The same day as the "Meeting" in the Videos with Obsidian Finance Group and their client Summit, Judge Randall Dunn enters an Order into the Court approving employment of Tyrell Vance (Terry Vance), yet the hearing on the 11th, the day before, didn't Judge Dunn talking of replacing Vance with Kevin Padrick??? Guess Judge Randall Dunn had plans for Kevin Padrick to be the Trustee? What?
Here is that Order
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111137354/Order-Approving-Terry-Vance-as-CRO
What was going on behind the scenes?
Judge Dunn says, I have a "Middle Ground" suggestion for the parties consideration, we may not be able to get there today, but um.. why don't we appoint Obsidian as chapter 11 trustee...
WOW, Really, a US Bankruptcy Judge, certainly SHOULD know that it is illegal, against bankruptcy code to appoint an Entity as Trustee?
So why did Judge Randall Dunn suggest that Obsidian be Trustee?
Why is the department of justice, the Oregon Attorney General, NOT looking at this? Do Bankruptcy Judges pick the Trustee or does the Department of Justice? And isn't a Trustee supposed to be unbiased and NOT an insider? Judge Randall Dunn certainly knew that Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with the debtor, so why did Judge Randall Dunn, Portland Oregon Judge "Suggest" "Obsidian" to be "Trustee"?
Then a couple days later, on the 13th of February, Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn enters an order into the court directing the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee, which by the way is an extraordinary effort in a case such as this and costs the creditors and investors millions over years, and in the Summit case, ALL parties had seemed to think it a bad idea according to emails from Susan Ford, Sussman Shank to the Creditors Attorneys Steven Hedberg and Jeanette Thomson of Perkins Coie, as well as to Tonkon Torp, Obsidian Finance Group and others involved, so why did Bankruptcy Judge Randall Dunn "suggest" an "Entity" (Obsidian) to be the Trustee?
(Susan Ford, Sussman Shank Email
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/110479244/Patty-Whittington-Kevin-Padrick-Sussman-Shank-Susan-Ford-Steven-Hedberg-Perkins-Coie-Regarding-the-Summit-1031-Bankruptcy)
So Judge Dunn enters an order as if impartial and out of the blue for the DOJ to appoint a Trustee, yet Judge Dunn had already suggested one, is this legal? Is this how it is suppose to work?
Here is that Order
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111137381/Judge-Randall-Dunn-Suggests-Kevin-Padrick-as-Trustee-then-Files-Document-suggesting-a-Trustee-be-appointed
Thing is the "Parties" had agreed, as we can see in emails between parties, that Appointing a Trustee was a not in the best interest of the creditors. Yet Judge Randall Dunn still suggested this? And Judge Randall Dunn certainly knew that Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group was under contract with the Debtor, right?
So then M. Vivienne Popperl, attorney for the Department of Justice Trustee Robert D. Miller Jr. and assistant trustee Pamela Griffith, on the 17th of Feb. 2009, an "Appointment of Chapter 11 Trustee and Establishment of Bond". So no real discussion, and certainly not in the best interest of the estate or the creditors and there you have it the Dept. Of Justice appoints Kevin D. Padrick as Trustee, even though he was under a signed contract with the Debtor.
Here is that Document
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111136921/Judge-Randall-Dunn-Summit-Trustee-Appointment
And here is the "Order" from Judge Randall Dunn approving the appointment of a Chapter 11 Trustee. Gee how corrupt is this? Really, why did Judge Dunn even need to enter an order approving something there is a hearing of him suggesting it be that "Entity"? WOW. Seriously am I the only one who sees an issue with this? Is this Legal? Ethical?
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111137010/Judge-Randall-Dunn-Approving-Kevin-Padrick-as-Trustee
At around 4 minutes, of the Judge Dunn Hearing linked below it seems that the Department of Justice is in a huff and saying, that is for our office to decide your honor, and at this time we are concerned with who is REALLY directing this case.. she says at the moment it appears to be the professionals ( this means to me that the DOJ thinks that the attorneys are running the show, and they are making a stand) SO WHAT HAPPENED?
See I brought all this to the attention of Judge Marco Hernandez, and yet I was sued for 10 Million Dollars, as a Citizen Journalist, an Investigative Blogger trying to support a bankruptcy whistle blower exposing what sure looked like bankruptcy corruption to me. Judge Hernandez should call for an investigation, doesn't Judge Marco Hernandez have an obligation to report all this? Or was Judge Hernandez threatened somehow?
Why did the Department of Justice change their TUNE, their tone, days later and file a document appointing Kevin Padrick?
Was the DOJ Trustee threatened by Tonkon Torp, Kevin Padrick, Leon Simson or David AmanPadrick that VERY lucrative job, WHAT HAPPENED?
Judge Randall Dunn, a US Bankruptcy Judge laughingly says there is no question that the professonals are running this case and that there is no one else in the drivers seat. THAT is the point, the Judge and DOJ Trustee are suppose to be in the Drivers seat on behalf of the Creditors and Investors right, and the Judge took a Debtor in Possession situation and made it an "Appointed" Trustee situation and took the control from the Debtor and with it cost the creditors years of time and millions of dollars. - yet the DOJ then says which is why we need a "TRUSTEE' - ok so they want to appoint a Trustee because they think that the "Professionals" are in the Drivers seat and they need an Impartial Trustee to get a hold of things. HOWEVER, Obsidian Finance Group, Kevin Padrick was one of the "professionals" so why in the world did the department of justice act like they had concern of the professionals running the show and then appoint one of them as Trustee, who in turn hired all the others?
Then Judge Randall Dunn says he does not think that the DOJ has to enter an additional memorandum. Does Judge Dunn know bankruptcy law at all? Then he says that needs to be discussed with the Creditors Committees attorneys, which is Steve Hedberg, who used to work with Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash and is one of those "Professionals" running the "Case". And Judge Dunn says the DOJ needs to discuss this with Obsidian as well. WHAT? Discussions to appoint Obsidian, with Obsidian, who the very next day met with the Debtor, their client as seen in the videos below? There is something wrong with all this and no real oversight it seems to me.
Judge Randall Dunn does not even seem to know the codes, "whatever section" he says...and I will deal with that, but I think the parties should talk and do what makes sense here// WHAT? Sense to whom? Judge Dunn..
At around 5:25 Judge Dunn says certainly if the Creditors Committee has evaluated Obsidian's work to date and there potential for future work, that is going to weigh strongly in the courts consideration.. (WHAT) the Department of Justice Trustee had just reminded Judge Dunn that it's not the Courts Decision but it is the Department of Justice's Decision who is trustee. Judge Dunn seems to be saying that the Creditor's Committee, and their knowledge of Obsidian will "weigh" in. What? How does the Creditor's Committee know any of this confidential, privileged information that Summit, the Debtor hired Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group to work on for them? Judge Dunn seems to be talking of a pitch, information, resume type information that Obsidian gave to the Creditors Committee, then we have that bill to Summit, the Debtor where Kevin Padrick met with Steven Hedberg. So did Kevin Padrick really charge his own client for hourly pay to pitch a future job on the OPPOSITE side of his client, whom he was under contract with?
Clearly as Judge Dunn says, someone needs to run the ship and function as a Trustee would..
At around 6 Minutes, Judge Randall Dunn says "I really would like to see Obsidian named as chapter 11 Trustee.. then Judge Dunn says he wants to hear from the parties on the matter, WHAT? after he strongly suggest there be a trustee and that it be Obsidian, whom is an "Entity" and thereby not even able to qualify as a trustee even if they were not an "Insider". The parties, as we see via insider emails, the parites agreed it was NOT in the best interest of the creditors to appoint a trustee. Certainly the DOJ knows they have to file a motion, they all seem to double talk. First the DOJ wants to file a motion and Dunn says no need and then moments later it seems the OPPOSITE..
Dunn says he does not want to trample on the US Trustee Offices prerogatives??? what does this mean, surely he pushed for "Obsidian" to be Trustee, though an ENTITY, cannot be a Trustee.
Sure seems rigged to me..
At around 6:50 Judge Dunn Says that Kevin Padrick is here, and asks him if he is opposed to being the chapter 11 trustee, thing is this was all in the works long before this moment, right? It had to be, right?
Kevin says ya depending on the parties, hmmm.. the "parties" already emailed as we see and did not think it a good idea, so what changed? Who changed it?
At around 7:16 Judge Randall Dunn pushes for Obsidian AGAIN, an "Entity" to be the Trustee, and surely he knew that Obsidian worked for the Debtor and was an Insider and an "Entity" not an individual. He says Obsidian being trustee solves a multitude of problems, but what do I know? Well I can say it surely seems that Judge Dunn does not SEEM to know bankruptcy codes.
At 7:40 sounds like Steve Hedberg, on behalf of the "Committee", and they gave it an awful lot of thought.. hmmm.. and Summit paid Kevin Padrick to meet with Steve Hedberg, whom use to work with Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash, was ANY Of this Disclosed.. this guy.. talks about meeting with Obsidian, at the direction of Terry Vance, and you see in the insider emails listed below that Terry Vance DID NOT direct Obsidian to meet with the Creditors, and this guy flat out claims this meeting was at the direction of Terry Vance which seems to be a flat out lie and at my Trial I asked Kevin Padrick on the stand, under oath if he met with the Creditors and he set he did not give a presentation to the creditors.
.. He goes on to say .. he met with Obsidian, the Committee did over extended periods, over several different periods ( keep in mind the date is Feb. 11th 2009 and Obsidian is under Contract with Summit) .. he goes on to say.. they reviewed their qualifications, work done to date and the economics of the future.. Really? so did Kevin Padrick give a pitch, give a price quote for the job?? and while working for the Debtor, was he not an insider, and on the Debtors dime, and with the privileged information of the Debtors financial spreadsheets, assets, strategy and secrets.. ?? Is this Legal, Really?
WOW and this guy says they spent a fair amount of time actually "Negotiating" with Obsidian, an "Entity" and without the knowledge of the CRO Terry Vance, or the Dept. of Justice?? and Judge Dunn wants Obsidian to be the Trustee, really bad?? WHAT?
.. and they were satisfied with that and under the committees view.. Obsidian needs to step in.. COME ON.. Obsidian is not an individual and Obsidian is working as an INSIDER for the Debtor, and connected to the Creditor's Attorney.. and don't forget the Tonkon Torp connection of Leon Simson with Dept. of Justice Trustee Pamela Griffith..
he says things need to move quickly and clearly.. What. .it has been years..
he says they need a point person so there is NOT unnecessary professional fees.. WOW.. see Having Kevin Padrick as trustee was an Serious unnecessary professional fee and for years..
.. he seems to be ok with the Court appointing Obsidian.. there is something wrong here..
http://www.anonymous-insider.com/media/090211.wma
.. knowing a "their" cannot be a Trustee, so it would have to be a review of Kevin Padrick and NOT Obsidian.. as an "Entity" cannot be a Trustee, right?
Yet Kevin Padrick says he did not give a presentation, which I will soon show you from my trial transcripts..
Sure seems like an aggressive PUSH for Obsidian to be Trustee.. and that the Judge does not know the process..
http://www.anonymous-insider.com/media/090211.wma
At around 23 minutes Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung speaks to the Judge. Stephanie is a daughter of one of the Summit Principals Owner, she is also a creditor and an investor and one of those who filed the objection to the fees of Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick.
At around 23 minutes Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung speaks to the Judge. Stephanie is a daughter of one of the Summit Principals Owner, she is also a creditor and an investor and one of those who filed the objection to the fees of Tonkon Torp and Kevin Padrick.
She speaks of Terry Vance, of the Details of the Properties and the Exchanges, and she speaks of the Summit Principles. A 1031 Exchange company is complex, and it should have been handled by someone experienced at it. Stephanie talks about the presentation that Obsidian gave the the Creditors, the Judge cuts her off. The judge says there is no real estate in the Summit Accomodators, yes it's an exchange company, thing is there were lots of real estate assets at play. And it is spoken here that Summit has always been willing to assist, so without a hostile environment why appoint a trustee?
At around 28 minutes it is plainly said that Obsidian is the financial consult for Summit, so is this not a Red Flag for the judge to easily see that Obsidian is an insider? It as "discussed from day one" that Obsidian would be the entity that would assist... ?
Terry Vance is very good at communicating? Why in the world bring in a HOSTILE, that would make all upset as Kevin Padrick worked for the Debtor, of course all will be mad. Annie Buell of the Tennant family seems to keep speaking well of Obsidian, she was President of the Creditors Committee, however I fully believe she made some sort of deal with Kevin Padrick. His appointment was clearly not in the best interest of the Creditors as insider emails point to the reasons why.
Terry Vance sure seemed like a better cheaper way to go, so why the hostile take over? Oh ya MILLIONS upon millions for 3 years and counting to Obsidian, Sussman Shank, Perkins Coie, Tonkon Torp and cronies.
At approx. 31 minutes Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung clearly expresses concern to Judge Dunn about the fact that Obsidian works for Summit and has a 100,000 retainer, the Judge says that has not been approved, WHAT? Yet Obsidian Finance Group had already used all that money, as they attest to under oath at my trial, they spent that money. So if not approved, yet they used it up, is that legal? Why is none of this an issue to Judge Randall Dunn who clearly has been made aware of all aspects of this issue, years ago.
Judge Dunn agrees it was written prior to the bankruptcy BUT for a "Retainer", yet Obsidian had already used the money up by this Feb. 11th 2009 hearing date, I believe, as the next day was the meeting in video and then he was soon after appointed as Trustee, so that money was GONE. Judge Dunn clearly knows this, so why is he dancing around the facts? What conflicts of interest do Judge Dunn, Steven Hedberg of Perkins Coie, Tonkon Torp, Pamela Griffith and Kevin Padrick have that are still undisclosed?
On the 11th of Feb, at this hearing Judge Dunn Says that the Employment Order has not been entered for Obsidian Finance Group, (31:30 Minutes)
Some Court Entries
the Next Day Terry Vance is approved as CRO, does this make sense
"Order Approving Employment of Tyrell B Vance LLC as Chief Restructuring Officer of the Debtor (Related Doc # 7 Motion for Authority to Assume CRO Retention Agreement filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc.) (ljr, ) (Entered: 02/12/2009)"
On the 17th of Feb 2009, an Application filed for Trusee Kevin Padrick to Employ Tonkon Torp
Application to Employ Tonkon Torp LLP Filed by Trustee Kevin D. Padrick (SIMSON, LEON) (Entered: 02/17/2009)
On 12-22-2008 there is a Court Entry of a motion to expedite the following, one of which is application to Employ Obsidian, yet on Feb. 11th, at the hearing this post is discussing, Judge Dunn seems to think it has not been approved and therefore just a retainer, which is not all true, as Obsidian had been working for the Debtor, billing the Debtor, getting their financial data, spreadsheets and asset information to later use against them, in what I see as a flat out breach of contract working for the opposite side of his own client, Summit, the Debtor.
Here is the Court Entry that day
"Motion to Expedite Hearing Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. Re:6 Application to Employ (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN) filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc., 5 Application to Employ (Sussman Shank LLP) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN) filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc., 7 Motion for Authority to Assume CRO Retention Agreement Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN) filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN) (Entered: 12/22/2008)"
Again on the 2th of Dec. 2008 as shown below and other times on the docket as you see when you look up document entry regarding the Summit Bankruptcy.
"Notice of Hearing Filed By Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. Re: 7 Motion for Authority to Assume CRO Retention Agreement Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 19 Motion to Extend Time to File Schedules and SOFA Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. Re:10 Order and Notice Regarding Time to File Documents; and Notice of Proposed Dismissal. (mer, ) (FORD, SUSAN), 6 Application to Employ (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 5 Application to Employ (Sussman Shank LLP) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 17 Motion to Pay Pre-Petition Wages, etc. Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN). Hearing Scheduled for 12/31/2008 at 11:00 AM at Courtroom #3, Portland. (STILLEY, THOMAS) (Entered: 12/29/2008)"
Debtor files, and over and over requests decision on this matter, and yet it is NOT obvious to Judge Randall Dunn that Obsidian is actually, actively working for and with the Debtor.
Here we have an Entry on January 5th 2009 approving the motion to "Expedite", yet on Feb. 11th 2009, Judge Dunn aggressively says to Stephanie DeYoung that Obsidian has not been approved and that money was only a retainer, WHAT? Well Summit never got it back and Patty Whittington, Obsidian Finance Group VP, said under oath at my trial that this money was for services and went onto Obsidian books, UNDER OATH.
January 7th, yet another Entry
"Notice of Hearing Filed By Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. Re: 7 Motion for Authority to Assume CRO Retention Agreement Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 6 Application to Employ (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 5 Application to Employ (Sussman Shank LLP) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN). Hearing Scheduled for 1/21/2009 at 10:00 AM at Courtroom #3, Portland. (FORD, SUSAN) (Entered: 01/07/2009)"
And there are more.. Why did Judge Dunn take so long on this, yet seemed to approve Tonkon Torp right away after Judge Dunn suggested "Obsidian" as Trustee and got his way.
Here we have a Creditors Objection and more regarding the application of Obsidian, this is January 16th 2009.
"Objection Filed by Creditor Felip Holbrook Re: 5 Application to Employ (Sussman Shank LLP) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 7 Motion for Authority to Assume CRO Retention Agreement Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 6 Application to Employ (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN) (VANLEUVEN, JOSEPH) (Entered: 01/16/2009)"
Another Entry into the Court Docket on this Topic
"CORRECTED BY DOCKET #79. Response Filed by Creditor Committee Official Committe of Unsecured Creditors Re: 5 Application to Employ (Sussman Shank LLP) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 7 Motion for Authority to Assume CRO Retention Agreement Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN), 6 Application to Employ (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN) (THOMAS, JEANETTE) Modified on 1/20/2009 (sgs, ). (Entered: 01/19/2009)"
Another Entry on (Entered: 01/21/2009)
Hearing Held. Re: 5 Application to Employ, 7 Miscellaneous Motion. (gjd, ) (Entered: 01/21/2009)
All this before Feb. 11th 2009 and yet judge Dunn acts as if Obsidian is not employed by Summit, why? Is that because he knew at that time that this would make Obsidian and Insider, Kevin Padrick an insider and therefore unable to legally be a Trustee?
Application to Employ Perkins Coie, Counsel for UCC Filed by Creditor Committee Official Committe of Unsecured Creditors (THOMAS, JEANETTE) (Entered: 01/22/2009) - this seemed to move a whole lot quicker..
There seems to be around 17 court entries for "Application to Employ (Obsidian Finance Group, LLC) Filed by Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. "
Why Did this Take So Long and so many Entries ?
Then on Feb. 10th we have a Verified Statement for Proposed Professional Obsidian Finance Group.
| Second Amended Rule 2014 Verified Statement for Proposed Professional Obsidian Finance Group LLC Filed By Debtor Summit Accommodators, Inc. (FORD, SUSAN) (Entered: 02/10/2009) |
I see where the Fees for Obsidian Finance were agreed upon At document 620 - http://www.docstoc.com/docs/111118567/Kevin-D-Padrick-Summit-Bankruptcy-Fees - however this seems to be in regard to the Objection to Fees filed by Summit Insiders, so where is the approval of the 100,000 that Obsidian Finance Group took from Summit, the Debtor when Obsidian Worked for Summit? Should Obsidian give that money back? Is Obsidian liable for Summit's situation as it played out? Should the Summit Bankruptcy be Void, and all actions of Kevin Padrick as Trustee be REVOKED.
Videos of Meeting Below
Playlist of Videos on Feb. 12th Day after above Hearing, and day before Judge Randall Dunn order to appoint a Trustee.
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL391A86A8D3AE1A8F&feature=view_all
Click Above to Play meeting videos or watch all below. Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group is in the far left of the video. You can see that Summit is concerned, and Kevin Padrick sure seems to misled them as it seems to me he had to be already working on the gig of Trustee, which was seemingly in breach of contract with the Summit, the Debtor and seems to me to have made Kevin Padrick and "Insider" and therefore not legally allowed to be a Trustee.
Insider Emails
http://www.objectiontofees.com/2012/01/insider-email-bankruptcy-case-08-37031.html
http://www.objectiontofees.com/2012/01/insider-email-bankruptcy-case-08-37031.html
http://www.objectiontofees.com/2012/01/kevin-padrick-email-to-steven-hedberg.html
http://www.objectiontofees.com/2012/01/kevin-padrick-claimed-at-one-time-that.html
http://www.objectiontofees.com/2012/01/possible-104a-bankruptcy-code.html
http://www.objectiontofees.com/
Objection to the Fees of the Professionals By Summit Insiders, and seemingly ignored by Judge Randall Dunn
http://www.objectiontofees.com/2011/12/judicial-proceeding-objection-to.html
