Lavonya Jones
@coachlavonyajones.bsky.social
Gullah Geechee | Sr Innovation and Entrepreneurship Manager | Hamptonian | Formerly Morehouse, HBCUvc, and CAU | HBCUs | Tribal Colleges | SDGs | Social Entrepreneurship | Impact Investing | B Corps
Reposted by Lavonya Jones
This is covered explicitly in the ruling. The judge seems sympathetic to the Weavers’ counterclaim that they themselves were deceived by their former CFO’s alleged fraud, but notes that they’re on the hook for his actions given they made him an officer of Uncle Nearest Inc.:
![9:03
D
Done
storage.courtlistener.com
situations that require quick decision making. The Court is concerned that Uncle Nearest's ability
to effectively respond to these kinds of situations would be impaired if the Court relied on an
injunction alone. Unforeseen circumstances and disa grocment about how best to handle them could lead the parties to seck an interpretation and/or modification of a hypothetical injunction whenever Uncle Ncarest was presented with a new challenge or opportunity. The Court would work quickly to address any such dispute, but it might not be quick caough to allow Uncle Nearest to best address the situation at hand." In contrast, a receiver could react to emergent situations in real time and
pompty souress them, thus, waie an Iuctod cour xovoc much of the same reheaas a
rocciserano, it cannot elicchvely subsatule lor a rocciver in this casc. Consogucally, this factor
weighs in favor of a receiver, but only just.
Turning to whether the Defendants engagod in fraudulent conduct, this factor also weighs
lightly in favor of a roceiver. It is undisputed that Senzaki misrepresentod Uncle Ncarest's barrel
inventory to obtain an additional $24 million under the revolving loan. [Doc. 16-1 at 9 2; Doc. 30
at 23, 43-44] Tibe Court appreciates that Defendants maintain they were unaware of these
misrepresentations at the time, [Doc. 16-1 at 1 3), but the fact remains that they were made by an Uncle Nearest officer as part of his official durie fd. a 1 2; Doc. 30 at 66), In such circumstances, traditional principles of agency generally hold the employer responsible for its employce's
' To illustrate this
oint, consider the cincumstances sumounding the instare Morico. Farm Crodit filod the Motion of
aly 28°. [Doc. 31. A bearing was held on August 7". Doc. 26) and dis Memorandum Opinion and Order was cetera the following week. Thus, even with the Court's diliponce and the parties' acmendous efforts, it has still taken more
he comag months, a two-wock delary …](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:7keeiuhmqfxim42c6tibwvzw/bafkreihau3pva6ref52wwt4p7pkftrllec6viicihevoy2cjd2pkbc4hpi@jpeg)
August 15, 2025 at 1:06 PM
This is covered explicitly in the ruling. The judge seems sympathetic to the Weavers’ counterclaim that they themselves were deceived by their former CFO’s alleged fraud, but notes that they’re on the hook for his actions given they made him an officer of Uncle Nearest Inc.: