In Re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.

Background

The court had previously dismissed Joseph Waske’s bankruptcy appeal because it found his claims meritless. Waske, who was representing himself, moved to reconsider that decision under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(2), which permits relief based on qualifying newly discovered evidence, and Rule 60(b)(3), which permits relief for fraud, misrepresentation, or misconduct by the opposing party. The court also treated Waske’s citation to a Supreme Court decision as a request for reconsideration under Local Rule 6.3.

Newly Discovered Evidence

Waske relied primarily on language from an unaudited quarterly financial report dated December 31, 2021. He argued that the report showed Lehman’s plan administrator had improperly allowed other equity holders to receive distributions while omitting his alleged equity rights. He characterized the report as fraudulent and inaccurate.

The court held that the report could not support relief under Rule 60(b)(2). The report was published three months after the court’s September 30, 2021 decision, and none of the reasons for that decision depended on the report or the distributions Waske identified. Therefore, even assuming the report qualified as newly discovered evidence, it was not reasonably likely to have changed the earlier outcome.

Alleged Fraud

The court also held that the quoted language from the report, without additional support, did not meet Rule 60(b)(3)’s requirement of clear and convincing evidence of material fraud or misconduct. Waske’s remaining allegations of intentional misrepresentation were conclusory and did not show fraud against Lehman or the court, or that the alleged conduct prevented him from fully and fairly presenting his case.

Other Reconsideration Argument

The court found that Waske’s reliance on the Supreme Court’s decision in Mission Products Holdings, Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC did not justify reconsideration. Waske could have cited that decision during his initial appeal, and reconsideration is not a vehicle for presenting new arguments that could have been raised earlier. In addition, the court found the decision irrelevant because Waske did not explain, and the court could not discern, how its ruling about trademark-license rights related to the grounds for dismissing his appeal.

The court noted that Waske also appeared to adopt arguments made by another appellant in a separate action. It construed his motion as adopting those arguments and denied the motion for the reasons stated in the court’s opinion in that separate action.

Disposition

Judge Ronnie Abrams denied Waske’s motion for reconsideration. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motion at docket number 10 and mail a copy of the order to Waske.