IPR - AdvisenProfile...Henry Technologies, Inc. 10/27/2008 $0.065 Penalties OSHA violations On January 26, 2010, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined Henry Technologies,

Top Competitors

Company Name Sales (in millions)

Employees

Fisher Controls International LLC $604.60 7400

Appliance Controls Group $300.00 2260

Alfa Laval G H Products Corp $100.00 100

Viking Corporation $78.40 320

Hyson Products $50.00 100

Henry Technologies, Inc. $40.60 235

Convenience Products, Inc. $39.00 100

Sporlan Valve Company $32.40 500

Armstrong International, Inc. $31.30 250

Cashco, Inc. $30.08 166

Milton Industries, Inc. $29.68 185

Insured Profile Report

Henry Technologies, Inc._________________________________________________________________________

Company Profile

Location 655 3rd St Ste 100Beloit, WIwww.henrytech.com

Company Type Private

SIC Code 3491

SIC Code Description Industrial Valves

Established 1914

Sales (in millions) $40.60

Employees 235

Total OSHA Violations 60

Total FDA NDC Drugs N/A

Business Description

Henry Technologies, Inc. provides industrial and commercial components for the refrigeration industry. It manufactures and engineers flow control products, compressor protective devises, heat transfer products, and pressure vessels. The company also offers accessories, conventional oil separators, discharge line mufflers, electro mechanical oil regulators, helical oil separator reservoirs, helical oil separators, liquid level switches, mechanical oil regulators, and oil filters and oil filter driers. In addition, it provides oil management systems, oil regulator shut off valves, oil reservoirs, oil strainers, optronic oil level regulators, replacement components, reservoir pressure valves, sight glasses, solenoid valve manifolds, suction line accumulators, valve manifolds, and vibration eliminators. Further, the company offers ball and check, globe, packed shut off, positive oil exchange, pressure relief, and three way shut off valves; moisture indicators; packless valves; pressure indicator gauges; pressure switches; replacement components; rupture discs; safety device kits; sentry safety device assemblies; and Y strainers. It serves heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration; building; and automotive industries. Henry Technologies, Inc. was formerly known as Henry Valve Company and changed its name to Henry Technologies, Inc. in January 2000.

Credit Details

Number of Legal Derogatory Items

9

Liability Amount $2,552.00

Experian Intelliscore 26.43

Experian Credit Rating 1 - Good Risk DBT 0-15

Experian Intelliscore Percentile 15

Company Hierarchy

Parent Company Subsidiary Company Address

Henry Technologies, Inc. American Industrial Steel & Supply, LLC Janesville, WI

For a detailed explanation of terms and analytics please see the Glossary, Benchmarking, and Data Source material at the end of this report. If you feel that the information is inaccurate or out of date please email [email protected] or contact your Advisen rep at +1.212.897.4800

1

Top Company Cases by Settlement Amount

Company Acc/Filing Date Amount(in millions)

Category Subtype Docket Number Court State

Henry Technologies, Inc. 10/27/2008 $0.065 Penalties OSHA violations

On January 26, 2010, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined Henry Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $65250 for its violation.

Henry Technologies, Inc. 1/1/1961 Environment Land/Groundwater 1:02-cv-03609 Illinois

On May 20, 2002, United States of America and People of the State of Illinois (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit on the District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Henry Technologies, Inc et al. (collectively, Defendants) pursuant to Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Recovery Act (CERCLA). According to the suit, the Lenz Oil Services, Inc facility operated a waste oil and solvent recycling, storage and transfer facility wherein three hazardous waste surface impoundments, constructed of porous and permeable cinder type materials, three galloon underground unlined concrete storage tanks, 35 above-ground tanks and 200 drums were located at the site. Oil and solvent wastes were spilled on the soils, and groundwater surrounding the area was contaminated with volatile organic compounds. Organic chemicals and metals were also released in the surface water runoff, which entered a drainage ditch north of the facility. These conditions brought an immediate threat to public health and environment. Plaintiffs sought judgment against Defendants for all costs incurred including prejudgment interest, for response actions in connection with the Lenz Oil Services, Inc Superfund site, order Defendants to abate the conditions at the site, declaratory judgment on the liability of each of the Defendants that will be binding in future actions to recover further response costs in connection with the site, and award of cost of the action. On August 7, 2002, the parties filed motion for the entry of consent decree. Under the decree, Defendants have agreed to implement the remedial action selected by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in its Record of Decision and the State of Illinois for the site. The work would includes surface and subsurface water monitoring; a flood control plan; decontamination of equipment and the disposal of contaminated materials at the site and if necessary construction of a groundwater collection and treatment system. The implementation cost of the remedy is estimated between $8 million and $12.5 million depending on whether the primary or one of the several contingent remedies is implemented. On August 14, 2002, the court granted the motion to enter consent decree. Final judgment was also entered by agreement in favor of the United States, and the State of Illinois, and against the settling defendants. The court finds that there is no just reason for delay and therefore entered the judgment.

Recent Federal Dockets for the Company

Caption File date Category Docket Number Court

Cardaro et al v. Aerojet General Corporation et al

6/27/2011 Torts 2:11cv66763 US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania

Key Personnel

Name Age Title Officer Since

Michael Giordano N/A Chief Executive Officer N/A

Christian J. Garver N/A Chief Financial Officer N/A

Scott Rahmel N/A General Manager N/A

Henry Technologies, Inc. A-1 Components Corp. Hialeah, FL

Henry Technologies, Inc. Chatham, IL

Henry Technologies Ltd Glasgow,

A-1 Components Corp. A-1 Components, LLC Hialeah, FL

Garick, LLC Garick, LLC Cumming, GA

New Milford Farms, Inc New Milford, CT

Garick, LLC Harrisburg, NC

Doctor Bramblett Road, L.L.C. Cumming, GA

Garick, LLC South Charleston, OH

Henry Technologies Ltd A.c. & R. Components Ltd Glasgow,

Henry Valve (u.k.) Ltd Glasgow,

Hendricks Holding Company, Inc. Garick, LLC Cleveland, OH

Hendricks Holding Company, Inc. Beloit, WI

Henry Technologies / Chil-Con Brantford, ON

Henry Technologies, Inc. Beloit, WI

HENRY TECHNOLOGIES GmbH Stadtlengsfeld,


2


4/15/2011 Torts 2:11cv876 US District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

Salamante et al v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLP et al


Salamante et al v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLP et al


Nola Salamante et al v. Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLP

4/1/2010 Torts 2:10cv2403 US District Court for the Central District of California

Salamante et al v. Quintec Industries, Inc et al


Edgardo R Salamante et al v. Quintec Industries, Inc et al

7/17/2008 Torts 2:08cv4674 US District Court for the Central District of California

Cardaro et al v. Alfa Laval Inc et al




Cardaro et al v. Aerojet General Corporation


Dutton v. General Electric Company

4/13/2005 Torts 4:05cv1251 US District Court for the Southern District of Texas

Dyer et al v. Viad Corp et al

1/7/2005 Product Liability 3:05cv39 US District Court for the Northern District of California

USA, et al v. Alpha Constr Co, et al

5/20/2002 Environmental 1:02cv3609 US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Studenka v. Henry Technologies

11/20/2000 Labor 1:00cv264 US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina


3

Insurance Program Pricing & MSCAd Losses –

General Liability and Umbrella/Excess

The Insured's General Liability Premium of $102,002 is in the High Middle compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's General Liability Limit of $2,000,000 is in the High End compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's General Liability Rate per million of $51,001 is in the Middle range compared to the selected peer group. Among the possible reasons:

o The insured may not have experienced unusually frequent or large historical losses (see Advisen's MSCAd Large Losses for industry loss examples).

o The insured may have a relatively similar deductible/retention to its peers.

o The insured may have a similar risk profile compared to the selected peer group. See Advisen Company QuickView.

The Insured's Umbrella/Excess Premium of $96,753 is in the High End compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's Umbrella/Excess Limit of $10,000,000 is in the High Middle compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's Umbrella/Excess Rate per million of $9,675.3 is in the High range compared to the selected peer group. Some possible reasons:

o If the attachment point is low or relatively small limits are being purchased, (refer to the appropriate Histogram) - since the cost of limits typically decreases the further they are from the primary layer.

o If the the insured has experienced significant large historical losses (see Advisen's MSCAd Large Losses for industry loss examples).

o If the insured has a relatively greater exposure to "batch" or "bulk" losses than its peers.

o If the coverage being purchased is of limited availability based on the company's industry, location, or other characteristics.

o If the insured has a high risk profile compared to its peers. See Advisen Company QuickView.

o If insured is of a smaller size relative to the peer group then lack of "buying power" may be an issue.

The Insured's Umbrella/Excess Limit as % of Revenues of 24.63% is a Low Middle level of coverage compared to the selected peer group, which could indicate a lower exposure to loss, a larger-sized insured relative to the peer group, an aggressive risk retention strategy, or relatively high-priced or limited availability of coverage. Please refer to the Limit Histogram to see if insureds are purchasing higher limits.

MSCAd General Liability and Umbrella/Excess Large L osses for GICS Code 201060 (Sort by Settlement)

Company Name Category/Type Accident Date Filing Date Status Total Amount ($)

Dezurik, Inc. Products & Services/ Exposure/Consumption 01/01/2003 Award $6,000,000 Description: Long-time steamfitter developed mesothelioma at 62: Plaintiff William Lisac, 62, had been employed as a steamfitter in the Pittsburgh area since the early 1960s. In January 2003, he was diagnosed with mesothelioma and was forced by the disease to retire in December 2003. During his employment, he worked with valves produced by DeZurik Inc. that contained asbestos in their gaskets and packing, and which required the use of other asbestos-containing gaskets. Lisac and his wife sued DeZurik Inc., Sartell, Minn., for product and strict liability. The couple claimed that the DeZurik products qualified under state law as defective because they could not be safely used without the asbestos-containing gaskets (not produced by DeZurik), and could not be used or maintained without exposure to the valves' interior gaskets and packing. The defense agreed that Lisac suffered from mesothelioma caused by asbestos, but contended that its products contained chrysotile asbestos which does not cause mesothelioma. The plaintiffs countered that federal health agencies, including OSHA and the EPA, do not agree that chrysotile asbestos does not cause mesothelioma. Lisac underwent a pleurectomy (the stripping of the inner lining of the lungs) in February 2003, and returned to light-duty work. The disease recurred in December 2003, when Lisac retired. Lisac had earned between $55,000 and $62,000 annually in his position. He was eligible for recovery of medical expenses covered by his insurance carrier, approximately $45,000. The Lisacs have two grown daughters, and two grandchildren. William Lisac has a life expectancy of less that one year. Mrs. Lisac made a claim for her loss of consortium. All of the originally named defendants other than DeZurik, numbering more than 60, reached confidential settlements or were dismissed prior to trial. However, 20 of the defendant companies which had previously settled and which Lisac proved to have personal knowledge of remained on the verdict form and were eligible for liability apportionment. The jury found that all the remaining defendants manufactured, supplied or sold defective products that caused Lisac's injury. They attributed 6% liability to DeZurik, and awarded William Lisac $3 million in compensatory damages, and $3 million to his wife for her loss of consortium, making DeZurik liable for $360,000. The defense has filed a motion for a new trial, which is pending. Lois Lisac $3,000,000 Personal Injury: loss of consortium. Alfa Laval Inc. Products & Services/ Exposure/Consumption 01/01/1954 07/13/2008 Award $5,720,000 Description: Electrical Components Caused Meso - Family Claimed: From 1954 to 1973, plaintiff's decedent David Lanpher, who died at the age of 71 in 2008, served as an electrician's mate in the U.S. Navy aboard such vessels as the USS Chemung, USS Randolph, USS Remey, USS Brough, USS Dashell, USS Benewah and USS Wright. During his tenure, he worked in engineering spaces aboard multiple vessels, mostly in the Philadelphia Naval Shipyard, where he handled various engine parts and components, including asbestos-containing insulating boards and motor-control units. Lanpher had claimed that he cut and drilled asbestos-containing phenolic insulating boards contained within Allen-Bradley's electrical products, causing him to regularly inhale dust. After being honorably discharged in 1973, Lanpher worked as an electrician in Phoenix. In August 2007, he was diagnosed with malignant pleural mesothelioma, and died on July 13, 2008. Lanpher sued Alfa-Laval Inc. (of Philadelphia); Rockwell Automation Inc. (Allen-Bradley's successor of Milwaukee, Wis.); Cutler-Hammer Inc. (of Harrisburg); General Electric Co. (of Fairfield, Conn.); Square D Co. (of Harrisburg); Warren Pumps LLC (of Warren, Mass.); IMO Industries Inc. (of Harrisburg); Garlock Inc. (of Palmyra, N.Y.); and Westinghouse Electric Corp. (of Pittsburgh) for wrongful death and products liability. The case proceeded to trial, which was reverse bifurcated, against Rockwell Automation Inc., as the other defendants were let out before trial. The other defendants (save for Alfa-Laval Inc.) remained on the verdict form. Plaintiffs' counsel argued that, by the 1940s, the defendant possessed thousands of volumes of industrial hygiene articles stating the hazards of asbestos, and by the 1960s, Rockwell knew that asbestos caused mesothelioma. Despite this knowledge and its duty to warn the plaintiff of the hazards, the defendant failed to put warnings on its products, and its failure to do so ultimately caused Lanpher's injury and death, asserted counsel. The plaintiffs' maritime/admiralty expert, a captain who worked on vessels the same time as Lanpher and handled the same electrical equipment, recounted his duties aboard a naval ship and confirmed that Allen-Bradley manufactured electrical equipment, which he worked with personally during his tenure. This testimony was used to support Lanpher's deposition testimony in which he identified the defendants and their products that he worked with during his tenure. The defendant denied the allegations. The defense presented evidence that the products in question were not on the Navy's qualified parts list, and that testing by their expert showed that the asbestos subcomponents were encapsulated in a material that could not be breached in the way Lanpher described. Plaintiff's counsel countered by observing that the testing did not replicate the decedent's work precisely. Plaintiff's counsel presented evidence that the manufacturer knew of the dangers of asbestos in the 1960s, but consi Following his diagnosis in August 2007, the plaintiff underwent chemotherapy and pain medication, in addition to oxygen treatment during the last months of his life. The plaintiffs' pathology expert testified that Lanpher's exposure to the defendant's products during his tenure was a factual cause of development of his mesothelioma. In her testimony, the decedent's widow talked how mesothelioma devastated her husband - both physically and emotionally - and that he passed away before reaching their 50th wedding anniversary. Mrs. Lanpher sought individual damages and past pain and suffering damages on behalf of her husband. The couple's daughter, who was not a plaintiff but a beneficiary of the estate, sought damages for loss of parental guidance. The jury found defendant 12 percent negligent, awarding the plaintiffs $6.5 million. Rockwell Automation Inc. is only responsible for 12 percent of the verdict, which is $780,000. David T. Lanpher: $3,000,000 Wrongful Death: Survival. Pauline B. Lanpher: $3,500,000 Wrongful Death.

Brass Ring Amusements, Inc Products & Services/ Business/Service Site, Premises, Situation

05/16/2008 Settled $3,375,000

Description: Robert and Deena Milligan filed a case against Brass Ring Amusements, Chance Rides Manufacturing and North American Amusements over the May 2008 accident. On May 16, 2008, a Yo-Yo Chair Ride crashed during the Calaveras County Fair and Jumping Frog Jubilee in Angels Camp, California left 23 people injured many of them children. The California Department of Industrial Relations (CDIR) determined that the ride was not properly maintained by its owner. Investigators found a damaged washer that had failed to hold a pair of nuts in place, which resulted in the cap screws becoming unfastened and the swing arms collapsing on the Yo-Yo Chair Ride. Robert Allard represented the parents and their five young children in this case. All of the children suffered both physical and emotional injuries while the parents had to witness their five children screaming out in pain as the kids were dragged through the dirt and gravel, and slammed into the metal fencing during this horrific incident. The most seriously injured child in this incident suffered permanent brain damage along with multiple orthopedic injuries. The permanent neurocognitive impairments resulted in the child's placement in special education, as well as the need for future care and treatment she will require to address her permanent injuries. On November 23, 2010, the family of five children injured reached a settlement of $3.375 million with ride owners and the manufacturer.


Directors & Officers

MSCAd Directors & Offices Large Losses for GICS Cod e 201060 (Sort by Settlement) Company Name Category/Type Accident

Date Filing Date Status Total Amount ($)

Control Components, Inc. Business & Trade Practices/ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (DoJ) 06/26/2009 Settled $18,200,000

Description: Control Components Inc. (CCI), a Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.-based company, pleaded guilty to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and the Travel Act in a decade-long scheme to secure contracts in approximately 36 countries by paying bribes to officials and employees of various foreign state-owned companies as well as foreign and domestic private companies, the Justice Department announced. CCI entered guilty pleas to a three-count criminal information before U.S. District Judge James V. Selna in the Central District of California, Santa Ana Division. CCI designs and manufactures service control valves for use in the nuclear, oil and gas, and power generation industries. As part of the plea agreement, CCI agreed to pay a criminal fine of $18.2 million; create, implement and maintain a comprehensive anti-bribery compliance program; retain an independent compliance monitor for a three-year period to review the design and implementation of CCI's anti-bribery compliance program and to make periodic reports to CCI and the Department of Justice; serve a three-year term of organizational probation; and continue to cooperate with the Department of Justice in its ongoing investigation. Immediately following CCI's guilty plea, Judge Selna imposed a sentence in accordance with the plea agreement. CCI was ordered to pay an $18.2 million criminal fine, placed on organizational probation for three years, and ordered to create and implement a compliance program and retain an independent compliance monitor for three years. According to the information and plea agreement, from 1998 through 2007, CCI violated the FCPA and the Travel Act by making corrupt payments to numerous officers and employees of state-owned and privately-owned customers around the world, including in China, Korea, Malaysia and the United Arab Emirates, for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business for CCI. Specifically, from 2003 through 2007, CCI paid approximately $4.9 million in bribes, in violation of the FCPA, to officials of various foreign state-owned companies and approximately $1.95 million in bribes, in violation of the Travel Act, to officers and employees of foreign and domestic privately-owned companies. The alleged corrupt payments were made to foreign officials at state-owned entities including Jiangsu Nuclear Power Corp. (China), Guohua Electric Power (China), China Petroleum Materials and Equipment Corp., PetroChina, Dongfang Electric Corporation (China), China National Offshore Oil Corporation, Korea Hydro and Nuclear Power, Petronas (Malaysia) and National Petroleum Construction Company (United Arab Emirates). In total, CCI admitted that from 2003 through 2007, it made approximately 236 corrupt payments in more than 30 countries, which resulted in net profits to the company of approximately $46.5 million from sales related to those corrupt payments. In related cases, two former executives of CCI previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to bribe officers and employees of foreign state-owned companies on behalf of the valve company. Mario Covino, CCI's former director of worldwide factory sales, pleaded guilty on January 8, 2009, to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and admitted to causing the payment of approximately $1 million in bribes to officers and employees of several foreign state-owned companies. Richard Morlok, CCI's former finance director, pleaded guilty on February 3, 2009, to one count of conspiracy to violate the FCPA and admitted to causing the payment of approximately $628,000 in bribes to officers and employees of several foreign state-owned companies. Covino and Morlok are scheduled to be sentenced on January 25, 2010. On April 8, 2009, six former CCI executives were charged in a 16-count indictment with violations of the FCPA, the Travel Act and other statutes. The six former CCI executives are Stuart Carson, CCI's former chief executive officer; Hong (Rose) Carson, CCI's former director of sales for China and Taiwan; Paul Cosgrove, CCI's former director of worldwide sales; David Edmonds, CCI's former vice president of worldwide customer service; Flavio Ricotti, CCI's former vice-president and head of sales for Europe, Africa and the Middle East; and Han Yong Kim, the former president of CCI's Korean office. Trial is currently scheduled for December 8, 2009. An indictment is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until and unless proven guilty at trial beyond a reasonable doubt. Engineered Support Systems Inc Securities/ Securities Fraud 07/12/2007 Settled $8,661,662

Description: U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Litigation Release No. 21362 / January 6, 2010 Securities and Exchange Commission v. Michael F. Shanahan, Sr., et al, United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Civil Action No. 4:07-cv-270-JCH (E.D. Mo.) Michael F. Shanahan, Sr., Former Engineered Support Systems, Inc. Chairman and CEO, Agrees to Settle SEC Charges in Option Backdating Case; Relief Includes Permanent Injunction, Officer-and-Director Bar, and $750,000 Civil Penalty On January 5, 2010, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri entered a final judgment by consent against Michael F. Shanahan, Sr., the former Chairman and CEO of Engineered Support Systems, Inc. (Engineered Support or the Company), resolving the Securities and Exchange Commission's (Commission) charges against Shanahan Sr. for options backdating filed in July 2007. According to the Complaint, from 1997 through 2002, Shanahan Sr. participated in a fraudulent scheme to grant undisclosed, in-the-money stock options to himself and other Engineered Support employees by backdating Company stock option grants to coincide with historically low closing prices of Engineered Support's common stock. In addition, the Complaint alleged that Shanahan Sr. cancelled previously issued Engineered Support stock options that had fallen out-of-the-money and reissued the options with a new backdated grant date and exercise price, bringing those options back in-the-money. The Complaint also alleged that Shanahan Sr. improperly issued additional Engineered Support stock options to nonemployee directors beyond what they were authorized to receive under the Company's shareholder-approved stock option plans. The Complaint further alleged that Shanahan Sr. and others caused Engineered Support to make material misrepresentations and to omit statements of material fact regarding Engineered Support's stock option grants in its filings with the Commission. According to the Complaint, Engineered Support employees received approximately $20 million of improper in-the-money benefit from the backdating, $15 million of which went to top executives and directors. Without admitting or denying the Commission's allegations, Shanahan Sr. has consented to a permanent injunction from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, Sections 10(b), 13(b)(5), and 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act), and Rules 10b-5, 13a-14, 13b2-1, and 14a-9 thereunder, and from aiding and abetting violations of Sections 13(a) and 13(b)(2)(A) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20 and 13a-1 thereunder. Shanahan Sr. has also consented to pay a $750,000 civil penalty, and to be permanently barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company. In a separate criminal matter brought by the United States Attorney's Office in the Eastern District of Missouri, which arose out of similar factual allegations, in July 2008 Shanahan Sr. pled guilty to knowingly and willfully falsifying company records in violation of Sections 13(b)(2) and (5) of the Exchange Act. The District Court sentenced Shanahan Sr. to three years probation, and ordered him to pay restitution of $7,871,662.50 and a $40,000 criminal fine. The Commission's litigation continues against Michael F. Shanahan, Jr., a former Engineered Support director.

Aibel Group Ltd Business & Trade Practices/ Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (DoJ)

11/21/2008 Settled $4,200,000

Description: On November 21, 2008, Aibel Group Limited, a United Kingdom corporation, pleaded guilty to a two-count superseding information charging the company with a conspiracy to violate the FCPA and a violation of the FCPA. Also on November 21, Aibel Group admitted that it was not in compliance with a deferred prosecution agreement it had entered into with the Department of Justice in February 2007 regarding the same underlying conduct. As part of the plea agreement, Aibel Group was ordered to pay a $4.2 million criminal fine and to serve a two-year term of organizational probation that requires, among other things, that it submit periodic reports regarding its progress in implementing anti-bribery compliance measures. According to court documents, beginning in February 2001, Aibel Group's predecessor company and several affiliated companies began providing engineering and procurement services, as well as subsea construction equipment, for Nigeria's first deepwater oil drilling operation, known as the Bonga Project. From at least September 2002 to at least April 2005, Aibel Group admitted to conspiring with others to make at least 378 corrupt payments totaling approximately $2.1 million to Nigerian customs service officials in an effort to induce those officials to provide the defendants with preferential treatment during the customs process.

Insurance Program Pricing & MSCAd Losses – Employment Practices

MSCAd Employment Practices Large Losses for GICS Co de 201060 (Sort by Settlement)

Company Name Category/Type Accident Date

Filing Date Status Total Amount ($)

Sasco Corporation Employment/ Labor Disputes 06/01/2005 04/25/2007 Settled $1,988,573 Description: Former executives demanded deferred compensation Plaintiffs Jon Woodworth and Bruce Byers, former executives of SASCO, claimed that SASCO breached obligations to pay them deferred compensation owed to them under an employer-administered deferred compensation plan. Pursuant to the plan, SASCO was required to credit to each participant's account an amount established contractually. The plan provided that the amounts credited to a participant's account should vest at a rate of 20 percent per plan year over a vesting period of five years. Upon termination of employment, SASCO was required to distribute to each participant his or her vested balance in quarterly installments commencing within 180 days. Woodworth was employed by SASCO from November 1990 until he voluntarily quit in October 2006. Byers worked for SASCO for two separate periods, the last ending with his lay off in June 2005. Although SASCO acknowledged that both men had vested interest in their plans, Woodworth and Byers did not receive annual accountings of their plans and SASCO failed to pay them their vested account balances. The plaintiffs also claimed that the defendant breached agreements to reallocate forfeiture benefits, resulting in loss of interest earned. Woodworth and Byers sued SASCO for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act. SASCO denied liability. The defendant conceded that the plaintiffs had not received disbursements of their plan benefits, but denied that regular account statements were not delivered. With respect to Woodworth, SASCO contended that he was terminated for cause. As such it claimed the plan allowed for disbursement of vested benefits over a period of 10 years instead of five. The plaintiffs sought damages for ERISA violations, including failure to pay benefits and failure to furnish information. Prior to trial, SASCO issued a Rule 68 offer to pay the plaintiffs the full amounts owed them under the deferred compensation plan, which totaled $1.4 million, plus attorney fees and costs in an amount to be determined by the court. The plaintiffs accepted the offer, and judgment was then entered by the court. After the plaintiffs' motion, the court awarded $568,573.32 in attorney fees (which included a multiplier) and costs.

Rent-A-Center Inc Employment/ Hostile Work Environment/Bullying/Mobbing 06/01/2003 Award $1,619,000

Description: Managers' meetings conducted at strip club: In June 2003, plaintiff Marc Astor, 40s, was terminated from his position as a market manager for Rent-A-Center Inc. in the Sacramento area. He had started at the company in 1990 as an assistant store manager and, by 2003, was responsible for nine or 10 stores (the exact number fluctuated). In that late 1990s, Astor claimed, several senior managers, including the regional supervisor, who was his direct manager, began insisting that he accompany them to strip clubs where they conducted company business. He also alleged that his supervisor made comments of a sexual nature about female employees, showed him nude or partially nude photos of a woman he said he was dating and sent him emails containing offensive jokes about sex and women. When he objected to this behavior, his supervisor told him that such objections would limit his career advancement, Astor claimed. In January 2003, during a meeting in which the company's policy with respect to employee complaints about sexual harassment was being discussed, Astor objected to his supervisor's suggestion that all complaints be made through him rather than through the human resources department. Astor said that this would violate the company's open door policy, which offered employees the choice of reporting discrimination or harassment either to their supervisors or to human resources. Astor claimed that his supervisor became angry when he made this objection and, a few months later, his supervisor told him his performance needed improvement and gave him a coaching form. In May, Astor made a written sexual harassment complaint to the supervisor of his division and to human resources. He alleged that his direct supervisor's actions in sending inappropriate emails, making inappropriate comments and showing him inappropriate photos, together with his and the other managers' insistence that he attend strip clubs, created a hostile work environment. The company undertook an investigation and his supervisor were terminated. However several weeks after making the complaint, Astor claimed he was denied an opportunity to be considered for a promotion for which he was qualified. He also alleged that during a meeting, one of his managers implied that he might be fired. In June, in response to his request that a resolution letter be placed in his file regarding his sexual harassment complaint and its outcome, Astor was issued a letter from human resources who included a statement that if he had problems in the future he should again avail himself of the company's open door policy. Astor wrote a memo to HR stating that he had not had a good experience with the open door policy as he felt he had been given a runaround, and that he would not recommend it to other employees. Five days later, he was terminated. Rent-A-Center told him it was because of his refusal, as expressed in the memo, to support and recommend the use of the open door policy to employees who worked under him. Astor sued Rent-A-Ce Astor was terminated in June 2003. He didn't find a new job until March 2004; andit paid less than his old job. He sought to recover $56,943 for past lost earnings, $236,894 for future lost earnings (going forward five years) and an unspecified amount for emotional distress. He also sought punitives. Defense counsel argued that Astor should have found a job sooner and for more money. As to emotional distress, it argued that he didn't suffer any, as evidenced by the fact that he never went for counseling. The jury found for Astor and awarded him $1,619,000. The defense moved for a new trial; the motion was denied. The defendant has also filed an appeal. Astor moved to recover its attorney fees and was awarded $92,400 which included a multiplier of two. Marc Astor $369,000 Personal Injury: economic damages $250,000 Personal Injury: non-economic damages $1,000,000 Personal Injury: punitive damages.


Fiduciary Liability

The Insured's Fiduciary Liability Premium of $4,975 is in the High Middle compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's Fiduciary Liability Limit of $5,000,000 is in the High End compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's Fiduciary Liability Rate per million of $995 is in the Low range compared to the selected peer group. This could be due to a number of factors:

o If the insured has a relatively high deductible, since the cost of limits typically decreases the further they are from the primary layer.

o If the insured is buying relatively larger limits or is significantly larger than the peer group, economies of scale may be a factor.

o The Insured may not have experienced historical losses (see Advisen's MSCAd Large Losses for industry loss examples).

o The Insured may have a low risk profile compared to the selected peer group. See Advisen Company QuickView.

The Insured's Fiduciary Liability Limit as % of Revenues of 12.32% is a High level of coverage compared to the selected peer group. Among other reasons, this could be indicative of a relatively greater exposure to large loss events, a smaller size relative to the peer group, or reflect a conservative risk retention strategy.

MSCAd Fiduciary Liability Large Losses for G ICS Code 201060 (Sort by Settle ment) Company Name Category/Type Accident


Caterpillar Inc Management & Strategy/ERISA Class Action 09/11/2006 Tentative Settlement $16,500,000

Description: The lawsuit was filed on September 11, 2006 against Caterpillar, Inc. in Missouri Western District Court In the action, pursuant to ERISA 502(a), 29 U.S.C. 1132(a), Plaintiffs and Class Representatives Steve Martin, Carol Tegard, Denayer Artis, David Koch, Allen Rose and Doug Hildebrand on behalf of the Caterpillar 401(k) Plan (the Plan) and similarly situated participants and beneficiaries in the Plan. The plaintiffs alleged, among other things, that the fiduciaries responsible for overseeing the plans breached their duties under ERISA by allowing the plans to pay excessive investment management and other fees, by maintaining excessive cash in the company stock investment fund, and by offering the Preferred Group of Mutual Funds as plan investment options between 1992 and 2006, which were advised by a wholly-owned Caterpillar subsidiary - Caterpillar Investment Management Ltd. (CIML). In 2006, before the case was filed, Caterpillar Inc. made a strategic business decision to exit the investment management business. As a result, in May 2006, the Preferred Funds were replaced with other investment options, including separate accounts. The action sought to recover the losses suffered by the Plan and to obtain injunctive and other equitable relief for the Plan from Caterpillar Inc. (Caterpillar), the Plan Sponsor and the Plan Administrator, the Benefit Funds Committee of Caterpillar Inc. (the Committee), and other defendants identified below based upon breaches of their fiduciary duties (collectively Defendants). The case was transferred to Illinois Central District Court on January 11, 2007. An amended complaint was filed on May 25, 2007, and a second amended complaint followed on July 5, 2007. On November 20, 2009, the parties filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement of claims regarding the administration of four 401(k) plans sponsored by Caterpillar, following a press release dated November 10, 2009, in which the parties stated that it entered into tentative settlement. Among other things, it calls for the construction-equipment maker to pay $16.5 million, which will be distributed to about 80,000 current and former plan participants based on the number of years they maintained account balances. Plaintiff's attorney Jerome J. Schlichter of Schlichter Bogard & Denton in St. Louis says Caterpillar also agreed to offer lower-cost institutional mutual funds rather than retail mutual funds for its core investment choices and to have an independent monitor of the plan for at least two years. On August 2, 2010, a joint motion for order final approval of class action settlement was filed by the Caterpillar and the class of employees.

Insurance Program Pricing & MSCAd Losses – Property

The Insured's All Premium of $8,520 is in the Low Middle compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's All Limit of $57,650,000 is in the High End compared to the selected peer group.

MSCAd Property Large Losses for GICS Code 201060 (Sort by Settlement) Company Name Category/Type Accident

Date Filing Date

Status Total Amount ($)

No Data Available

Insurance Program Pricing & MSCAd Losses – Workers Compensation

The Insured's Workers Compensation Premium of $197,466 is in the High End compared to the selected peer group.

The Insured's Workers Compensation Premium per Employee of $840.28 is in the High Middle range compared to the selected peer group. This could result from a number of factors, including:

o If the insured has experienced a high frequency or severity of losses relative to the peer group (see Advisen's MSCAd Large Losses for industry loss examples MSCAd and the Workers Comp Tool Kit for benchmarking the insured's workers comp practices.

o If the insured's safety and injury management programs are sub-optimal. o If the insured's retention is low relative to the peer group (refer to the

Retention Histogram chart). o If the Insured has a low employee count compared to the selected peer

group then a lack of "buying power" may be an issue. o If the Insured's employees fall disproportionately into higher-risk payroll

class codes, or the Insured's industry is in a higher risk category than the peer group.

o If the insured's workforce is more concentrated in higher-benefit states than the peer group.

o If the Insured has a higher "concentration of risk" exposure relative to the peer group.

MSCAd Workers Compensation Large Losses for G ICS Code 201060 (Sort by Settlement) Company Name Category/Type Accident


Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P. Penalties/OSHA violations 01/01/2008 05/07/2010 Proposed

Settlement $1,215,000

Description: The U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration has issued Goodman Manufacturing Co. LP 83 willful citations for failing to record and improperly recording work-related injuries and illnesses at the company's Houston air conditioning cooling facility. Proposed penalties total $1,215,000. "Accurate workplace injury and illness records are vital tools for identifying hazards and protecting workers' health and safety," said Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis. "Workers and employers need this information to recognize patterns of injuries and illnesses, and prevent future hazards." OSHA's Houston North Area Office began its investigation March 2 in response to a complaint alleging that Goodman Manufacturing was not properly recording workplace injuries and illnesses in violation of OSHA's regulations. The investigation determined that Goodman had either not recorded or failed to properly record the nature and/or duration of 72 percent of employee injuries and illnesses from January 2008 to March 15, 2010, on its log. Although Goodman was extremely knowledgeable about OSHA recordkeeping requirements, it made many unsupportable decisions that resulted in the deficiencies found by the agency. With regard to the injuries and illnesses improperly recorded, important information reflecting severity, such as the time away from work, was grossly incorrect. "OSHA takes these violations extremely seriously," said Assistant Secretary of Labor for OSHA Dr. David Michaels. "OSHA needs accurate data to effectively target its inspections and resources, and to measure the impact of OSHA's actions on workplace safety. Employers and workers need to understand how important accurate data are to workplace safety and health." OSHA defines a willful violation as one committed with plain indifference to or intentional disregard for OSHA's requirements or employee safety and health.

Glossary of Terms

Experian Commercial IntelliscoreSM: It's an all-industry commercial model using business information to predict business risk. Its predictiveness is among the best on the market today.- Predicts the likelihood of accounts experiencing seriously derogatory payment performance in the next 12 months.- Produce scores ranging from 0 to 100, where high scores equal low risk. - Based on past credit behavior, including payment behavior, balance information, amount of trade activity, public record incidence and

business size. - Liability amount is the total dollar amount of debtor’s legal liability, including accounts in collection, tax liens, judgments and/or bankruptcies. -The total derogatory items are the sum of Tax-Lien Count, Bankruptcy, Judgment, Collection-Counter and UCC Derog.

Federal Dockets: The cases filed against the company in Federal Court. This information comes from LexisNexis.

MSCAd Large Losses: In this report MSCAd Losses are matched to the line of coverage being benchmarked.

Advisen's Master Significant Case & Action database (MSCAd) compiles details and statistics on significant large losses, including management liability cases such as securities class actions, auditing and other management malpractice, state and federal government regulatory fines, employment liability cases and errors and omissions litigation. This also includes EEOC settled litigation, ERISA/Fiduciary Duty, Malpractice, Anti-Trust, Fraud, Trade Practices, and Contract Cases.

MSCAd is the most comprehensive, accurate source of this data available to the industry. Our information is compiled by a dedicated research team using numerous sources such as Stanford Securities, Federal agencies such as the Department of Justice, the EEOC, and the Securities & Exchange Commission, research tools such as LexisNexis, major law firms and claims administrators, State insurance commissioners and attorneys general, and other sources. The consolidated data is subject to ongoing review and rigorous audit procedures to ensure both accuracy and timeliness.

Top Competitors: This is a generic list of competitors drawn from Advisen’s database of over 14 million entities. Depending on the number of competitors it will be by State, Region, or Country. This list is NOT a list of the companies in the benchmarking peer group.

Total FDA NDC Drugs: The total number of FDA Drugs filed in the FDA NDC Drug Database.

Total OSHA Violations: OSHA is an arm of the Department of Labor that conducts inspections of company facilities with the goal of preventing work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths. Worksites that do not meet health and/or safety standards at the time of inspection may receive an OSHA violation.

If you feel that the information is inaccurate or out of date please email [email protected] or contact your Advisen rep at +1.212.897.4800

Understanding Benchmarking

Insurance Program Pricing

In program benchmarking, you compare the financial aspects of a specific industry's insurance program to programs for comparable “peer” companies. The end result, in graphic format, lets you see how the program you're looking at stacks up against this peer group, with respect to premiums, limits, and retentions.

Histograms

The histogram, or bar, charts for premiums, limits, and retentions provide a good tool to evaluate the characteristics of the peer group you have chosen, and to illustrate where the benchmarked client falls with respect to these peers. These charts divide the premiums, limits, and retentions into equally-spaced ranges (distributions) based on their sizes; the length of the bars show what % of the peer programs fall into each of these ranges (if provided, the benchmarked client's data is shown as a red line overlaying the bars). The 3 available charts are independent - that is, the premium chart displays premiums for the selected peer group REGARDLESS OF the limits purchased or the retentions kept. The limits chart displays the limits purchased REGARDLESS of the premiums paid or the retentions, etc. Range Charts (“Quartile Graphs")

NOTE: The pictures below are common. Based on the Rate per Million it may look like the target insured is overpaying but, based on the Limit as % of Revenue, the real issue is they are under purchasing. If they add to their current limit they will move the Limit as % of Revenue red line to the right. The insured will purchase this layer at a much lower rate per million than the current. This will drive the red line on the RPM

The range charts show the range of values, for a variety of different rates which may be calculated for the peer group. These rates provide a more sensitive indicator as to the relative size of the premiums, limits, and retentions in the peer group data, and where the benchmarked company falls, by minimizing the size differences between the peer group members. The charts illustrate the middle 50% of the calculated rates, but use all of the peer programs which contain BOTH of the values used to calculate the rates.

If you feel that the info

chart to the left.

rmation is inaccurate or out of date please email [email protected] or contact your Advisen rep at +1.212.897.4800

amehra

Stamp

About Our Data SourcesAdvisen utilizes three external content partners as the primary sources to create and maintain the Advisen Master File database (AMFd), and supplements these sources with four regional / industry-focused partners -- McGraw-Hill Financial (CompuSTAT), ThomsonReuters, and Dun & Bradstreet are the primary sources, with ICC, Owens Media, AM Best, and Experian as the supplemental sources The Advisen Master File database (AMFd) includes the "core" characteristics on 16mm entities: name, address, latitude/longitude, phone number, web-site, industry / SIC code, annual sales, number of employees, place of incorporation, DUNS #, FEIN #, type (public, private, private formerly public, etc.), status (active/inactive), ultimate parent, executives/officers/directors Furthermore, Advisen conducts primary research and quality assurance testing into the core characteristics for thousands of the entities in the AMFd, specifically those engaged in insurance actions (e.g. subjected to large losses), corporate actions (e.g. M&A, bankruptcy, divestiture, LBO), and those within our client's books-of-business (e.g. up for renewal / about to be underwritten) Finally, Advisen intersects other company demographics and unique exposures from a number of additional, external content partners such as Dow Jones, Factset, RiskMetrics/ISS/CFRA, Morningstar, CMA Datavision, and a multitude of government websites such as BLS, OSHA, FDA and NTSB.

If you feel that the information is inaccurate or out of date please email [email protected] or contact your Advisen rep at +1.212.897.4800

Documents

IPR - AdvisenProfile...Henry Technologies, Inc. 10/27/2008 $0.065 Penalties OSHA violations On January 26, 2010, Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) fined Henry Technologies,