Uncle Nearest receivership: Gatekeeping fight intensifies

6:41 p.m. Jan. 9, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

New filings in the Farm Credit Mid-America v. Uncle Nearest Inc. receivership case highlight increasing disagreements about procedure, confidentiality, and how potential investors are treated in this high-profile dispute in federal court in the Eastern District of Tennessee.

Joint response backs sealing of receiver’s report

Grant Sidney, Inc. and Fawn and Keith Weaver support the receiver’s request to file his second quarterly report under seal. They describe it as a status update that should stay confidential for now. Their filing says the report does not ask for findings of fact, legal conclusions, or any specific court action. Instead, it is similar to discovery material that courts often let parties keep confidential under protective orders.

The respondents say sealing the report does not raise due process or constitutional issues because no one is asking the court to make a decision based on it right now. They add that the report could be unsealed later if it becomes important to a court decision. They also plan to file their own sealed statement to respond to the receiver’s claims, showing they disagree with parts of his account but agree on the need for temporary confidentiality.

• Joint Response Supporting Filing Under Seal

Additional entities challenge path to expanded receivership

In a separate, detailed response, a group of related companies – including Shelbyville Barrel House BBQ LLC, Humble Baron, Inc., Grant Sidney, Inc., Nashwood, Inc., Classic Hops Brewing Co., Shelbyville Grand, LLC, and others – oppose the receiver’s request for a hearing to clarify and possibly expand the receivership order. These “Additional Entities” say the receiver ignored required steps in an Agreed Order, which told him to review new bank records, send any follow-up questions or evidence within 14 days, and give them seven days to respond before going to court.

The response points out that the receiver got more bank documents by December 1, 2025, but did not send any follow-up questions or arguments to the entities by the December 15 deadline, and still has not done so. The entities say there is no factual reason for further proceedings against them. They ask the court to enforce the Agreed Order and confirm they are not part of the receivership, warning that ongoing uncertainty is causing serious financial and reputational harm.

Dispute over “commingling” and capital infusions

The Additional Entities specifically challenge the receiver’s claims of “commingling” between them and Uncle Nearest, Inc., calling these concerns vague and lacking evidence of specific transactions or fraud. They point out that one example in the receiver’s notice – that Humble Baron, Inc. and Shelbyville Barrel House BBQ LLC operate at the Nearest Green facility without paying rent – does not show commingling, since no money is exchanged between landlord and tenant.

They also discuss a capital infusion of about $20 million in early 2025 from Grant Sidney, Inc. to Uncle Nearest. They say this transaction was fully disclosed to Farm Credit and funded by Fawn Weaver selling part of her personal equity in Uncle Nearest, with the proceeds going through Grant Sidney to help the company during financial stress. The filing says neither Weaver nor any of the Additional Entities personally benefited from these transactions, which were done through separate, non-commingled bank accounts and only for Uncle Nearest’s benefit.

• Additional Entities Response

Pattern-of-litigation concerns and Rule 11 themes

Beyond the specific procedural dispute, the Additional Entities’ brief raises a broader concern about how parties have been included in the litigation. They compare the Agreed Order’s role to Rule 11, which requires claims to be based on fact and law. They note that Fawn and Keith Weaver are still named in the case even though no claims have been made against them, and argue this has been used to pressure every entity they own or are connected to, without a clear legal reason or court decision.

The response outlines that Grant Sidney’s full bank statements were provided by early November 2025, but the receiver did not make any private requests to clarify transactions, even though the Agreed Order required this before any public filing. The entities say the receiver’s choice to skip this step and issue a general public notice has made reputational harm worse and could expand the receivership by implication instead of through a proper court decision, without enough evidence.

Notice questions investor letter to the court

In a third filing, the receiver, Phillip G. Young Jr., responds to a letter recently submitted to the court by NexGen2780, LP, a group interested in being a lender, investor, or buyer in the receivership process. The notice says NexGen first contacted the receiver in October but did not provide contact information, leading to unsuccessful attempts to learn more about the company. The same letter appeared again in late December when NexGen contacted Arlington Capital Advisors, the receiver’s investment advisor.

The receiver says Arlington quickly engaged with NexGen and has treated it like any other potential partner, although NexGen has not yet signed the required nondisclosure agreement and only has a follow-up call scheduled for January 8. Young tells the court he does not know why NexGen filed its letter publicly, since it is already part of the same process as other potential lenders and investors. He suggests the court does not need to see the letter as proof of different treatment.

• Notice Regarding NexGen2780 Letter