Did M. Vivienne Popperl of the U.S. Trustees Office really look at the Trustee Appointment Objectively. I say she did not.

M. Vivienne Popperl is the attorney to the US Trustee's office, we can hear her loud and clear in the February 11th hearing audio. M. Vivienne Popperl seems to be all for Obsidian, and she filed an oral motion for a trustee, and seemed to be voicing concern over this appointment, however M. Vivienne Popperl sure seemed to give in easily. Even though M. Vivienne Popperl knew the conflicts of interest that appointing Obsidian Finance Group brought to the bankruptcy. M. Vivienne Popperl knew the costs to the creditors, investors would be outrageous. M. Vivienne Popperl knew that Terry Vance as CRO, was doing a good job and with the objections, emails, concerns of insiders, it is obvious that M. Vivienne Popperl knew there was plenty of reasons to NOT appoint a trustee. So why did M. Vivienne Popperl appoint a U.S. Trustee, and why appoint what sure looked like an insider?

Did M. Vivienne Popperl take not of Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung's concern in the hearing and via emails over all this? Or did M. Vivienne Popperl just ignore Stephanie DeYoung, though she was a victim, a creditor in all this? Yes she is the daughter of one of the principals, however that does not mean she is lying or has motive to do such. She was a creditor and she to wanted paid.

 Below is email correspondence between
M. Vivienne Popperl and Stephanie Studebaker DeYoung.

"Original Message-----
From: Popperl, Vivienne (USTP) [mailto:M.Vivienne.Popperl@usdoj.gov]
Sent: Friday, February 13, 2009 8:11 AM

To: Stephanie Studebaker
Subject: RE: Meeting with Kevin Padrick and Principals

Stephanie, thank you for your message. We will be sure to take the
issues you raise into consideration.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stephanie Studebaker [mailto:stephanie@tylerstudebaker.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2009 11:37 PM
To: Popperl, Vivienne (USTP)

Subject: Meeting with Kevin Padrick and Principals

Hello Vivienne,

I am sorry to have missed your phone call today. I feel I have a
responsibility to report back to you about the meeting I told you we
were going to have with Kevin.

The meeting began with a feeling of huge distrust between the principals
in this case and Obsidian. I am not sure how much you know, so I will
briefly describe the situation as I saw it.

Obsidian was referred to Lane Lyons by a man named Bill Smith, colleague
of the principals.

 Kevin gave the principals a sales presentation. 
The principals asked Susan Ford about hiring Obsidian. She expressed that
it might be a good idea. Terry said he could work with Obsidian. All
agreed to contact them with the understanding that they were working
for Summit. 

Principals turned over as much information as possible to
Obsidian at that time. Obsidian was supposed to get back to Summit the
first week of January. No such plan was ever presented to Summit.
Prior to today, the principals of Summit have not seen or heard from
Kevin since his sales presentation and have not seen or heard from his
colleagues since soon after they left with the information.

Kevin expressed that they have been working on this since day one.

 He said they have been stopping and going at the direction of Summit
attorneys and the creditors committee. He said they tried to move
forward with their work, but were stopped immediately by Summit
attorneys.

 Kevin expressed that since then they have been asked to do
work and asked to stop on several occasions. We are not sure whose
direction exactly he has been under, but it has not been the principals
or Terry Vance.

Kevin spoke with Summit attorneys and the creditors
committee. Kevin said that unless otherwise directed, he is supposed to
speak with Summit's attorneys and this is why they did not communicate
with the principals.

The communication today was good, but the principals were not able to
see the presentation and still do not have an understanding of
Obsidian's plan. 
The principals did provide Kevin with the start of the
spreadsheet that is used in the presentation. Kevin told us that he has
expanded on that. However, we ran out of time today to see their plan
and spreadsheet. I am going to email Kevin to request a copy of the
updated spreadsheet for the principals to review.

Judge Dunn said that I could express the concerns and/or questions to
you. They are as follows...

1.
 A small number of entities/properties the principals have interests
in may have negative results to the value if they are assigned carte
blanch.

 Kevin says he has the same concerns and has repeatedly told the
creditors and other attorneys involved that there are some issues.
Assignment will put creditors at risk of losing a portion or all of the
value.

 Additionally, assignment will also put innocent partners at risk
of losing a portion of or all of their investments in those
entities/properties and possibly open it up to additional costly
litigation. The principals want the trustee, whomever it is, to find
solutions to these issues.

They are willing to enter into agreements to
secure those interests for the creditors in a way that doesn't put the
investment at peril for the creditors and innocent partners.

2.
There are properties the principals believe have no equity value
above and beyond the third party debt for which the loan was obtained
100% by an innocent partner in the property.

 The innocent partners are agreeing to take over payments (and have been making payments for the
last couple months) to keep them out of foreclosure, but they either want the principals' interest deeded to them or a guarantee that a third party (trustee) will approve a sale if they can find a buyer. The
motivation of the innocent partners is only to protect their own credit.

The principals don't want to injure these other partners more than they
already have. If it is determined that there is no value and the
trustee is unwilling to make the principals share of the payments, move
forward, and allow a transfer of these properties to give the innocent
partners a chance to save their credit.

The principals would like a timely assessment of these properties and decisions so that these
partners can move on and minimal energy is spent on properties that will not bring value to the creditors.

3.
The principals think they can bring value to the liquidation of the
assets. They would like to have an ear to address their concerns.

Possibly an advisory board consisting of the trustee and folks from the
creditors committee for which discussion would be limited just to
matters of liquidating property to the maximum benefit of the creditors.

4.
The principals would like to keep costs down as would everyone else.
Kevin said that if he is named trustee, he will receive 1% of the money
they receive, but he will be able to contract his company at an hourly
rate to do the work.

We are still not sure what that cost would be, but
how is this monitored when the same person acting as trustee is also in
the position to profit from the contract.

There was some dislike between Terry Vance and Kevin Padrick. Nobody
knows what this is about. However, Terry Vance has been working very
hard to understand the matter and make things happen, but his hands have
been tied. He told us today that he was willing to put his name in as
trustee. The principals are comfortable with the communication and
assistance they have received from Terry.

The principals believe that Obsidian could be the right company to help get money to the creditors
quickly. Obsidian also has the blessing of the creditors committee. It was my impression the court and the creditors would like this resolved as soon as possible. Terry Vance has the best on hand knowledge of the
matter.

Kevin Padrick seems like he could be the most experienced person with matters that have such complexities.  It seems like the attorneys may be causing a clog in the system. Both Terry Vance and Kevin Padrick have been on since the very beginning.

 It was my impression that Judge Dunn and others in the courtroom respected both
individuals. I believe that the dislike between the men has occurred
due to lack of communication.

If the court were to name Terry Vance as trustee and Terry would contract to work with Obsidian at the direction of the court, I think this issue would be resolved because there would be a direct line of communication. This would lead to a spirit of cooperation between all parties and with a spirit of cooperation there is the most likely chance that the creditors will receive the most money in the quickest fashion.

 My concern with another trustee is that they
would need to start over gaining the knowledge and trust Terry Vance has
already gained with the principals. The principals want to move on and
make progress. They are frustrated with the lack of progress.

On a personal note, I have seen these principals go above and beyond to
help with this situation with no monetary reward. They are all very
good men who mean well. The issues faced by Summit do not change the
fact that these men, especially my dad, are men of integrity. They care
deeply for their family, community, friends, employees, partners
(innocent parties) and clients (the exchangers). It is with great
conviction that I say to you that you will find them to be your ally in
resolving these issues. The principals will do their best to make it
right because that is who they are.

Thank you very much for your time,
Stephanie Studebaker "