Forum Energy Technologies FET Asbestos Litigation — New claims filed each year (fewer than)

One of our subsidiaries has been named as one of many defendants in a number of product liability claims for alleged exposure to asbestos used in valves. These lawsuits are typically filed on behalf of plaintiffs who allege exposure to asbestos, against numerous defendants, often forty or more, who are alleged to have manufactured or distributed products containing asbestos. The injuries alleged by plaintiffs in these cases range from mesothelioma and other cancers to asbestosis. The earliest claims against our subsidiary were filed in New Jersey in 1998, and our subsidiary currently has active cases in New Jersey, New York, and Illinois. These complaints do not typically include requests for a specific amount of damages. Our subsidiary acquired the trademark for the product line in question in 1985. To date, most of the claims against our subsidiary alleging illnesses due to asbestos have generally been based on products manufactured by the previous owner prior to 1985 that are alleged to have contained asbestos. Many claimants alleging illnesses due to asbestos sue on the basis of exposure prior to 1985, as by that date the hazards of asbestos exposure were well known and asbestos had begun to fall into disuse. Our subsidiary has been successful in obtaining dismissals in most lawsuits without any cash contribution including because the “successor liability” law in most states does not hold a purchaser in good faith liable for the actions of the seller prior to the acquisition date unless the purchaser contractually assumed the liabilities, which our subsidiary did not. There are exceptions to the successor liability doctrine in many states, so there are no assurances that our subsidiary will not be found liable for the actions of its predecessor. The law in other states on so called “successor liability” may be different or ambiguous in this regard, and could also expose our subsidiary to liability. Our subsidiary could also be found liable should a trier of fact reject our subsidiary’s position that it is not responsible for the alleged asbestos injuries, such as in a case where a plaintiff alleges post-1985 exposure. To date, asbestos claims had no material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or cash flow, as our annual out-of-pocket costs over the last five years have been less than $250,000. There were an average of approximately 28 new cases filed against our subsidiary in each of last two years, and a significant number of existing cases were dismissed, settled or otherwise disposed of over the last year. We currently have approximately 105 lawsuits pending against this subsidiary. Our subsidiary has over $17 million in face amount of insurance per occurrence and over $23 million of aggregate primary insurance coverage. In addition, our subsidiary has over $950 million in face amount of excess coverage applicable to the claims. There can be no guarantee that all of this can be collected due to policy terms and conditions, erosion of policy limits, and insurer insolvencies in the past or in the future. In January 2011, we entered into an agreement with seven of our primary insurers under which they have agreed to pay 80% of the costs of handling and settling each asbestos claim against the affected subsidiary until the applicable primary policy limits are exhausted.