Part Two
Stephanie sets camera up on back counter and situates it.
Mark to Stephanie: So you think…I mean Vivienne is a pain in the ass!
Stephanie: I think she’s OK. I mean she came and searched me out.
Mark: But, but Vivienne…whispering…
Stephanie: The only thing I am concerned about is that it is taking so much time already.
Mark: It’s taking so much time. I am going to put that back on Susan (Susan Ford of Sussman Shank). I mean it’s like you haven’t even set up a Conduit for us to transfer assets. In fact, you said no.
Terry: Well part of the reason for that was to make sure there was some stipulation or agreement by the creditors’ committee. That they weren’t just going to start attaching everything. That’s all part of the 105 Injunction.
Mark: So was there any talk yesterday about the whole Tennant thing.
Terry: That’s where the biggest problem is in terms of blocking this whole mess. As far as I’m concerned it came right out of the creditors’ committee, of which, Obsidian has been totally responding to the creditors’ committee.
Mark: Right.
Stephanie: Right, but the Judge seemed to say that unless you guys…basically the creditors’ committee convinced that Obsidian will do the job they say they are going to do and they’ve given them a presentation and they had a vote.
Mark: I talked to one of them…well I didn’t but that one (creditor – Rolland Andrews) – Scott (Scott Adams) said he was going “At that presentation they gave us some bull shit. They are expensive as hell. I don’t even understand what all these people want.” He’s on the creditors’ committee and he sees it.
Stephanie: So anyhow, we have to figure out a way to get this (whole mess) into the right hands if we can.
Jan: Seems like the person or the party who’s spent the most time actually hands on knows the most and should be…
Stephanie: And Susan did agree with…I said that Terry has a working knowledge. He’s been working there (Summit) day in and day out trying to find out what’s going on here.
Jan: I mean that’s a slam dunk. He knows more…
Stephanie: She (Susan Ford) reiterated the same thing and no one seemed to have a problem except this Tennant group because they can’t get what they want
Terry: Exactly.
Stephanie: So now they want to just appoint a Trustee so that they can just to get things going.
Terry: You know it would have been a long time ago if they would have just gotten out of the way.
Mark: How come no one brings this up at the hearings?
Terry: I don’t understand that.
Mark: Why do we have attorneys who sit there and can’t even bring it up as an issue?
Jan: It makes you feel like you should be present at all of this stuff if it’s in Portland.
Stephanie: Well that’s why I think…I don’t know…be there because when I went there the attorneys did bare minimum for you guys.
Tim: How long was the hearing, yesterday?
Stephanie: An hour and…
Terry: Did they even address the injunction?
Stephanie: K what’s what’s…No. I don’t think so.
Terry: The original reason for that meeting or the hearing yesterday was to rule on the injunction…
Tim: To extend it.
Terry: Well extend the TRO and figure out whether…
Stephanie: They did it. They did do an extension of the TRO. Then the talked…the only things that they had on there was that and whether to get you (Terry) out and Obsidian in.
Terry: Well I guess the extension was the TRO. I’m not sure of the injunction.
Mark: You know Bob (Bob Vanden Bos – Mark’s bankruptcy attorney) calls me up yesterday and says, “Well I need to know if you agree to extend the injunction or not. What do you want me to do?” Do I have a choice Bob? “Well if you say no, they’ll just do this and that.” Why are you wasting your time calling me and asking me anything?
Tim: He has to sign it.
Mark: I know it’s just a ridiculous conversation we’re having right now. I get tired of you asking me all this shit that I don’t have a choice on.
Stephanie: Well so anyhow he gave me something to sign that would give me power of attorney to do whateverJ
Tim: Who, Bob Vanden Bos?
Mark: Well I’m not sure that’s a good thing.
Laugh
Terry to Mark: You gave her power of attorney?
Tim: Now we have a whole different worry.
Laugh
Stephanie: He’s all – “Are you sure you want this job?” I said, well I don’t know.
Tim: I got a whole new worry now.
Stephanie: Whatever.
Mark: Yah at the next hearing we’ll have the Santa Rosa police there going “Let me tell you about this one.”
Stephanie: Hey, if I wouldn’t have gone there yesterday this would have gone through the Trustee (US Trustee) quick and you guys have no say.
Jan: And what’s it looking like to them when nobody is there to…I mean does it look like…well I guess they don’t care and their not.
Tim: Why can’t we get better advice from our attorneys?
Jan: It’s frustrating that way.
Mark: I mean we pay them a lot of money and…
Stephanie: When Bob called me back after I told him why I need to be there (at the hearing) and he said “OK” and he got off the phone and he talked to Summit’s bankruptcy attorneys and they said “It wouldn’t be a good idea she comes…they are going to choose Obsidian anyway. There’s just no way.” I said you know I have been told…
Mark: Susan is such a…she can be pushed around.
Stephanie: It was the guy attorney.
Tim: Oh, Tom (Tom Stilley)
Mark: Tom
Stephanie: I said – Ok I have been told several times by attorneys what will and will not happen and I don’t believe that they always know and so I am going to go down there and
I want to at least be there present so that if there is a chance and something happens, great, but if nothing happens then I don’t lose anything.
Jan: You have to try.
Mark: I think there is a pattern of what they tell you is going to take place…they’re wrong every time so why do we…
Tim: They’re guessing and they control things in a controlling environment.
Stephanie: My experience is with attorneys is they always tell you what is bad that is going to happen and sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn’t.
Terry: Do you have considerable experience?
Mark: Yah, there you go Terry. Good question.
Stephanie: That’s why I’m not scared to go over there.
Tim: Terry, don’t go there.
Laugh
Mark: You don’t want it to get dark.
Laugh
Tim: You know I did this stuff with the trucking company that filed bankruptcy, we used Barry at Sussman Shank and he said, “I understand there wasn’t a criminal aspect and I understand there wasn’t the amount of money”
Mark: Well let’s bring Barry back.
Tim: He said “You go and you explain openly to everybody where you’re at and what you’re trying to do and that you’re doing the best that you can. If anyone has questions for your attorney, have them call me.” I think my retainer for their services was $5,000 and he gave me $250 back when it was all done. Granted it wasn’t the scope of all this, but it’s…what diffused a lot of people was me saying look I’m not running away, I’m doing everything I can to take care of this problem and you know you can fight it but al it’s going to do is throw us in bankruptcy. Well, of course, we are already in bankruptcy but it seems to me like that face and saying…
Mark: Nobody knows that we’re not running away.
Terry: And because the Judge quoted directly from my affidavit at the previous hearing regarding…then and he asked both the creditors’ committee and Susan and Tom, “Why the hell we can’t get something done. It says right here…Mr. Vance said right here that the debtor…all of the principals are cooperating to the best of their ability and they’re willing to make every effort.”
Stephanie: And they reiterated that yesterday too.
Mark: But that’s who they aught to be asking…Susan…because I just don’t believe she takes charge of this. She gets moved around by everybody and I even saw it that day with Vivienne where she just buckles.
Stephanie: She did do an OK job presenting and she validated the points I had brought up as far as you (Terry) and the work you’ve done. She reiterated it with the Judge. She kind of supported me up there when I wasn’t yah know but…I don’t know. I don’t know what their job is exactly to do.
Mark: Their job is just to get paid.
Tim: I think that’s another reason why we have to be there, if not for ourselves, it also holds her accountable, but it also gives her something to support instead of just going with whatever direction things seem to be going.
Mark: I think you’re right. I think it holds her accountable while we’re there.
Stephanie: And the Judge seemed to want to get this resolved quickly. Like sooner than this date..they set a court date for the 20th…Umm…
Mark: It’s the end of the extension of the TRO.
Stephanie: Right, but he wants to figure out the trustee deal prior to that except for Wednesday.
Terry: Except for Wednesday?
Stephanie: He’s gone Wednesday or something.
Mark: You know one of my biggest fears is that…like in these LLC’s…that all of our partners who are innocent parties to this whole thing just get run over. That’s just a huge concern to me.
Terry: Run over by?
Mark: By whoever the Trustee is…they just go into these LLC’s and they want you to just sign your rights over and then we get control and we do whatever we want. I just want someone with the best results…
Terry: Well isn’t that defined in the operating agreement, though?
Stephanie: It is.
Mark: Well yah but my attorney is going…well no you know there’s operating agreements…I pointed out…
Stephanie: But their going to get in default.
Mark: I pointed out that like on Smith Brothers…if I assign it, I don’t have any ownership. I want to ask Kevin specifically about Smith Brothers…I’m going to ask him about Century Drive Mobile Home Park…If he knows that if we assign our interests’ that it immediately puts them in default.
Stephanie: I asked him about that and he kind of pushed it aside, but said that “There are ways to deal with that.” So I want to know exactly what ways you say there are to deal with that because he says, “The seller doesn’t always get the property.” How do they not when you’re in default?
Mark: When I look at Century Drive Mobile Home Park…it’s like ok…put it on the market…can we get anything for it? Why are you putting it at risk if we’re cooperating…just leave it where it’s at…let’s see if we can sell it for an amount to get some money to the creditors.
Tim: And preserves the interests’ of our partners.
Mark: Right, right.
End Transcript Prior to Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance arriving to give presentation, but instead ends skirting around the fact that he did an end around on the Summit Principals by promising to help them with there liquidity problem, taking all their data, and selling a higher paying job to the US Bankruptcy Court, the US Trustee’s Office and the Creditors’ Committee.
No one cares about the conflicts of interest that occur in these bankruptcy cases, so the facts of what Kevin Padrick of Obsidian Finance did that was probably illegal are washed under the carpet, never to be seen again. The American Justice System allows for attorneys to have all sorts of conflicts of interest and end arounds as long as it suits their purpose which is their own agenda, not Justice. If you don’t believe me, just wait until the same thing happens to you and you will be kicking yourself for ever thinking our Justice System is about Justice. IT IS ONLY A GAME. Attorneys are the best at playing that game because their work is about playing the game. Kevin Padrick scored and he knew bankruptcy laws and he knew about fear and pleading the fifth and playing the media game. He is smart and good at his job, which is apparently screwing people out of their money."
Source of Post and Lots More
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?s=opera
- Kevin Padrick Alleged Perjury
- Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Case Details
- Eric P. Robinson CUNY Graduate School Rebuttal
- Judge Randall Dunn
- Obsidian Finance Group
- Kevin Padrick
- Homestreet Bank Files Objection to Conflicts of Interest and Fees of Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group
- Summit Insiders File Objection to Fees of Kevin Padrick and Tonkon Torp
- Stephanie DeYoung, CPA Video Deposition Summit Bankruptcy
- Mark Neuman Deposition Summit
- Video of Obsidian Meeting with Client Summit BEFORE they Were the Debtor
Thursday, April 25, 2013
the Instantly Famous First Amendment Case with the $2.5 Million Dollar Verdict heard round the blogsphere.
"First Amendment lawyers and organizations that are concerned about the intersection of law and media, however, did not so quickly dismiss Obsidian v. Cox as just desserts for a blogger who — as Hernandez found — didn’t adhere to “journalistic standards.”
“I think it’s pretty significant,” says Eugene Volokh, the UCLA law professor and nationally recognized expert on the First Amendment who, along with Benjamin Souede of Angeli Law Group in Portland, now represent Cox and filed a motion for a new trial or remittitur on Jan. 4, 2012.
Volokh says the case raises the question of “whether the First Amendment treats equally all users or gives special protection to the institutional press.”
“There are now millions of users of mass media who are not part of the institutional press,” says Volokh, a native of what is now Ukraine who immigrated to the United States at age 7; graduated from UCLA at 15; clerked for a U.S. Supreme Court justice and, among numerous other endeavors, founded and co-authors the widely read weblog, The Volokh Conspiracy.
“District court decisions become really important,” he says, “because there are no U.S. Supreme Court decisions [on this issue].”
Volokh, who told the Bulletin that he is representing Cox pro bono as part of his “part, part, part, part-time” work as an academic affiliate for the global law firm Mayer Brown, says he learned of the case when his computer flagged it and someone other than Cox brought it to his attention. He said he has talked to Cox by telephone but has not met her.
Volokh’s view of the case’s importance is underscored by the opinions of other lawyers, as well as the fact that it has received attention from the Harvard-based Citizen Media Law Project, which referred to Padrick’s and Obsidian’s lawsuit as a “legal threat,”, and the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which filed an amicus curiae brief on Jan. 11. (The EFF and its local counsel, Richard McLeod of Klarquist Sparkman in Portland, did not respond to the Bulletin’s requests for comments.)
“I do think the case is nationally significant, and Eugene Volokh’s involvement is suggestive of that,” says Volokh’s local counsel, Souede, who attended Harvard Law School with Volokh’s younger brother Alexander “Sasha” Volokh, now an assistant professor at Emory University School of Law.
“No matter where you come out on the issues, the question of how you are going to treat new media with respect to the protections generally afforded those who speak to the public is essential. It’s a powerful means of communication, and the lines need to be clear.”
Souede says that while his firm typically focuses on defending complex criminal and regulatory cases, “We always have an eye out for interesting public policy cases that we would like to get involved with. I knew the case involved a blogger, and Prof. (Eugene) Volokh is a pretty prominent blogger. He put up a post that he needed local counsel, and I knew the case to which he was referring.”
Duane Bosworth, a partner at Davis Wright Tremaine in Portland who has represented The Oregonian, other print media and numerous television stations, says that he thinks traditional media outlets “are alarmed” by the case, particularly by Hernandez’s pretrial ruling that bloggers are not covered by Oregon’s right-of-retraction statute.
“This case has an unbelievable number of moving parts,” says Bosworth, who has written about it for the National Media Law Resource Center, a national consortium of newspaper publishers. “It’s been discussed all over: Forbes, the New York Times. It’s significant because it has elements about publishing on the Internet that have concerns for traditional publishers, and it raises concerns for bloggers about whether they have protection under statutes and the constitution.”
Source
http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/12apr/posterchild.html
Judge Marco Hernandez DENIED Blogger Crystal Cox First Amendment Rights and Protected Bankruptcy Judges, Creditors Committee Attorneys such as Judge Michael Simon, and Protected Department of Justice Trustee Pamela Griffith and Court Appointed Trustee Kevin Padrick. This was not a Matter of LAW. Judge Marco Hernandez clearly did not follow law or constitutional proceedings.
"l. Privilege – First Amendment
The First Amendment privilege defense states that “Defendant has a privilege to report
court-related matters effecting Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s business and to report other business related events in the public record and is justified . . .” (D.E. 28 at 6.) As stated in Suntrust Bank v. Houghon Mifflin, 268 F.3d 1257, 1265 and 1276 (11th Cir. 2001), “First Amendment protections [are] interwoven into .... “the public interest is always served in promoting First Amendment values and in preserving the public domain from encroachment.”
The Summit Bankruptcy was a court Related Matter. Judge Marco Hernandez DENIED Crystal Cox her First Amendment Rights, PERIOD."
Judge Marco Hernandez Denied Crystal Cox this DEFENSE, though she had been reporting on a court proceeding involving Obsidian Finance Group, Attorney Kevin Padrick and Attorney David Aman, FOR 3 Year Prior.
Friday, April 12, 2013
West Linn, Oregon Googles "creditor committee conflicts of interest and descrepencies martin hansen annie buell tennant family"
Hello West Linn, Let me be of Service.
I am certainly NOT giving you legal advice, but if I were you, I would SUE Kevin D. Padrick, Annie Buell, Steven Hedberg and even Judge Michael Simon who was at Perkins Coie during the Summit Bankruptcy.
Also you can file Criminal Complaints with the Oregon Attorney General, FBI, SEC, Attorney General and more in regard to the actions of Kevin Padrick, Annie Buell and others involved in the Summit Bankruptcy. IN MY OPINION, because I can read and have a brain.
Annie Buell, appointed by the Department of Justice as Creditors Committee Chair, chimed in with David Carr of the New York Times and flat out LIED about everyone being happy with Kevin Padrick as the court appointed trustee.
The way I know the the story to be, upon my belief and knowledge is that Annie Buell and the Tennant Family used their power and influence to get in first place in the creditors being paid, and that they worked deals with Kevin Padrick in order to do so. Do your homework, time for Annie Buell and Kevin Padrick to be INDICTED, Exposed.
I am dedicated to seeing Kevin D. Padrick indicted, EXPOSED for the events of the Summit Bankruptcy please email me any information you have, and if you need documents or direction to links of information or people to "subpoena".
AGAIN, not trying to give anyone legal advice, I am just saying that if you were financially involved in the summit bankruptcy, don't you have a right to a civil litigation against them? Maybe even a class action? Oh and ask yourself, why did Umpqua settle and for how much, and remember JUDGE Michael Simon former attorney for Perkins Coie and buddy of Judge Marco Hernandez was the attorney for Umpqua. Oh the secrets that we keep...
Ask yourself why people further down the line in their exchanges were paid first? Who bought who off, what deals were made over years of massive income to Kevin D. Padrick and all those he favored? Where was the Dept. of Justice Trustee Pamela Griffith?
Why were offers on properties REJECTED until Kevin Padrick's commission was in place? AND wow the money he made of each sale, something like 3 times what a real estate broker would.
Did Kevin Padrick perjure himself on the stand in the Obsidian V. Cox Case? Or how about in any legal declarations of the Summit Bankruptcy? well In MY OPINION, he sure did, but you see Kevin Padrick is above the LAW. And his attorney side kick DIRTY David Aman makes sure of it.
Listen to the hearing, where, WOW, a federal judge appoints a Trustee, and seems to force the DOJ to follow along.
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/search?q=dunn+hearing
Was it really on ONE person, Crystal Cox, a blogger, that had an issue with Kevin Padrick and his company Obsidian Finance Group? Or was there lots of media, blogs, interpersonal scandals, FBI investigations, DOJ investigations, Social Security investigations and more? How in the WORLD could all of this not be of Public Interest? Judge Marco Hernandez FLAT OUT stated in a federal ruling that Crystal Cox's writings were not on a topic of Public interest? WOW. DOJ appointed, FBI Investigations, IRS investigations, over a 100 victims, Social Security admin. involved, Federal Judge on taxpayers dime, and ALL of this is not of public interest?? Judge Hernandez said this so as to SMACK Down a Blogger, Crystal Cox, EXPOSING the TOP Corrupt Law Firms in Portland Oregon.
Why did Oregon CPA Gary Stachlowski PNW Tax Advisors come into the Obsidian v. Cox as a paid witness to defend Obsidian, yet did not seem to even read the Summit Documents? Why did Judge Hernandez protect Tonkon Torp and Obsidian? Was it to protect his buddy Michael Simon who was appointed "Judge" at the same time as Hernandez?
Why did Sussman Shank turn the other way, after Susan Ford email all involved that appointing a trustee was not in the best interest of the creditors? Was she paid off, threatened, promised on going work?
How did Kevin Padrick get the Trustee Gig anyway? Connections with former associate from Miller Nash Steven Hedberg? or connections to past work with Pamela Griffith before she became a U.S. Trustee? Or past work with Leon Simpson of Tonkon Torp Law Firm?
So when you google this "creditor committee conflicts of interest and descrepencies martin hansen annie buell tennant family" ~ I Dance, I LOVE IT, I want the TRUTH to come out and David Aman and Kevin Padrick to go to Prison with their buddy Brian Stevens.
Research Links for more on Annie Buell and the Tennant Family ASSHOLES
a Bit regarding Annie Buell ( you know, the Bitch that told the New York Times Kevin Padrick is a good guy that did a good job), thereby "defaming" Crystal Cox, in my OPINION.
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?tag=annie-buell
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/search?q=annie+buell
http://anniebuell.blogspot.com/
http://anniebuell.blogspot.com/2012/01/was-annie-buell-and-tennant-family.html
Video of Meeting where Kevin Padrick was with his clients SUMMIT, and therefore, I believe and Insider. He was under contract with Summit to help them restructure debt, then he turned on his own clients, while using their money and files to gather evidence against them, possibly entrapment, and then Kevin Padrick was appoint Trustee. Which sure seems to violate bankruptcy code 1104(a).
http://www.youtube.com/user/KevinPadrick
Videos
CPA / Insider, Stephanie DeYoung, Video Deposition
http://www.youtube.com/user/SAIBankruptcy
Bankruptcy Code and the Summit Bankruptcy
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/search?q=1104
Kevin Padrick is a bully, he simply sues anyone who disagrees with him. He had an objection to his fees filed in Summit and in the Cascadia Bankruptcy. He is a repeat offender the way I see it.
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/search?q=objection+to+fees
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/118944762/HomeStreet-Bank-OBJECTS-to-Obsidian-Finance-Fees-Claims-Conflicts-of-Interest-and-More?
http://kevinpadrickobsidianfinancegroup.blogspot.com/
I Say, IN MY OPINION, Sue Annie Buell, Sue the Tennant Family, Sue Perkins Coie and Sussman Shank, Sue Obsidian Finance Group, Sue Kevin Padrick, and expose the massive money, YOUR MONEY, that they had their way with.
| Visitor Analysis & System Spec | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Search Referral: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Host Name: | c-24-20-86-233.hsd1.or.comcast.net | Browser: | Chrome 26.0 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| IP Address: | 24.20.86.233 — [Label IP Address] | Operating System: | Win7 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Location: | West Linn, Oregon, United States | Resolution: | 1920x1080 | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Returning Visits: | 0 | Javascript: | Enabled | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Visit Length: | Multiple visits spread over more than one day | ISP: | Comcast Cable | |||||||||||||||||||||
Navigation Path
| Date | Time | WebPage |
|---|---|---|
| 11 Apr | 00:00:26 | |
| 11 Apr | 00:09:41 | |
| 11 Apr | 00:15:25 | |
| 11 Apr | 00:33:15 | |
| 11 Apr | 00:35:10 | |
| 11 Apr | 00:42:32 | |
| 11 Apr | 00:43:05 | |
| 12 Apr | 14:07:36 | |
| 12 Apr | 14:09:23 | |
| 12 Apr | 14:17:25 |
Thursday, April 4, 2013
"ID Experts Retools to Manage Rapid Growth" "Adds Senior VP Sales and Services; Forms New Board of Directors; Closes Equity Funding Round; Pursues Innovative Technologies"
Looks like the DEVIL is Raking in the Deals, the Dough. And looks like no ONE cares to read up on the history of Mr. Snake Man, Kevin D. Padrick.
"healthcare data breach" ~ Kevin Padrick Sure knows about that. Which will hopefully come out one day in a HIPAA Lawsuit over the details of the Summit Bankruptcy.
"PORTLAND, ORE., APRIL 4, 2013 — /PRNewswire/ -- ID Experts announced today the addition of Paul O'Mara as senior vice president of sales and professional services; an equity round of funding; and new members to its Board of Directors.
The new Board now includes chairman Kevin Padrick, senior principal and co-founder at Obsidian Finance Group, LLC;
Rick Miller, chairman and founder of Avamere and co-founder of Rogue Venture Partners; Irving Levin, chairman of Genesis Financial Solutions; and Bob Gregg, CEO of ID Experts.
With a growth rate of 96 percent over the last five years, ID Experts is the leading provider of healthcare data breach solutions.
These latest actions reinforce ID Experts' commitment to develop new products and services to meet the growing demand for healthcare data breach solutions and continue the expansion of its sales capacity.
Since the mandatory reporting of data breaches that include protected health information (PHI) began in 2009, there have been over 64,000 reported breaches effecting over 60 million consumers in the U.S.
ID Experts Poised for Further Rapid Growth with Innovative Technologies
ID Experts continues to innovate with RADAR™, decisioning software for healthcare entities to manage privacy and security incidents. Sales of RADAR have grown 300 percent. ID Experts chairs the PHI Protection Network (PPN), a cross-industry group of PHI protectors and solution providers. The group held its first industry forum on PHI security best practices in March 2013.
"We now have the foundation for the next stage of growth for our company," said Bob Gregg, CEO of ID Experts. "Our executive team and Board of Directors are aligned on a focused strategy that addresses the accelerating privacy and fraud challenges faced by healthcare organizations in the U.S. today."
ID Experts received its latest round of financing in February 2013, with Rogue Venture Partners leading the $2.1 million equity investment.
The added funding will allow ID Experts to enhance its presence with its healthcare organization customers, as well as launch a game-changing product that will address the massive medical identity fraud problem in the country's health system.
"ID Experts is a clear leader when it comes to managing sensitive information," said Rick Miller, co-founder of Rogue Venture Partners. "The company is at the intersection of healthcare, privacy and technology and will continue to grow and innovate to meet the evolving needs of organizations who are managing highly sensitive personal information and need to focus on patients first."
About ID Experts
ID Experts delivers complete data breach care. The company's solutions in data breach prevention, analysis and response are endorsed by the American Hospital Association, meet regulatory compliance and achieve the most positive outcomes for its customers. ID Experts is a leading advocate for privacy as a contributor to legislation, a corporate and active member in both the IAPP and HIMSS, a corporate member of HCCA and chairs the ANSI Identity Management Standards Panel PHI Project. For more information, join the LinkedIn All Things HITECH discussion at bit.ly/AllThingsHITECH or All Things Data Breach at http://linkd.in/TsbwgJ; follow ID Experts on Twitter @IDExperts; and visit http://www2.idexpertscorp.com/.
Source
http://www.heraldonline.com/2013/04/04/4746009/id-experts-retools-to-manage-rapid.html#storylink=cpy
"DID YOU KNOW KEVIN PADRICK WAS, EFFECTIVELY, HIRED BY SUMMIT PRINCIPALS PRIOR TO SUMMITS FILING CHAPTER 11 BANKRUPTCY ON 12/18/08?????"
"Around 12/7/08 – Kevin Padrick meets with Summit Principals – Well yes they did. Kevin Padrick was recommended to one of the Principals by a Bend Developer as a guy who could help solve Summit’s proplems.
You see Kevin Padrick met with the Summit principals in early December 2008. By talking with the Summit Principals about this meeting, it looks like Kevin was more than willing to help them with their liquidity crisis. Kevin Padrick said his company, Obsidian Finance Group, LLC, specialized in helping save distressed businesses like Summit Accommodators, Inc. Good news right?
Kevin Padrick said he had financial partners with DEEP POCKETS who would help fund the short-term liquidity issues. At this meeting, Summit Principals explained the business of short-term lending, told Kevin Padrick about the properties they were willing to hand over and about the $14 Million of cash that was in the Summit bank account. At no time during this meeting did Kevin Padrick even mention the words fraud, ponzi scheme, embezzlement, or illegal.
After this meeting with Kevin Padrick, the Summit Principals approached Summit 1031′s bankrupcty attorneys, Sussman Shank, with the possibility of contracting with Obsidian Finance since Padrick assured the principals that he and Obsidian Finance would be the best has helping distressed businesses.
Sussman Shank agreed that it would be a good idea to contract with Kevin Padrick and his company. However, the contract should be signed after a Chief Restructuring Officer is put into place (after they filed bankrupcty). Sussman Assured the Principals that Padrick and Obsidian would work directly for the CRO. Seems to me Kevin Worked more directly with Sussman Shank and Perkins Coie than Terry Vance…What do you think?
12/18/08 Summit 1031 filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy - DIP “debtor in possession” reorganization. In this type of bankruptcy a Chief Restructuring Officer is named and he is the “acting boss” of the reorganization to pay back the exchangers. It wasn’t until the bankruptcy was filed and Terry Vance was named CRO, that the official contract to hire Obsidian Finance Group, LLC was signed by Terry Vance and Kevin Padrick.
Click Here to See what they were supposed to do per their contract
The Summit Principals were advised by Sussman Shank that a Chapter 11 DIP bankruptcy would be ideal. Sussman assured the principals that this form of bankruptcy would provide a little more time than a Chapter 7, enough time to liquidate the illiquid assets in an orderly manner to, hopefully, get the exchangers/creditors paid back in full. This effort would alow the Principals to aid the CRO in every way possible to accomplish this goal.
Sussman’s Susan Ford also instructed the Principals to transfer approx $250,000 from certain accounts and to wire it out of a specific account. Ford did not want it to appear that Sussman’s legal fees were coming out of exchanger funds. Ford told the Principals that the $250,000 wold be more than enough to cover the entire legal cost of the bankruptcy. I know that as of 05/15/09 the attorney fees amounted to almost $2 Million. This estimate is just slightly off.
12/19/08 – end of December 2008 – Summit Principals gathered all the information and willingly gave it to there supposed saviors, Obsidian Finance Group. Ewan Rose, said thanks, we will get you our proposal within the week. No proposal was ever delivered.
Early February – Kevin Padrick makes a presentation to the Creditors’ Committee. What? Thought they were supposed to be getting the proposal to the CRO and Principals, NOT the creditors??? Jeez this stuff is so confusing.
2/11/09 – Summit 1031 Bankruptcy Hearing where Creditors’ Committee is pushing to replace Terry Vance as CRO with Kevin Padrick as CRO. Lucky for Kevin Padrick, at this hearing Judge Randall Dunn’s idea to resolve the matter at hand is to appoint a liquidating trustee. It wasn’t until yesterday that I received the legal document from The 1031 Tax Group, LLC case that says, “The appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is an extraordinary measure“. After going back and listening to the audio from this hearing, it seems to me that this appointment of a chapter 11 trustee was originally presented by Judge Randall Dunn.
DON’T Miss Clicking Here for the Audio – Click Here for Judge Randall Dunn Abruptly decides to Appoint a Trustee
Kevin Padrick has stated in his declaration under penalty and perjury that Doc 551 “8. Ms Studebaker-DeYoung has also posted on her website what appears to be an audio recording that she made during an official court hearing proceeding, in violation of Court local rules”
From Transcript:“Judge Dunn – Let’s talk about the joint motion of the debtor and the official committe of unsecured creditors to substitute Obsidian Finance Group LLC for Mr. Vance as Chief Restructuring Officer and I have a limited objection from the US Trustee, requesting some additional time to see if this is the proper road or whether I ought to be appointing a chapter 11 trustee and I have a middle ground suggestion for the parties consideration and we may not get there today…WHY DON’T WE APPOINT OBSIDIAN AS TRUSTEE????
Ms. Vivienne Popperl (attorney for US Trustee) – Sorry your honor but that is a decision for our office to make.
Judge Dunn – I understand that so I am throwing it out as something that you should consider.
Ms. Vivienne Popperl – We will certainly consider that, but at this time we’re very concerned about who is really directing this case. At the moment it appears to be the professionals.
Judge Dunn – It does appear that way, there’s no question the professionals are directing this case. There’s no one else in the driver’s seat.
Ms. Vivienne Popperl – Which is why we need a trustee and that is why we request a little extra time to get a motion and appropriate memorandum before the Court and we certainly will consider Obsidian, but we will consider other candidates as well.
Judge Dunn – Well, well, that’s fine, but I’m not sure I need additional memorandum. I think that needs to be discussed with debtor’s counsel and Obsidian and the committee and see where we come out. I understand why you would move for appointment under section is it 1112, whatever section and I’ll ??? with that. But I think the parties should talk and do what makes sense here, but certainly if the creditors’ committee has evaluated Obsidian’s work to date and their potential for future work…that’s going to weigh strongly in the Courts consideration in terms of the interests’ of creditors and I do agree that we need someone clearly in control of the ship of state?? that is functioning in effect as a trustee would so in the absence of further direction I really would like to see Obsidian named as chapter 11 trustee, but I leave that for the parties to argue out.
Ms. Vivienne Popperl – Well then would the Court entertain an oral motion directing the US Trustee to appoint a chapter 11 trustee or do we need to file a written motion?
Judge Dunn – Well I want to hear from the parties and their respective positions on that, but I don’t want to trample on the US Trustee’s office perogatives either so if you would be offended by such an order based on an oral motion, I’m not going to do it, but I just am suggesting that it makes sense to consider it. Mr. Padrick’s here…Is Obsidian opposed to serving in the position officially as chapter 11 trustee.
Kevin Padrick – No Your Honor subject to the parties desires.
Judge Dunn – Right so that’s something I want the parties to talk about and consider because frankly at least my review of the situation with respect to the case as to what’s going on…having Obsidian functioning officially in the position of chapter 11 trustee solves a multitude of problems, but what do I know?”
Steve Hedburg (Lead Attorney at Perkins Coie and worked under Kevin Padrick at Miller Nash back in the day) - Steve Hedbergseems up to helping out with the appointment of Obsidian no matter what others’ concerns are due to the vote on the creditors’ committee. This committee is only made up of about 5% of the creditors. Did the group of creditors understand the ramifications of converting to a liquidating trust? Steve Hedberg rambles on about how creditors are voting for Obsidian no matter what guidelines are followed Obsidian will be trustee.
I can’t even spend the energy typing the rest of this now. BUT I did run into another interesting tidbit of discussion between Ms Vivienne Popperl and Judge Dunn…
Cont. Transcript…
“Ms Vivienne Popperl – Your Honor I’d just like to bring to the courts attention that the Court had been granted an oral motion. I want to make sure that the Court feels comfortable having done it with no notice because 1104(a) does say that a request of a party in interest or the United States trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall appoint a trustee – WELL THAT DIDN’T HAPPEN NOW Did it? They act as if they are following the procedures, but they willy nilly throw them out the door when they don’t fit their agenda. Is this what they mean by Highest Fiduciary Duty.
DON’T Miss Clicking Here for the Audio – Click Here for Judge Randall Dunn Abruptly decides to Appoint a Trustee
§ 1104. Appointment of trustee or examiner
(a) At any time after the commencement of the case but before confirmation of a plan, on request of a party in interest or the United States trustee, and after notice and a hearing, the court shall order the appointment of a trustee—
(1) for cause, including fraud, dishonesty, incompetence, or gross mismanagement of the affairs of the debtor by current management, either before or after the commencement of the case, or similar cause, but not including the number of holders of securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the debtor; (didn’t apply to Summit, unless they are talking about Sussman Shank, Obsidian Finance and Terry Vance??)
(2) if such appointment is in the interests of creditors, any equity security holders, and other interests of the estate, without regard to the number of holders of securities of the debtor or the amount of assets or liabilities of the debtor; or (this is very arguable)
(3) if grounds exist to convert or dismiss the case under section 1112, but the court determines that the appointment of a trustee or an examiner is in the best interests of creditors and the estate. (doesn’t look like it applies to Summit) Based on the huge amount of legal fees the appointment would cost.
Click here to see Document from The 1031 Tax Group, LLC – Okun case for appt trustee in place of DIP. It also says “The appointment of a chapter 11 trustee is an extraordinary measure” and that it “should be the exception, rather than the rule”. “The decision to appoint a chapter 11 trustee is a factual determination entrusted to the discretion of the bankruptcy judge”.
I bet the US Department of Justice knows this proceeding did not follow the legal procedures.
After listening to this circle of players go on and on about replacing the Chief Restructuring Officer, Terry Vance, with Obsidian as Trustee. Seems everyone is in agreement right? Only Brian Steven’s attorney, Foraker seems to be mind boggled by the happenstance of this hearing. Is there a reason Foraker removed himself from teh case shortly thereafter? Was he scared to be part of the Ruse?
Who was representing the Debtor? Who was representing the 200 creditors? They decided this in a matter of moments and they seemed to all really like the idea. Why follow any procedures? Who cares about who is doing the job? Who cares about anybody?
Seems like they are having a good time entertaining themselves with how do you get Obsidian in Control of the Estate and the Assets???? For my common sense brain this is So Confusing.
In Sharon Steel Corp “the standard gives the…. court discretion to appoint a trustee when doing so would serve the parties’ and estate’s interests”. In Ionosphere Clubs, Inc. the standard for appointment of a trustee should be…… “facilitation of a reorganizatoin that will benefit both the creditors and the debtors”.
Courts have considered several factors including “the benefits derived by the appointment of a trustee, balanced against the cost of appointment”.
It seems to me this was a rather rash decision and it was happening no matter what happened at this hearing. What are your thoughts? Was this already decided before the hearing began OR What???
Did you think that was it??? No there is more…
I worked out the schedule with Kevin Padrick & the Summit Principals to hold the Presentation at the Summit Bend Office at 10:00AM on 2/12/09. Kevin Padrick was an hour late to the presentation. There was much discussed about the bankruptcy proceedings during this hour of waiting amongst some other fun chatter.
I forgot I had the camera on the webcam for the duration of Kevin Padrick’s tardiness. There is no way I could have scripted the discussions and events that occurred. I like that it is an accurate representation of what what going on at that point in time and how there was a HUGE disconnect between what Terry Vance and the Summit Principals knew and what the Portland courtroom was basing motions and orders on.
Why weren’t Terry Vance and Summit Principals able to have their own say about appointing a Chapter 11 Trustee. Susan Ford did not represent Terry Vance, she just spoke for him.
There is some talk about Sussman’s ability to serve as counsel to the Obsidian as Trustee. Why is there not a conflict of interests for the Debtor’s Attorney, Sussman Shank, to serve as counsel for the Liquidating Trustee, Kevin Padrick??? Seems a slight conflict, but what do I know.
The Hearing was on 02/11/09. We had the presentation on 02/12/09.
The night of 2/11/09 I researched on the internet about this type of situation where I ran across the recording of court authorized meetings that were semi-public (Since Judge Dunn said all interested Parties would be interested in this presentation and from this, I believed I was able to determine that it was a semi-public meeting. You can record a semi-public meeting if the camera equipment was not concealed. I did not conceal the camera equipment.
Kevin Padrick reported my so-called “illegal recording” to the Bend Police department in July 2009, just after he noticed it was on the Summit Blog. After some investigation and checking with my attorney we found out the investigation was going nowhere.
On January 5, 2010 I received notice that I was being charged with 2 misdemeanors of “illegal communication” related to the recording and the divulging of this recording.
Besides the fact that the investigation is stale, there are a few issues that seem fishy regarding why the DA incorrectly filed this claim.
A. The officer thought I told him, in July 2009, that I set up the recording computer in the “middle of the conference table”. The officer apparantly next thinks he found an inconsistency because he said it was readily apparent that I set up the device on the “back counter behind the Summit Principals.”
I think the officer erred twice here.
1. The device was facing Obsidian (the three people who are complaining (Kevin Padrick, Ewan Rose, & Ryan Norwood) – thus it was unconcealed, even by the officer’s standard.
2. The officer did not follow me (comprehend me (understand the importance of what I was saying)) when he interviewed me 4 months after the recording, in that he did not correctly quote me where I told him how the computer was set up. My own package of evidence should have jogged his memory.
B. Padrick, Rose, and Norwood were the only individuals interviewed by the officer besides me.
It seems that an unbiased officer (or rather an officer that was not being harangued by some powerful attorneys) would have interviewed Terry Vance and the other 5 people who saw where I set up the computer.
It looks like the first Deschutes County Deputy, likely contacted by Obsidian Finance, probably closed his investigation without criminal finding against me. Obsidian next pushed the Bend Police officer to follow up over 5 months after Padrick’s initial complaint. Next, the officer passed the buck (not a common practice) to the District Attorney’s office without a citing or closing the case. Next, because the District Attorney’s office (who also probably initially declined the case) to follow up. In other words, in all likelihood, at every step of the process, Obsidian had to resurrect the case, that otherwise would have remained closed, by pressing things."
Source of Post
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?s=opera
Also Check Out the Kevin Padrick Testimony in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Trial, Under Oath
http://kevinpadrickobsidianfinance.blogspot.com/2012/04/kevin-padricks-testimony-in-obsidian-v.html
David W. Brown, Obsidian Finance Group Testimony in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Trial, Under Oath
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/06/david-brown-obsidian-finance-group.html
http://obsidianfinancesucks.blogspot.com/2012/10/bank-vp-declaration-declaration-of_14.html
Patricia Whittington, Obsidian Finance Group VP Testimony in Obsidian Finance Group v. Crystal Cox Trial, Under Oath
http://kevinpadrickobsidianfinance.blogspot.com/2012/04/lets-take-look-at-obsidian-v-cox-trial.html
More Research
http://www.summit1031bkjustice.com/?s=buell
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)