Lender, receiver oppose fast track in Uncle Nearest case

Filings argue emergency motion recycles months-old complaints in ongoing fight over control of whiskey company

8:17 p.m. May 4, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Farm Credit Mid-America and court-appointed receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. are asking a federal judge to reject an emergency request to fast-track a bankruptcy appeal filed in Uncle Nearest’s name, arguing the motion recycles old complaints rather than identifying a new crisis.

In separate responses filed Monday in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the lender and Young said the motion repackages arguments already pending in the broader receivership case.

Farm Credit sued Uncle Nearest and related parties in July 2025, seeking to recover more than $108 million in outstanding loans. The lender also asked the court to appoint a receiver to stabilize operations and preserve collateral securing the debt.

Who had the authority to file?

At the heart of the latest dispute is a narrow but important question: who had the legal authority to place Uncle Nearest into bankruptcy?

Fawn Weaver, identified in the filings as Uncle Nearest’s chief executive officer but displaced from control by the receivership order, attempted on March 17 to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy petitions for Uncle Nearest Inc., Nearest Green Distillery Inc., and Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings LLC.

Two days later, the bankruptcy court dismissed the cases, finding that Weaver lacked the authority to file them because the receivership order vested that power in Young.

That distinction is now driving the appeal. Farm Credit and Young are not arguing that Uncle Nearest can never seek bankruptcy protection. They argue that Weaver no longer had the authority to make that call after the court placed the company and its related assets under receivership.

Receiver, lender say there is no new emergency

Farm Credit went further, arguing the emergency motion is “another attempt to end the receivership and regain control of Uncle Nearest.” The lender says many of the issues Weaver raises are already before the court in the receivership proceeding, including Weaver’s pending motion to reconsider the receivership order and objections to the proposed sale of a Martha’s Vineyard property held as a receivership asset.

Young also challenged the timing. The appeal was filed on March 20, but the emergency motion was not filed until April 27 – more than five weeks later. His response argues that delay undercuts the claim that immediate relief is necessary.

The receiver also says the alleged emergency – operational harm and retail sales losses while he remains in control under the court’s receivership order – is not new. According to his filing, the declaration Weaver submitted with the emergency motion is the same declaration she filed in the receivership case in February, and the broader complaints date back to a December 2025 motion to reconsider the receivership.

“In other words, this ‘emergency’ has existed for more than four months,” the receiver’s response states.

Young also points to Weaver’s earlier testimony in the receivership case. According to his filing, Weaver testified during a Feb. 9 hearing that counsel had previously recommended Chapter 11, but she “did not consider it” because shareholder equity would be “wiped out.”

Young argues that testimony undercuts the claim that bankruptcy relief suddenly became urgent.

Sixth Circuit request also opposed

Both Farm Credit and the receiver also oppose the alternative request to send the appeal directly to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Farm Credit argues the appeal filed in Uncle Nearest’s name fails to meet the standard for direct review. The lender says the case does not involve a question with no controlling law, does not present a matter of broad public importance, does not involve conflicting court decisions, and would not materially advance the case by skipping district court review.

Young makes a similar argument, saying existing bankruptcy rulings and case law already address who has the authority to sign a bankruptcy petition on behalf of a company in receivership.

For now, the bankruptcy cases remain dismissed, the receivership remains in place, and the fight over Uncle Nearest remains exactly where it has been for months: in federal court, with control of the company still the central question.