Free Settlement Agreement - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-00148-GIVIS Document 78 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 1 of 3
TN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
In re: Chapter Il
INACOM CORP., etal., Bankruptcy Case No. 0(L2426 (PJW)
Debtors.
INACOM CORP., on behalf of all affiliated Case No, 04-CV—I48
debtors,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TECH DATA CORPORATION,
Defendant.
TECH DATA CORPORATION,
Third-Party Plaintiff,
vs.
I~lEWLETT—PACKARD COMPANY,
COMPAQ COMPUTER CORP., ITY
CORP., and CUSTOM EDGE, INC.,
Third-Party Defendants.
HEWLETT-PACKARD C()MPANY’S RESPONSE TO TECH 1)A'I`A’S
APPLICATION FOR A SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE
Tech Data Corporation ("Tech Data") and Lexmark International, Inc.
("Lex.rnark") have submitted an application for the Court to schedule a settlement
conference with the attorneys and representatives of plaintiff InaCom Corp. ("Inacom”),
defendants Tech Data, Lexmark, Dell, Inc. ("DeI1"), Ingram Entertainment, Inc.
{uozossvseoc v 1} 1

Case 1:04-cv—00148-G|\/IS Document 78 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 2 of 3
(“Ingra;ni"), and third party defendant Hewlett-Packard Company (“HP"). HP responds
to Lexinark’s and Tech Data’s application as foliows:
1. HP is willing to attend a settlement conference of the third party actions
filed by Tech Data and Lexmark.
2. HP believes that a settlement conference would be most 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. HP disagrees with Lexmark’s and Tech Data’s suggestion that it is
necessary for HP to attend a settlement conference involving lnacom’s preference claims.
As more ittliy explained in HP’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 whorn have not filed any third party claims against HP,
would complicate rather than simpiify the negotiations. Furthermore, since HP’s
liability is contingent upon Inacom recovering from Lexmark and Tech Data, holding a
settlement conference ofthe preference actions first is a more practical approach.
4. Lexmark and Tech Data have suggested that HP’s presence is required
because HP is lnacom’s largest unsecured creditor. The estate of Inacom is represented
by its Plan Administrator, who is charged with representing the interests of creditors.
Therefore, l~iP’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.
goczossntooc V 1} 2

Case 1:04-cv—00148-G|\/IS Document 78 Filed 08/25/2005 Page 3 of 3
Dated: August Qi, 2005
Wilmington, Deiaware MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL
Wiiliarnéilg. égiiell, Jr. (No. 463)
Derek . Abbott (N0- 3376)
120} N. Market Street
Wilmington, DE 19899-1347
(302) 658-9200
~ and —
FRIEDMAN DUMAS & SRRJNGWATER LLP
Ellen A. Friedman
Cecily A. Dumas
Gai} S. Greenwood
Brandon C. Chaves
One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2475
San Francisco, CA 941 ll
(4iS) 834-3800
{oozucsmooc v 1; 3

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 78

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 1 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 78

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 2 of 3

Case 1:04-cv-00148-GMS

Document 78

Filed 08/25/2005

Page 3 of 3