What to Know: Farm Credit Mid-America v. Uncle Nearest Inc.

8:00 p.m. Feb. 7, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

In recent years, few local stories have moved as quickly or become as complicated as the federal court fight over Uncle Nearest and Nearest Green Distillery. It started as a lender’s lawsuit over alleged loan defaults, but has grown into a major legal battle involving more than $120 million in debt, arguments over whether the company is solvent, questions about related businesses, and the unusual step of a court taking control of a well-known whiskey brand.

Since the first filings, The Moore County Observer has followed every major hearing, motion, and ruling — publishing more than 50 articles to help readers understand what is happening inside the courtroom and why it matters outside it. The pace of developments, however, has made it difficult to see the full picture in one place.

This series aims to clarify the entire case. We offer a full recap, a detailed timeline, a reader FAQ, and easy-to-understand guides on receivership and federal court procedures. The Observer has compiled a clear record of how the dispute began, how it has grown, and the choices that will shape the future of the distillery, its creditors, and the community.

At its heart, this story is about more than just the law. It is about control, responsibility, financial risk, and the uncertain future of one of Tennessee’s most well-known spirits brands. The decisions ahead will determine whether that future is led by company leaders, by a lender’s recovery plan, or by a federal receiver under court supervision.

Receivership 101

A quick guide to what a court-appointed receiver does:

What is a receivership?
A receivership is a court-ordered takeover of a company’s finances and key decisions. A judge appoints an independent third party — called a receiver — to run the business temporarily while a lawsuit or debt dispute is resolved.

Why courts use receivers

Judges typically approve receiverships when there are concerns about:
• Loan defaults or missed payments
• Risk to lender collateral or company assets
• Unclear or disputed financial records
• Possible insolvency or inability to pay debts

The goal is to preserve value and prevent further financial harm while the court sorts out the dispute.

What a receiver can do

Depending on the court order, a receiver may:
• Take control of bank accounts, records, and operations
• Approve or deny spending and contracts
• Seek refinancing or restructuring
• Market or sell assets to repay creditors
• Report regularly to the court and parties

During this period, company owners usually lose decision-making authority.

What a receiver cannot do

A receiver:
• Does not own the company
• Must follow court supervision and legal limits
• Must act to protect creditors and preserve value, not favor one side
• Major decisions often require judge approval.

How a receivership ends

A receivership typically concludes when:
• Debt is refinanced or repaid
• Assets are sold and proceeds distributed
• The court finds the company can operate safely on its own
• The underlying lawsuit is resolved

At that point, control either returns to ownership or transfers to a new buyer.

Why receiverships matter

Receiverships can determine:
• Whether a struggling business survives, restructures, or is sold
• How much creditors recover
• The future of jobs, property, and local investment

In major financial disputes, the receiver effectively becomes the temporary steward of the company’s future.

Understanding the Uncle Nearest Receivership

Over the past several months, The Moore County Observer has published more than 50 stories tracking the fast-moving federal court fight between lender Farm Credit Mid-America and the companies behind Uncle Nearest and Nearest Green Distillery.

What began as a loan-default lawsuit has grown into a high-stakes legal battle over more than $120 million in debt, control of one of Tennessee’s most prominent whiskey brands, and whether a court-appointed receiver should continue – or expand – authority over affiliated companies.

Because the case has unfolded across dozens of hearings, filings, and rulings, the Observer has assembled this reader’s guide to bring everything into one place.

This package includes:
• A plain-language recap of the lawsuit and receivership
• A timeline of key court decisions and turning points
• A Receivership 101 explainer outlining what court control means
• Answers to the most common reader questions about debt, solvency, and what happens next

Together, these resources provide the clearest picture yet of where the case stands now – and what the court’s next decisions could mean for the distillery, its creditors, and the local community.

CASE NO. 4:25-cv-00038

Farm Credit Mid-America v. Uncle Nearest Inc.

A federal court battle between lender Farm Credit Mid-America and the companies behind Uncle Nearest/Nearest Green Distillery has evolved into a high-stakes receivership dispute centered on more than $120 million in debt, competing claims about solvency, and whether a court-appointed receiver should expand control to affiliated Fawn and Keith Weaver-linked entities or step aside entirely.

The court’s upcoming decisions will determine whether the distillery moves toward a court-supervised restructuring or sale – or regains independent control while still facing lender enforcement.

The cast and what the lawsuit is about

Plaintiff (lender):

• Farm Credit Mid-America

Core defendants/borrower-side entities:

• Uncle Nearest Inc.
• Nearest Green Distillery Inc.
• Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings LLC
• Fawn Weaver and Keith Weaver (in the original complaint)

Court: U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee; orders by U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr.; sealing/public-access issues handled in part by U.S. Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger.

Lender’s basic theory: FCMA alleged prolonged loan defaults and conduct it says impaired collateral and violated loan covenants – enough to justify the extraordinary remedy of a court-appointed receiver taking control of assets and operations.

On Aug. 22, 2025, Phillip G. Young Jr., a Tennessee attorney with extensive restructuring and bankruptcy experience, was named as receiver of Uncle Nearest Inc.

WHY A RECEIVER?

What FCMA alleged

Farm Credit Mid-America’s original filing alleged a pattern of actions that – taken together – signaled default risk and collateral erosion, including:

• Use of loan proceeds tied to a $2.2M Martha’s Vineyard home purchased through a non-borrowing entity, and that property being mortgaged elsewhere (alleged loan-agreement violations).

• Barrel sales where FCMA alleged collateral was sold, and proceeds went to others rather than FCMA.

• Selling future revenue streams at a discount without informing FCMA (reducing collateral value).

• Borrowing-base inflation tied to inventory valuation/quantity reporting; later correction showed an alleged inflation of about $21M.

• Financial reporting failures and covenant issues (net worth/income tests; missing or unreliable records).

That pleading set the table for the receivership fight that followed.

Balance Sheet vs. Cash Flow

• Weavers’ argument: assets exceed liabilities; receivership is value-destructive and expensive (they cite millions in fees and claim sales declines during receiver control).

• Receiver’s argument: insolvency persists; liabilities exceed assets; unsecured debt and total liabilities are massive; ending receivership risks cascading defaults and litigation.

Affiliates Truly Separate?

Receiver Phillip G. Young’s filings frame the affiliated companies as operating like a single enterprise – frequent transfers, missing documentation, and alleged undisclosed accounts – making it impossible (in his view) to know what the receivership estate is without pulling those entities inside.

Transparency vs. Deal-Making

The receiver sought to seal a quarterly report on the theory that disclosure harms refinancing/sale negotiations.

But subsequent rulings described in your coverage emphasize the strong presumption of public access, rejecting broad sealing efforts and keeping filings public (with narrower redaction arguments still appearing in later motions).

TIMELINE

Key Turning Points

July 31, 2025

FCMA files a massive complaint package and asks the court to install a receiver over the distillery’s finances/real estate/operations.

Aug. 14, 2025

Judge Atchley grants FCMA’s request, citing solvency uncertainty, encumbered assets, and the need to protect FCMA’s interests while the case proceeds.

He notes that disputes over wrongdoing don’t eliminate the risk; even alleged CFO misrepresentations can still bind the company legally if made within the scope of the job.

Aug. 22, 2025

Judge Atchley appoints Phillip G. Young Jr. as receiver, granting authority to manage/preserve – and if needed, sell – assets, control accounts, and require turnover of records.

Importantly, the Weavers are described as still able to market/manage the brand, but under receiver supervision.

Dec. 22, 2025

The court strikes the filings made by “company directors” and clarifies that, due to the receivership, only the receiver (or counsel he retains) may represent the companies in court.

On the same date, Judge Atchley denied an emergency motion that was premised on a misunderstanding that the case had been stayed; the court explained that the lawsuit that created the receivership is not paused by the receivership order.

Jan. 6, 2026

Young moves to file his second quarterly report under seal, arguing public disclosure could chill refinancing/buyer talks and reduce value at a “critical juncture.”

Atchley simultaneously tightens reporting deadlines and orders explanations for missed status-report requirements.

Jan. 23, 2026

Atchley schedules a Feb. 9, 2026, hearing to determine whether the receivership should continue and whether it should be expanded to cover additional affiliated entities.

The receiver identifies additional entities under review; after narrowing, seven remain: Shelbyville Barrel House BBQ, Humble Baron, Grant Sidney, Quill and Cask Owner, Nashwood, Shelbyville Grand, and 4 Front Street.

Jan. 30-Feb. 2, 2026

Atchley denies a continuance request from affiliated entities, saying they haven’t shown due-process need for delay and should already know their own finances/relationships.

Separately, Magistrate Judge Steger denied pending sealing requests, emphasizing the federal presumption of public access.

Feb. 2, 2026

Young files that commingling and incomplete records prevent reconciliation without adding affiliated entities; he cites a summary table showing $16.6M+ transferred out of Grant Sidney to others and other large intercompany flows.

He highlights a disputed February 2025 transaction involving two $10M convertible promissory notes and argues understanding that debt requires Grant Sidney’s inclusion.

He asserts insolvency on cash-flow and balance-sheet measures; monthly losses allegedly fell (about $1M to $100K) during receivership, but he warns that those figures exclude professional fees and debt service.

Feb. 3, 2026

FCMA files payoff statements showing about $120.15M owed as of Feb. 2, 2026, across four loans (working capital, refinanced term note, construction loan, and a protective advance), with daily interest accrual pushing totals higher by Feb. 9.

Feb. 5, 2026

Weavers’ side: moves again to terminate the receivership, arguing solvency under a balance-sheet test, alleging value erosion under receiver control, and pointing to claimed asset values (distillery property, barrels, and other real estate) and even brand-multiple arguments.

Receiver’s side: reports company funds supported real estate beyond core operations (the Dan Call Farm in Moore County and the Eady Road Farm in Bedford County) and properties in Martha’s Vineyard and Cognac, France) and reiterates insolvency concerns ahead of Feb. 9.

FCMA’s side (in that same window): warns that ending receivership could trigger foreclosure dynamics and notes it provided additional funds during receivership for payroll/vendors.

Fawn Weaver co-founded Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey in 2017.

Asset Sale / Refinancing Pressure

Young reported outreach to more than 100 parties with only one expressing preliminary interest (described as nonbinding and question-heavy).

NexGen2780, a group interested in buying Uncle Nearest’s debt, may include someone with a past SEC fraud judgment. The investor’s identity and the details of the case have not been fully revealed, but this news has led to increased scrutiny of who might end up controlling the brand.

The Bottom Line

The Feb. 9 hearing is set up as a single consolidated showdown on overlapping evidence:

Should the receivership continue (or be terminated/reconsidered)?

Should it expand to include additional Weaver-linked entities?

The outcome effectively determines whether the case remains a court-supervised restructuring/sale process with broad entity coverage – or narrows back toward a more traditional lender-borrower enforcement dispute with fewer entities inside the estate.

• FCMA is armed with payoff statements showing $120M+ due and accruing.

• The receiver is arguing that insolvency + commingling + incomplete records require expanded authority and likely a refinancing/sale path.

• The Weavers argue the company is solvent on a balance sheet, that the receivership is eroding brand value, and that the receiver has not substantiated fraud by current leadership.

• The court has repeatedly reinforced the receiver’s control and exclusive litigation authority, while also signaling skepticism of broad secrecy requests.

FAQ: Farm Credit Mid-America v. Uncle Nearest Receivership Case

What is this case about?

A federal lawsuit between lender Farm Credit Mid-America (FCMA) and the companies behind Uncle Nearest/Nearest Green Distillery centers on loan defaults, more than $120 million in debt, and control of the business.

The court placed the companies in receivership, meaning a neutral third party — not company leadership — currently controls finances and key decisions while the case proceeds.

What is a receivership?

A receivership is a court-supervised takeover of a company’s financial operations.

A judge appoints a receiver to:
• Protect collateral for lenders
• Stabilize operations and cash flow
• Evaluate refinancing, restructuring, or asset sales

Company owners typically lose decision-making authority during this period.

Who is the receiver?

Phillip G. Young Jr. is the court-appointed receiver.

He has the authority to:
• Control bank accounts and records
• Oversee operations and spending
• Negotiate refinancing or potential sale of assets

Only the receiver – not company leadership – can legally act for the companies in court.

Why did the lender seek a receiver?

FCMA alleged:
• Loan defaults and covenant violations
• Collateral value is being reduced
• Financial reporting problems and disputed inventory values
• Transactions involving company funds and related entities

The judge ruled that a receiver was necessary to protect the lender’s interests as the case proceeds.

How much money is involved?

Court filings indicate more than $120 million in outstanding balances across multiple loans, with interest accruing daily.

That debt level is central to the fight over solvency and control.

Is the company insolvent?

That is one of the main disputes in the case.

Company leadership argues:
• Total assets exceed liabilities
• The receivership itself is hurting sales and brand value

The receiver and lender argue:
• The business cannot meet obligations as they come due
• Liabilities and unsecured debt remain extremely high
• Financial records and intercompany transfers complicate the picture

The court has not yet issued a final ruling on long-term solvency.

Why are affiliated companies part of the fight?

The receiver says money moved between related entities and records are incomplete, making it hard to separate finances. Because of that, he is asking the court to expand the receivership to include additional Weaver-linked companies.

Company leadership says that expansion would be unnecessary and overreaching.

Why are some court filings sealed – and others public?

The receiver has argued that keeping certain financial details private could protect refinancing or sale negotiations.

However, federal courts generally favor public access to records, and judges have pushed back on broad secrecy requests.

What is the Feb. 9 hearing expected to decide?

The hearing is set to address two major questions:
• Should the receivership continue or end?
• Should it expand to additional affiliated entities?

Those decisions will determine who controls the company and what financial path comes next.

What could happen next?

If the receivership continues or expands:
• Possible refinancing, restructuring, or court-supervised sale
• Receiver keeps operational control

If the receivership ends or narrows:
• Company leadership regains control
• FCMA could still pursue foreclosure or other enforcement to recover debt

Why does this matter locally?

The case affects:
• A major Tennessee whiskey brand
• Local jobs, tourism, and hospitality businesses tied to the distillery
• Significant real estate and development investments in the region

The court’s decisions will shape whether the brand’s future is decided by its owners, its lender, or a court-supervised sale process.