Emergency Motion Filed Seeking Immediate Court Review of Receivership
Emergency Motion for Expedited Hearing on Motion to Reconsider and for Related Relief
(Filed January 20, 2026)
Founders and Grant Sidney Ask Court for Immediate Hearing on Whether Receivership Should Continue
The filing asks the Court to schedule an expedited evidentiary hearing on the pending Motion to Reconsider the receivership. It argues that the receivership was imposed on an emergency record and that material facts uncovered since then warrant immediate review of whether continued court control remains justified.Filing Argues Receivership Is Actively Damaging Brand and Enterprise Value
The motion states that since the Receiver was appointed, Uncle Nearest has experienced a sharp and accelerating decline in retail sales and enterprise value. The filing attributes this decline to disruption caused by the receivership itself, including strategic decisions that diverged from the Company’s established sales and marketing approach.Filing Seeks Testimony From Farm Credit Officer Who Approved $67 Million in Loan Advances
The motion highlights that Farm Credit approved approximately $67 million in loan advances over a thirteen (13) month period — averaging roughly $2.5 million every two weeks — exclusively through the Company’s former CFO. The filing notes that the Farm Credit officer responsible for approving those advances has never testified, despite Ms. Weaver being the sole signatory on the loan agreements and never being contacted by Farm Credit in connection with a single one of those advances, a departure from standard lending practice emphasized in the motion.Filing States Alleged “Missing Barrels” Were Never Missing
The motion states that the approximately $21 million in whiskey barrels Farm Credit described as “missing” were never absent from inventory. According to the filing, the barrels were excluded from the borrowing base at Farm Credit’s direction due to accounting treatment, not because they were gone. The filing further states that inclusion of barrels purchased through forward contracts is proper under GAAP, and that an incomplete audit by Farm Credit — conducted without obtaining the required tri-party permission from Uncle Nearest, TDG, and Advanced Spirits, despite Uncle Nearest advising Farm Credit that such consent was required — led to the erroneous claim.Motion Separately Challenges Narrative of Payment Default
The filing states that any missed payment in January 2024 was promptly cured on February 1, 2024. It further states that Uncle Nearest made approximately $15 million in payments to Farm Credit during the same period it was later characterized as being in default, and that Farm Credit did not distinguish between a cured payment default and any alleged technical or covenant default when presenting its claims.Objective Nielsen Data Shows a Dramatic Reversal After Receiver Appointment
The motion includes Nielsen retail scan data showing that Uncle Nearest consistently outperformed the broader American whiskey market through August 2025. Beginning immediately after the Receiver’s appointment in September 2025, that trend reversed, with Uncle Nearest underperforming the market by widening margins each month, reaching an 18.3 percentage-point underperformance by January 2026.Filing States Receivership Was Meant to Be Temporary and Revisited if Circumstances Changed
The motion cites the Court’s prior acknowledgment that the receivership could be modified or terminated upon a material change in circumstances. It argues that the current factual record — including market performance, collateral coverage, and governance readiness — satisfies that standard.No Pleaded or Provable Fraud by Fawn Weaver or Grant Sidney, Inc., Filing States
The motion states that neither Farm Credit nor the Receiver can allege fraud, misappropriation, or intentional misconduct by Fawn Weaver or Grant Sidney, Inc. It emphasizes that no claim has ever been pleaded explaining why Ms. Weaver is a defendant and that unsupported inferences have caused reputational and economic harm.Filing States Ms. Weaver Never Personally Benefited From Alleged Misconduct
The motion states that Ms. Weaver did not personally receive or monetize any funds alleged to be improper. Loan proceeds were deployed into identifiable hard assets — including distillery construction and whiskey barrels — which serve as collateral and are worth materially more than the outstanding debt.Shareholders and Stakeholders Express Growing Concern Over Receivership Direction
The filing states that shareholders have raised concerns about declining performance, exclusion of company leadership from restructuring discussions, and the risk that a forced process conducted without management participation could undervalue the business.Motion Requests a Two-Day Evidentiary Hearing or Immediate Limits on the Receiver’s Role
The filing asks the Court to hold a two-day evidentiary hearing on the Motion to Reconsider so the Court can hear live testimony and review a full factual record addressing enterprise value, lender conduct, governance readiness, and whether continued extraordinary relief remains justified. In the alternative, the motion asks the Court to temporarily limit the Receiver’s role to monitoring and asset preservation while returning day-to-day operational control to the Board and leadership team to prevent further erosion of value.