Emergency Motion for Right to Defend

Welcome to the best place to find every response from Fawn and Keith Weaver related to the existing Farm Credit Litigation:

Emergency Motion for Limited Relief From the Receivership Stay.

(Filed November 24, 2025)

1. Court Filing Warns: Receiver Moving Toward Asset Sale Before Any Trial — Defendants Still Haven’t Been Allowed to Answer the Complaint

   The filing reveals that no Defendant has ever been permitted to answer Farm Credit’s Complaint, assert defenses, or bring counterclaims — yet the Receiver is already moving toward a possible forced sale of substantially all assets. Movants argue this amounts to an attempt to impose a judgment without any adjudication, even though Farm Credit’s claims have never been tested in court. They warn that continuing toward a sale under these conditions would inflict permanent, irreversible harm.

2. Filing Argues Farm Credit Is Being Treated Like It Holds a “Cognovit Note” — A Pre-Judgment Confession Forbidden Under Tennessee Law

   The motion states that the current posture effectively treats Farm Credit’s unproven allegations as if they were a cognovit note — a mechanism that grants pre-suit judgment with no trial. Cognovit clauses are illegal in Tennessee, and the filing argues the receivership path Farm Credit pushed the Court into is attempting to achieve the same result through procedural maneuvering rather than evidence or law.

3. Filing Highlights Receiver’s Own Findings: “Very Encouraged,” “Significant Value,” and No Evidence of Misconduct by Fawn or Keith Weaver

   The motion cites multiple statements from the Receiver’s First Quarterly Report, including that he is “very encouraged about the long-term viability of the Company,” that Uncle Nearest has “significant value,” and that he found “no evidence of misappropriation, theft, or financial impropriety” by the founders or any current employee. These findings, the filing notes, undermine Farm Credit’s narrative and confirm the business is viable and well-managed.

4. Competitors Are Already Seeking Access to Uncle Nearest Trade Secrets — Filing Warns of “Irreversible Disclosure” if Stay Isn’t Lifted

   The filing states that multiple competitors have already contacted the Receiver’s investment banker seeking entry into the data room, which is believed may contain pricing, distributor relationships, production plans, supply chain information, and other trade secrets. Because intermediaries can be used, the motion warns, the banker cannot reliably distinguish legitimate refinancing interest from predatory competitors — and once proprietary information is disclosed, it “cannot be un-disclosed.” The filing calls this an immediate and irreparable threat.

5. Filing Explains Why Defendants Couldn’t Properly Defend Themselves at the Initial Hearing — Conflicts, No Notice, and No Time to Prepare

   The motion details how Farm Credit filed its emergency receivership request with no advance notice, causing Defendants to lose their prior counsel due to conflicts, then struggle to secure replacement firms because many were also conflicted out. By the time new counsel was found, only days remained before the hearing — and that counsel had no receivership expertise. The filing states Defendants were effectively denied a meaningful opportunity to investigate allegations or present a full defense at the outset.

6. Filing Warns: Receiver’s Current Path Could Sell a Valuable Company During a Temporary Market Lull — Shareholders Would Be Permanently Harmed

   The motion states the Receiver is now operating under dual tracks: potential refinance or potential sale. While refinancing might be acceptable, a sale during the current industry downturn would severely undervalue the company. The filing argues this would wipe out years of shareholder value — even though Farm Credit’s claims have not yet been adjudicated, and even though the Receiver himself concluded the business is viable and valuable.

7. Filing States Due Process Rights Are Being Violated — Court Must Allow Defendants to Answer and Assert Claims Before Irreversible Decisions Are Made

   Citing federal case law on receiverships and due process, the motion argues Defendants must be allowed to present evidence, raise defenses, and pursue counterclaims before any outcome that disposes of their property rights. The filing stresses that decisions are already being made — including inviting potential buyers and competitors into the data room — before the Court has determined whether Farm Credit’s underlying claims are even valid.

8. Filing Reveals Defendants’ Counterclaims Could Exceed Farm Credit’s Loan — Potential Lender Liability Greater Than the Alleged Debt

   The motion states that once Defendants are finally allowed to answer the Complaint, the counterclaims they intend to assert “may materially reduce — and potentially exceed — Farm Credit’s claimed secured debt once adjudicated.” This means Farm Credit may ultimately owe the Defendants more than the Defendants owe the bank, flipping the core narrative of the case. The filing stresses that adjudicating these claims is essential before any irreversible asset sale occurs.