pleted. Nor is it possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of any obligation that the Company may have with respect to “Site 36.” The Company has notified its insurers of this potential liability. 

## Other Proceedings 

On January 8, 2010, a lawsuit related to the acquisition of Merrimac was filed in the Superior Court of the State of New Jersey. The action, brought by a purported stockholder of Merrimac, names Merrimac, each of Merrimac’s directors, and Crane Co. as defend- ants, and alleges, among other things, breaches of fiduciary duties by the Merrimac directors, aided and abetted by Crane Co., that resulted in the payment to Merrimac stockholders of an allegedly unfair price of $16.00 per share in the acquisition and unjust enrichment of Merrimac’s directors. The complaint seeks certification as a class of all Merrimac stock- holders, except the defendants and their affiliates, and unspecified damages. Simultaneously with the filing of the complaint, the plaintiff filed a motion that sought to enjoin the transaction from proceeding. After a hearing on January 14, 2010, the court denied the plaintiff’s motion. All defendants thereafter filed motions seeking dismissal of the complaint on various grounds. After a hearing on March 19, 2010, the court denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and ordered the case to proceed to pretrial dis- covery. All defendants have filed their answers and deny any liability. The Court certified the class, and the parties engaged in pre-trial discovery. Fact discovery closed in July 2012, and expert discovery, including the exchange of expert reports and depositions of expert witnesses, closed on November 30, 2012. Summary judgment motions were due to be submitted on or before Jan- uary 15, 2013. However, on December 26, 2012, plaintiff’s counsel proposed a settlement figure that was substantially less than had previously been proposed. This led to negotiations which culmi- nated, on January 11, 2013, in an agreement, in principle, to resolve the case on the following terms, which are subject to Court appro- val. In consideration of the establishment of a settlement fund in the amount of $2 million, to be funded almost entirely from the insurance policy covering the former officers and directors of Merrimac, and with a single contribution of $150,000 by Crane Co., the plaintiffs agreed (1) to withdraw the single claim asserted in the Complaint against Crane Co., (2) that all plaintiff’s attorney’s fees and expenses associated with the case will come from the settle- ment amount, and (3) that all costs of notification of the settlement to the members of the class, costs related to the distribution of pro rata amounts to class members, and any other administrative costs, will also come from the settlement amount. In addition, all defendants, including Crane Co., will receive full class-wide releases. On January 15, 2013, with the consent of counsel for Crane Co. and the other defendants, plaintiff’s counsel notified the Court that the parties had reached a provisional agreement to resolve the case, subject to court approval, and asked that the case be stayed for all purposes except for settlement-related proceedings. 

The Company was defending a series of five consolidated lawsuits revolving around a fire that occurred in May 2003 at a chicken processing plant located near Atlanta, Georgia that destroyed the plant. The aggregate damages demanded by the plaintiff, consisting largely of an estimate of lost profits, were in excess of $260 million. The lawsuits alleged that certain fiberglass-reinforced plastic material manufactured by the Company that was installed inside the 

plant was unsafe in that it acted as an accelerant, causing the fire to spread rapidly, resulting in the total loss of the plant and property. The case was tried to jury, and at the conclusion of the seven-week trial, the jury found the Company not liable for any of the claims or damages alleged by the plaintiff. The plaintiff did not file an appeal, and the time to file an appeal has lapsed. 

Pursuant to recently enacted environmental regulations in New Jersey, the Company performed certain tests of the indoor air qual- ity of approximately 40 homes in a residential area surrounding a former manufacturing facility in Roseland, New Jersey, to determine if any contaminants (volatile organic compound vapors from groundwater) from the facility were present in those homes. The Company installed vapor mitigation equipment in three homes where contaminants were found. On April 15, 2011, those three homeowners, and the tenants in one of those homes, filed separate suits against the Company seeking unspecified compensa- tory and punitive damages for their lost property value and nui- sance. In addition, a homeowner in the testing area, whose home tested negative for the presence of contaminants, filed a class action suit against the Company on behalf of himself and 141 other homeowners in the surrounding area, claiming damages in the nature of loss of value on their homes due to their proximity to the facility. The plaintiffs in these cases recently amended their com- plaints to assert claims under New Jersey’s Environmental Rights Act for the Company’s alleged failure to properly remediate the site. It is not possible at this time to reasonably estimate the amount of a loss and therefore, no loss amount has been accrued for the claims because among other things, the extent of the environmental impact, consideration of other factors affecting value have not yet advanced to the stage where a reasonable estimate can be made. 

A number of other lawsuits, claims and proceedings have been or may be asserted against the Company relating to the conduct of its business, including those pertaining to product liability, patent infringement, commercial, employment, employee benefits, envi- ronmental and stockholder matters. While the outcome of litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and some of these other law- suits, claims or proceedings may be determined adversely to the Company, the Company does not believe that the disposition of any such other pending matters is likely to have a material impact on its financial condition or liquidity, although the resolution in any reporting period of one or more of these matters could have a sig- nificant impact on the Company’s results of operations and cash flows for that period. 

## Note 12 – Acquisitions and Divestitures 

Acquisitions are accounted for in accordance with the guidance for business combinations. Accordingly, the Company makes an initial allocation of the purchase price at the date of acquisition based upon its understanding of the fair value of the acquired assets and assumed liabilities. The Company obtains this information during due diligence and through other sources. In the months after clos- ing, as the Company obtains additional information about these assets and liabilities, including through tangible and intangible asset appraisals, it is able to refine the estimates of fair value and more accurately allocate the purchase price. Only items identified as of the acquisition date are considered for subsequent adjust- ment. The Company will make appropriate adjustments to the purchase price allocation prior to completion of the measurement period, as required. 

