Farm Credit disputes Grant Sidney claims

The lender also supports expanding the court-supervised receivership

10:00 a.m. March 9, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Farm Credit Mid-America told a federal judge that recent filings from Grant Sidney and other Uncle Nearest affiliates strengthen the case for expanding the receivership, while the lender sharply disputes their claims about a key 2025 funding transaction.

In a March 5 filing in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Farm Credit argued that responses from related entities bolster the receiver’s position.

The filing is part of a broader fight over whether the court should fold additional entities tied to the Uncle Nearest business into the receivership. The court-appointed receiver argues that the companies operated less like separate businesses and more like one enterprise.

• Farm Credit Response

Fight Centers on 2025 Funding Transaction

The filing centers on a roughly $20 million 2025 funding dispute involving Grant Sidney.

Farm Credit says it understood the arrangement as a subordinated loan from Grant Sidney to Uncle Nearest and required a subordination agreement on that basis.

But the lender said Grant Sidney had already advanced more than $12.5 million to Uncle Nearest over a two-month period in 15 separate transactions before anyone executed a written agreement.

Farm Credit also says it was not told about a loan from MP-Tenn, LLC, or two accounts it describes as central to the transaction: an Uncle Nearest money market account ending in 873 and a Grant Sidney account ending in 881.

The lender argues that those accounts moved funds outside its lien while making the transaction appear to flow through an approved subordinated loan.

Farm Credit also argues that the parties structured the transaction to obscure the true source of the money. The lender says MarcyPen loan proceeds first went to Uncle Nearest, then moved to Grant Sidney and back again in a way that made the arrangement look compliant.

According to the filing, Uncle Nearest, not Grant Sidney, actually incurred the $20 million debt before transferring the funds out. Farm Credit pointed to prior testimony in which Fawn Weaver said the parties moved the money “to make sure that $20 million coming in could not be snatched” by Farm Credit.

Email Exhibits Cited in Account-Visibility Dispute

Farm Credit attached emails it says undercut more recent claims that the lender had “full visibility” into the accounts involved.

In one May 28, 2025, email included as an exhibit, Weaver wrote that none of the listed accounts fell under the forbearance agreement or belonged to businesses covered by it.

Another exhibit includes a May 9, 2025, email chain in which Riveron sought confirmation of the full list of Uncle Nearest bank accounts and identified several accounts with unknown ownership, including an account associated with Grant Sidney ending in 881.

Farm Credit says those records show Riveron still lacked complete information about certain accounts even as Weaver now says the lender had full visibility into them.

Lender: Businesses Operated as One Enterprise

Beyond the Grant Sidney dispute, Farm Credit continued to support the receiver’s effort to expand the receivership to include Grant Sidney, Shelbyville Grand, Shelbyville Barrel House BBQ, Quill & Cask Owner, 4 Front Street, Nashwood and Humble Baron.

It noted that the receiver, not the lender, bears the burden on that motion. Still, the lender argued that the record so far supports expansion.

Farm Credit said the receiver’s review found repeated intercompany transfers, affiliates paying expenses for receivership entities, and little evidence that the companies maintained ordinary corporate separation.

The filing says the receiver and his advisers identified more than $21.5 million in intercompany transfers and more than $22.2 million in payments that the additional entities made on behalf of receivership entities.

Farm Credit argued that those patterns support the receiver’s claim that the businesses operated as one enterprise rather than as separate companies.

Lender: Litigation is Draining the Estate

Farm Credit also argued that the continuing fight over the receivership is consuming estate resources that would otherwise support operations and eventual recovery by creditors and equity holders.

The lender said repeated motions and objections by Weaver, Grant Sidney and related entities have forced the receiver to spend time defending the receivership instead of managing the business.

Farm Credit contends that expanding the receivership would reduce that burden by clarifying which entities and assets fall under the receiver’s control.

Additional Questions About Other Entities

Farm Credit also questioned a claimed $130,000 storage-rent payment to Shelbyville Grand, saying the figure appears to conflict with a June 12, 2025, accounts payable aging report showing only $13,000 due.

The lender said the mismatch could point to either a mislabeled transfer or seriously disorganized books before the receivership.

Farm Credit also revisited Quill & Cask, saying it first learned of the entity through its own investigation after seeing a barrel purchase and sale agreement naming the buyer as “Q and Cask, Inc.”

Farm Credit said Uncle Nearest’s financial adviser told the lender that Quill & Cask Owner, LLC, was a different entity, and it now disputes later claims that it had been fully informed of Keith Weaver’s role in the barrel transaction.

Farm Credit says that undercuts claims that the lender already knew about related-party whiskey transactions.

An attached agreement dated April 17, 2024, states that Uncle Nearest agreed to sell 21,000 barrels of whiskey to Q and Cask, Inc. for $1,800 per barrel, with transfer set for Dec. 31, 2024. The seller was to keep storing the barrels until delivery under an agreed schedule.

What Farm Credit Seeks

Farm Credit asked the court to grant the receiver’s motion and bring the additional entities into the receivership, arguing that anything less would leave the court-appointed manager unable to fully trace, protect, and control the assets at the center of the case.