Weaver asks court to hit pause on Uncle Nearest asset sale

Filings seek an asset-sale pause and Grant Sidney’s release from receivership. Judge sets deadlines on sale request.

3:47 p.m. Oct. 16, 2026

DUANE CROSS
MCO Publisher•Editor

U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. has ordered Farm Credit Mid-America and Uncle Nearest’s court-appointed receiver to respond by Monday, Oct. 19, to Fawn Weaver’s request to block a sale of the whiskey company’s principal assets while an appeal proceeds.

Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. reported Oct. 9 that he believed he was close to signing a purchase agreement, according to Weaver’s filings. Those filings say he plans to place most of the companies under his control into Chapter 11 bankruptcy once an agreement is signed, then complete a sale through bankruptcy court.

Atchley’s Thursday, Oct. 15, order does not halt a sale or decide whether Weaver is entitled to an injunction. It sets an expedited response schedule while questioning her request for a ruling within roughly 25 hours.

Farm Credit and Young have until 11 a.m. CT on Monday, Oct. 19, to respond. Weaver must file any reply by 4 p.m. CT on Wednesday, Oct. 21. The order sets no hearing or deadline for a decision.

Weaver filed her motion Thursday, Oct. 15, and sought a ruling by noon ET Friday. She cited Young’s Oct. 9 report as evidence that action was urgently needed.

Atchley noted the six-day gap between that report and her filing. “The Motion does not provide any other details that would suggest such an extraordinarily expedited ruling is necessary or appropriate,” he wrote.

The judge also questioned whether 25 hours would give Farm Credit adequate notice. Before issuing a preliminary injunction, he wrote, the court must consider the applicant’s likelihood of success, potential irreparable injury, harm to others, and the public interest.

Sale plans and the pending appeal

Weaver argues that a sale could leave the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit unable to provide meaningful relief if it later determines that the receivership should end.

Her motion seeks to prevent Young, Farm Credit, and others covered by the proposed injunction from completing or implementing a sale of substantially all assets of Uncle Nearest Inc., Nearest Green Distillery Inc., and Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings LLC. It also would restrict other major transactions outside normal business that would materially impair the appeals court’s ability to provide relief.

The restrictions would remain until the appeal is decided or the court orders otherwise.

Young could continue negotiating with buyers, marketing assets, seeking court approval of a transaction, and maintaining or reasonably reducing operations. The proposed injunction also expressly permits a bankruptcy filing. Its central restriction would be on completing an irreversible transaction while the appeal remains pending.

According to Weaver’s supporting memorandum, Young reported Oct. 9 that three potential buyers remained in discussions. Bankruptcy counsel was already preparing filings for a sale under Section 363 of the Bankruptcy Code.

Those discussions followed an earlier sales effort that did not result in a completed transaction. The memorandum states that a prospective buyer associated with a May 29 letter of intent did not close before the exclusive negotiating period expired.

Weaver argues that federal protections for good-faith bankruptcy purchasers could make a completed sale difficult to undo. She points to an earlier request involving property on Martha’s Vineyard: According to her memorandum, the district court denied that request to pause a sale as moot because the property had already been sold.

The pending appeal challenges Atchley’s May 26 refusal to wind up the receivership. According to Weaver’s filings, the Sixth Circuit on Oct. 2 denied Young’s motion to dismiss the appeal, allowing a challenge based on whether changed circumstances still justify the receiver’s control.

That ruling allowed the appeal to proceed; it did not determine that the receivership should end. The filings identify Nov. 12 as the deadline for the appealing parties’ principal brief and Dec. 11 for the opposing parties’ principal brief.

Weaver says the assets need protection before that process concludes. Her memorandum also argues that the proposed injunction would preserve the receivership’s existing funding arrangements. Citing Young’s October report, it says Farm Credit continues to help cover operating shortfalls and provided $450,000 during the most recent reporting period.

Grant Sidney’s stake

A separate motion filed Wednesday, Oct. 14, asks Atchley to release Grant Sidney Inc. from receivership, restoring its ability to make its own corporate and legal decisions.

Weaver identifies herself as Grant Sidney’s CEO and sole shareholder. Her motion describes the holding and investment company as Uncle Nearest’s largest shareholder and, citing an earlier sworn receiver filing, says Uncle Nearest owes it approximately $3.69 million.

That puts Grant Sidney in two consequential positions if a sale or bankruptcy proceeds: It owns a stake in Uncle Nearest and is owed money by it. Weaver argues that Young’s control over both companies prevents Grant Sidney from independently protecting those interests.

For example, Grant Sidney might need to challenge asset values, financing arrangements, or sale terms supported by Uncle Nearest. The motion says Young’s October report identified approximately $2 million in proposed bankruptcy financing within Farm Credit’s funding budget.

Investigation and independent control

According to the motion, Atchley placed Grant Sidney under receivership control May 26 so Young could investigate whether it held assets belonging to another receivership entity. The initial 60-day investigation was extended through Sept. 23.

Weaver’s motion quotes Young’s September report as saying he had obtained most of the requested records and that significant or substantial assets capable of benefiting the Uncle Nearest receivership estate were unlikely to exist. It also quotes him as saying he did not believe a permanent receivership for Grant Sidney was necessary.

Unfinished work remains, according to the motion’s account of Young’s reports. That includes an Intuit subpoena for historical QuickBooks information potentially associated with Grant Sidney, allegations that company records exist on a platform it controls, and continuing review of tax compliance.

Weaver argues those matters can be addressed through subpoenas, records requests, and other investigative tools without keeping the corporation under receivership. She says she does not oppose completion of the Intuit subpoena or reasonable third-party discovery if Grant Sidney is released.

Litigation and family ownership

Her motion also points to a New York lawsuit Grant Sidney brought against Farm Credit before entering receivership. The case was filed March 13 in state court and later moved to federal court. Weaver says the May receivership expansion displaced her authority to direct Grant Sidney’s litigation, and Young became involved. The action was ultimately voluntarily dismissed without prejudice.

Weaver argues that the sequence demonstrates how receivership control can affect Grant Sidney’s legal rights before independent authority is restored. Atchley’s Oct. 15 order does not decide that argument or the request to release Grant Sidney.

The Grant Sidney motion also describes a longstanding plan to preserve an approximately 40% ownership block in Uncle Nearest for the long-term benefit of descendants of Nathan “Nearest” Green. That block consists of Weaver’s personally held interests and shares held through Grant Sidney, according to the filing.

The motion describes a trust arrangement intended to give Green family members participation and independent representation in major decisions affecting that ownership. Weaver offers it as another reason to restore independent decision-making before a bankruptcy or sale. She is not asking the court to approve the trust or authorize a transfer of Grant Sidney property.

If Atchley does not end Grant Sidney’s receivership, Weaver alternatively asks him to suspend the May 26 order as it applies to that company during the appeal. Her requested relief would leave the receivership over Uncle Nearest in place.

Receiver seeks more time

Young, meanwhile, filed a third unopposed request Oct. 15 for more time to respond to Farm Credit’s motion to dismiss a counterclaim brought on behalf of the three principal Uncle Nearest entities.

He seeks to move his response deadline from Oct. 15 to Nov. 16, allowing more time to prepare a response and continue working with Farm Credit toward a possible resolution. The lender does not oppose the extension, according to his filing. Atchley’s Oct. 15 order does not rule on that request.

For Weaver, the urgency centers on the gap between the proposed sale and the appeal. She is asking the court to preserve the company’s assets – and Grant Sidney’s ability to act independently – before decisions are made that she argues a later appellate ruling might not undo.