By Tabitha Evans Moore | Editor & Publisher

The new year’s off to a bang when it comes to the increasingly contentious Farm Credit Mid-America versus Nearest Green, Inc et al lawsuit currently playing out in an Eastern District federal court with several rapid-fire filings happening over the last several days.

In the latest, a new would-be buyer has emerged in the ongoing Uncle Nearest receivership – but filings this week show the case remains procedurally tense, with disagreements over process, transparency, and control still unresolved.

On January 8, a Georgia-based entity named NexGen2780, LP filed a letter directly with the court expressing interest in acquiring Uncle Nearest and resolving its roughly $108 million debt to Farm Credit Mid-America.

The filing included a non-binding letter of intent outlining a proposed court-supervised transaction that would satisfy the lender, provide working capital, and offer an exit path for existing equity holders. NexGen argued that prolonged uncertainty risks eroding the company’s brand value and said a timely sale process could maximize recovery for all stakeholders.

According to the website Bizapedia, NexGen 2780 is a Georgia-based limited partnership filed on June 11, 2025. Farm Credit filed suit against Uncle Nearest, Inc., Nearest Green Distillery, Inc., Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings, LLC, as well as Fawn Weaver and Keith Weaver personally for alleged breach of contract in August 2025. {To read our original coverage of that lawsuit, click here.}

Receiver pushes back

Within hours, however, the court-appointed receiver pushed back. In a separate notice filed the same day, the receiver said he was unsure why NexGen had filed the letter with the court at all, noting that when the group first contacted him in October it provided no reliable contact information and appeared to have no public footprint.

The registered agent on NexGen is Chuck Speed of Johns Creek, Georgia. The Times could locate no publicly available information indicating prior involvement in similar transactions. The letter of interest is signed by Walter Miles, a financial professional and a graduate of Morehouse College in Atlanta also of Johns Creek, according to LinkedIn.

According to the filing, NexGen has since been communicating with the receiver’s investment advisors and is being treated like any other potential investor or lender – though it had not yet signed a required non-disclosure agreement as of January 8.

Procedural disputes intensify between receiver and ownership entities

Also on January 8, a group of entities affiliated with Uncle Nearest ownership – including Grant Sidney, Inc. and several operating companies – filed an extensive objection to the receiver’s recent procedural moves. In that filing, the “Additional Entities” argued that the receiver failed to comply with deadlines set out in an earlier agreed court order governing how disputes over the scope of the receivership were to be handled. They accused the receiver of raising vague allegations of financial “commingling” without identifying specific improper transactions and of bypassing required private clarification steps in favor of public court filings. The entities asked the court to enforce their prior orders and confirm that they are not part of the receivership estate.

The dispute unfolds alongside a separate fight over access to information. Earlier this week, the receiver sought permission to file his Second Quarterly Report under seal, arguing that public disclosure could harm refinancing or asset-sale efforts, chill investor interest, and reduce enterprise value. The Weavers and Grant Sidney agreed the report should remain sealed for now but indicated they plan to formally respond later to contest portions of the receiver’s characterization of the case.

Meanwhile, the court itself has signaled growing impatience with delays. In an order issued January 6, Judge Charles Atchley set firm deadlines for future quarterly reports and ordered the receiver to explain why required status reports had not been filed as scheduled. One day later, the receiver requested a hearing on whether to expand the receivership to include additional related entities, pointing to alleged commingling of funds and to a newly filed Bedford County lawsuit against Uncle Nearest’s former chief financial officer as part of his justification. {To read our coverage of that separate case, click here.}

Taken together, the filings illustrate a case entering a more contentious phase. A potential acquisition has been floated but not validated, procedural deadlines are being actively contested, and the court is pressing for clearer compliance and forward momentum. With possible hearings looming later this month, the path ahead for Uncle Nearest remains uncertain – caught between efforts to preserve value, disputes over control, and unanswered questions about who ultimately will own what emerges on the other side of the receivership.

Why it matters?

This case isn’t just about debt – it’s about who decides the future of Uncle Nearest.

At the center of the current dispute is a fundamental question: When a company is in receivership, who has the final say?

Although Fawn Weaver is Uncle Nearest’s largest shareholder and controls a majority of board votes, the appointment of a federal court-supervised receiver shifts decision-making authority toward the court. The receiver’s role is to preserve value for creditors and, if necessary, recommend a sale or restructuring – even over shareholder objections.

However, shareholders are not sidelined entirely. A controlling owner who can demonstrate access to real capital and a viable alternative to a sale can influence the court’s decisions by challenging whether a forced transaction truly maximizes value.

That tension – between court authority and founder control – is now driving the case. The court has not yet ruled on these competing positions.

If a hearing is scheduled in the ongoing Farm Credit Mid-America v. Uncle Nearest case, it would mark an important turning point  – not because a final decision is imminent, but because the court would be signaling that key issues are ready for live argument rather than paperwork alone.

With a receiver in place, the court holds ultimate authority. But ownership interests, access to capital, and operational realities still influence how that authority is exercised. A hearing gives the judge a clearer view of whether court-directed intervention or owner-led solutions best preserve value at this stage.

A hearing date has not yet been set. The Times will continue to follow the case and report on any developments.•

About The Lynchburg Times: We’re independent, reader-supported, and proudly homegrown. We hold the history, relationships, and journalistic craft to deliver professional reporting from one of America’s tiniest and most famous towns. Because of that, there are some stories you’ll only read in The Lynchburg Times. Every dollar of reader support stays right here in Moore County, funding local writers, photographers, and storytellers. When you support The Lynchburg Times, you’re not just backing a newspaper — you’re preserving the art of storytelling in the South. [Join us here.]