Breaking: Federal Judge Orders Receivership for Nearest Green Distillery – Uncle Nearest Whiskey

Nearest Green Distillery - Founders Fawn and Keith Weaver at the Uncle Nearest House on the Vineyard

The $108 million case of Farm Credit Mid-America versus Uncle Nearest continues. On August 8, 2025, the court heard from the plaintiff and Uncle Nearest Co-Founder Keith Weaver. Fawn Weaver was not in attendance at the hearing.

During that hearing the judge made a declaration on two main things.

Don’t’ sell anything, more specifically, don’t sell barrels of whiskey.
Don’t talk about the hearing on social media.

After hearing from both sides, the judge said he would make a decision on the requested receivership soon. And now, that day has arrived.

Judge Orders Receivership in Uncle Nearest Whiskey Case

Nearest Green Distillery - Humble Baron Exterior Rendering — Nearest Green Distillery – Humble Baron exterior rendering.

Nearest Green Distillery - Flags are Flying — Nearest Green Distillery – Humble Baron exterior rendering.

Stay Informed: Sign up here for the Distillery Trail free email newsletter and be the first to get all the latest news, trends, job listings and events in your inbox.

The judge has granted Farm Credit Mid-America, PCA’s Emergency Motion for the Immediate Appointment of Receiver. Judge Charles E. Atchley, Jr. memorandum says, “After considering the arguments and evidence presented at this hearing, the parties’ written submissions, and the other materials in the record, the Court finds that a receivership is necessary.”

The relationship between Uncle Nearest and Farm Credit started about three years ago. Beginning on July 22, 2022, Uncle Nearest entered into a credit agreement with Farm Credit. That line of credit and loans continued to grow over the next couple of years. The first agreement was a $35 million revolving loan and a $20 million term loan. The loans were secured against almost all of Uncle Nearest’s property. In the months that followed, the agreement was amended to increase the revolving loan’s limits, provide additional term loans, and establish a $15 million real estate line of credit or RELOC. On July 26, 2023, the Credit Agreement was amended again to further increase the revolving loan to $67 million.

On January 12, 2024, Farm Credit requested that Uncle Nearest provide it with a host of financial information. Soon thereafter Uncle Nearest in trying to avoid default, paid Farm Credit $1.5 million. The latest filing says, “Farm Credit accepted this payment but informed Uncle Nearest that it was insufficient to cure the Event of Default. Farm Credit then reiterated that it was reserving its rights under the Credit Agreement and requested that the parties meet to address several outstanding issues.”

The judges ruling says, “On May 24, 2024, Farm Credit sent Uncle Nearest another letter claiming that there were multiple outstanding Events of Default. This list of defaults grew through November 5, 2024, when Farm Credit sent Uncle Nearest yet another letter. This November letter also claimed that there were “significant and material unreconciled discrepancies between the amount of Collateral” (i.e., whiskey barrels) reported by Uncle Nearest and what Farm Credit’s third-party inspector was able to verify. Because of these issues, Farm Credit required Uncle Nearest to (i) provide it with all necessary information to perform an inventory reconciliation, (ii) meet with it to discuss the Events of Default and the Credit Agreement, and (iii) pay Farm Credit’s related attorney’s fees. Uncle Nearest responded shortly thereafter.

“The parties then engaged in a series of negotiations that ultimately resulted in an April 15, 2025, Forbearance Agreement. Under the Forbearance Agreement’s terms, the parties agreed there were multiple outstanding Events of Default, but Farm Credit promised not to exercise its contractual rights relating to these defaults for the duration of the “Forbearance Period” provided that certain conditions were met. Importantly, the Forbearance Period automatically terminated on the occurrence of a new Event of Default.

“Shortly after the parties executed the Forbearance Agreement, Uncle Nearest began triggering new Events of Default by, among other things, failing to make multiple loan payments, including a $10 million paydown. As a result, Farm Credit filed suit, seeking to recover the more than $108 million Uncle Nearest owes in outstanding loans. It filed the instant Emergency Motion for the Immediate Appointment of Receiver alongside the Verified Complaint, arguing that such an appointment is necessary to preserve its collateral during these proceedings.

Former CFO Overstated Barrel Inventory – Was Fraud Committed?

The judge goes on to say, “Farm Credit asserts that the receivership factors weigh in its favor. Defendants, unsurprisingly, dispute this contention. They argue that appointing a receiver would be inappropriate given the brand damage it would entail, the availability of less drastic remedies, and the fact that many of the issues underlying the parties’ dispute were caused by the unauthorized actions of Uncle Nearest’s former CFO, Mike Senzaki. The Court appreciates Defendants’ position, but it finds that appointing a receiver is necessary under the circumstances.”

Uncle Nearest and Farm Credit both agree that the former CFO overstated the value of the barrel inventory. The question remains whether that overstatement goes as far as committing fraud. The case says, “It is undisputed that Senzaki misrepresented Uncle Nearest’s barrel inventory to obtain an additional $24 million under the revolving loan. The Court appreciates that Defendants maintain they were unaware of these misrepresentations at the time, but the fact remains that they were made by an Uncle Nearest officer as part of his official duties. In such circumstances, traditional principles of agency generally hold the employer responsible for its employee’s conduct.”

“Starting with solvency, the Court directly asked Defendants’ counsel whether Uncle Nearest was solvent. And although counsel was unable to definitively answer this question, he indicated that Uncle Nearest’s solvency was in question and that the business is experiencing cash flow problems.

The Court Grants Motion for Receivership

“Balancing the foregoing factors, the Court finds they cumulatively weigh in favor of appointing a receiver. The Court does not reach this decision lightly. It fully appreciates Defendants’ concerns and has given them great thought. But these concerns are insufficient to overcome the Court’s conclusion that a receiver is necessary to protect Farm Credit’s interests at this time. That said, the Court will tolerate the existence of a receiver only so long as it is necessary. If a material change in circumstances eliminates the need for a receiver, then any party may file a motion to dissolve the receivership.

What’s Next?

The next step is to choose a receiver. “The Court finds it appropriate to receive additional briefing from the parties regarding their proposed receiver candidates. Accordingly, the parties are ORDERED to submit briefs of no more than ten pages, not counting exhibits, addressing the qualifications of their proposed receivers on or before August 20, 2025, at 12:00 p.m. eastern time.

What Does Fawn Weaver Have to Say?

Here is the latest post from Nearest Green Distillery Founder Fawn Weaver. If you have followed Weaver’s story over the years, you know she’s a fighter and as with any CEO won’t take these charges sitting down and is fully prepared to fight on.