In Re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.
- Paul Engelmayer
- 1:22-cv-08021
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Rex Wu v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Judge Engelmayer dismissed Wu’s appeal as untimely because he filed it more than three years late.
Rex Wu’s appeal was dismissed, leaving the bankruptcy court’s denial of his request to file a late claim unreviewed by the district court.
What happened
Rex Wu v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. concerned Wu’s appeal from a bankruptcy court order denying his request to file a late claim against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Wu represented himself in the appeal.
Bankruptcy rules required an appeal notice within 14 days after the order, unless the bankruptcy judge extended the deadline. Wu filed his notice more than three years after the June 2019 order and obtained no extension. He argued that a rule allowing relief for fraud made the appeal timely, but the court found that he alleged no facts showing fraud affecting the court’s integrity.
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer ruled that the appeal was untimely and that the court therefore lacked authority to consider it. The court dismissed the matter and directed the clerk to close the case.
The detailed version
- In Re: Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. · No. 1:22-cv-08021
- Paul Engelmayer
- Feb. 21, 2023
Background
Rex Wu appealed a ruling from the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York arising from Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc.’s 2008 bankruptcy. The challenged ruling was the bankruptcy court’s June 19, 2019 order denying Wu’s April 8, 2019 request for permission to file a late claim against Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. Wu filed his district-court notice of appeal on September 20, 2022, and represented himself.
The parties submitted appellate briefs. The opinion also notes that the court had previously told Wu, in a prior related proceeding involving the same bankruptcy, that attempting to join an appeal could not replace a timely notice of appeal.
Timeliness of the Appeal
Federal bankruptcy rules required a notice of appeal within 14 days after entry of the appealed order, unless the bankruptcy judge extended that period. The court treated this deadline as jurisdictional, meaning that the district court lacked authority to consider an appeal filed outside the deadline without an extension. Wu did not obtain an extension and filed his appeal more than three years after the bankruptcy court’s order.
Wu argued that his appeal was timely under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(d)(3), which can provide relief for fraud on the court. The court explained that this rule is reserved for serious fraud that damages the court’s normal adjudicative process, and that a party must support such a motion with clear and convincing evidence. The court also stated that, even if Wu’s arguments were treated as a motion under Rule 60(b), that route would be unavailable because fraud-based relief under that rule generally must be sought within one year.
Ruling
Judge Paul A. Engelmayer concluded that Wu’s appeal was untimely and that the court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The court further stated that Wu had not alleged facts supporting fraud on the court. The matter was dismissed, and the clerk was directed to close the case. The opinion did not add a prejudice qualification to the dismissal.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.