Free Verdict Sheet - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-00593-GMS

Document 46

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re INACOM CORP., et al., Debtors. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INACOM CORP., on behalf of all affiliated Debtors, Plaintiffs, v. INGRAM ENTERTAINMENT INC., as successor in interest to NASHVILLE COMPUTER LIQUIDATORS, L.P., Defendant.

Civil Action No. 04-593 (GMS)

DEFENDANT INGRAM ENTERTAINMENT INC.'S PROPOSED VERDICT FORM Defendant Ingram Entertainment Inc. ("Ingram"), pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49, D. Del. LR 51.1 and the Court's Scheduling Order, files the attached proposed verdict form in triplicate and on diskette.

DATED: August 15, 2005 By: /s/ Thomas G. Macauley______ Thomas G. Macauley (ID No. 3411) ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP 919 Market Street, Suite 990 P.O. Box 1028 Wilmington, Delaware 19899-1028 Tel.: (302) 427-0400 Fax: (302) 427-8242 -and-1-

Case 1:04-cv-00593-GMS

Document 46

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 2 of 4

Jonathan P. Hersey (CA Bar No. 189240) Scott B. Lieberman (CA Bar No. 208764) SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP 650 Town Center Drive, 4th Floor Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Telephone: (714) 513-5100 Facsimile: (714) 513-5130 Attorneys for Defendant INGRAM ENTERTAINMENT INC., as successor in interest to NASHVILLE COMPUTER LIQUIDATORS, L.P.

-2-

Case 1:04-cv-00593-GMS

Document 46

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 3 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE In re INACOM CORP., et al., Debtors. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

INACOM CORP., on behalf of all affiliated Debtors, Plaintiffs, v. INGRAM ENTERTAINMENT INC., as successor in interest to NASHVILLE COMPUTER LIQUIDATORS, LP, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 04-593 (GMS)

VERDICT FORM We, the jury in this action, unanimously find the following: QUESTION NO. 1 Did Plaintiff prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Inacom was insolvent at the time of each of the transfers to Nashville Computer Liquidators (predecessor to Ingram Entertainment Inc.)? Answer "Yes" or "No": ______________________

If your answer to Question No. 1 is "Yes," then please proceed to answer Question No. 2. If your answer to Question No. 1 is "No," skip all remaining questions and date and sign this Verdict Form. QUESTION NO. 2 Did Defendant prove by a preponderance of the evidence that all the transfers to Nashville Computer Liquidators were made in the ordinary course of business between the parties and according to ordinary business terms in the industry? Answer "Yes" or "No": ______________________ -3-

Case 1:04-cv-00593-GMS

Document 46

Filed 08/15/2005

Page 4 of 4

If your answer to Question No. 2 is "Yes," skip all remaining questions and date and sign this Verdict Form. If your answer to Question No. 2 is "No," then please proceed to answer Question No. 3. QUESTION NO. 3 Of the total $1,109,086 of transfers made by Inacom to Nashville Computer Liquidators during the preference period transfer, what amount of transfers was not made in the ordinary course of business between the parties and according to ordinary business terms in the industry? Answer in Dollars: $______________________

Please proceed to Question No. 4. QUESTION NO. 4 Did Defendant prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Nashville Computer Liquidators provided new value to Plaintiff subsequent to the time of the transfers made by Inacom to Nashville Computer Liquidators? Answer "Yes" or "No": ______________________

If your answer to Question No. 4 is "Yes," please proceed to answer Question No. 5. If your answer to Question No. 4 is "No," then please skip Question No. 5 and date and sign this Verdict Form. QUESTION NO. 5 How much subsequent new value, in dollars, did Nashville Computer Liquidators provide to Plaintiff? Answer in Dollars: $______________________

Dated: _______________. _______________________________ Jury Foreperson
W02-OC:3JPH1\41400671.1

-4-