Uncle Nearest receiver seeks to seal court filing

5:14 p.m. Jan. 13, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

A court-appointed receiver for whiskey maker Uncle Nearest Inc. has asked a federal judge for permission to file his latest response in the closely watched Farm Credit Mid-America PCA lawsuit under seal, arguing that public disclosure could damage efforts to stabilize the company and preserve its value. The sealing request landed as the receiver also moved to slightly push back upcoming financial reporting deadlines and after the court accepted his explanation for missing a prior filing date.​

In a motion filed Tuesday, Jan. 13, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. asked to submit under seal his response to a motion seeking reconsideration of the court’s memorandum opinion, order appointing the receiver, and access to proprietary information. Young told the court that the response “incorporates, cites to, and mirrors conclusions” in his second quarterly report, which is already sealed, and therefore contains the same type of sensitive business information that should not be made public.​

Young: 'Critical Juncture' for Receivership

Young warned that opening the response to public view could “chill” active efforts to refinance Uncle Nearest’s debt or sell its assets, describing the receivership as being at a “critical juncture” in attempts to preserve the company’s brand. He said the filing details the status and results of the current sale and refinancing process, and that revealing those specifics could undermine negotiations and harm the company’s overall value.​

The receiver also raised concerns about the discussion of potential future litigation tied to the company, which he said is addressed in the sealed response. According to the motion, litigating certain matters now – or even publicly describing possible claims at this stage – could negatively affect the business and slow progress of the receivership, even though Young emphasized he remains committed to investigating all potential causes of action at the appropriate time.​

Although Young is seeking to keep the filing from public view, he told the court that the parties who moved for reconsideration, along with counsel for the primary secured lender, will receive full, unredacted copies of the response. With those key stakeholders given complete access, Young argued, there are no due process or constitutional concerns raised by sealing the document from the broader public.​

Quarter Reporting Schedule Request

The sealing request came on the heels of a Jan. 12 order in which U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. found that Young had shown good cause for missing an earlier receivership status report deadline. In his explanation, Young cited the intervening holidays, his focus on determining the company’s position on a pending motion for clarification, and the sheer number of “moving parts” in the case; he apologized for the lapse and pledged that future reports would be filed on time, assurances the judge accepted.​

Also on Jan. 13, Young filed a separate motion seeking a modest adjustment to the quarterly reporting schedule governing his oversight of Uncle Nearest. Under the original receivership order and a Jan. 6 scheduling order, quarterly operating reports for 2026 were due April 1, July 1, and Oct. 1, but Young requested those dates be moved to April 10, July 10, and Oct. 9.​

Young said the extra days are necessary to ensure the company’s books are fully closed for each quarter and that he has sufficient time to gather and verify information from his consulting team before filing. The slight extension, he argued, would allow him to provide the court with “reliable and fulsome” reports on Uncle Nearest’s performance while still keeping the court timely informed about the receivership.​

Together, the flurry of January filings underscores both the sensitivity of the information now before the court and the pressures surrounding the future of Uncle Nearest as the receivership navigates refinancing, potential asset sales and ongoing disputes over access to proprietary business data.​