Was Crystal Cox Blogger Really the only one in the world that had an "Issue" with Kevin Padrick as a Bankruptcy Trustee ? Investigate Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group.

Kevin Padrick sure did not seem to act legally and ethically in the Summit Bankruptcy, In My "Opinion".  Why does main stream media not investigate the real story of Kevin Padrick as the Trustee in the Summit 1031 / Summit Accomodators bankruptcy, and instead be a part of silencing the messenger, blogger Crystal Cox who is getting the story heard.  Here is a Jan. 2010 article on the Umpqua Lawsuit as part of the Summit Bankruptcy. The Drawing of "Ire" was Kevin Padrick in yet another aspect to all this whereby there were and are many who have issue with Kevin Padrick, and most had to stand down as Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group and his Elite Law Firm Attorneys at Tonkon Torp Law Firm seem to be protected to be above the law, in my OPINION.

"Summit Accommodators case draws Umpqua's ire

Friday, January 22, 2010
Courtney Sherwood
Portland Business Journal

Umpqua Bank is striking back against claims that it bears financial liabilities linked to the bankruptcy of a real estate investment company.

In a 78-page report released late last year, bankruptcy trustee Kevin Padrick alleged that Bend-based Summit Accommodators used client money to fund a Ponzi scheme, and that Umpqua knew what was happening and did nothing to stop it.

Now Steve Philpott, general counsel for the bank, has responded. He said Padrick's report ignores facts, misinterprets evidence and portrays a conspiracy that did not exist. Philpott also accused Padrick of going beyond his duties as a trustee in leveling his accusations.

Padrick's claims, assertively argued in court documents, have been widely aired, frustrating Umpqua officials. It may be months before Umpqua is expected to dispute the claims in court, which ultimately spurred the bank to take its response public.

"As a financial institution with operations in three states, we're involved in litigation all the time," Philpott said. "But these are unprecedented claims."

At the heart of the battle: Whether Umpqua can be held liable for more than $30 million that Summit's 114 claimants lost when the company filed for bankruptcy in late 2008.

Among the points in dispute:

Padrick asserted that Summit's owners were trapped in a Ponzi scheme in which they had to constantly recruit new business in order to avoid collapse.

Summit's principals were not trapped in a Ponzi scheme, Philpott said, just a liquidity shortfall, and they were looking for a new source of funds before they filed bankruptcy. "(Please NOTE here reader, this comment posted in here by Crystal Cox - SUMMIT looked to Kevin Padrick for a source of new funds BEFORE they Filed Bankruptcy and he later became the Trustee after taking their spreadsheets, secrets, personal information and then turned on his own clients)

Summit presented its liquidity dilemma to the bank and sought a loan or other business partnership — which Umpqua turned down. According to Padrick's report, the bank should have seen a clear Ponzi scheme and impermissible self-dealing, and should have ceased associating with Summit. He quoted an e-mail from Umpqua Chief Credit Officer Brad Copeland to Umpqua CEO Ray Davis: "I suspect there are some significant fraud issues involved and our records will be subpoenaed. This will probably get very ugly."

Philpott said Umpqua did not see Summit's activity as illegal, just risky, and the bank opted not to help with Summit's liquidity needs.

Padrick has also challenged Umpqua's efforts to keep some e-mails and other records out of court proceedings, hinting that these records may bolster his case.

Relevant documents have been released, Philpott said. Those that remain confidential contain trade secrets and confidential commercial information that could provide insight to bank competitors, he said.

According to Padrick, by allowing Summit to maintain its accounts, Umpqua continued to profit from its business relationship with the Bend company.

"In the grand scheme of things, yes, we tried to profit by charging more on our loans than we paid on deposits," Philpott said. "But they weren't paying us for deposits, we paid them for deposits."

Lawyers not associated with the case caution observers to avoid jumping to any quick conclusions.

Bankruptcy trustees must pursue any claim or cause of action that could benefit creditors, said Thomas Gerber, a creditor's attorney at Bullivant Houser Bailey in Portland.

"It is his charge to go out and see if he finds anything that is relatively suspicious to him," Gerber said. "You can't put too much emphasis on the result of an interim investigation. ... In the end, the truth will come out in court."

Summit's troubles have their roots in the mid-1990s, when several company owners saw an opportunity to generate more profits from client cash, according to court documents. They founded Inland Capital Corp., which used cash from Summit clients to fund loans — often to Summit owners and affiliates.

Until then, Summit's core business helped investors postpone tax liabilities by investing proceeds from one land sale into the purchase of a new piece of real estate, also known as a 1031 exchange. The company charged $750 for the service.

It earned bank interest on clients' money during the 45-day to 180-day period between the sale of one property and the purchase of another.

The Inland Capital loans added a new source of profits, but also tied up client funds that had to be returned before loans came due. According to Padrick's report, that led Summit to constantly recruit new clients to backfill its funding needs.



The complex case has spawned at least six lawsuits, including two seeking more than $30 million from Umpqua, which entered the picture late in the game.

Attorneys expect only one suit against Umpqua to proceed, as both were filed with the aim of winning a judgment for Summit's creditors, and both make similar legal claims.

Another suit, in which Padrick sought $13 million from Summit's pre-bankruptcy owners, has reached partial settlement. Details of the settlement have not yet been filed in court, but people familiar with the litigation said that the owners did not have a full $13 million.

Padrick is also pursuing claims with insurance companies, which could yield up to $21 million if he is successful.

But according to his report, creditors have made claims of $41.5 million against Summit.

That leaves Umpqua Bank, with $9.2 billion in assets, as Padrick's deepest-pocketed target.

Outside Link: www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/01/25/story8.html?s=industry&b=12643..."

Source of Post
http://www.bullivant.com/Summit-Accommodators-Draws-Umpquas-Ire

Another Link to this Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group Story
http://www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2010/01/25/story8.html?s=industry&b=1264395600^2769061&page=1

Insiders told me, Crystal Cox Investigative Blogger, that they had no idea why Kevin Padrick would sue Umpqua bank, as Umpqua was not the main lender that the Summit Principals used, and it made no sense.  So it seems that, as Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group often seems to do, Kevin Padrick simply sues what he thinks is an easy target to suppress information and get quick money.  If Kevin Padrick could get Umpqua to pay, or their insurance company, then Kevin Padrick would not have to work so hard to go after those who were really more involved, right?  Kevin Padrick seemed to accuse Umpqus Bank of some crimes and indiscretions back then, was that defamation?

Even in my defamation trial, Kevin Padrick claimed that Summit was a "Ponzi Scheme", yet so many others said it was not.  It seemed that Summit had a short fall and not a massive problem until Kevin Padrick got in the middle of it all and made a mess.  While under contract with Summit to help them form a plan of reorganization, Kevin Padrick took meetings with the Creditors Committee, and sure seemed to be plotting and scheming against his own clients, while under contract with them and on their dime.  Yet David Carr of the New York Times, Kashmir Hill of Forbes, Jeff Manning of the Oregonian and Dan Springer of Fox News would have you believe that I am simply making stuff up to ruin the reputation of an innocent man, when the truth is, I was simply telling the story that is already online and adding my "opinion".


More on Kevin Padrick and his Role in the Summit Bankruptcy and  "Others" who have "Issue" with Kevin Padrick, Obsidian Finance Group.

http://www.objectiontofees.com/

http://www.kevinpadrick.com/

More on Kevin Padrick and Umpqua

http://special.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/business/25427041-41/summit-umpqua-bank-lawsuit-padrick.csp  barred from discussing the settlement? Are you kidding, this is a federal bankruptcy, where is the transparency? With this why is what Kevin Padrick made also some sort of sealed record?  A federal judge appointed Kevin Padrick and he seems to answer to now one, why?  Kevin Padrick "alleges" fraud, money laundering, and really this did not happen how he said, and many disagreed there was a ponzi, or even a crisis until Kevin Padrick under contract with the debtor made it a crisis and then created such an issue that the Summit Principals looked guilty of what they were not, it was Kevin Padrick smoke and mirrors and it seems that Kevin Padrick don't lose as it SEEMS that Kevin Padrick controls the Oregon Courts.  Look deep, why can Kevin Padrick "allege" such allegations and its' not defamation and people lose millions on top of millions and go to prison and he has NO Accountability, even though its proven he perjured himself, he even did so at my trial which I will post soon with the posting of my Trial Transcripts.

With all the lawsuits, insurance, liquidation, commissions... WOW, sure seems like Kevin Padrick made Millions on top of Millions and for years.  And how is this legal when it sure seems to me that Summit was not going to go bankrupt, they reached for help, for funding and Kevin Padrick made them promises to help, which is why they hired him, then Kevin Padrick turned on his own clients, there is contracts, there is proof and no one in a position of authority seems to have the nerve to stand up to Kevin Padrick, David Aman, Tonkon Torp, Perkins Coie and Sussman Shank.  Oh Well this will be in court for years, I am filing a Federal Rico Lawsuit and complaints with every agency and when they ignore the documented facts, I will expose who ignores these facts and refuses to investigate, all seemingly to protect an Elite Portland Oregon Attorney Fraternity.

http://www.kval.com/news/local/105268493.html