Forums

Looks like The Weavers are going to appeal now. Moore County Observer • Sixth Circuit moves Uncle Nearest appeal forward https://share.google/wvThlMXxsATS2vLvq   Here is Copy and Paste: Sixth Circuit moves Uncle Nearest appeal forward Weavers, Grant Sidney may continue appeal over Uncle Nearest receivership, with briefing beginning in November 11:35 a.m. Oct. 2, 2026   Sixth Circuit moves Uncle Nearest appeal forward Nearest Green Distillery   Fawn Weaver, co-founder of Uncle Nearest, and court-appointed receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. are on opposite sides of an appeal now moving forward before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.   DUANE CROSS MCO Publisher•Editor   The federal appeal challenging parts of the Uncle Nearest receivership will move forward after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit rejected Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr.’s request to dismiss the case.   In an order filed Friday, Oct. 2, a three-judge panel ruled it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal brought by Fawn Weaver, Keith Weaver, and Grant Sidney Inc.   The ruling does not decide whether the receivership should continue or whether Grant Sidney should remain under it. It means the appeal stays alive and the parties can move on to arguing the case itself.   What the court had to decide The appeal comes out of the federal lawsuit filed by Farm Credit Mid-America against Uncle Nearest and the Weavers.   Farm Credit says it is owed more than $108 million and holds a security interest in nearly all Uncle Nearest property. The district court appointed Young as receiver and later expanded the receivership to include Grant Sidney, a company owned by Fawn Weaver and described by the Sixth Circuit as Uncle Nearest’s largest shareholder.   The Weavers and Grant Sidney appealed the May 26 order. Young then asked the Sixth Circuit to throw out the appeal, arguing that the order was not one the court had authority to review.   Federal law allows an appeals court to review a refusal to wind up an ongoing receivership. It does not provide the same route for someone trying, after the fact, to undo the receiver’s original appointment.   The Sixth Circuit said the Weavers and Grant Sidney were not simply attacking Young’s original appointment. Their motion asked the district court to end the receivership because of what they said were changed circumstances, and the district court considered whether those changes had eliminated the need for a receiver.   “Appellants’ motion sought winding up, not vacatur,” the court wrote before denying Young’s motion to dismiss.   The case now moves to briefing Fawn Weaver, Keith Weaver, and Grant Sidney must file their principal brief by Nov. 12. The appellees’ principal brief is due Dec. 11, with an optional reply due within 21 days after the final appellee brief is filed.   The court has not decided whether it will hear oral argument. Any party asking for one must explain why in its brief, and the court will decide later whether argument is needed.   The receivership remains in place. The Sixth Circuit previously denied the appellants’ request for a stay while the appeal is pending

Cheers Carlo, usually my answer 

Great answer!

I could sit and watch a lady sip it while I sip a Heritage or a barrel strength 2 fingers straight - does that count??

Sounds awful! I know the market demands these kinds of craps, but for me it's a NO!