Free Settlement Agreement - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv—00583-GIVIS Document 87 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR TI-IE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: Chapter li
INACOM CORP., et al., Bankruptcy Case No. 00-2426 (PIW)
Debtors.
INACOM CORP., on behaif of all affiliated Civii Action No. G4-CV-583 (GMS)
debtors,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Defendant.
LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
vs.
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORP., ITY
CORP., and CUSTOM EDGE, INC.,
TI1ird—Pa1‘t Defendants.
I-IEWLET'i`—PACKARD C()MPANY’S RESPONSE TO LEXMARICS
APPLICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
' Lexmark International, Inc. ("LexmarI<") has submitted an application for
the Court to scheduie a settlement conference with the attorneys and representatives of
plaintiff InaCom Corp. (“Inacom”), defendants Lexmark, Deli, Inc. (“Dell”), Ingrani
Entertainment, Inc. (“Ingram"), Tech Data Corporation (“Tech Data"), and third patty
{e02os2n;s.ooc V 1} 1

Case 1:04-cv—00583-Gl\/IS Document 87 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 2 of 3
defendant l~·lewlett—Pacl follows:
l. HP is willing to attend a settlement conference of the third patty actions
tiled by Tech Data and Lexmark.
2. I-IP believes that a settlement conference would be rnost productive if
conducted after the Court enters pretrial orders and rules on the various motions in limine
before the Court, as there are disputes between the parties involving questions of law that
remain unresolved.
3. Hl-‘ disagrees with Lexmark’s and Tech Data’s suggestion that it is
necessary for HP to attend a settlement conference involving lnacomfs preference claims.
As more fully explained in I·lP’s motion for a separate trial, the third party claims brought
by Lexmark and Tech Data are not based on a common nucleus of fact and law with the
preference claims. Including HP in settlement negotiations between lnacom and the
preference defendants, two of whom have not filed any third party claims against HP,
would complicate rather than simplify the negotiations. Furthermore, since HP’s
liability is contingent upon lnacom recovering from Lexmark and Tech Data, holding a
settlement conference of the preference actions first is a more practical approach.
4. Lexmark and Tech Data have suggested that l~lP’s presence is required
because HP is Inacom’s largest unsecured creditor. The estate of lnacom is represented
by its Plan Administrator, who is charged with representing the interests of creditors.
Therefore, HP’s attendance as an individual creditor is unnecessary and inappropriate.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, HP respectfully requests that it be permitted to
attend a settlement conference of only the third party claims.
gonznssvancc V it 2

Case 1:04-cv—00583-G|\/IS Document 87 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 3 of 3
Dated: August&2005
Wilmington, Delaware MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
Willig H.iSude1l, J?. lgo. 463) ’
Derek C. Abbott (No. 3376)
1201 N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 198994347
(302) 658-9200
- -
FRlEDl\/{AN DUMAS & SPRINGWATER LLP
Ellen A. Friedman
Cecily A. Dumas
Gail S. Greenwood
Brandon C. Chaves
One Maritime Piaza, Suite 2475
San Francisco, CA 94i ll
(4l5) 834-3 800
{oezossmnoc v i} 3

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 87

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 87

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 87

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 3 of 3