Free MEMORANDUM in Support - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :O4—cv—OO583-GI\/IS Document 54-5 Filed 08/O9/2005 Page 1 of 2 _

STOLLIKEENONISL PARKILLP

2650 AEGON CENTER I 400 WEST MARKET STREET I LOUISVILLE. KENTUCKY 40202·3377
(5021568-9100 PHONE I (502) 588-5700 FAX I WWW.SKP.COM
July 25, 2005 I
By Facsimile By Facsimile
(415) 834-1044 (215) 569-5555
Cecily A. Dumas, Esq. Earl M. Forte, Esq.
Friedman, Dumas & Springwater, LLP Blank Rome LLP .
One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2475 One Logan Square
San Francisco, Califomia 94111 18th & Cherry Street
A Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-6998
InaCom Cog. v. Lexmark International, Inc.
Case No. 1:04-cv-00583-GMS (D. Del. filed June 25, 2004)
Dear Cecily and Earl:
As you know, on July 12 and 13, 2005, a mediation conference was held at the offices of I
the attorneys representing Plaintiff InaCom Corp. ("InaCom") in Los Angeles, California. In
attendance at the conference were representatives of InaCom, Lexmark International, Inc.
(“Lexmark"), Tech Data Corporation (“Tech Data") and Ingram Entertainment Inc. ("Ingram") ‘
and their attorneys. Despite the good faith effort of all participants, the parties were not able to -
reach an agreement or agreements compromising the disputes underlying the preference claim
actions brought by InaCom against Lexmark, Tech Data and Ingram.
Lexmark believes that the chances for the mediation conference concluding in an
agreement or agreements compromising the disputes would have been improved if Dell
Computer Corp. ("Dell"), against which InaCom has also brought a preference claim action, and
Hewlett-Packard Company ("HP"), against which Lexmark and Tech Data have each brought a
third-party complaint, had participated. Unfortunately, InaCom would not agree to Dell
participating, even though it asked to be allowed to do so, and HP, despite repeated requests .
refused to participate.
Lexmark believes that all the parties to the four preference actions brought by InaCom, (_
each of which is set for trial begimring on October 17, 2005, InaCom, Lexmark, Tech Data,
Ingram, Dell and HP, should participate in another mediation conference with Roger M. Whelan
continuing as mediator. Judge Whelan advised the participants at the July 12 and 13, 2005
LEXINGTON I LOUISVILLE I FRANKFORT I HENDERSON

Case 1:O4—cv—OO583-GI\/IS Document 54-5 Filed 08/O9/2005 Page 2 of 2 l A
Cecily A. Dumas, Esq. I
Earl M. Forte, Esq.
July 25, 2005 .
Page 2
mediation conference that he is prepared to resume his efforts at assisting the parties, including ~.
Dell and HP, to reach a compromise agreement or agreements. Obviously, there is more than
sufficient time before the trials are set to begin for a mediation conference to be held. t
Lexmark believes that there is more the parties can do, and that the Court expects the
parties to do, to reach an agreement or agreements that may obviate the need for the Court to try
some or all of the actions. Under the circums . · e if all the parties do not agree to participate,
and do not agree that all the parties may part` ipate, 1 a mediation conference we may move the
Court to direct them to do so.
Sine y,
Culver V. H `day
cc: Andrew W. Caine, Esq. (by U.S. mail) (
Jonathan P. Hersey, Esq. (by U.S. mail)
Sabrina L. Streusand, Esq. (by U.S. mail)
Charles M. Tatelbaum, Esq. (by U.S. mail)
X:\Ba.nkruptcy\Lexmark - 4l55\Inacom - 1l1997\CVH\07.25.05 Dumas & Forte Ltr.doc

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 54-5

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 1 of 2

Case 1:04-cv-00583-GMS

Document 54-5

Filed 08/09/2005

Page 2 of 2