Telling Whiskey History in Tell City (Part 1)

The Krogman Distillery in Tell City, Indiana, post-Prohibition.

Matt Colglazier is Chief Merchandising Officer at Big Red Liquors, a chain of retail liquor stores with 103 locations throughout Indiana. 

If you know the name "Krogman's," it's probably from a side project Colglazier did in 2019, called Krogman's Old Master. Although the website is still there, the whiskey is long gone. Here's the story.

"Born in Tell City, Indiana, this pre-prohibition brand is back and better than ever! Two 90 proof expressions of bourbon and rye, along with the most unique single barrel offering in the country. Bottling nine different MGP mashbills as non-chill filtered, cask strength, single barrels, which are individually selected, and each given a unique nickname. Collect them all, and taste every recipe from one of the world’s premier whiskey distilleries. Hand-bottled in Bloomington, Indiana. No BS, just full disclosure barrel proof, single barrel all day long!"

An original bottle of Krogman's Old Master Bourbon.

It was an all-Indiana project. The MGP distillery, now sometimes known as Ross & Squibb, is in Lawrenceburg, on the Ohio River at the Ohio border, just west of Cincinnati. Bloomington, where it was bottled, is about 100 miles due west of Lawrenceburg. Tell City is on the Ohio River too, about 100 miles south of Bloomington. The Lawrenceburg to Tell City route is the hypotenuse of the triangle.

But there is more to the Tell City and Krogman's story. Much more.

In 1856, a group of German-speaking Swiss immigrants met in Cincinnati to organize the Swiss Colonization Society. They acquired 4,000 acres on the Ohio River between Louisville and Owensboro in Perry County, Indiana. They named it Tell City, after the mythological Swiss hero, William Tell. 

They considered sites in Kentucky and Missouri but rejected both because of slavery. “None of our colony would ever forget the sacred principles of Republicanism so far as to make use of such a privilege,” as one society member put it.

The plan was to quickly develop an industrial infrastructure, “organized more for the common benefit of the poorer class of our countrymen, which consists mostly of intelligent mechanics and farmers," according to official documents. It became a manufacturing center, mostly for furniture. Although the company that made them folded in 2011, solid maple Tell City chairs remain popular. 

There were breweries and distilleries in Tell City almost from the beginning but the biggest and most important one was August Krogman's. 

Not everyone in Tell City was Swiss. Krogman was from Holstein, in what was then the German Confederation, where he learned brewing and distilling. There had always been German immigrants in the Americas, but the trickle turned into a torrent after the unrest of 1848. Krogman came in 1855, at age 34. He worked at a brewery in Iowa before moving to southern Indiana.

Throughout that part of the state, coal seams are very close to the surface and easy to mine. Many farmers in the region also mined coal. Krogman was one of them and used those profits to start his distillery.

Like many, Krogman's distillery made bourbon whiskey but also apple and peach brandy. August ran the distillery successfully until his death in 1905 at the age of 84. His son, William ‘Will’ Krogman, took over and ran it until Prohibition. 

Will started out strong. He owned Tell City’s biggest distillery, and his father-in-law was the city’s biggest brewer. 

But Prohibition was in the wind and Will's problems began even before the drought, next time, in Part 2.

How Likely Is a Brown-Forman, Pernod Ricard Merger?

 

A rolling billboard for Old Forester and other Brown-Forman
brands at the company headquarters and distillery
on Dixie Highway in Louisville (1936).

Today Bloomberg and Reuters, two generally reliable news sources, reported that Brown-Forman and Pernod Ricard are in talks about a merger of some sort. The reports are based on anonymous sources and neither company has confirmed anything, but the story is being widely reported with headlines like this one from the Lexington Herald-Leader. "Reports: Kentucky whiskey company Brown-Forman, Pernod Ricard in merger talks."

This pops up whenever there is upheaval in the distilled spirits industry. On paper, Brown-Forman looks like a great acquisition. It has one superior brand and a couple of pretty good ones, primarily in the American whiskey space. It's a well-run company, profitable, and not overloaded with debt. 

Pernod Ricard is the world's #2 distilled spirits company after Diageo, with annual gross sales of $12.3B. It owns Absolut Vodka, Jameson Irish Whiskey, Chivas Regal Scotch, Martell Cognac, Havana Club Rum, and a bunch of others. Though well-endowed with Scotch and Irish whiskey, it is light on American whiskey, although it owns a few craft producers such as Kentucky's Jefferson's and Rabbit Hole, West Virginia's Smooth Ambler, and Fort Worth's Firestone & Robertson, which produces the TX Whiskey brand.

Usually when these Brown-Forman merger rumors appear the finger is pointed at Bacardi, sometimes Diageo. 

Is Brown-Forman in play? Probably not, inasmuch as these rumors have always fizzled in the past. Although publicly traded, Brown-Forman is still controlled by the Brown family. They're generally happy with things the way they are. It would be very hard, perhaps impossible, for a determined suitor to force a sale.

I've always heard that the Brown family doesn't like the Bacardi family, which is why that tie-up always falters. I don't know how they feel about the Ricard family.

An observation: When I made the "Made and Bottled in Kentucky" documentary, I mentioned in the script that Brown-Forman was then "a three-billion dollar company." If I remember correctly, that was their gross sales for the previous year. That was 30+ years ago. Brown-Forman's gross sales for 2024 were $5.32B. Considering inflation, the company may actually be smaller today. That may tell you more about the distilled spirits business than it does about one particular company.

By contrast, Brown-Forman's principal rival in the American whiskey space, Suntory, is much bigger than Jim Beam Brands was 30 years ago, but they have grown by acquisitions more so than by growing their core business. Brown-Forman has bought some brands over the years, but I don't think they've bought a rival company since the 1950s, when they bought Jack Daniel's. 

Booze is a good business but it's not AI. There's not a lot of potential for growth. The market generally dislikes diversification so that leaves acquisition as the only path to growth, and the liquor business seems to be hard on its #2. When Diageo passed Seagram's as #1 at the end of the 20th century, Seagram's went out of business.

One peculiarity of the American whiskey business is that the four largest distillers, who together make about seventy percent of America's whiskey, are all closely held. Some of Brown-Forman's stock is publicly traded. The other three, Suntory, Sazerac, and Heaven Hill, are entirely family owned. In all three cases, the principal shareholder is a man in his 80s. 

Stay tuned.

UPDATE: Late today, after this posted, Brown-Forman confirmed that it is exploring "a merger of equals" with Pernod.

Pride Goeth Before the Fall

 

Fawn Weaver and company, startled by the Harold Washington
animatronic at the DuSable Museum in Chicago, June 25, 2024.

The Uncle Nearest saga began eight years to the day before the above picture was taken.

That was when Clay Risen revealed Nathan 'Nearest' Green's story to the world, or at least to readers of the New York Times, in an article headlined "Jack Daniel’s Embraces a Hidden Ingredient: Help From a Slave."

Fawn Weaver credits that article with inspiring her to create the Uncle Nearest whiskey brand. These days, she and the brand are in a heap of trouble.

Eight years is a good age for American straight whiskey. At least to my taste, eight to twelve years is the sweet spot for whiskey aged in new, charred oak, which bourbon and whiskeys like it must be.

But I digress.

To build a premium whiskey brand from nothing to approximately 150-thousand cases a year seems like a remarkable accomplishment, especially for someone with no previous industry experience and little more than a good story. The liquid, though perfectly fine for what it is, is not extraordinary. That's not why people buy it. It's the story or, I should say, stories, Green's but also Weaver's. 

They are inextricably linked.

From the beginning, I've been impressed by Weaver. She seemed to make all the right moves and experience nothing but success. Seeing her perform in person, during her 2024 book tour, just increased my estimation, even though by then I had heard troubling rumors that all in Tennessee was not as it appeared.

But, in person, Weaver absolutely owns the room. She's dazzling. She casts a spell and makes you want to believe. She held her own last night and two weeks ago on ABC's "Shark Tank" TV show. (Both episodes were recorded last summer, before the current troubles.) 

There have been many facts and counter-facts floating around. Weaver is all over social media but the receiver and the bank she owes $100M+ to only speak through their filings with the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, where Case No. 4:25-cv-38 is being adjudicated.

Let's focus on that $100M number, which is closer to $200M when you add the unsecured creditors. I have it on good authority that she raised a similar amount, about $200M, from investors. Suddenly, that 150-thousand cases per year after eight years doesn't seem so impressive, if they spent $400M to get there. For all intents and purposes, the company is broke. Like everything else, the value of its tangible assets is in dispute, but it's way south of $100M, let alone $400M.

Even more disputed is the value of its intangible assets, specifically the Uncle Nearest brand, which ranges from zero to infinity.

My previous post on this subject was a reaction to those who assume the whole thing was a scam from the beginning. If it was, it was a poor job, because that money appears to be gone and not in anybody's pocket. Judge Charles Atchley Jr., who is presiding over the case, used the "out over your skis" idiom at one point. Based on everything we know, that seems as good an explanation as any. 

Judge Atchley is expected to rule soon on Weaver's motion to end the receivership and the receiver's motion to add seven other Weaver businesses to the package.  

Weaver's latest gambit, filing bankruptcy for a company she no longer controls, which didn't last 48 hours, and also filing a defamation suit against the bank which, even though she is a Californian whose company is in Tennessee and the bank she's suing is in Kentucky, she filed in New York. It all just seems weird at this point, like she's grasping at straws. 

Self-confidence will only take you so far. 

Don't Judge Uncle Nearest Too Harshly

 

The Uncle Nearest Distillery in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

I'd like to take a moment to offer some perspective on the Uncle Nearest situation. This is especially for folks who jumped to the conclusion that it was a scam from jump.

FAT Brands is a global franchising company in the fast-casual, quick-service, casual dining, and polished casual dining segments. Some of their better-known brands are Fatburger, Johnny Rockets, Ponderosa and Bonanza. (Those last two are revivals of brands from the 60s.)

FAT is bankrupt and their debt is so big, even debtors who thought they were safe may be impacted.

According to Bloomberg, FAT has $1.4 billion in bonds supported by just $40 million in annual earnings. Like Hooters and T.G.I. Fridays before it, FAT pledged virtually all its earnings to a debt structure that became too much to bear.

It's not the same as Uncle Nearest, of course, but in both cases the scheme fell apart when the market for the company's products suddenly changed, and they didn't have enough wiggle room in their financing to adapt.

That doesn't change anything. I'm just saying many businesses are a house of cards in the sense that a sudden change beyond their control can bring it all crashing down.

America's True "Same as It Ever Was" Whiskey

 

E. H. Taylor was one of the prominent distillery
owners who lobbied on behalf of the Act.

Last month I posted “Whiskey’s Biggest Lie,” debunking the marketing practice of brands claiming ancient recipes and unchanged methods, implying that whiskey in the past surely was better. Since the industry began, distillers have claimed they did things “the old fashioned way,” whether they did or not.

The prevalence and persistence of such claims suggests there is an itch bourbon drinkers long to scratch, to taste whiskey their parents or grandparents would recognize. People scour liquor stores for dusties. They buy Prohibition-era bottles at auction. Some search for authenticity in moonshine, legal and illegal.

There are problems with all these approaches. Many dusties are glut-era bottlings. They represent what people were drinking then, but it wasn't typical. Many bourbon producers in the 1980s bottled whiskey that was much older than was customary for those brands, just to get rid of it. Those bottlings are representative of that relatively brief period but not, for example, of the periods immediately before or after it, and not of everything sold then. The biggest brands, such as Jim Beam and Jack Daniel’s, didn’t do this. They had not grievously over-produced, so they didn't have to do much correction. It was contract producers and smaller brands, some on their way to oblivion, that bore the brunt. (The same thing is happening now.) 

Even a decade or more after they were produced, a lot of those bottles were still out there. If you got your hands on them, they were very good and usually cheap. But bottling better whiskey didn’t save them and most whiskey that was so treated is now gone or priced stratospherically on the secondary. A. H. Hirsch Reserve is a similar story. It was aged that long because the owner didn't have a use for it. Some of those bottles are still out there but they cost a fortune.

Earlier bottlings, including those Prohibition-era pints, are also pricey. Much of the whiskey bottled during and immediately after Prohibition was mishandled or simply in wood way too long. A lot of it, maybe most of it, disappoints. Either way, it’s not representative of what your great-grandparents drank before the drought.

Moonshine, legal or illegal, has its own set of problems.

But there is one way to taste something made today in virtually the same way it was made more than a century ago. Its main parameters haven’t changed because they are dictated by federal law.

That, of course, is bottled-in-bond whiskey. The Bottled-in-Bond Act of 1897 was proposed and supported by distillers such as E. H. Taylor and opposed by rectifiers. Taking advantage of the law was voluntary. The business between distillers and rectifiers could continue as it always had but now distillers had a way to ensure that their customers received what Taylor called "the genuine article." 

As an incentive to participate, the Act allowed distillers to defer payment of the Federal Excise Tax until whiskey was withdrawn from the bonded premises. To get the deferred taxation benefit and the privilege of labeling their whiskey “bonded” or “bottled-in-bond,” the distiller had to follow several rules having to do with how the whiskey was produced and sold. Those rules are still in effect today.

In a way, they codified practices already followed by many distillers, some of which differ from modern practice. Today, it is common for distillers to mix whiskeys of different ages, even whiskeys produced at different distilleries. There’s nothing wrong with that, many very good whiskeys are created that way, but it was less common 129 years ago when the Act was passed.

While bottled-in-bond whiskey isn’t necessarily better, it is different. The sort of blending that is typical today is something a bond can’t do. Everything in the bottle must come from a single distillery and it must have been distilled during a six-month period, either January-June (“Spring”) or July-December (“Fall”), in a single year. 

We have “small batch” and “single barrel” whiskeys. You can think of BIB as “single batch,” the "batch" being all the whiskey produced at that distillery during a six-month period.

The rule also says, “one distiller.” I’m not sure what a distillery is supposed to do if their distiller quits in April, but that’s the rule. Presumably, whiskey distilled from January first through the separation date would be one batch, whiskey distilled thereafter until June 30th would be another batch.

About the only change is that, in the old days, the batch had to be identified on the bottle, usually on a paper strip that “sealed” the bottle in the days before shrink wrap capsules. The distillation season and bottling season had to be noted, e.g., “Fall 2020, Spring 2025.”

That labeling requirement was eliminated in the 1980s but another labeling requirement remains. For BIB spirits, the federal license number of the distillery, known as its DSP number, must be shown on the label. 

All distilled spirits products must indicate on the label the city and state where the producer is located, but it can be any place of business. Typical today is the name of the producer, which can be an assumed business name (e.g., Evan Williams Distilling Company instead of Heaven Hill), followed by one or more cities where that producer does business. 

But that's not good enough for BIB. The number of the distilling DSP must be printed on the label. You'll have to look up the number to identify the distillery, but that's easily done on the internet. If the whiskey was aged or bottled at a different DSP, those numbers have to be there as well.

That requirement allows anyone with a DSP to buy BIB whiskey in bulk and bottle it under their own brand name so long as they disclose where it was distilled, aged and bottled. This is not common, but it is done. Sourced whiskey can be bonded if it meets all the requirements.

BIB whiskey cannot be bottled and sold until it is at least four years old. It can be older, but must all be the same age. If a BIB is labeled ten years old, every drop is ten years old, no more, no less. It also must be bottled at 100° proof (50% ABV), no more, no less.

As for consumer protection, the Act’s purpose was to guarantee the authenticity of whiskey so labeled. It was the first instance of the United States federal government offering a guarantee of this sort. It was the first federal “truth in advertising” legislation.

Back in the late 20th century, several major producers told me they considered dropping BIB. It was always voluntary and as the 21st century dawned, it seemed of little interest to consumers. Because it required deviation from normal procedures, there was no point doing it if it produced no benefit. At that point, few brands still offered a BIB expression. Not surprisingly, many were brands sold only in the South, some only in Kentucky. The best-selling bond nationally was Old Grand-Dad.

But then craft distilleries came along. Every craft distillery that wanted to make whiskey faced a dilemma, what to do for four or five years until that first batch of whiskey matured. They needed revenue and they needed to build a following. Some sold very young whiskey. Others sourced mature whiskey. Others made vodka, gin, rum, amaro, or liqueurs.

For many, the goal they set for themselves was to release a house-made bond. It was a standard they were proud to meet, and many considered that their "arrival." When they were able to offer their bond as a portfolio product, not a limited release, it often became the top of their line, maybe even their flagship.

When consumers responded, this revived interest in the bond segment among major producers. Evan Williams Bottled-in-Bond has been very successful for Heaven Hill. 

Brown Forman, founded in 1870, predates the Bottled in Bond Act and opposed it. Although their Old Forester Bourbon was a high quality, all whiskey product, it was blended using whiskey from three different Kentucky distilleries, none of which Brown-Forman owned. Pre-Prohibition, Brown-Forman was a non-distiller producer. Today their line includes a 100° proof expression that is not bottled-in-bond. Ironically, Old Forester 1897, which is bottled-in-bond, is one of their most popular offerings.

For a bonded bottling, barrel selection is crucial, similar to single barrel. Because blending options are so limited, there is nowhere to hide. Most producers blend to a standard, a literal in-the-bottle sample of exactly how the brand should taste. Quality control consists of trained tasters comparing that standard to each candidate batch. This is done for bonds too. It’s hard to imagine a whole season not producing enough good barrels for a bond release. A producer can always skip a season, I suppose, but I suspect they simply have to tolerate more deviation from the standard with a bond than they would with their non-bonded release.

So, people claiming an unchanged recipe for 250 years are puffing, but 129 years is a different story. Just look for the words "bonded" or "bottled-in-bond."

Keeping Up with the Pritzkers

 

An aging warehouse at Bardstown Bourbon Company.

Last Friday, a lawsuit was filed in Nelson County in which Sylvia E. Sanders accused Bardstown Bourbon Company (BBC), parent Lofted Spirits, Lofted CEO Mark Erwin, BBC president Peter Marino, Pritzker Private Capital (PPC) Investment Partners and PPC operating partner Christian Brickman of gender discrimination and retaliation. 

Sanders was VP of Human Resources at BBC from 2019 to 2024, when she was dismissed. She claims the company created a hostile work environment for female employees and others. She was fired after she reported “illegal, unethical, discriminatory and improper conduct” by the defendants to company management.

BBC says, “We believe these claims are without merit, and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves.”

In addition to Bardstown Bourbon Company, Lofted Spirits owns Green River Distillery in Owensboro.

I don't know Sanders or any of the principals at BBC except Master Distiller Steve Nally. I know people who know Sanders and think highly of her. Same with her lawyer, James Morris. They describe BBC as a "boy's club." Sanders' suit also accuses BBC of racism.

Erin Petrey, who is running for congress, went on Facebook to express her opinion and share her bad personal experience with BBC founder Peter Loftin. 

This reminds me of the Eboni Majors case, filed in 2022. A blender at Diageo's Bulleit Distillery in Bulleit County, Major alleged in her suit that she was subjected to persistent racial hostility, including pay discrepancies and demeaning treatment by co-workers. She was eventually pushed out of the company.

I can’t improve on the coverage of the BBC story provided by the Lexington Herald Leader. However, in its article, the Herald Leader mentioned that PPC "is owned by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker and Anthony N. Pritzker." 

On Monday, Hyatt Hotels Executive Chairman Thomas ("Tom") Pritzker announced his resignation after documents released by the Department of Justice revealed his association with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 

So, it seems like a good time to sort out our Pritzkers. I live in Chicago, so J. B. Pritzker is my governor. I voted for him, twice.

The governor's grandfather, Abram Nicholas Pritzker, was born in 1896, a son of Ukrainian immigrants. His parents settled in Chicago. His father, Nicholas, initially worked as a pharmacist but studied law at DePaul University (as did I) and became a lawyer. Abram (“Abe”) became a lawyer too and joined his father’s firm, along with his brothers Jack and Harry, also lawyers. 

Abe had three sons: Jay, Robert, and Donald. It was Jay who founded the Hyatt Hotels chain, the main source of the family’s fortune. Each of the brothers had several children, many of whom are prominent in business, politics, entertainment, and philanthropy. They are almost all billionaires.

Jay’s children include Tom, the Hyatt executive implicated in the Epstein scandal. Jay's daughter Gigi is a successful film producer.

Robert’s kids are variously accomplished, but none were in the news this week.

That leaves Donald. His kids include Penny, who was Obama’s Secretary of Commerce in his second term. Her brothers are Anthony (“Tony”), who runs PPC, and Jay Robert, better known as J. B., governor of Illinois since 2019. 

In 2002, J. B. and Tony founded PPC, with Tony as Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. PPC acquired Bardstown Bourbon Company in 2022 after the death of Loftin, who founded the distillery in 2014.

So, Tony and J. B. are brothers. Tom is their first cousin.

When he became governor, J. B. Pritzker put his assets into a blind trust. That means he makes money off those investments but has no role in decision making. He has nothing to do with management of BBC or any of the other companies owned by PPC. 

As for the BBC case, if the charges are even half true, it represents a serious management failure. You can't change people's prejudices, but you can keep them out of the workplace. You have to. That's not politics, it's just good business. You can't run a successful company if your employees don't feel respected and safe.

We'll be watching with interest.

This Week in Uncle Nearest News

 

The Uncle Nearest facility in Shelbyville, Tennessee.

My post last Friday, made in anticipation of the hearing in Knoxville federal court on Monday, received more than 10,000 views. For this blog, that's a lot. Many people are interested in this story. I will continue to follow it and may occasionally write about it, but there is much more thorough coverage out there. Here are some of the sources I use:

First, Uncle Nearest CEO Fawn Weaver, despite instructions from the court not to litigate the case in the media, continues to litigate the case in the media. Just use "Fawn Weaver" as your search term and you will be connected to all of the Fawn Weaver you can handle.

News outlets that have covered the story thoroughly include the Lexington Herald Leader and the Tennessean. Both require paid subscriptions but often their stories are available from aggregators such as MSN.com within a day or two of publication.

Two free news sites with in-depth coverage are the Moore County Observer and Shelbyville Now. Moore County is the home of Jack Daniel's. It is adjacent to Bedford County, whose seat is Shelbyville, where Uncle Nearest is located. Considering that these are small communities and these outlets mostly report on local government and high school sports, the depth and quality of their coverage has been remarkable. Because of Jack Daniel's and George Dickel, many people in those communities are sophisticated when it comes to the whiskey business. Add to that the splash Uncle Nearest made in its short time, in terms of local employment and generation of economic activity.

Finally, there is the Bourbon and Rye Club, a blog based in New Orleans, which illustrates its extensive coverage with witty AI-generated pictures of cats. 

Not much came out of Monday's hearing, in that the two questions before the court were simply kicked down the road a couple weeks. 

On Thursday evening, into Friday morning, Ms. Weaver posted three videos, each about three minutes long. I saw them on Facebook, but I believe they originated on Instagram. Everything she puts out is everywhere, so they should be easy to find. In them, she does exactly what the court has told her not to do, which is litigate the case in the media. They purport to summarize her testimony at Monday's hearing.

Unlike Ms. Weaver, the receiver, Phillip Young, has kept a low profile. You can, however, read the affidavit he submitted to the court which, as he says in the filing notice, contains everything he intended to say on Monday. The affidavit is 35 pages, plus exhibits. So, between Ms. Weaver's videos and Mr. Young's affidavit, you have the gist of what was presented Monday.

I offer all this because while I continue to follow the story with great interest I don't intend to duplicate or compete with the resources listed above. 

That said, let's jump ahead to some key facts and conclusions. According to the receiver's affidavit, Uncle Nearest's secured debt is $110M. Unsecured debt is $54M, so total debt is $164M. There is another $10M in something styled as a futures contract but it is, effectively, another debt, bringing the total to $174M. 

Since nothing is being paid, the interest on that $174M is accruing daily.

As for the business itself, revenue in 2024 was about $41M. It fell to $25M in 2025. The receiver reports that the company was losing about $1M a month, which has been reduced to $100,000 a month, but it still operates at a loss.

The receiver has two jobs, stabilize the business as much as possible and then either refinance the secured debt or sell the assets. As I outlined last week, the company's tangible assets, such as real estate and liquid inventory, in barrels and bottles, are not worth enough for their sale to cover even the secured debt for which they are collateral. 

To that end the receiver's team reached out to more than 100 entities and invited them to make an offer on either refinancing the secured debt or purchasing the assets. About 40 entities were interested enough to sign a non-disclosure agreement and kick the tires. Of these, twelve produced formal written letters of interest. No party offered a valuation in excess of the secured debt. 

As for what happens next, the receiver concludes that "a sale in the next six months is the only viable option to maximize the value of the Company and its assets."

Although Fawn Weaver no longer insists the company is worth $1.1B, her new claim is $500M. The receiver, of course, estimates that what the market is willing to pay is much less, substantially less than the $110M owed to Farm Credit. The basis for the difference is the value of the intangible asset, the Uncle Nearest brand. 

If the judge decides to end the receivership, control will not be returned to the Weavers, it can't be. That part of this story is already over. They have lost the company. It's gone. Farm Credit owns everything, which they will sell for whatever they can get, either altogether or in pieces. They may wind up with fifty cents on the dollar, if that. 

Tangible assets are the easy part. I'm not sure how a sale of the intangible assets will play out, but I find it hard to imagine any existing distilled spirits producer taking a gamble on keeping Uncle Nearest products in the marketplace. I can't foresee Fawn Weaver becoming a brand ambassador for Diageo, but maybe that's my failure of imagination.