Federal judge affirms receiver’s control

Atchley clarifies Young’s authority, rejects Weaver motion in Uncle Nearest  lawsuit

8:57 p.m. Dec. 22, 2025

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

A federal judge has made two critical decisions in the Farm Credit Mid-America lawsuit against Uncle Nearest Inc. and related companies. The rulings clarify who may represent the companies under receivership and confirm that the receivership order never stayed the case.

On Monday, Dec. 22, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. removed filings made by company directors and denied an emergency request from founders Fawn and Keith Weaver to move the case forward. The court said the request was unnecessary, not that it lacked merit.

• Receiver Order | Company Directors’ Order

Receiver Is the Only Authorized Voice for the Companies

In the first order, Judge Atchley agreed with receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. and removed a response filed by the Weavers as “majority directors” of Uncle Nearest, Inc. The court also removed a notice from the law firm Mainer & Herod, which had tried to join the case on behalf of the companies without the receiver’s approval.

The judge made it clear that, after the receiver was appointed earlier this year, he assumed all powers of the companies’ officers and directors, including the authority to handle lawsuits. This means only the receiver or lawyers he hires can represent the companies in court.

“The answer is simple,” the court wrote. “The Receiver.”

Judge Atchley disagreed with claims that the board retained authority or that earlier court instructions permitted it. The court said allowing directors to file their own documents would undermine the purpose of the receivership and cause confusion.

The court also found the directors’ response improper for several reasons:

• It was an unauthorized reply brief that broke court rules.
• The directors are not actually parties in the lawsuit, and
• They do not have the right to file motions or responses unless they are officially part of the case.

Emergency Motion Denied – Because the Case Was Never Stayed

In another order, Judge Atchley denied an emergency motion from the Weavers and Grant Sidney, Inc. They had requested relief from what they believed was a pause in the case due to the receivership order.

The court said the motion was based on a mistake: the case was never put on hold.

The receivership order stops outside parties from interfering with company assets, similar to a bankruptcy stay. However, Judge Atchley explained that these protections do not apply to the lawsuit that led to the receivership.

“The Court’s anti-litigation injunction does not apply to this action,” the order states, noting that staying the case itself would defeat the purpose of appointing a receiver in the first place.

The judge compared the receivership to bankruptcy cases, in which the automatic stay halts third-party collection efforts but does not pause the main court case.

Litigation to Resume on a Measured Schedule

Although the emergency motion was denied, the court said the lawsuit will proceed, but not so quickly as to interfere with the receiver’s efforts to stabilize the companies.

Judge Atchley told all parties and the receiver to meet and submit a joint status report by Jan. 30, 2026. The report should propose a schedule that advances the case while allowing the receiver to continue managing the companies.

The court praised the receiver’s work so far and said it would not set a fast schedule that might interfere with efforts to protect company assets.