DUANE SHERRILLEditor

The battle lines are drawn in the Nearest Green case as a federal judge will hear arguments on Feb. 9 as the company’s owners want out of receivership. However, in granting the hearing U.S. District Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr., has warned that any grandstanding for the media will not be tolerated and will be met with legal sanctions.

“The Court will provide the parties with a word of warning,” the judge advised in granting a hearing at the federal courthouse in Knoxville at 10 a.m., Feb. 9. “It has been repeatedly represented to the Court that this case has drawn significant media attention. The Court is not blind to the fact that when a case captures the public’s interest, the parties often end up litigating two cases, one in the court of law and the other in the court of public opinion. In such circumstances, a party’s legal arguments are often informed by public relations concerns. This is both commonplace and understandable. However, there is a fine line between litigating a case while keeping public relations implications in mind and using the justice system as a vehicle to promote a specific narrative. And while the Court permits the former, it will not tolerate the latter. The Court will not allow either the February 9th hearing or these proceedings more generally to be used as a public relations campaign. If the Court finds that any party is using these proceedings for an improper purpose rather than to resolve the underlying issues, then that party and/or their counsel may be sanctioned.”

Uncle Nearest, owned by Fawn and Keith Weaver, has been in receivership since this past summer when their creditor, Farm Credit Mid-American sued them for not keeping up with payments on their more than $100 million loan. They also maintained the amount of collateral, namely barrels of whiskey, were greatly inflated – something the Weavers have blamed on their former financial officer. Since that time the Receiver has encouraged the court to include 10 other entities it believes have financial ties to the Weavers and Nearest Green.

The Weavers had asked for an expedited two-day hearing to reconsider the extent of the receiver’s powers. The judge said they will do it in one day.

“The Court appreciates the need to expeditiously resolve the Motion to Reconsider,” the judge wrote in his order. “If, as Movants claim, the circumstances in this case no longer justify the continuation of the receivership, then the receivership should be promptly terminated. Conversely, if the receivership remains necessary, then the cloud cast over it by the Motion to Reconsider should be promptly eliminated so the Receiver may focus on the administration of the receivership estate. Accordingly, the Court will set the Motion to Reconsider for hearing as soon as practicable. The Court, however, cannot provide the Movants with their requested two days for the hearing. The Court’s resources are finite, and they must be divided among the many cases currently pending before the undersigned, each of which is just as deserving of the Court’s attention. The Court will give the parties adequate time to fully litigate the Motion to Reconsider, but it cannot give them two days.”

Along with the motion to reconsider, the court will also hear a motion of clarification.

“First, while the Motion for Clarification and Motion to Reconsider address separate issues, the evidence introduced regarding each will likely overlap to a degree,” the judge continued. “For example, if the evidence introduced at the hearing was to show that the Weavers funneled money from one or more of the Defendant Companies to any of the seven entities that are the focus of the Motion for Clarification, that evidence would be relevant to both whether the receivership should remain in effect and whether it should be expanded.”

Finally, the judge warned both sides to get to the point when the gavel sounds on the morning of Feb. 9.

“The motions do not exist on a blank slate,” the judge wrote. “Each has been extensively briefed, and the Court is intimately familiar with not only this briefing, but the record as a whole. Consequently, the parties will not need to waste time at the hearing setting the scene. Instead, they should focus on their key arguments and evidence.”