SC20647 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG (Deutsche Bank), brought this action against the defendants, Sebastian Holdings, Inc. (SHI), and Alexander Vik, SHI’s sole shareholder and director, seeking, inter alia, to enforce an approximately $243 million foreign judgment (English judgment) against Vik. Following a five day trial to the court, the trial court denied Deutsche Bank’s requested relief and rendered judgment in favor of the defendants. On appeal, Deutsche Bank claims that the trial court improperly declined to pierce SHI’s corporate veil and to hold Vik jointly and severally liable with SHI for the English judgment. We disagree and affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC45070 - Russo v. Thornton ("The defendants, Brett W. Thornton (Brett), ProxySoft Worldwide, Inc. (ProxySoft Worldwide), and ProxySoft Direct, Inc. (ProxySoft Direct), appeal from the judgment of the trial court (1) granting an application for a turnover and charging order filed by the plaintiffs, Home Dental Care, Inc., Thornton International, Inc., and Robert D. Russo, acting in his capacity as executor of the estate of Thomas F. Thornton, and (2) denying Brett's motion to vacate a judgment lien and a financial institution execution. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court (1) incorrectly concluded that it had rendered a final judgment that gave rise to the postjudgment enforcement remedies pursued by the plaintiffs, and (2) improperly ordered injunctive relief and continued a receivership as part of the turnover and charging order. We conclude that ProxySoft Direct is not aggrieved by the judgment from which the defendants have appealed, and, therefore, we dismiss the portion of the appeal filed by ProxySoft Direct. As to the remainder of the appeal, filed by Brett and ProxySoft Worldwide, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44537 - Konover Development Corp. v. Waterbury Omega, LLC (“The defendant Waterbury Omega, LLC appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the application for a prejudgment remedy in favor of the plaintiff, Konover Development Corporation, upon a finding of probable cause that the defendant had breached an oral agreement for the plaintiff's procurement, management and accounting of building/rooftop wireless telecommunications agreements on behalf of the defendant. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court improperly concluded that the plaintiff had established probable cause in light of its defenses that enforcement of the oral agreement was barred by (1) General Statutes § 20-325a, (2) the rule against perpetuities, and (3) the statute of frauds. We affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44586 - Deutsche Bank AG v. Vik (“The defendants, Alexander Vik (Alexander) and Caroline Vik (Caroline), appeal from the judgment of the trial court denying their motion to dismiss, in which they asserted that the claims brought by the plaintiff, Deutsche Bank AG, were barred by the litigation privilege. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court improperly concluded that the litigation privilege does not bar the plaintiff's claims of tortious interference with business expectancy and violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We agree and, accordingly, reverse the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC4417, AC44597 - Levco Tech, Inc. v. Kelly ("In this dispute among family members over control of the family business, the defendants, Sally Levene (Sally), both individually and as executrix of the estate of Martin Levene (Martin), and Edward Levene (Edward), bring these consolidated appeals from the judgment of the trial court determining that the defendants Robert Levene (Robert), Jeffrey Levene (Jeffrey), and Dorothy Kelly (Dot) owned the majority of the outstanding shares of common stock of the plaintiff, Levco Tech, Inc. (Levco). On appeal, Sally and Edward claim that the court improperly determined that (1) Dot had not placed her ten shares of Levco stock in an irrevocable trust and (2) the issuance of twelve shares of Levco stock to Edward was invalid. We disagree and, therefore, affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Declaratory Judgment Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44063 - Pointe Residential Builders BH, LLC v. TMP Construction Group, LLC (“This appeal arises out of a contract for the construction of a condominium complex in Greenwich. The defendants, TMP Construction Group, LLC (TMP), and Olin Paige III, appeal from the judgment of the trial court, rendered in favor of the plaintiff, Pointe Residential Builders BH, LLC, following a trial to the court. On appeal, the defendants claim that the court erred by rendering judgment for the plaintiff with respect to the plaintiff's count alleging a violation of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq., and the plaintiff's count alleging unjust enrichment. We conclude that the court did not improperly render judgment on the plaintiff's CUTPA claim. In light of this conclusion, we need not address the defendants' claims pertaining to the unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44777 - Jefferson Solar, LLC v. FuelCell Energy, Inc. (“The plaintiff, Jefferson Solar, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court granting the motion to dismiss filed by the defendants, FuelCell Energy, Inc. FuelCell), and SCEF1 Fuel Cell, LLC (company). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court improperly concluded that it lacked standing to maintain an action under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20607 - Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. ("This case presents two questions of law certified to us by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, pursuant to General Statutes § 51-199b (d), regarding the interpretation the Connecticut Product Liability Act (CPLA), General Statutes § 52-572m et seq., and the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. The plaintiff, Marjorie Glover, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut, alleging that she had been injured by defective artificial lenses manufactured and marketed by the defendants, Bausch & Lomb, Inc., Bausch & Lomb Holdings, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Valeant Pharmaceuticals International, Inc., Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America, LLC, and the "Doe defendants." The plaintiff alleged, inter alia, that the defendants had violated the CPLA by failing to warn her of the inherent dangers of the artificial lenses, thereby causing injuries to her eyes. After the operative complaint was filed, the plaintiff filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a claim that the defendants had violated CUTPA by engaging in deceptive advertising. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's claims pursuant to the CPLA on the ground that they were preempted by federal law. The court also denied the plaintiff's motion for leave to amend the complaint to add a CUTPA claim on the ground that the amendment would be futile because federal law would also preempt that claim.

The plaintiff appealed from the judgment of dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. That court determined that the resolution of the plaintiff's claims depended on the interpretation of Connecticut law for which there was no controlling precedent in this court's decisions, and it requested certification of the following questions of law for our consideration: (1) "[w]hether a cause of action exists under the negligence or failure-to-warn provisions of the [CPLA, General Statutes §] 52-572q, or elsewhere in Connecticut law, based on a manufacturer's alleged failure to report adverse events to a regulator like the [United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)] following approval of the device, or to comply with a regulator's [postapproval] requirements." And (2) "[w]hether the [CPLA's] exclusivity provision, [General Statutes] § 52-572n, bars a claim under [CUTPA] based on allegations that a manufacturer deceptively and aggressively marketed and promoted a product despite knowing that it presented a substantial risk of injury." Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc., 6 F.4th 229, 244 (2d Cir. 2021). We accepted the certified questions of law and answer "yes" to both."

• SC20607 Concurrence - Glover v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc.

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions,
• Tort Law

AC44056 - Barclays Bank Delaware v. Bamford (“In this debt collection action, the defendant, Diana L. Bamford, appeals from the judgment of the trial court, Suarez, J., following a hearing in damages, awarding the plaintiff, Barclays Bank Delaware, monetary relief in the amount of $5661.81 plus costs of $436.20. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court: (1) abused its discretion in denying her motion to disqualify the Honorable Matthew E. Frechette, a judge of the Superior Court, and in ruling on her motions to reargue and reconsider that denial; (2) improperly granted the plaintiff's motion for default for failure to disclose a defense; and (3) improperly admitted certain documents containing hearsay statements into evidence at the hearing in damages. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20562 - Chugh v. Kalra (“This case is the latest in a series of cases arising out of a failed business venture between the named plaintiff, Rakshitt Chugh, and the named defendant, Aashish Kalra. Chugh commenced the present action seeking compensatory and punitive damages for, inter alia, breach of partnership agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and libel per se. A jury found in favor of Chugh on those three counts, awarding him damages in the amount of $9,400,000 and authorizing the imposition of punitive damages, which the trial court awarded in the amount of $2,965,488.29. On appeal, Kalra claims that the trial court improperly denied his motions to set aside the verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict because (1) Chugh's claims are barred by the compulsory counterclaim rule set forth in rule 13 (a) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, (2) as a matter of law, no partnership existed between the parties during the relevant time frame, and (3) with respect to the libel claim, the trial court improperly admitted the testimony of Chugh's expert witness on damages because there was no evidence to support the testimony. We agree with Kalra's third claim and, accordingly, reverse in part the judgment of the trial court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44475 - Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. 50 Morgan Hospitality Group, LLC (“The plaintiff, Electrical Contractors, Inc., appeals from the summary judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the defendant Greython Construction, LLC (Greython), regarding claims arising out of a contract between the plaintiff and Greython pursuant to which the plaintiff, as Greython's subcontractor, was to complete work on a property owned by the defendant 50 Morgan Hospitality Group, LLC (50 Morgan). On appeal, the plaintiff claims that the court erred in granting Greython's motion for summary judgment (1) based on language in the contract providing that payment by 50 Morgan to Greython was a "condition precedent" to Greython's obligation to make payments to the plaintiff, and (2) because Greython failed to present any evidence demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of material fact either that it was not the cause of 50 Morgan's failure to make payment or that it had made a substantive effort to collect payment. We disagree with the plaintiff and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42790, AC42791 - Bongiorno v. J & G Realty, LLC (“In Docket No. AC 42790, Marie claims that the trial court erred by (1) disposing of her claims for breach of fiduciary duty against Frank and Maurice on the basis of res judicata and (2) finding that she lacked standing to bring claims in her own name for breach of fiduciary duty. We dismiss Marie's appeal as moot. In Docket No. AC 42791, Bridjay claims that (1) the trial court erred by failing to shift the burden to Frank and Maurice to prove good faith and fair dealing on her breach of fiduciary duty claims and (2) this court should exercise its supervisory authority to reverse the judgment of the trial court as to her claims of oppression of a minority member. In regard to her breach of fiduciary duty claims, we dismiss Bridjay's appeal as moot, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court in all other respects.”)

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC43714 - Griffin Hospital v. ISOThrive, LLC ("This appeal concerns a dispute between the parties arising out of an agreement to study the potential benefits of a certain nutrition supplement on a group of overweight but otherwise healthy individuals. The central question at issue in this appeal is whether the plaintiff, Griffin Hospital, conducted the study in accordance with the study protocol agreed upon by the parties. After trial, the court found in favor of the plaintiff, concluding that the defendant, ISOThrive, LLC, had breached the research agreement by failing to pay a final invoice. The court found for the plaintiff, as well, on the defendant’s counterclaim, which alleged that the plaintiff had breached the research agreement by failing to conduct the study in accordance with the agreement’s research study protocol. Accordingly, the court awarded the plaintiff $68,204.12 on its breach of contract claim. Additionally, the court ordered the defendant to pay prejudgment interest at the rate of 8 percent for its wrongful detention of funds due to the plaintiff. This appeal followed.

On appeal, the defendant argues that the court improperly (1) concluded that the plaintiff was not obligated to perform an analysis to determine whether certain medications had the potential to interact with the supplement, (2) concluded that the term ‘‘overweight but otherwise healthy’’ was governed exclusively by the inclusion and exclusion criteria set forth in the parties’ agreement, (3) concluded that the plaintiff performed the study in accordance with the agreement, (4) awarded prejudgment interest to the plaintiff, and (5) found against the defendant on its counterclaim. We affirm the judgment of the court.")

AC43915 - Scient Federal Credit Union v. Rabon (''In this action seeking to recover credit card debt, the self-represented defendant, Mark Rabon, appeals from the judgment rendered by the trial court in favor of the plaintiff, Scient Federal Credit Union, following the granting of the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) granted the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and (2) denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44329 - National Bank Trust v. Yurov ("In this action stemming from the alleged fraud against the plaintiff, National Bank Trust, by the defendant Sergey Belyaev, the defendant appeals from the denial of his motion to open and dismiss or stay the enforcement of a certified foreign judgment filed by the plaintiff. On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court improperly (1) concluded that the certified judgment was a foreign judgment as defined by General Statutes § 50a-31 (2) because it did not grant the recovery of a sum of money; (2) concluded that the certification required by General Statutes § 52-605 (a) may be signed by counsel rather than the judgment creditor; and (3) refused to open the judgment when the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant required that all disputes be resolved in accordance with Russian law in Russian courts. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

The Office of Legislative Research has issued a report titled Statutory CUTPA Violations. The description states that "[t]his report lists the state’s statutory CUTPA (Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act) violations. It provides each violation’s statutory reference (or the public act creating the violation) and a brief description of the violation." The report further states that "[t]here are two types of CUTPA violations. The first is judicially determined, where a court decides if an action violated the law. The second is a per se violation, which is a specific statutorily prohibited action that automatically constitutes a CUTPA violation."

For further CUTPA research, each of our law libraries owns the following titles:

• Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices, Business Torts and Antitrust (library catalog link)
• Connecticut Business Litigation, 3rd ed. (library catalog link)

To find Connecticut treatises by subject, our law libraries make available a Connecticut Treatise Index.

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• FAQ,
• FYI,
• Legal Research,
• Self-Help

AC43007 - Carlson v. Carlson ("The self-represented defendant, Vernon F. Carlson, appeals from various judgments and actions of the trial court stemming from a 2007 action commenced by the plaintiffs, Stuart C. Carlson, Patricia W. Carlson, and Alexis S. Carlson, and a subsequent settlement agreement that was reached by the parties in 2015. On appeal, the defendant claims that the court erred (1) in denying his motions to inspect and copy corporate and partnership tax returns, (2) by not addressing the dispute in the presettlement notice between the parties before a settlement was reached, (3) in not ordering the plaintiffs to release all claims during the 2015 settlement negotiations, (4) in authorizing an application for a subdivision of a property owned by the partnership, and (5) in appointing Peter Carlson as receiver. We conclude that the defendant's first three claims must be dismissed. As for the fourth and fifth claims, for the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the judgments of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Property Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC42495 - ASPIC, LLC v. Poitier ("In this debt collection action, the plaintiff, ASPIC, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court rendered in favor of the defendant, Brack G. Poitier. The plaintiff claims that the court erred in concluding that it cannot hold the defendant personally liable for amounts due on promissory notes entered into by the plaintiff's predecessor in interest, Wendell Harp, because Harp breached his fiduciary duties to the defendant, who was Harp's general partner in certain limited partnerships. We disagree and, accordingly, affirm the judgment of the court.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20501 - Benjamin v. Island Management, LLC ("The principal issue in this appeal is one of first impression regarding the conditions under which a member of a manager-managed limited liability company (LLC) is permitted to inspect the LLC’s books and records pursuant to General Statutes § 34-255i, a provision of the Connecticut Uniform Limited Liability Company Act (CULLCA), General Statutes § 34-243 et seq. Specifically, we consider whether such a member seeking information for the stated purpose of ascertaining whether mismanagement has occurred must produce credible proof that mismanagement may have occurred as a precondition for exercising the member’s statutory inspection right. The defendant, Island Management, LLC, appeals from the judgment of the trial court holding that the defendant’s refusal to disclose certain information to the substitute plaintiffs, cotrustees of the Helen Benjamin 2002 Trust, a member of the defendant LLC, violated both § 34-255i and the defendant’s operating agreement. The defendant contends that the trial court (1) incorrectly concluded that there is no requirement under § 34-255i that the requesting member produce credible proof of mismanagement, and (2) improperly failed to apply other statutory requirements. It further contends that the alleged violation of its operating agreement is merely derivative of the alleged statutory violation, not an independent basis for relief, and, therefore, the former fails for the same reasons that the latter fails. We affirm the trial court’s judgment.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Recent Opinions

AC44098 - Medical Device Solutions, LLC v. Aferzon (Breach of Contract; CUTPA; "The defendants claim that the trial court improperly concluded (1) that the parties entered into a definite and enforceable contract to make the subject payments in exchange for the plaintiff's work, (2) that payments received by the defendants for the sale and/or licensing of an anterior spinal fusion device known as the Solus, which was based on a design patented by the individual defendant after his alleged contract with the plaintiff had been entered into, were covered by the contract, (3) that all statutes of limitations applicable to the plaintiff's claims for relief in this case were tolled under the fraudulent concealment doctrine and/or the continuing course of conduct doctrine, and (4) that the plaintiff was entitled to recover attorney's fees from the defendants under CUTPA based upon the defendants' bad faith breaches of the parties' alleged contract. The plaintiff cross appeals from the trial court's judgment awarding it offer of compromise interest on its judgment against the defendants, arguing that the court improperly calculated the amount of such interest to which it was entitled. On the defendants' appeal, we affirm in part and reverse in part the judgment of the trial court. On the plaintiff's cross appeal, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand the case for further proceedings with instructions to recalculate the amount of offer of compromise interest to which the plaintiff is entitled in accordance with this opinion.")

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions

SC20473 - Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank ("This appeal arises out of a dispute between the plaintiff, Meribear Productions, Inc., doing business as Meridith Baer and Associates, and the defendants, Joan E. Frank and George A. Frank, in connection with a contract for the design, decoration, and staging for sale of the defendants' residence at 3 Cooper Lane in Westport. After the plaintiff staged the defendants' home by installing rental furniture, antiques, art, and home décor for the purpose of enhancing its appearance and, thereby, its prospects for sale, the defendants defaulted on their contractual payment obligations to the plaintiff. The plaintiff, a California company, obtained a default judgment against the defendants in its home state and thereafter filed an action in the Superior Court in Connecticut seeking to enforce the California judgment or, alternatively, to recover under the theories of breach of contract or quantum meruit. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff against George Frank on the count seeking to enforce the California judgment and in favor of the plaintiff against Joan Frank on the breach of contract count. On appeal, the defendants claim that (1) the California judgment is unenforceable for lack of personal jurisdiction, (2) the contract is unenforceable under the Home Solicitation Sales Act (HSSA), General Statutes § 42-134a et seq., and (3) the amount of damages awarded by the trial court was improper. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.")

• SC20473 Dissent - Meribear Productions, Inc. v. Frank

• Posted in:
• Business Law,
• Contract Law,
• Recent Opinions