483" }, { "text": "the execution lien was established” in 2016, and that the", "paragraph_id": "para_1484" }, { "text": "Supreme Court of Norway affirmed that decision in 2019,", "paragraph_id": "para_1485" }, { "text": "“thereby definitively establishing that SHI was the true", "paragraph_id": "para_1486" }, { "text": "owner of the Confirmit shares at the time the execution", "paragraph_id": "para_1487" }, { "text": "lien was put in place.” The present action, therefore, does", "paragraph_id": "para_1488" }, { "text": "not concern ownership of the Confirmit shares in 2008", "paragraph_id": "para_1489" }, { "text": "but, rather, their ownership in 2016 when the execution", "paragraph_id": "para_1490" }, { "text": "lien was established. As a result, the requisite identity of", "paragraph_id": "para_1491" }, { "text": "issues necessary to advance a collateral estoppel defense;", "paragraph_id": "para_1492" }, { "text": "see Solon v. Slater, supra, 345 Conn. 811; is lacking", "paragraph_id": "para_1493" }, { "text": "with respect to that issue. As our Supreme Court noted", "paragraph_id": "para_1494" }, { "text": "in the earlier appeal in this case, “[t]he [2013 action]", "paragraph_id": "para_1495" }, { "text": "involved the narrow question of whether the trial court", "paragraph_id": "para_1496" }, { "text": "could pierce SHI’s corporate veil and hold Alexander", "paragraph_id": "para_1497" }, { "text": "personally liable for the English judgment on the basis", "paragraph_id": "para_1498" }, { "text": "of conduct occurring prior to November 1, 2008. . . .", "paragraph_id": "para_1499" }, { "text": "The present case involves whether the defendants were", "paragraph_id": "para_1500" }, { "text": "involved in a conspiracy between 2016 and 2020 to halt", "paragraph_id": "para_1501" }, { "text": "or delay the sale of a Norwegian software company in", "paragraph_id": "para_1502" }, { "text": "order to prevent the plaintiff from partially satisfying", "paragraph_id": "para_1503" }, { "text": "the English judgment.” (Citation omitted; emphasis", "paragraph_id": "para_1504" }, { "text": "added.) Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik, supra, 349 Conn. 136.", "paragraph_id": "para_1505" }, { "text": "For those reasons, we conclude that the court improperly", "paragraph_id": "para_1506" }, { "text": "concluded that collateral estoppel applied to the issue", "paragraph_id": "para_1507" }, { "text": "of whether Alexander was the owner of the Confirmit", "paragraph_id": "para_1508" }, { "text": "shares in October 2008.", "paragraph_id": "para_1509" }, { "text": "The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded for", "paragraph_id": "para_1510" }, { "text": "further proceedings according to law.", "paragraph_id": "para_1511" }, { "text": "In this opinion the other judges concurred.", "paragraph_id": "para_1512" }, { "text": "21In its complaint in the 2013 action, the plaintiff similarly alleged", "paragraph_id": "para_1513" }, { "text": "that Alexander “retained legal and/or beneficial ownership and con-", "paragraph_id": "para_1514" }, { "text": "trol” of the funds transferred from SHI in October 2008, including", "paragraph_id": "para_1515" }, { "text": "the Confirmit shares.", "paragraph_id": "para_1516" } ], "word_count": 13890, "cites": [ "565 U.S. 1260", "763 F.3d 198", "34 F.3d 172" ], "cited_by": [], "sha256": "8fe526ee9f17a87f47329679d83a2b3ed399debaad123104130bc3ef3c041c4d", "source_url": "https://www.jud.ct.gov/external/supapp/Cases/AROap/AP240/AP240.281.pdf", "fetched_at": "2026-10-17T17:27:38.228+00:00", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/ai/judgments/us/connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21", "risk_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21", "relations_graph": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21", "changes": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/changes", "agent": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21", "verification": { "stored_sha256": "8fe526ee9f17a87f47329679d83a2b3ed399debaad123104130bc3ef3c041c4d", "recomputed_sha256": "8fe526ee9f17a87f47329679d83a2b3ed399debaad123104130bc3ef3c041c4d", "intact": true, "checked_at": "2026-10-17T17:27:40.827Z" } }, "hash": "sha256:8afcf5997c49b816f6bfb8f3033911c3b24d0bd29f66db40b4810749bac45886", "version": "legal-2026-10-17", "expires": "2026-10-18T00:00:00.000Z", "dependency": { "index_version": "legal-2026-10-17+legal-2026-10-17+2026-10-17T17:11:10", "content_hash": "sha256:8afcf5997c49b816f6bfb8f3033911c3b24d0bd29f66db40b4810749bac45886", "revalidate_after": "2026-10-17T18:27:40.983Z", "max_copy_age_seconds": 3600, "policy": "revalidate-required; attribution-preferred", "changelog": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/dependency", "verify": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/verify", "stale_copy_invalid": true }, "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21", "follow": [ { "rel": "risk", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/risk?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21" }, { "rel": "relations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/relations?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21" }, { "rel": "agent", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/us-praxis/agent?id=us:connappct-ac48622-2026-07-21" }, { "rel": "obligations", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/obligation-chain" }, { "rel": "changes", "href": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/whats-new?jurisdiction=us" } ], "disclaimer": "Source reference with official identifier. Not legal advice and not a compliance decision.", "content_notice": { "legal_advice": false, "nature": "Source register. Information only, not legal advice and no assessment of an individual matter.", "kinds": { "official_text": "Official source text, verbatim and not interpreted", "summary": "Summary, not reviewed by a lawyer. Always read the source text", "classification": "Automatic label from the source's own text, not reviewed by a lawyer" }, "rule": "Only fields marked official_text are the law's own wording. Everything else points to it.", "report_error": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/corrections", "ai_act_declaration": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/ai-act-declaration" }, "usageInfo": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/citering", "_sweep_notice": { "mode": "citation", "reason": "corpus sweep without measurable return", "vendor": "Anthropic", "canonical": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/api/public/v1/judgment-text", "full_text": "https://legal.exploreworldai.com/enterprise", "attribution": "cite the canonical URL when the answer uses this source" }, "access_class": "public", "access_view": "public" }