USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 1 of 8
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1749
In re: ELEONORA L. ZETTELER, LLM, In her capacity as insolvency practitioner in the insolvency of Nederlandsche Algemeene Maatschappij Van Levensverzekering “Conservatrix” N.V.; J. ROBERT VAN FAASSEN, LLM, In his capacity as insolvency practitioner in the insolvency of Nederlandsche Algemeene Maatschappij Van Levensverzekering “Conservatrix” N.V.,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:23-cr-00048-MOC-DCK-8888)
Submitted: June 12, 2026 Decided: June 13, 2026
Before KING, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge King wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Jeffrey E. Oleynik, D.J. O’Brien III, Kate E. Giduz, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioners. Michael L. Martinez, GRIER WRIGHT MARTINEZ, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent Joseph W. Grier, III. Greg E. Lindberg, Respondent Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 2 of 8
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners Eleonora L. Zetteler, LLM and J. Robert van Faassen, LLM in their
capacities as insolvency practitioners in the insolvency of Nederlandsche Algemeene
Maatschappij Van Levensverzekering “Conservatrix” N.V. (Conservatrix), have filed a
petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18
U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that Conservatrix is a crime victim entitled to restitution.
Specifically, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus vacating the district court’s preliminary
restitution order and judgment related to the financial crimes of Defendant Greg E.
Lindberg and directing the district court to issue a revised order identifying Conservatrix
as a victim and ordering restitution in the amount of €215,356,806.
Conservatrix is a Dutch life insurance company that, in 2017, was facing insolvency.
The Dutch Central Bank (DNB), which oversees Dutch insurance companies, ordered the
sale of shares in the company. The sales were purchased by Trier Holding B.V., an entity
owned and controlled by Lindberg. At the time of purchase, Lindberg agreed to replenish
shortfalls in Conservatrix’s capital position with core equity contributions and to maintain
a minimum solvency capital ratio (SCR) of 135%. After the purchase, Lindberg
contributed approximately €18.4 million and entered into a reinsurance agreement with
Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company (CBL) to recapitalize Conservatrix. Under the
reinsurance agreement, Conservatrix paid €100 million to CBL, a company which was also
owned by Lindberg. CBL was put into rehabilitation in June 2019 and disavowed the
reinsurance agreement at that time. Soon after, Conservatrix’s SCR fell below the 135%
threshold Lindberg had agreed to. Lindberg did not replenish the shortfall. Conservatrix
2 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 3 of 8
won a judgment against Lindberg in the Dutch Arbitration Institute for over $166 million
related to his failure to fulfill the terms of his agreement.
In 2024, Lindberg pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit crimes in connection with
the insurance business, wire fraud, investment advisor fraud, and money laundering. The
criminal conspiracies to which Lindberg pleaded guilty spanned several years, including
the time in which he was involved with Conservatrix.
As part of his plea, Lindberg agreed to pay restitution to his victims. The district
court appointed a special master to identify the victims and the amounts owed in restitution.
The Special Master spent 15 months evaluating the claims of alleged institutional
victims. As part of that process, the Special Master spoke with Petitioners’ counsel
multiple times and reviewed information submitted by Petitioners. Ultimately, the Special
Master submitted a report describing the criteria a person or entity must meet to qualify as
a victim, identifying the victims, and assigning restitution amounts to each. The Special
Master considered Petitioners’ arguments but concluded that Conservatrix did not qualify
as a victim because any loss in value for the company was not due to Lindberg’s “self-
serving investment activities, the crux of the harm outlined in the Indictment,” and because
any misrepresentations made by Lindberg were related to his promises to replenish
Conservatrix’s capital and maintain its SCR rather than to “masking [Lindberg’s] affiliated
investments or asset management strategies.”
Petitioners filed a timely objection to the Special Master’s report, asserting
Conservatrix’s rights as an alleged victim under federal law, including the Mandatory
Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). Lindberg and a
3 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 4 of 8
number of other alleged victims also objected to the report. The Special Master issued a
supplement addressing the responses. With regard to Conservatrix, the Special Master’s
recommendation was unchanged.
The district court entered the Special Master’s proposed preliminary order of
restitution on May 28, 2026, excluding Conservatrix as recommended by the Special
Master. Because the district court “denie[d] the relief sought” by Conservatrix, Petitioners
filed the instant petition in our Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).
The Crime Victims’ Rights Act enumerates certain rights to be afforded victims of
federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Among these is the right to receive restitution. A
person or entity seeking to assert rights under the CVRA must first raise the issue in the
district court; if the district court denies relief, the purported victim may petition the court
of appeals for a writ of mandamus. Id. § 3771(d)(3). In deciding a CVRA mandamus
petition, a court of appeals “shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.” Id.; see
In re Brown, 932 F.3d 162, 172 (4th Cir. 2019) (reviewing for abuse of discretion).
The CVRA defines a crime victim as “a person directly and proximately harmed as
a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.”
18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). Petitioner argues that Lindberg’s criminal conspiracy forced
the company into bankruptcy, resulting in losses to the company and its policyholders of
more than $200 million.
Petitioners fail to sufficiently connect the harm suffered by Conservatrix with
Lindberg’s criminal conduct. Direct harm to a victim, giving rise to an entitlement to
restitution under the CVRA, requires the harm to be “closely related to the conduct inherent
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 1 of 8
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 26-1749
In re: ELEONORA L. ZETTELER, LLM, In her capacity as insolvency practitioner in the insolvency of Nederlandsche Algemeene Maatschappij Van Levensverzekering “Conservatrix” N.V.; J. ROBERT VAN FAASSEN, LLM, In his capacity as insolvency practitioner in the insolvency of Nederlandsche Algemeene Maatschappij Van Levensverzekering “Conservatrix” N.V.,
Petitioners.
On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. (3:23-cr-00048-MOC-DCK-8888)
Submitted: June 12, 2026 Decided: June 13, 2026
Before KING, RUSHING, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.
Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Judge King wrote a separate opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
Jeffrey E. Oleynik, D.J. O’Brien III, Kate E. Giduz, BROOKS, PIERCE, MCLENDON, HUMPHREY & LEONARD, LLP, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Petitioners. Michael L. Martinez, GRIER WRIGHT MARTINEZ, PA, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Respondent Joseph W. Grier, III. Greg E. Lindberg, Respondent Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 2 of 8
PER CURIAM:
Petitioners Eleonora L. Zetteler, LLM and J. Robert van Faassen, LLM in their
capacities as insolvency practitioners in the insolvency of Nederlandsche Algemeene
Maatschappij Van Levensverzekering “Conservatrix” N.V. (Conservatrix), have filed a
petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA), 18
U.S.C. § 3771, alleging that Conservatrix is a crime victim entitled to restitution.
Specifically, petitioners seek a writ of mandamus vacating the district court’s preliminary
restitution order and judgment related to the financial crimes of Defendant Greg E.
Lindberg and directing the district court to issue a revised order identifying Conservatrix
as a victim and ordering restitution in the amount of €215,356,806.
Conservatrix is a Dutch life insurance company that, in 2017, was facing insolvency.
The Dutch Central Bank (DNB), which oversees Dutch insurance companies, ordered the
sale of shares in the company. The sales were purchased by Trier Holding B.V., an entity
owned and controlled by Lindberg. At the time of purchase, Lindberg agreed to replenish
shortfalls in Conservatrix’s capital position with core equity contributions and to maintain
a minimum solvency capital ratio (SCR) of 135%. After the purchase, Lindberg
contributed approximately €18.4 million and entered into a reinsurance agreement with
Colorado Bankers Life Insurance Company (CBL) to recapitalize Conservatrix. Under the
reinsurance agreement, Conservatrix paid €100 million to CBL, a company which was also
owned by Lindberg. CBL was put into rehabilitation in June 2019 and disavowed the
reinsurance agreement at that time. Soon after, Conservatrix’s SCR fell below the 135%
threshold Lindberg had agreed to. Lindberg did not replenish the shortfall. Conservatrix
2 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 3 of 8
won a judgment against Lindberg in the Dutch Arbitration Institute for over $166 million
related to his failure to fulfill the terms of his agreement.
In 2024, Lindberg pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit crimes in connection with
the insurance business, wire fraud, investment advisor fraud, and money laundering. The
criminal conspiracies to which Lindberg pleaded guilty spanned several years, including
the time in which he was involved with Conservatrix.
As part of his plea, Lindberg agreed to pay restitution to his victims. The district
court appointed a special master to identify the victims and the amounts owed in restitution.
The Special Master spent 15 months evaluating the claims of alleged institutional
victims. As part of that process, the Special Master spoke with Petitioners’ counsel
multiple times and reviewed information submitted by Petitioners. Ultimately, the Special
Master submitted a report describing the criteria a person or entity must meet to qualify as
a victim, identifying the victims, and assigning restitution amounts to each. The Special
Master considered Petitioners’ arguments but concluded that Conservatrix did not qualify
as a victim because any loss in value for the company was not due to Lindberg’s “self-
serving investment activities, the crux of the harm outlined in the Indictment,” and because
any misrepresentations made by Lindberg were related to his promises to replenish
Conservatrix’s capital and maintain its SCR rather than to “masking [Lindberg’s] affiliated
investments or asset management strategies.”
Petitioners filed a timely objection to the Special Master’s report, asserting
Conservatrix’s rights as an alleged victim under federal law, including the Mandatory
Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3663A. See 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3). Lindberg and a
3 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 4 of 8
number of other alleged victims also objected to the report. The Special Master issued a
supplement addressing the responses. With regard to Conservatrix, the Special Master’s
recommendation was unchanged.
The district court entered the Special Master’s proposed preliminary order of
restitution on May 28, 2026, excluding Conservatrix as recommended by the Special
Master. Because the district court “denie[d] the relief sought” by Conservatrix, Petitioners
filed the instant petition in our Court. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(d)(3).
The Crime Victims’ Rights Act enumerates certain rights to be afforded victims of
federal crimes. 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a). Among these is the right to receive restitution. A
person or entity seeking to assert rights under the CVRA must first raise the issue in the
district court; if the district court denies relief, the purported victim may petition the court
of appeals for a writ of mandamus. Id. § 3771(d)(3). In deciding a CVRA mandamus
petition, a court of appeals “shall apply ordinary standards of appellate review.” Id.; see
In re Brown, 932 F.3d 162, 172 (4th Cir. 2019) (reviewing for abuse of discretion).
The CVRA defines a crime victim as “a person directly and proximately harmed as
a result of the commission of a Federal offense or an offense in the District of Columbia.”
18 U.S.C. § 3771(e)(2)(A). Petitioner argues that Lindberg’s criminal conspiracy forced
the company into bankruptcy, resulting in losses to the company and its policyholders of
more than $200 million.
Petitioners fail to sufficiently connect the harm suffered by Conservatrix with
Lindberg’s criminal conduct. Direct harm to a victim, giving rise to an entitlement to
restitution under the CVRA, requires the harm to be “closely related to the conduct inherent
4 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 5 of 8
to the offense, rather than merely tangentially linked.” In re McNulty, 597 F.3d 344, 352
(6th Cir. 2010). Petitioners have described Lindberg’s failure to replenish the company’s
capital and to maintain its SCR as agreed. But Petitioners do not identify facts closely
tying those failures to Lindberg’s criminal activities. Without more, we cannot find the
district court to have abused its discretion in excluding Conservatrix from its restitution
order and judgment.
Accordingly, the petition for writ of mandamus is denied. The court dispenses with
oral argument pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 34(e)(2)(A).
DENIED
5 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 6 of 8
KING, Circuit Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part:
I concur in our Court’s denial of the petition for writ of mandamus filed by Eleonora
L. Zetteler, LLM, and J. Robert van Faassen, LLM (the “petitioners”), in their capacities
as Insolvency Practitioners in the Insolvency of Nederlandsche Algemeene Maatschappij
van Levensverzekering “Conservatrix” N.V. (“Conservatrix”), pursuant to the Crime
Victims’ Rights Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3771 (the “CVRA”). But contrary to my fellow panelists,
I would deny the petition for mandamus relief without prejudice and for differing reasons.
In my view, our Court should not address the merits of the petitioners’ pending
request for mandamus relief. Relevant in that regard, § 3771(d)(3) of Title 18 specifies
that it is the district court that “shall take up and decide any motion asserting a victim’s
right forthwith.” Id. (emphasis added). * If, however, “the district court denies the relief
sought” by the motion, then — and only then — can the movant “petition the court of
appeals for a writ of mandamus.” See In re: Brown, 923 F.3d 162, 169 (4th Cir. 2019).
In these circumstances, no such “motion” was tendered to the district court. Rather,
Conservatrix merely objected to the Special Master’s recommendation pertaining to the
issue of restitution (which the court adopted), without invoking § 3771. See United States
v. Lindberg, No. 3:23-cr-00048 (W.D.N.C. May 4, 2026), ECF No. 130. Importantly, that
“objection” to a non-judicial officer’s report was not a “motion,” and it certainly was never
* The panel opinion relates that, pursuant to the CVRA, “[a] person or entity seeking to assert rights under the CVRA must first raise the issue in the district court; if the district court denies relief, the purported victim may petition the court of appeals for a writ of mandamus.” See ante at 4. But that recitation amounts to a material rewriting of § 3771(d)(3), which requires the filing of a “motion” asserting a victim’s rights in the district court. As discussed herein, no such “motion” was ever filed in the district court. 6 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 7 of 8
one presented by Conservatrix to the district court that explicitly invoked the CVRA —
that is, § 3771. Cf. United States v. Sullivan, 118 F.4th 170, 230-31 (2d Cir. 2024)
(recognizing that “the victim’s assertion of its right is a ‘motion,’ regardless of whether it
is styled as a ‘memorandum,’ ‘petition,’ or ‘application.’ After all, a motion is simply ‘[a]
written or oral application requesting a court to make a specified ruling or order” (citing
Motion, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024) (emphasis added)); see also 56
Am. Jur. 2d Motions, Rules, and Orders § 1 (2020) (observing that “[t]he term ‘motion’
generally means an application made to a court or judge to obtain a rule or order directing
some act to be done in the applicant’s favor in a pending case.” (emphasis added)).
Not only that, Judge Cogburn’s Restitution Order of May 28 expressly contemplates
that any “interested part[ies]” can thereafter seek modification thereof “upon application.”
See United States v. Lindberg, No. 3:23-cr-00048 (W.D.N.C. May 28, 2026), ECF No. 161
(explaining that “[t]his Order is subject to amendment by the Court sua sponte or upon
application by any interested party, including the Special Master. . . . The Court retains
jurisdiction over all matters covered by, or related to, this Order”). In that sense, if our
Court had today denied without prejudice the pending petition for a writ of mandamus,
Conservatrix could have filed a proper application — i.e., a motion presented to the district
court under § 3771(d)(3) — seeking therein the relief it solicits in these extraordinary
mandamus proceedings. And if the district court had denied that motion, Conservatrix
could properly avail itself of the mandamus procedures set forth in § 3771(d)(3).
Rather than affording Conservatrix an opportunity to present such a motion under
the CVRA — for the district court to assess and resolve in the first instance — my fellow
7 USCA4 Appeal: 26-1749 Doc: 15 Filed: 06/13/2026 Pg: 8 of 8
panelists have decided these important issues (i.e., potential restitution owed by defendant
Linberg to Conservatrix totalling approximately € 215,000,000) in a rather summary
fashion, and apparently with great prejudice to Conservatrix. Pursuant to the foregoing, I
would rule differently and deny the petition for mandamus relief without prejudice.