Additional Entities Object to Receiver’s Attempt to Expand Receivership
Additional Entities’ Response to Receiver’s Notice of Request for Hearing on Motion for Clarification of Receivership Order
(Filed January 8, 2026)
Filing Says Founders, Fawn and Keith Weaver, Remain Named Despite No Claims — Raising Rule 11 Concerns
The response highlights that although the founders, Fawn and Keith Weaver, remain listed as defendants in the case caption, no claims have ever been asserted against either of them. The filing explains that under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, parties may not be named or maintained in a lawsuit without a factual and legal basis.
The response argues that keeping individuals in the caption without asserting claims — and then using their continued presence to justify control over affiliated entities — is precisely the type of conduct Rule 11 is designed to prevent. According to the filing, this has allowed the receivership to be expanded by implication rather than by adjudicated findings.Filing States Receiver Alleges No Fraud, Theft, or Self-Dealing by Any Additional Entity
The response emphasizes that the Receiver does not allege fraud, misappropriation, or personal benefit by any of the entities he seeks to include. The filing argues that, absent allegations of wrongdoing, there is no lawful basis for extending the receivership.Receiver Identifies No Specific Transactions for Most Entities
The filing states that the Receiver’s notice fails to identify specific transactions involving the majority of the additional entities — including dates, amounts, purposes, or facts suggesting impropriety. Instead, the response asserts that generalized concerns are being raised without evidentiary support.$20 Million Transaction Described as Founder-Funded Capital Support — With 100% of Proceeds Going to Uncle Nearest
The response explains that the only transaction referenced with any specificity involves approximately $20 million contributed to Uncle Nearest in early 2025. According to the filing, the funds were generated through the sale of a portion of the founder’s personal equity, but the proceeds were contributed in full to Uncle Nearest to support the company during a defined period of financial stress.
The filing emphasizes that the founder has never sold shares for personal benefit, and that this transaction was undertaken solely to provide liquidity to the company at a critical moment.Filing States Transaction Was Known to Farm Credit and Conducted Through Separate Accounts
The response states that the capital infusion occurred with Farm Credit’s knowledge, was consistent with funding and forbearance discussions, moved through separate bank accounts, and provided no benefit to the founder or the contributing entity.Filing Clarifies Senzaki Lawsuit Involves Only Direct Claims — Not Company Claims
The response addresses the Receiver’s reference to the lawsuit against former CFO Michael Senzaki, explaining that the action asserts only direct claims belonging to the plaintiffs individually, not derivative claims belonging to Uncle Nearest. The filing states that the lawsuit seeks recovery for personal harms suffered by the plaintiffs and does not involve company causes of action or assets.
According to the response, the existence or substance of that lawsuit has no bearing on whether transactions between entities constitute commingling or justify expanding the receivership.Receiver’s “Commingling” Theory Lacks Supporting Facts, Filing Argues
The response challenges references to “commingling,” noting that no improper mixing of funds is identified and no transfers are alleged to have been made for personal benefit. The filing argues that implication and speculation are being substituted for evidence.Expansion of Receivership Could Force Lawful Businesses to Shut Down
The filing warns that placing certain non-borrower entities under receivership could require them to cease operations under federal law — a consequence not addressed in the motion seeking a hearing and one the response argues should not be imposed absent a clear factual and legal basis.Filing Highlights Risk of Expanding Receivership by Association Rather Than Evidence
The response argues that the approach taken risks expanding the receivership through implication and association rather than pleaded claims, adjudicated findings, or specific transactions — exposing individuals and entities to reputational and operational harm without due process.Additional Entities Ask Court to Block Expansion of Receivership Beyond Uncle Nearest
The filing asks the Court to enforce the limits of the existing receivership and prevent its expansion to separate, non-borrower entities. It argues that the extraordinary remedy of receivership should not be broadened without specific facts tied to identified conduct.Additional Entities Ask Court to Enforce Existing Limits and Decline Further Expansion
The response asks the Court to confirm that the additional entities are not subject to the receivership and to decline further proceedings absent specific facts, pleaded claims, and an evidentiary basis grounded in the record.Filing States Required Court-Ordered Procedure Was Disregarded in Seeking a Hearing
The response states that the motion requesting a hearing failed to follow the court-approved process governing how disputes over the scope of the receivership were to be handled. According to the filing, those steps were designed to ensure issues were first raised, clarified, and narrowed based on a full review of records before any public proceedings occurred.
The response explains that bypassing this process undermined the Court’s gatekeeping function, deprived the additional entities of the opportunity to address questions privately, and increased the risk of public insinuation unsupported by pleaded claims.