SHELBYVILLE, Tenn. — On Monday, a federal judge has struck filings submitted by directors of Uncle Nearest, Inc. and clarified that only the court-appointed receiver may represent the company entities in the ongoing lawsuit brought by Farm Credit Mid-America.
In an order filed today, U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. granted a motion by the receiver to strike a response filed by Fawn and Keith Weaver in their capacity as majority directors of Uncle Nearest, Inc., ruling that the filing was improper under the terms of the receivership.
The court also struck a notice of appearance filed by the law firm Mainer & Herod, P.C., which had attempted to enter the case on behalf of Uncle Nearest, Inc., Nearest Green Distillery, Inc., and Uncle Nearest Real Estate Holdings, LLC. The judge ruled that only the receiver – appointed earlier this year – has authority to direct litigation on behalf of those companies unless he expressly retains outside counsel.
“The answer is simple, the Receiver,” Judge Atchley wrote, citing the original order appointing the receiver, which vested him with all powers previously held by the companies’ officers and directors.
The ruling followed a dispute over who may respond to motions in the case. The Weavers had argued that a prior court order allowing the receiver to file a “separate response” suggested the board retained authority to act independently. The judge rejected that interpretation, stating the court never intended to divide representation between the receiver and the board.
Separately, in a second order issued the same day, the court denied as moot an emergency motion filed by the Weavers and a related entity seeking relief from what they described as a litigation stay imposed by the receivership.
Judge Atchley clarified that the receivership injunction was never intended to pause the Farm Credit lawsuit itself, but rather to prevent outside litigation that could interfere with the administration of receivership assets. The court emphasized that a receivership is a provisional tool – not a substitute for resolving the underlying breach-of-contract claims.
“The Court now clarifies that this action is not and was never intended to be subject to the injunction,” the order states.
While declining to halt the case, the judge acknowledged the practical strain active litigation could place on the receiver’s efforts to stabilize the companies. The court ordered the parties to confer and submit a joint status report by January 30, 2026, proposing a litigation schedule that balances progress in the case with the receiver’s ongoing management responsibilities.
Why It Matters
This week’s orders do three important things:
One, they shut the door on parallel legal strategies. The court made clear that company directors cannot file motions or responses on behalf of Uncle Nearest entities while a receiver is in place. Two, they reinforce the receiver’s authority. Any legal position taken by the companies must flow through the receiver, not the board. Three, they restart forward momentum. The judge clarified that the case itself was never stayed and directed the parties toward a formal litigation schedule.
In short: the court consolidated control, removed ambiguity, and signaled that the case is expected to move forward—carefully, but deliberately.
This is an ongoing story. The Times will report more details as they become available. •
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 local news room — you’re preserving the art of storytelling in the South. [Join us here.]