Free Response to Motion - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

1 Case 1:04—cv—00148-GI\/IS Document 82-8 Filed 08/26/2005 Page1 of3
GOPV 1
’j UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: INACOM CORP., et al., I I
V ———-——————————————————————-———-———— X ‘] ,
INACOM CORP., on behalf of all _ .
affiliated Debtors, Civ Act No. _
Plaintiff, 04-l48 GMS. ` .
—against- Adversary No. -
TECH DATA CORP., 02-03496 PJW
Defendant. _
—-————————————————————————————————— X
INACOM CORP., on behalf of all
affiliated Debtors, Civ Act No.
Plaintiff, 04-582 GMS
-against- Adversary No.
DELL COMPUTER CORPORATION, 02-03499 PJW
. »Defendant.
—‘‘‘‘‘—‘‘——‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘——‘‘—`‘—"‘_‘"‘*‘ X .
INACOM CORP., on behalf of all
affiliated Debtors, Civ Act No.
W Plaintiff, 04-583 GMS
-against- Adversary No . _ .
\W/ LEXMARK INTERNATIONAL, INC., 02-03500 PJW
Defendant.
——————— ·- —————————-————————————————— X
INACOM CORP., on behalf of all
affiliated Debtors, Civ Act No.
_ Plaintiff, 04-593 GMS
—against- Adversary No.
INGRAM ENTERTAINMENT, INC., 02-03960 PJW
successor in interest to
NASHVILLE COMPUTER LIQUIDATORS,
Defendant.
———————————————————-—————--———————— X
July 28, 2005 l
5:l9 p.m.
Deposition of RICHARD A. WHALEN
rdip Vm.%,lw_ ..._
\ __ J _ ;Q;j.·.X i
» Computer Reportnng Incorporated . ·—°.
`
501 Fifth Avcnuc New York, NY 10017
i (212) 986-1344 Fax (212) 983-9149 www.c;rinyc.com

Case 1:04—cv—00148-GI\/IS Document 82-8 Filed 08/26/2005 Page20f3
44
l R. Whalen
X 2 get information that was reasonable knowledge by a
E? 3 willing buyer as of the valuation date, and you
4 should endeavor to get as much information as they
l8M953 5 can, but things that are put out there, published,
6 become public or become available after the
7 valuation date, you can't use, you can't consider ·
8 them, unless you pick a new valuation date.
9 Q. Let's say hypothetically you have a
isnois l0 valuation date of June 30?
ll A. Okay.
l2 Q. And the most recent projection you
l3 have in order to perform your analysis, have beenv
• l4 completed on January lst, and those projections
l&l&40 l5 relied on actual data prior to January lst?
l6 A. And the thinking on January lst.
l7 Q. Right.
l8 MR. POWELL: Which January lst?
l9 MR. CAINE: Of the same year.
imiowz 20 THE WITNESS: Before. i
2l Q. You would use those January lst
22 projections in preparing your valuation as of June
23 30?
24 A. Yes, or what I would try and do is
l&lL03 25 update those projections, make sure they are
I
GMHWTMRMHURHNGHWZ
(21Z)986Ql344

Case 1:04—cv—00148-GI\/IS Document 82-8 Filed 08/26/2005 Page 3 of 3
1 R. whaien
Q I _;_._ 2 Blackstone report. Would it be appropriate to
Nj Mw 3 consider the information in the Blackstone report?
U* 4 A. You don't need it, you already have
W iswxmz 5 it. You mean that particular balance sheet and
2 6 those balances, current assets, $l0, fixed assets,
7 $12.
W 8 Q. There may be additional data
j 9 underlying the balance sheet that's contained in
j l8£853 l0 the Blackstone report that you don't see in the
? ll balance?
@ l2 A. I suppose if it is factual data that
E l3 was around on the valuation date, then I'm
Q gz? · l4 thinking no matter where it comes from, you should
Q QISNQNG l5 consider it. There is a difference between
l6 creating a report with all the judgment that goes
l7 into it, and the thinking cap on in May of 2000,
l8 which is different than perhaps a thinking cap in
. l9 April, or March, or February. The difference
gg l8M9£6 20 between assertions made in a report and financial
jg 2l statement data on a page. Maybe that's where we
jg 22 are diverging here.
gy 23 Q. We are not, I'm just trying to
lj 24 understand your opinion.
jj l8N9M2 25 A. I think in general wherever you can
@
° cvmwunmlwwoknwcnwz
(212) 986-1344

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 82-8

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 82-8

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 82-8

Filed 08/26/2005

Page 3 of 3