District Court Orders Clarify Next Steps

Court Update: December 22, 2025

On December 22, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee issued two important orders clarifying the status of the case and the receivership. Together, these rulings provide needed clarity on how the case will move forward.

1. The underlying lawsuit was never stayed and will now proceed toward judgment

   The Court confirmed that the appointment of a receiver did not stay the underlying lawsuit between Farm Credit and Uncle Nearest. The Court explained that the purpose of the receivership injunction was to pause outside interference, not to freeze the case itself.

   As a result, the Court denied the recent motion seeking relief from a stay as moot, because no stay ever applied to the core litigation. The Court has now directed the parties and the Receiver to confer and propose a litigation schedule that allows the case to move forward efficiently while still permitting the Receiver to administer the receivership estate.

   In short:
   The case is moving forward toward adjudication, and the claims will be resolved on their merits.

2. The Court clarified who may speak for the companies during the receivership

   In a separate order, the Court granted the Receiver’s motion to strike a filing made by the directors. The Court clarified that, under the existing receivership order, the Receiver is the sole party authorized to speak on behalf of the company entities in court proceedings while the receivership remains in place.

   Importantly, this ruling was procedural only. The Court did not rule on the substance of the directors’ arguments, the merits of the case, or the validity of the company’s defenses or counterclaims. The decision simply reinforced how filings must be made during the receivership.

   What this means going forward

   These rulings provide clarity and structure at a critical moment:

   • The lawsuit will proceed toward judgment instead of remaining stalled.
   • The Court expects cooperation on a reasonable litigation schedule.
   • The receivership remains in place for now, but it is expressly described as a temporary tool, not an end in itself.
   • The Court continues to emphasize orderly process, transparency, and resolution on the merits.
   
   We will continue to provide updates as the case progresses.