No. 21-2973 ___________________________

United States of America

Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

Douglas A. Kelley

Receiver - Appellee

Thomas Joseph Petters

Defendant

Ritchie Capital Management, L.L.C.; Ritchie Special Credit Investments, Ltd.; Rhone Holdings II, Ltd.; Yorkville Investment I, L.L.C.; Ritchie Capital Management SEZC, Ltd., formerly known as Ritchie Capital Management, Ltd.

Intervenors - Appellants ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: May 11, 2023 Filed: June 9, 2023 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ BENTON, Circuit Judge.

Ritchie Capital Management, LLC fell victim to a massive Ponzi scheme. Ritchie Special Credit Invs., Ltd. v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., 48 F.4th 896, 897 (8th Cir. 2022). Ritchie seeks recovery outside the receivership. But settlement agreements and bar orders prevent recovery. The district court1 approved the receivership’s final accounting and a previous bar order. Claiming abuses of discretion, Ritchie appeals. Having jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, this court affirms.

I.

Thomas Petters perpetuated a billion-dollar Ponzi scheme to defraud investors. See United States v. Petters, 663 F.3d 375, 378 (8th Cir. 2011) (affirming his conviction and 50-year prison sentence). This court is familiar with Petters’s scheme and Ritchie’s claims.2

The district court appointed Douglas A. Kelley as receiver of the receivership for Petters and his affiliates. In bankruptcy, the receivership negotiated settlements to facilitate recovery for victim-creditors like Ritchie. One settlement was with JPMorgan. “Accompanying the settlement were ‘bar orders,’ which prohibited creditors from asserting related claims in other cases.” Ritchie Special Credit, 48

1 The Honorable Ann D. Montgomery, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. 2 See, e.g., Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., 960 F.3d 1037 (8th Cir. 2020); Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. BMO Harris Bank, N.A., 868 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. 2017); Opportunity Fin., LLC v. Kelley, 822 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 2016); Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Kelley, 785 F.3d 273 (8th Cir. 2015); Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC v. Stoebner, 779 F.3d 857 (8th Cir. 2015); Ritchie Capital Mgmt., LLC. v. Jeffries, 653 F.3d 755 (8th Cir. 2011); Ritchie Special Credit Invs., Ltd. v. United States Trustee, 620 F.3d 847 (8th Cir. 2010); United States v. Ritchie Special Credit Invs., Ltd., 620 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2010). -2- F.4th at 898. Ritchie continues to seek recovery outside the receivership, at the risk of violating these bar orders and jeopardizing the settlements.

In this appeal, Ritchie alleges the district court abused its discretion by approving the final accounting of the receivership and the bar order from the JPMorgan settlement—both approved by the bankruptcy and district courts. See In re Petters Co., No. 08-45257, slip op. at 6 (Bankr. D. Minn. May 3, 2018); United States v. Petters, No. 08-5348, slip op. at 4-5 (D. Minn. May 21, 2018). This court reviews the district court’s oversight of a receiver and its approval of stipulations for clear abuse of discretion. See SEC v. Quan, 870 F.3d 754, 759 (8th Cir. 2017), citing SEC v. Arkansas Loan & Thrift Corp.,