Uncle Nearest Receiver: Farm Credit ignored red flags

Farm Credit accused of allowing whiskey company’s former CFO to draw nearly $67M without meaningful oversight

10:44 a.m. July 8, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

The court-appointed receiver overseeing Uncle Nearest is seeking to turn Farm Credit Mid-America’s $100 million lending lawsuit back on the lender, accusing Farm Credit of negligence, gross negligence, and “willful blindness” that allegedly allowed the whiskey company’s former chief financial officer to draw nearly $67 million without independent confirmation.

The filings mark a major turn in the case.

Farm Credit’s original complaint framed the case as a secured lender’s effort to protect its collateral after repeated defaults by Uncle Nearest. The receiver and Fawn and Keith Weaver now offer a different version: one in which Farm Credit’s own lending practices allegedly helped create the losses it now seeks to recover.

The allegations have not been proven in court.

In that complaint, Farm Credit alleged Uncle Nearest repeatedly defaulted, failed to provide reliable financial information, impaired collateral, and owed more than $108 million in principal and accrued interest. The new filings do not resolve those claims. They answer them – and, in the receiver’s case, add a counterattack.

The filings were made Monday, July 7, in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, in the case of Farm Credit Mid-America, PCA v. Uncle Nearest, Inc., et al.

A lawsuit turns back on the lender

Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. filed his answer and counterclaim on behalf of Uncle Nearest Inc., Nearest Green Distillery Inc., and Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings LLC. The filing was not made on behalf of Fawn Weaver or Keith Weaver individually.

Farm Credit sued in July 2025, alleging Uncle Nearest defaulted under three lending facilities: a revolving loan, a term loan, and a real estate line of credit. In its complaint, Farm Credit alleged that Uncle Nearest owed more than $108.2 million in principal and accrued interest as of July 28, 2025, not including attorney’s fees, professional fees, costs, and expenses.

The court appointed a receiver in August 2025.

In the answer portion of Monday’s filing, the receiver admitted some basic facts about the loan structure and the existing receivership order. But he denied or declined to admit many of Farm Credit’s core allegations, repeatedly saying the corporate defendants lacked enough knowledge or information to form a belief as to whether the lender’s claims were true.

Then came the counterclaim.

The receiver alleges Farm Credit failed to use reasonable care in administering a credit facility that eventually exceeded $100 million. The filing says the lender should have verified financial reports, checked borrowing base certificates against independent sources, confirmed major drawdowns with authorized company officers, conducted meaningful collateral inspections, and maintained safeguards to detect fraud.

Instead, the receiver claims, Farm Credit relied too heavily on Senzaki.

The former CFO at the center

According to the counterclaim, Senzaki served as Uncle Nearest’s CFO from the company’s early stages until about October 2024. In that role, the filing says, he had nearly exclusive control over financial reporting, loan compliance, and communications with Farm Credit.

He was responsible for preparing and sending recurring reports about Uncle Nearest’s inventory, including barreled whiskey, bottled whiskey, grain, collateral, and financial condition, according to the filing.

The receiver alleges that Senzaki falsified monthly financial reports beginning in 2022 and inflated inventory numbers to persuade Farm Credit to approve increases to Uncle Nearest’s revolving line of credit.

According to the receiver’s filing, Senzaki admitted during interviews with third-party investigators retained by Uncle Nearest that he falsified monthly reports submitted to Farm Credit. The filing also alleges he admitted to placing Fawn Weaver’s signature on corporate documents without her knowledge or consent, diverting equity interests for his own benefit, fabricating board minutes to make it appear Fawn and Keith Weaver had approved unauthorized loans, and using misappropriated funds to buy a Las Vegas home, acquire vehicles, and gamble.

The claims are among the most serious allegations in the receiver’s filing. They also remain allegations in a pending civil case.

But the receiver’s larger argument is not simply that Senzaki acted improperly. It is that Farm Credit should have noticed.

Twenty-eight draws, one signer

The receiver’s counterclaim focuses heavily on the loan drawdowns.

According to the filing, Senzaki submitted 28 distribution requests between July 22, 2022, and Aug. 2, 2023. The requests came at a pace of nearly one every two weeks and totaled nearly $67 million.

Farm Credit approved each one, the filing says, even though Senzaki was the sole signer on all 28 requests.

The receiver alleges Farm Credit approved the requests without requiring the knowledge, consent, or confirmation of Fawn Weaver, described in the filing as the company’s principal decision-maker.

“A single telephone call or email to Mrs. Weaver at any point during the thirteen months of drawdowns might have exposed Mr. Senzaki’s fraud,” the counterclaim states. “Farm Credit’s failure to make even this minimal inquiry constituted gross negligence and willful blindness.”

The receiver also argues Farm Credit had a financial incentive to keep approving amendments and drawdowns. According to the filing, the lender collected nearly $400,000 in amendment and origination fees in less than one year.

“The more Mr. Senzaki borrowed, the more Farm Credit earned in fees,” the filing states.

The counterclaim says Farm Credit should have seen multiple red flags: one person signing all 28 drawdown requests, the same person preparing and transmitting the financial reports, drawdowns occurring at nearly $5 million per month, no direct communication with the CEO or majority shareholder, and inventory-based collateral values that were not independently verified against physical counts.

The receiver claims that failure allowed the revolving credit facility to grow from $35 million to about $67 million.

The receiver is asking the court to enter judgment against Farm Credit for negligence and gross negligence, award compensatory damages, interest, costs, and attorney’s fees where allowed, and offset any judgment Farm Credit might receive by amounts awarded to Uncle Nearest on the counterclaim.

Weavers deny breach-of-contract claim

Fawn and Keith Weaver filed a separate joint answer, denying Farm Credit’s breach-of-contract claim and asking the court to dismiss the lender’s claims with prejudice.

Their filing admits Uncle Nearest entered into the July 2022 credit agreement with Farm Credit. It also admits the company received three loan facilities: the revolving loan, the term loan, and the real estate line of credit.

The Weavers admit the revolving credit facility began at $35 million and was later increased to $67 million.

But they deny Farm Credit’s broader framing of the case, especially the lender’s claim that Uncle Nearest’s condition required emergency court intervention.

Farm Credit’s original complaint described its request for a receiver as an emergency. The Weavers rejected that wording.

“The filing of an emergency motion reflects the Lender’s characterization, not an actual liquidity or operational emergency,” their answer states. “No imminent shutdown, missed payroll, or inability to operate existed at the time of filing.”

The Weavers also denied that they remain company representatives. Their filing says Fawn Weaver received a notice of termination from the receiver on or about June 1, 2026. The filing says Keith Weaver also received a notice of termination, though it says he was not an employee.

A fight over whiskey barrels and borrowing power

One of the central financial disputes involves Uncle Nearest’s borrowing base.

The revolving loan was tied to eligible inventory and accounts, including barreled spirits, finished goods, and raw materials. Farm Credit alleged that borrowing base reports were late, inaccurate, or inflated and that information later provided showed the borrowing base had fallen sharply.

The Weavers deny that Uncle Nearest failed to provide required reports or inflated the borrowing base.

Their answer says Farm Credit’s demand for an immediate prepayment was driven by a lender-directed reclassification of about $19.25 million in inventory. That reclassification, the Weavers say, reduced borrowing base availability by about $13.5 million.

In plain English, they argue the problem was not false reporting by Uncle Nearest. They say Farm Credit changed how it counted certain inventory and then treated the reduced borrowing base as a default.

Farm Credit’s position is different. The lender has alleged that the borrowing base reports did not accurately reflect the collateral behind the loan and that Uncle Nearest failed to make the required payment once the overadvance was identified.

That dispute matters because the whiskey barrels were not just inventory. In this loan structure, they were part of the financial backbone holding up the revolving credit line.

Missed payment dates, but disputed meaning

The Weavers do admit some payment dates were missed.

Their answer acknowledges that a payment due Jan. 2, 2024, was not made on that date. They also admit the revolving loans were not paid in full on the stated maturity date of July 22, 2025.

The filing further admits that certain interest payments, term loan installments, and a $250,000 real estate line-of-credit payment were not made on the dates listed by Farm Credit.

But the Weavers deny that those missed dates support the lender’s broader claim that Uncle Nearest was in continuous or escalating default for 18 months.

That distinction is central to their defense: they admit some dates were missed, but deny Farm Credit’s broader account of what those missed dates mean.

Martha’s Vineyard, France, and future revenue

The Weavers also pushed back on Farm Credit’s allegations involving the Martha’s Vineyard property, the France/cognac venture, and future revenue transactions.

Farm Credit alleged that Uncle Nearest used proceeds from a $2.3 million loan to buy a Martha’s Vineyard home through UN House MV LLC, an entity that was neither a borrower nor a loan party. The lender also alleged the property was later mortgaged to Oaktree Funding Corp. for $1.5 million.

The Weavers admit the loan was connected to the Martha’s Vineyard property and that the property was later mortgaged. They deny the ownership structure or intended use violated the credit agreement or was concealed from Farm Credit.

Their answer says the property was disclosed to the lender as a brand marketing investment for private, invitation-only events and other brand-related purposes.

The Weavers also admit that the parties amended the credit agreement in July 2023 to allow Uncle Nearest to acquire property in France to develop a cognac business. They deny Farm Credit’s broader allegations about that venture.

The filing also addresses future revenue transactions. The Weavers admit entering into transactions involving portions of future revenue, including a June 2024 transaction for $700,000 net of fees, a July 2024 transaction for $1.7 million net of fees, and a November 2024 refinancing involving a $1.9 million discounted payment.

They deny those transactions were improper, concealed, or breaches of the credit agreement.

Berlin Packaging judgment addressed

The Weavers also address Farm Credit’s allegation involving a default judgment entered in favor of Berlin Packaging LLC. They admit the judgment was entered in Cook County, Ill., but say they were unaware of the proceedings until afterward and later negotiated a resolution, obtained release of a bank account, and paid the agreed amounts before the forbearance agreement was executed.

What the case is really about now

The receivership remains part of the case, but the center of gravity has shifted.

Farm Credit’s lawsuit began as a lender’s effort to collect on alleged defaults, protect collateral, and install court-supervised control over Uncle Nearest.

The new filings broaden the case beyond a straightforward collection dispute.

The receiver says Farm Credit ignored warning signs that a careful lender should have caught. The Weavers say Farm Credit overstated the emergency, misstated key facts, and is trying to turn disputed loan issues into a sweeping breach-of-contract case.

Farm Credit, meanwhile, has alleged Uncle Nearest failed to meet loan obligations, failed to provide reliable information, impaired collateral, and left the lender with no reasonable option but to seek court intervention.

Farm Credit will have an opportunity to respond to the counterclaim as the case continues in federal court.

The case is no longer only about whether Uncle Nearest defaulted. It is also about whether Farm Credit, while lending more than $100 million, ignored warning signs that the receiver says should have stopped the damage sooner.