With a deadline approaching for responses to his motion to sell a Martha’s Vineyard property connected to the Uncle Nearest case, court-appointed receiver Phillip Young filed two new motions Thursday morning that escalate the legal fight with lender Farm Credit Mid-America.

In documents filed Thursday in federal court, the court-appointed receiver argued that several companies tied to the Uncle Nearest business operated together as a single enterprise — a claim that, if accepted by the court, could significantly expand the scope of the receivership overseeing the whiskey brand.

The receiver’s filing responds to arguments from multiple affiliated companies that have opposed being brought under the court’s control. Those entities include Shelbyville Grand, Humble Baron, Grant Sidney, Quill & Cask Owner, and several others connected to the broader Uncle Nearest business structure.

But in his reply, the receiver contends that the companies’ own explanations actually reinforce his position.

For example, the filing notes that Shelbyville Grand acknowledged allowing Nearest Green Distillery to fall roughly 20 months behind on rent before a $130,000 catch-up payment was made while the case was already pending. Another company, Quill & Cask Owner, acknowledged transferring more than $800,000 to Uncle Nearest in what it described as equity investments. Humble Baron reportedly paid no rent to Uncle Nearest while promotional expenses were financed by the distillery company.

The receiver also points to statements from Grant Sidney indicating that its bank accounts were used in ways that shielded funds from Uncle Nearest tax liabilities and creditor claims.

Taken together, the receiver argues the examples show that corporate boundaries between the businesses were not consistently maintained — a key factor courts consider when determining whether separate entities should be treated as part of a single enterprise.

In a separate filing the same day, the receiver also pushed back against a motion from Fawn and Keith Weaver seeking reconsideration of the receivership itself, arguing the request adds little new evidence and instead attempts to introduce materials that were previously excluded from the court’s February hearing under the rules of evidence.

That filing also accuses Fawn Weaver of discussing the case publicly on social media and at a conference despite a court warning that the proceedings should not be used as a public relations campaign.

For now, the judge must decide whether the receivership should remain limited to the original entities or extend to additional companies tied to the Uncle Nearest operation — a decision that could determine how much control the receiver ultimately holds over the broader business network.

Responses to both motions as well as the February request to sell the Martha Vineyard property are expected later today. Stay tuned. •