Jeanette:
Apparently the folks at Obsidian and Tonkon Torp do not fully understand my position. You may have to explain it to them once again.
I will not deal directly with either of them on any of the property issues due to their use of documented untruths in executing what Obsidian and Tonkon Torp are supposed to be doing in the Summit case. I will not aid and abet them in efforts to hurt innocent people that have been sucked into the Summit bankruptcy. I also will not deal directly with them because they have shown that they will twist anything the principals say to trump up the Summit situation in an effort to bolster the profits of their own company/firm.
I don’t believe it is in the best interests of myself and neither is it in the best interests of the creditors to continue do this as Obsidian and Tonkon Torp rape the bankruptcy estate of the creditors’ cash with little gain as they torture innocent parties.
I don’t believe it is in the best interests of myself and neither is it in the best interests of the creditors to continue do this as Obsidian and Tonkon Torp rape the bankruptcy estate of the creditors’ cash with little gain as they torture innocent parties.
I think I’ve made this very clear, yet (as you can see below) Tonkon Torp keeps attempting to deal with me directly on such property matters. Tonkon does this despite the fact that Mr. Padrick said he would not have any further communications with me “under any circumstances”.
An additional little tidbit, if I remember correctly, Mr. Vanden Bos told me that was Leon Simson’s position as well. I will have to check with Mr. Vanden Bos for verification on that. I know your advice was “We still believe that it is still best to communicate directly with either someone at Tonkon or at Obsidian.” Unfortunately, you are not my advisor or legal counsel.
An additional little tidbit, if I remember correctly, Mr. Vanden Bos told me that was Leon Simson’s position as well. I will have to check with Mr. Vanden Bos for verification on that. I know your advice was “We still believe that it is still best to communicate directly with either someone at Tonkon or at Obsidian.” Unfortunately, you are not my advisor or legal counsel.
As per my previous two emails, I suggested that all communications from me in regard to Obsidian’s work would need to go through you so that the creditors were fully aware of the truth regarding my communications or actions with Obsidian or Tonkon Torp.
Since you will no longer be involved in the bankruptcy, it will now need to be some other party that is completely neutral. As soon as we can agree on a neutral party that will be acceptable to both sides, I will be happy to help with what is needed. Until then, please tell Mr. Simson not to contact me in regard to this issue again.
Since you will no longer be involved in the bankruptcy, it will now need to be some other party that is completely neutral. As soon as we can agree on a neutral party that will be acceptable to both sides, I will be happy to help with what is needed. Until then, please tell Mr. Simson not to contact me in regard to this issue again.
I also find it interesting that you didn’t deny that there was any deceit or harm, you just said that you believe that “no deceit or harm was intended”. Is that how you always explain it when you stumble over your own deceit and harm in the lawyer business? Just curious.
Sincerely,
Mark A. Neuman
PS- It’s fascinating that you are now laying blame on the principals’ individual bankruptcy attorneys as the reason for the delay in the case. You state “Although we circulated documents for review, we did not receive timely responses or comments”. I can’t blame you for doing everything to deflect blame from Perkins Coie and the other attorneys that were involved in this. However, let me help jog your memory Jeanette.
1) The principals’ bankruptcy attorneys waited for weeks for the debtor (Summit) or the creditors committee to provide a proposed structure. During that period the principals were looking for ways to get the property transferred. There is overwhelming evidence of this. But we were told that no transfer could occur until the “structure” was worked out.
2) On the afternoon of February 19th, we finally received the “structure” documents. There was a hearing on the morning of the 20th and we were told that Mr. Padrick demanded the documents be signed before the hearing. This was the demand, even knowing full well that my individual bankruptcy attorney was gone on vacation. No, they weren’t signed on the 20th because no attorneys had the proper amount of time to review the documents. Tell me Jeanette, would you allow your client to sign something of that magnitude with less than 24 hours to review it? You know the answer!
3) A new hearing was scheduled for a week later and to give time for all four attorneys to review. Again, they had much less time to review than the weeks on end Perkins Coie took to come up with a “structure”. The “structure” did not address any of the LLC issues, due on sale clause issues, loan default issues and innocent party issues that Mr. Padrick said he would be addressing in a meeting held February 12th with the principals.
4) There was not enough time to get agreement by the new hearing date of February 26th, so Judge Dunn rescheduled the hearing for March 5th and on and on.
I remember getting documents from you with:
1) all or almost all of the suggested changes deleted
2) new language that was very detrimental to the innocent parties
3) documents with no redlines making it near impossible to figure out what changes had been made
4) a demand for signatures for a scheduled hearing the following day.
You think Perkins Coie was doing its part to get things settled timely in the best interest for the creditors (before legal fees got out of hand)? You answer.
Attached is an email I sent to Kevin Padrick on February 22nd after review of the documents. Since the documents weren’t addressing many issues that were critical to retaining value for the creditors, I made suggestions that I though would be helpful. In a telephone conversation with Kevin Padrick a week later, he stated that the suggestions were wonderful (especially the three tranches of assets idea).
But he claimed he had just received the email and it was just too late to do anything with those ideas. Another untruth. Of course the email record shows exactly when it was sent and it was obviously not too late.
But he claimed he had just received the email and it was just too late to do anything with those ideas. Another untruth. Of course the email record shows exactly when it was sent and it was obviously not too late.
Isn’t it a wonder that it is almost impossible for anyone to recognize any cooperation whatsoever from Perkins Coie, Kevin Padrick/Obsidian or Tonkon Torp? Why would they have no interest in working through cooperative efforts for the benefit of the creditors? I suggest that the outrageous fee applications to the bankruptcy court might explain all that. The lack of cooperation continues as Obsidian and Tonkon Torp try to hammer innocent parties into the ground. It certainly isn’t very productive as the values of real estate, especially in Bend, continue the downward spiral. All the delay continues the injury to the creditors. Your firm is supposed to fight for the creditors’ best interests. Don’t you think that you have some culpability in the shrinkage of the bankruptcy estate assets? I’ll leave that for you to ponder.
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Leon Simson <leon.simson@tonkon.com>
Date: Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 2:32 PM
Subject: RE: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
To: “Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie)” JThomas@perkinscoie.com
Mr. Neuman,
As far as I know, you have never signed the consent that would authorize Chase to speak directly with Obsidian to ascertain the precise amount of the debt. Please correct me if I am wrong. This information is important to facilitate the successful marketing of the house. Will you sign the consent? Thanks.
Leon Simson | Tonkon Torp LLP
1600 Pioneer Tower | 888 S.W. Fifth Avenue
Portland, Oregon 97204
503.802.2067| FAX 503.972.3767
——————————————————————————–
From: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie) mailto:JThomas@perkinscoie.com
Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 2:35 PM
To: Mark Neuman
Subject: RE: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Mr. Neuman,
We understand your frustration at this situation but believe that no deceit or harm was intended. In our experience, the attorneys at Tonkon have always been very professional and trustworthy. Our experience with Obsidian has been the same.
We still believe that it is still best to communicate directly with either someone at Tonkon or at Obsidian. Under the plan, the Committee only stays in place until all fee application objections have been resolved. We think that we will have all our fee application objections resolved by week’s end, in which case our client actually disappears and our work on behalf of the Committee ends. Please feel free to confirm this fact with one of the attorneys for the other shareholders. It is contained in Section 13.11 of the Plan. We suggest that you direct your communications directly to Leon Simson. He has been copied on this email and his email address is leon.simson@tonkon.com
With regards to the comments on the turnover of assets, as the lawyers who were involved well know, we were unable to reach agreement on the terms of the documents and the scope of the transfer. We were not involved in the case until January 9th, so we don’t know the reason for the initial delay. After the committee was formed and we became involved the delay in part was caused by the schedules of your and the other shareholders’ attorneys.
Although we circulated documents for review, we did not receive timely responses or comments. Ultimately we understood that your lawyer and the other shareholders’ attorneys refused to advise any of you to turn over the assets because of the threat of legal action that had been made against you and them. As a result, it was necessary for the estate to bring legal action against you and the other shareholders.
All of that is now water under the bridge. The transfer has occurred and Obsidian and Kevin Padrick are currently in the process of liquidating these properties for the benefit of the estate and the exchange creditors. We would hope that you will provide the necessary assistance to maximize the value to the creditors.
Regards,
Jeanette
Jeanette L. Thomas | Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
(: 503.727.2075
7: 503.346.2075
——————————————————————————–
From: Mark Neuman
Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 2:01 PM
To: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie)
Subject: Re: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Jeanette:
As you can see from Mr. Rose’s email response below, David Petersen’s referral to “following up on e-mail correspondence you received from Ewan Rose at Obsidian Finance Group” was just another untruth. It may seem small, but there is overwhelming evidence that shows that Obsidian and Tonkon Torp do everyday business in this way. It apparently is easier to use deceit to get business done, under cover of bankruptcy law, instead of having an ethical approach to doing bankruptcy work. I hope your firm does not engage in such tactics.
Mr. Rose suggests, as you do, that I work directly with him. The suggestion only comes when Obsidian needs something from me. When anyone needs something from Mr. Rose, the principals or any of the 106 other innocent parties, Mr. Rose and the other folks at Obsidian either don’t respond or use deceit, threats,intimidation or just plain ignore the requests in order to make these people go away.
I have had no contact with Obsidian since Mr. Padrick proclaimed that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances” with the exception of letting Mr. Rose know that the Macalpine house had been vacated, cleaned and ready for Obsidian. Do you think it was in the best interests of creditors for Mr. Padrick to decide that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances”? I’ll let you and the creditors answer that. I doubt it is a position he should have taken as trustee.
I have had no contact with Obsidian since Mr. Padrick proclaimed that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances” with the exception of letting Mr. Rose know that the Macalpine house had been vacated, cleaned and ready for Obsidian. Do you think it was in the best interests of creditors for Mr. Padrick to decide that he would not be communicating with me “under any circumstances”? I’ll let you and the creditors answer that. I doubt it is a position he should have taken as trustee.
So we have a problem. There is no working relationship because of the disrespect and the continuous flow of untruths coming from Obsidian and its counsel. I am fully willing to cooperate, but you will need to be the person that I cooperate with or you’ll simply have to find someone else that is acceptable to me. There is no value to Obsidian/Tonkon Torp working with me or me working with Obsidian/Tonkon Torp at this point in regard to any of the property. They simply misrepresent the truth on any of my actions and I personally cannot afford that.
As a sidebar, please note that the principals wanted to hand over all of this real estate since December. I told Susan Ford at Sussman Shank that I personally wanted to start transferring some property in January. She said that wasn’t possible at that time. Really? So as Sussman, Obsidian and your firm racked up the legal fees, it took months to get the property transferred. That all meant a delay in getting the properties listed and sold for the benefit of the creditors.
Even more salt in the wound for the creditors and the principals, the real estate market continued the downward spiral during this wasted time. Now Obsidian is working hard to try to save these properties from foreclosure. Don’t you think it would’ve been in the creditors’ best interest to have put your efforts into getting the property transferred and listed quickly instead of using your legal expertise to do everything to delay the transfer? Just a sidebar for you to consider.
Even more salt in the wound for the creditors and the principals, the real estate market continued the downward spiral during this wasted time. Now Obsidian is working hard to try to save these properties from foreclosure. Don’t you think it would’ve been in the creditors’ best interest to have put your efforts into getting the property transferred and listed quickly instead of using your legal expertise to do everything to delay the transfer? Just a sidebar for you to consider.
Since you are the counsel for the creditors, I know that you’ll find a way to resolve this since it is in their best interest to have a party that knows how to be eithical and can work with mutual trust for the benefit of the creditors. I will wait for your further input.
Mark Neuman
On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:40 AM, Ewan Rose <erose@obsidianfinance.com> wrote:
Mark:
Dave Petersen’s statement in his email that I had previously sent an email to you regarding the Chase loan on your MacAlpine Loop house was incorrect — I don’t believe we’ve had any prior correspondence with you on this matter. Could you please execute the attachment to Dave’s letter and return it to us?
As to future communication, I agree with Jeanette that you should either direct communications to Obsidian or to David Aman and Leon Simson at Tonkon Torp.
Thank you,
Ewan
Ewan W. Rose
Obsidian Finance Group, LLC
10260 SW Greenburg Road Suite 1150
Portland, Oregon 97223
503.488.6149 Work
503.679.5568 Cell
503.245.8804 Fax
erose@obsidianfinance.com
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message may contain confidential and privileged information. If you receive this message by mistake, please notify us immediately by replying to this message or telephoning us, and do not review, disclose, copy, or distribute it. Thank you.
—–Original Message—–
From: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie) [mailto:JThomas@perkinscoie.com]
Sent: Wed 7/29/2009 6:02 PM
To: Mark Neuman
Subject: RE: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Mr. Neuman,
Thank you for your email. Unfortunately I cannot produce the requested emails because I do not have them. Ewan Rose generally only copies me on matters that I am directly involved in. We are not copied on correspondence relating to asset disposition issues.
As I stated in my prior email, we think that in order to maximize the value of the assets for the benefit of creditors, it is important that you communicate directly with Obsidian rather than communicating through me, as counsel to the committee. If this is unacceptable, at the very least it would be more appropriate to communicate directly with either Leon Simson or David Aman at Tonkon Torp, as they are counsel to Kevin Padrick.
Regards,
Jeanette
Jeanette L. Thomas | Perkins Coie LLP
1120 N.W. Couch Street
Tenth Floor
Portland, OR 97209-4128
(: 503.727.2075
7: 503.346.2075
________________________________
From: Mark Neuman
Sent: Wednesday, July 29, 2009 5:55 PM
To: Thomas, Jeanette L. (Perkins Coie)
Subject: Fwd: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
Jeanette:
Please produce the email Mr. Rose alleges he sent to me.
Mark
———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Rita Bell <rita.bell@tonkon.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 29, 2009 at 12:12 PM
Subject: 18875 MacAlpine Loop, Bend, Oregon
To: Mark Neuman
Cc: Ryan Norwood, David Petersen <david.petersen@tonkon.com>, David Aman <david.aman@tonkon.com>
Mr. Neuman,
Please see the attached letter with attachment. “Click Here for Attachment”
Thank you,
Rita Bell
Legal Assistant to David Petersen"
Source of Quote
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
