214 Conn.App. 487
Conn. App. Ct.2022Background
- Deutsche Bank sought to enforce a 2013 English judgment against Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), alleging Alexander Vik controlled SHI and diverted assets (including Confirmit AS shares) to frustrate collection.
- Norwegian courts (after appeals) invalidated transfers of the Confirmit shares and authorized a forced sale; Deutsche Bank initiated enforcement proceedings in Norway.
- Caroline Vik produced a purported right‑of‑first‑refusal (ROFR), commenced litigation in the U.S. (obtained an ex parte TRO) and filed proceedings in Norway to block the sale; Deutsche Bank alleges the ROFR was forged and that the Viks filed frivolous suits and fabricated evidence to derail the sale.
- Deutsche Bank sued in Connecticut asserting tortious interference with business expectancy and violation of CUTPA, alleging the defendants’ litigation‑related conduct depressed the Confirmit sale price.
- Defendants moved to dismiss on absolute litigation‑privilege grounds; the trial court denied dismissal. The Appellate Court reversed, holding the litigation privilege bars both claims and directing dismissal of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the litigation privilege bars tortious interference with business expectancy | Claim targets defendants' filing/maintenance of sham suits and fabricated evidence to interfere with sale — not protected speech | Filing suits, appeals, pleadings and related conduct are communications/acts during judicial proceedings and thus absolutely privileged | Privilege bars the tortious interference claim; Rioux controls — filings/participation in proceedings are protected and plaintiff could have pursued abuse‑of‑process/vexatious‑litigation remedies |
| Whether the litigation privilege bars a CUTPA claim premised on litigation conduct | CUTPA should apply to curb unfair/deceptive litigation tactics that harmed Deutsche Bank’s business expectancy | CUTPA claims based on litigation communications or conduct are barred by the litigation privilege | Privilege bars the CUTPA claim; courts (including Dorfman) routinely hold CUTPA claims premised on litigation communications are barred absent clear legislative abrogation |
| Whether extrajudicial allegations in the complaint save the claims from the privilege | Complaint contains some non‑litigation, extrajudicial misconduct allegations that independently support claims | Litigation‑related allegations permeate and are central to the complaint, so they cannot be disentangled | Privilege still bars the entire complaint because litigation‑based allegations are central and inextricably intertwined with any extrajudicial allegations; plaintiffs cannot evade the privilege by tacking on peripheral nonprivileged facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Rioux v. Barry, 283 Conn. 338 (Sup. Ct.) (absolute immunity bars tortious interference claims grounded in communications during judicial proceedings)
- Simms v. Seaman, 308 Conn. 523 (Sup. Ct.) (history and scope of litigation privilege; limits where process is subverted)
- Dorfman v. Smith, 342 Conn. 582 (Sup. Ct.) (litigation privilege bars CUTPA/CUIPA claims based on false discovery responses and similar litigation communications)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Leonetti, 310 Conn. 616 (Sup. Ct.) (declining to apply litigation privilege in narrow statutory‑retaliation context where immunity would frustrate legislative purpose)
- Scholz v. Epstein, 341 Conn. 1 (Sup. Ct.) (privilege applies to statements in pleadings and documents prepared for proceedings; distinguishing causes of action that subvert process)
- Hopkins v. O’Connor, 282 Conn. 821 (Sup. Ct.) (communications uttered in course of judicial proceedings are privileged if pertinent)
- Chadha v. Charlotte Hungerford Hospital, 272 Conn. 776 (Sup. Ct.) (absolute immunity protects against suit as well as liability; preserves incentive to participate candidly in proceedings)