After a marathon six-hour hearing, Judge Atchley orders supplemental briefing on missing records and “commingled” funds.
By Milton Kirby | Knoxville, TN | February 15, 2026
“The status quo shall remain unchanged,” the court wrote. “The Receiver continues to possess all the powers granted to him … and the receivership retains its original scope.”
In plain terms: the court‑appointed receiver remains in complete operational control of the company while the judge evaluates the evidence presented during Monday’s hearing.
Federal Judge Charles E. Atchley Jr. kept the Uncle Nearest receivership firmly in place Monday after a six‑hour hearing that among other issues, revisited questions about the company’s finances, governance, and record‑keeping. From my seat inside the courtroom, it was clear the judge saw enough unresolved issues to maintain full federal control while he reviews the new testimony and evidence.
Collins Challenges the Receiver
Much of Monday’s questioning was led by Michael Collins, attorney for Uncle Nearest. His direct examination of Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. focused sharply on three themes:
- Whether the Receiver and his consultants were effectively managing the company
- Whether the Receiver had been transparent about the company’s solvency
- Whether the receivership itself was harming the brand’s operations
Collins pressed witnesses on financial assumptions, operational decisions, and communications with vendors. The strategy was clear: challenge the narrative that Uncle Nearest is irreversibly insolvent and question whether the Receiver’s management has improved or worsened the situation.
Anthony Severini’s Testimony
One of the most striking moments came during testimony from Anthony Severini, CFO of Global Genesis the company responsible for processing Uncle Nearest’s payroll.
Severini testified that Global Genesis believed in the Weavers and the long‑term viability of Uncle Nearest. Because of that trust, Global had processed payroll and extended 60‑day payment terms prior to the receivership, applying payments to the oldest outstanding invoices.
According to Severini, after the Receiver was appointed, he was told that pre‑receivership debts would effectively be stayed and that future payroll processing would be paid when due. He said the Receiver offered no assurances about prior balances.
Severini further testified that during an early conversation, the Receiver indicated he planned to sell the company by the end of 2025. He also said the Receiver described himself as “right‑sizing the ship” and suggested control would eventually return to company leadership.
In one of the more serious allegations presented in open court, Severini stated that the Receiver “lied” to him about the company’s financial condition. He testified that he did not learn of significant cash‑flow concerns on the part of the Receiver until January 2026.
These statements were presented as part of Uncle Nearest’s broader argument that the Receiver’s communications and management decisions have contributed to instability.
Notably, neither the Receiver’s attorney nor counsel for Farm Credit Mid‑America chose to cross‑examine Severini, leaving his testimony including his statement that the Receiver “lied” to him unrebutted in the record.
The Receiver’s Position
The Receiver, by contrast, has asserted that Uncle Nearest faces approximately $164 million in debt, missing documentation, and troubling intercompany transfers — including funds that flowed through Grant Sidney Inc.
The court has not ruled on the truth of these competing characterizations. Instead, Judge Atchley ordered supplemental briefing focused specifically on “new evidence and testimony” introduced at the hearing, including issues involving erased records, fund transfers, and solvency.
The “Affiliated Seven” and Scope Expansion
The hearing was also intended to address whether seven related entities including Humble Baron should be brought under receivership control.
Time constraints prevented full oral argument. The judge directed attorneys to address “flow of funds” and “commingling” concerns in written briefs due:
- February 26, 2026 — Supplemental briefs
- March 5, 2026 — Responses
After March 5, the court is expected to issue a decision on whether the receivership:
- Continues
- Expands
- Or is terminated
The Funding Variable
The ruling also preserves a key condition tied to emergency financing.
Creditor Farm Credit Mid‑America has indicated it would provide $2.5 million in funding only if the Receiver remains in control. By maintaining the current structure, the judge ensures that option remains available while the dispute unfolds.
What Was Clear in the Room
From inside the courtroom, one thing was evident: this case is no longer just about numbers on a balance sheet.
It is about credibility of leadership, of management, of financial reporting, and of the receivership process itself.
Judge Atchley did not telegraph a decision. Instead, he signaled caution.
For now, the Receiver stays. The founders wait. And the future of one of the nation’s most prominent Black‑owned spirits brands remains under federal court supervision.
Once the March 5 filings land, Judge Atchley will decide whether to maintain the status quo, widen the receivership’s reach, or return control to the founders. TSJ will continue monitoring the docket and reporting developments from Knoxville.
“The status quo remains unchanged while the Court evaluates competing claims over solvency, transparency, and control.”
Related articles
A Federal Judge Weighs Control, Cash Flow, and Confidence at Uncle Nearest
Is the Cure Worse Than the Crisis? Judge Weighs Uncle Nearest Receivership
Fight for a Billion-Dollar Brand: Weavers Move to Halt Receiver’s Actions
Uncle Nearest: A Billion-Dollar Brand, a $25 Million Question & The Unanswered Future
Receiver’s Report Says Uncle Nearest Can Be Reorganized
Uncle Nearest at Legal Crossroads
Support open, independent journalism—your contribution helps us tell the stories that matter most.








