Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware


File Size: 113.1 kB
Pages: 4
Date: December 31, 1969
File Format: PDF
State: Delaware
Category: District Court of Delaware
Author: unknown
Word Count: 809 Words, 4,819 Characters
Page Size: Letter (8 1/2" x 11")
URL

https://www.findforms.com/pdf_files/ded/7935/95-2.pdf

Download Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware ( 113.1 kB)


Preview Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware
`" V `H2‘~ YS!
Case 1:04—cv—00583-GI\/IS Document 95-2 Filed 08/29/2005 Pag@bo I-(
,&_§& .
{Lai l UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
2 CASE NO. O4·CV—583
3
A DEPOSITION OF KEVIN SARKISIAN
4 f
INACOM CORP. on behalf of all PLAINTIFF
6 affiliated debtors
7 v.
8 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC. DEFENDANT
9 LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.‘ THIRD—PARTY
g PLAINTIFF _
10 v.
ll COMPAQ COMPUTER CORP., ITY CORP., THIRD—PARTY
p and CUSTOM EDGE, INC. DEFENDANTS
tg s_ 12
( V 13 The deposition of KEVIN SARKISIAN was taken on
_ 14 behalf of the plaintiff, Inacom Corporation, before Ann
15 Hutchison, Registered Professional Reporter and Notary
16 Public in and for the State of Kentucky at Large, at the
17 law office of Stoll, Keenon & Park, 300 West Vine
18 Street, Suite 2100, Lexington, Kentucky, on Wednesday,
19 February 9, 2005, beginning at the hour of 9:48 a.m.
20 Said deposition was taken pursuant to Rule 30 of the
21 Federal Rules of Procedure and Rule 7030 of the Federal
22 Bankruptcy Procedure.
23

#@7w 24 ACTION COURT REPORTERS
{”M%' 184 North Mill Street
~ 25 Lexington, Kentucky 40507
(859) 252-4004

Case 1:04—cv—00583-GI\/IS Document 95-2 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 2 of 4
(V 1 APPEARANCES
2
3 COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF INACOM CORPORATION:
4 Jeffrey P. Nolan
Pachulski, Stang, Ziehl, Young & Jones
5 10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 11th Floor
Los Angeles, California 90067-4100
6
1 7 COUNSEL FOR THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANT COMPAQ:
8 Cecily A. Dumas
Friedman, Dumas & Springwater, LLP
9 One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2475
` San Francisco, California 94111
10
11 COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT AND THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.:
12
~ Culver V. Halliday
( 13 Stoll, Keenon & Park, LLP
2650 Aegon Center
14 400 West Market Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202-3377
15
. 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
1 25
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 2

Case 1:04—cv—00583-GI\/IS Document 95-2 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 3 of 4
(U 1 would it be annual reviews were always within a period
2 of four months because of, you know, other things that
3 were going on in the company, or could they be spread
4 across the 12 months?
5 A. They could be spread across the 12 months.
6 Q. And you don’t know when the annual review
7 was for Inacom?
8 A. I do not recall, no.
9 Q. What type of analysis would you do as part
10 of an annual review?
11 A. We would look at financial statements, do
12 various ratio analysis, trend analysis, both on income
(T 13 statement balance sheet and statement cash flows. We
14 would look at how that customer was paying us according
15 to their terms and also gauge how they were paying other
16 vendors based on credit report that was typically pulled
17 through Dunn & Bradstreet. And we would look at that
18 set of numbers and make a determination on credit limit.
19 Q. And do you recall in 1999 as far as`Inacom
20 relative to other customers of Lexmark where they fell
21 in the parameters of being a large customer or small
22 customer?
23 A. They were a large customer.
24 Q. Were they in the top five customers of
( 25 Lexmark?
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 24

Case 1 :04—cv—00583-GI\/IS Document 95-2 Filed 08/29/2005 Page 4 of 4
( 1 Q. Okay. Was that documentation that was put
2 together referred to by a name?
3 A. Not in particular, other than credit
. 4 review information, I guess you could say.
5 Q. How was the annual review of customers
6 conducted? Was it at a meeting?
7 A. ·We could pull queries out of our system to
8 determine when the last review was done, and a date
-9 was -— is put into our system. And then the analyst can
10 pull a monthly report to show them the reviews that are
11 due for that month, which would be the ones that were
12 done 12 months ago, or they might —— they would work —-
CQ 13 in November they would want to be pulling that report to
14 know what was going to be due in December. And then
15 based on that query, they would start performing the
16 reviews for December on December lst.
17 Q. Was the review, the actual review itself,
18 did it —— was it reflected in a written report?
19 A. There is a cover sheet and then behind
20 that there's analysis, financial statement analysis, and
21 credit report, Dunn & Bradstreet credit report, and also
22 a payment history for Lexmark that our system generates.
23 Q. And these are all collected in one place
24 for the annual review?
( 25 A. Correct.
ACTION COURT REPORTERS 83

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 95-2

Filed 08/29/2005

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 95-2

Filed 08/29/2005

Page 2 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 95-2

Filed 08/29/2005

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 95-2

Filed 08/29/2005

Page 4 of 4