DUANE SHERRILLEditor

In light of a $100 million lawsuit filed by their creditor, Uncle Nearest has fired back, maintaining their former chief financial officer was responsible for overstating the company’s worth and that the owners were unaware of his conduct.

Farm Credit Mid-America is asking a receiver be put over the Shelbyville-based distiller to protect their investment, claiming they are worried that their collateral will be sold off and they will be left in financial arears by their borrower. The suit specifically names Fawn and Keith Weaver as co-defendants in the case.

Nearest addressed two major allegations by the creditor, one having to do with the over stating of barrel collateral and financial worth of the company and the other being the purchase of a $2 million estate at Martha’s Vineyard.

“Given the multiple salacious and inaccurate allegations in both Plaintiff’s Complaint and Motion that casts Uncle Nearest in a negative light, Uncle Nearest submits this response addressing certain key claims to correct the record and provide the Court with critical missing context,” Nearest Green maintained in their response to the suit which will have its hearing in federal court this Thursday. “First, Plaintiff’s Motion claims that Defendants materially overstated their barrel inventory, resulting in an overstatement of collateral by approximately $21,000,000. Plaintiff ignores that it was not the Defendants that made this overstatement but rather it was the Defendants’ former Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”), acting on his own, and who has now been terminated. Between 2022 and 2023, the former CFO represented to the Plaintiff that Uncle Nearest had 77,000 barrels of whiskey on hand and used this overstatement to secure a $24 million line of credit increase. Plaintiff approved the increase without verifying the inventory with the third-party warehouse provider. While Uncle Nearest’ s Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) signed the loan amendments reflecting the credit limit increases, those documents contained no information about barrel counts, and the former CFO was the sole signee on all loan notices used to request funding secured by the barrels. Inventory reporting was handled separately and exclusively by the former CFO.”

The response went on to say that Nearest Green believes their former CFO was part of a fraud that the owners (The Weavers) did not know about.

“Plaintiff (Farm Credit) was uniquely positioned to know that the former CFO had engaged in fraudulent activity—conduct that is now under third-party investigation, including this specific instance,” Nearest Green said in their response. “The lead investigator met directly with Plaintiff’s CEO to share that information, confirming that the Weavers were not aware of the fraud or the over reporting that triggered the technical default that Plaintiff now primarily relies upon to seek an appointment of a receiver. No one at Uncle Nearest was aware that the CFO had inflated the previous reports.  ”

Nearest Green then took aim at allegations surrounding the purchase of a $2 million estate on Martha’s Vineyard.

“Second, the Motion claims that Defendants misrepresented that ‘Term Loan proceeds would be used by Uncle Nearest to purchase a $2.225 million home on Martha’s Vineyard Island by an entity whose existence had never been disclosed to the Lender,’” Nearest Green noted. “Again, the Motion ignores critical context. The Motion omits that Defendants were fully transparent with the Plaintiff about the purchase and intended purpose of the MV Property. The Plaintiff made no objection to the purchase at the time the funds were advanced. Although the Plaintiff was aware that proceeds would be used for the MV Property, it did not request or, based on information and belief, take any action to perfect a security interest in the real estate, nor did it request closing documentation. Throughout the process, Plaintiff was kept fully informed.”

Nearest also questions the claims by their creditor that they were derelict in paying their bills.

“In 2024 alone, Uncle Nearest paid nearly $9 million in loan payments to Plaintiff and in 2025, the company made a payment of $7.5 million,” Uncle Nearest maintained. “These payments were made while Uncle Nearest worked in good faith to resolve the technical default—caused solely and entirely by the former CFO’s misreporting.”

While agreeing the court can appoint a receiver in the case, Nearest Green asks the judge to refrain.

“Its collateral is not in imminent danger of being lost, concealed, injured, diminished in value, or squandered absent a receiver. This is particularly true given Uncle Nearest’s payments to Plaintiff totaling approximately $16.5 million over the last eighteen months,” Nearest Green concluded.

The full response can be read here: