Lender seeks $60M bond if judge delays Uncle Nearest sale

Farm Credit, receiver warn delaying could cost creditors millions. Weaver disagrees, wants to preserve pending appeal

5:44 p.m. Oct. 21, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

Farm Credit Mid-America and Uncle Nearest's court-appointed receiver want founder Fawn Weaver to put up at least $60 million if a federal judge temporarily blocks the sale of the whiskey company's core assets.

Weaver's attorneys say neither the lender nor the receiver has demonstrated how a delay could cause $60 million in losses. There's no definitive purchase agreement, and no closing date has been established.

Five filings submitted between Oct. 19 and Oct. 21 detail the latest dispute in the federal lawsuit that placed Uncle Nearest under receivership in August 2025. Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. is negotiating a potential sale of substantially all the company's whiskey operations.

Weaver wants to prevent a sale from closing until a federal appeals court decides whether the receivership should continue. Farm Credit and Young argue that even a temporary delay could drive away buyers, diminish the company's value, and leave creditors paying the bill.

U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. has not ruled on the requested injunction.

What would a delay really cost?

Farm Credit maintains that Uncle Nearest remains insolvent, continues losing money, and depends on the lender's financial support to keep operating.

According to the filings, Farm Credit supplied $450,000 during the most recent quarter. The receivership also incurred approximately $1.83 million in professional fees during that period.

Young warned that maintaining the current arrangement for another quarter would likely cost substantially more. Both the lender and receiver contend that delaying a sale could add operating expenses, discourage prospective buyers, and reduce the money available to creditors.

"Every month of delay adds operating losses," Farm Credit argued in its Oct. 19 response, warning that continued deterioration of the brand could further reduce the eventual sale price.

Weaver's attorneys don't dispute that the receivership costs money. But they argue that existing professional fees and operating expenses cannot automatically be counted as damages caused by a court-ordered delay. "The Receiver's administration and its associated costs predate the requested restraint," Weaver's attorneys wrote in their Oct. 21 filing.

Young previously reported signing a nonbinding letter of intent with a potential purchaser May 29, but that transaction failed to close before the exclusivity period expired. He subsequently opened negotiations with three other interested parties. In his Oct. 9 report, Young said those discussions were continuing and that he believed an agreement was close.

Weaver's attorneys point out that the earlier transaction failed without the injunction she now seeks. They maintain that neither Farm Credit nor Young has established how temporarily preventing the closing of a future transaction would produce $60 million in damages.

Using figures from Young's reports, Weaver's attorneys calculated approximately $18.5 million in operating collections against $17 million in operating disbursements between August 2025 and late September 2026.

After removing approximately $818,000 in nonrecurring proceeds from the sale of a Martha's Vineyard property, the figures still show roughly $669,000 in positive operating cash flow before professional fees for the receivership.

That doesn't establish that Uncle Nearest is profitable or solvent, her attorneys acknowledge. The figures exclude substantial professional expenses and do not establish whether the company can meet its debt obligations.

Weaver argues that the figures raise a larger question: How much of Uncle Nearest's financial burden comes from operating the business, and how much comes from the receivership itself?

The proposed $60 million bond would serve as security against losses caused by an injunction later determined to have been wrongly issued. Weaver has asked Atchley to waive any monetary bond requirement.

Her latest filing references a sworn declaration stating that she cannot post security, even in a nominal amount, without affecting her essential obligations and her ability to maintain legal representation.

Weaver says negotiations can continue

Farm Credit and Young characterize Weaver's request as another attempt to interfere with the receivership and its efforts to sell company assets. Her attorneys reject that description.

The proposed injunction would not prevent Young from administering the business, marketing assets, negotiating with buyers, seeking financing, filing bankruptcy proceedings, or asking a court to approve a transaction.

It would prevent the final transfer of substantially all the company's core operating assets, or another similarly irreversible disposition, while her appeal remains pending.

Weaver argues that once those assets change hands, restoring the enterprise could prove impossible, even if the appellate court ultimately rules in her favor.

Young considers the request premature. "This Motion is premature, as the Movant currently faces no imminent harm," his attorneys wrote in their Oct. 19 response.

The receiver and Farm Credit argue that any proposed sale would require court approval, giving Weaver another opportunity to object. Her attorneys contend that challenging an individual sale is different from challenging the decision to maintain the receivership itself.

That appeal remains alive following an Oct. 2 ruling by the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, which rejected Young's attempt to have the case dismissed on jurisdictional grounds.

The ruling did not determine whether the Weavers would ultimately prevail. It allowed their challenge to Atchley's May 26 decision refusing to wind down the receivership to proceed.

Farm Credit argues that an earlier Sixth Circuit ruling denying emergency relief weighs against Weaver's latest request.

Her attorneys counter that the earlier ruling concerned different matters, including a Martha's Vineyard property and the expansion of receivership control to another company. They argue that the earlier ruling never addressed whether the receivership itself should continue.

Earlier property sale enters the debate

The parties also disagree over what an earlier real estate transaction says about the potential cost of delaying a sale.

Farm Credit cited the withdrawal of an original purchaser for Uncle Nearest's Martha's Vineyard property as evidence that litigation can discourage buyers.

Weaver's attorneys acknowledged that the purchaser backed out but pointed to what happened next. Four days later, a replacement buyer signed a contract at the same $2.595 million price. The property was subsequently sold.

Her attorneys argue that the transaction demonstrates that losing one buyer doesn't necessarily mean losing a sale or accepting less money.

Farm Credit maintains that the company's core operating assets present a different risk. The lender contends that buyers may be unwilling to wait months for an unresolved appeal while Uncle Nearest continues losing money.

Young has identified a sale as the best available path toward protecting creditors and bringing the receivership to a close.

Farm Credit claims Uncle Nearest owes more than $120 million, although that amount has not been finally adjudicated in the lawsuit.

Judge sets separate deadline in lender dispute

The latest filings also highlight another development in the case: The receiver is pursuing claims against the same lender whose lawsuit put him in charge of Uncle Nearest.

On Tuesday, Oct. 20, Atchley ordered Young to respond by Friday, Oct. 23, to Farm Credit's motion seeking dismissal of the receiver's counterclaim against the lender.

Young had requested until Nov. 16, his third request for additional time. "The Court is inclined to deny this request," Atchley wrote before granting a shorter extension because the previous deadline had expired and opposing counsel did not object.

The judge also warned that further requests for extensions would be disfavored without good cause involving circumstances the parties could not reasonably have anticipated.

Young has accused Farm Credit of negligence and gross negligence involving the conduct of former Uncle Nearest Chief Financial Officer Michael Senzaki.

According to allegations cited in Weaver's Oct. 19 filing, Senzaki submitted 28 distribution requests totaling nearly $67 million between July 2022 and August 2023. Young alleges that Farm Credit approved those requests without requiring Weaver's knowledge, consent, or confirmation.

Those allegations remain unproven, and Farm Credit is seeking dismissal of the counterclaim.

Weaver's attorneys argue that questions about the lender's conduct are no longer being raised solely by the company's founders. The court-appointed receiver has also challenged Farm Credit's conduct on behalf of the corporate borrowers.

What comes next

In deciding whether to grant an injunction, Atchley must weigh Weaver's likelihood of success on appeal, whether she faces harm that could not be adequately remedied later, the potential harm to other parties, and the public interest.

No definitive purchase agreement has been signed, and no sale of Uncle Nearest's core operating assets has been approved. Negotiations continue while the appeal proceeds.

Farm Credit and Young say postponing a sale could cost creditors millions. Weaver says closing one now could leave her with an appeal that cannot restore the business.

Now Atchley must decide whether the prospect of an irreversible sale warrants an injunction – and, if so, at what price.