WL 85245 (Conn.Super.Ct. Feb. 10, 1997) and Ayres v. French, 41 Conn. 142 (1874), are not to the contrary. In each case, stock had been issued, was specifically identified, belonged to the plaintiff, and had come into the possession of the defendant, who wrongfully refused plaintiff’s demand to return them. Not surprisingly, the courts held that such facts made out a claim for conversion. 5 . The able briefs of counsel cite a number of Connecticut lower court decisions, each turning upon its particular facts. Some result in conclusions of tortious interference, others do not. Those cases cannot be fully reconciled. They do not have the effect of altering this Court's conclusion in this case, as expressed in text. 6 . See also Bernbach v. Timex Corp., 989 F.Supp. 403, 409 (D.Conn.1996) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis in
holding in marshak underscores that unlawful acts are a necessary predicate to an action for civil conspiracy holding that conspiracies can serve as predicate acts for a rico conspiracy holding motion for attorneys fees was necessary predicate recognizing that deprivation of a right was a necessary predicate to  1983 conspiracy liability holding that predicate acts need not be in furtherance of the enterprise