13.

Commitments and Contingencies – Legal Matters

Our subsidiary, Met-Pro, beginning in 2002 began to be named in asbestos-related lawsuits filed against a large number of industrial companies including, in particular, those in the pump and fluid handling industries. In management’s opinion, the complaints typically have been vague, general and speculative, alleging that Met-Pro, along with the numerous other defendants, sold unidentified asbestos-containing products and engaged in other related actions which caused injuries (including death) and loss to the plaintiffs. Counsel has advised that more recent cases typically allege more serious claims of mesothelioma. The Company’s insurers have hired attorneys who, together with the Company, are vigorously defending these cases. Many cases have been dismissed after the plaintiff fails to produce evidence of exposure to Met-Pro’s products. In those cases where evidence has been produced, the Company’s experience has been that the exposure levels are low and the Company’s position has been that its products were not a cause of death, injury or loss. The Company has been dismissed from or settled a large number of these cases. Cumulative settlement payments from 2002 through September 30, 2013 for cases involving asbestos-related claims were $740, which together with all legal fees other than corporate counsel expenses, have been paid by the Company’s insurers. The average cost per settled claim, excluding legal fees, was approximately $25.

Based upon the most recent information available to the Company regarding such claims, there were a total of 175 cases pending against the Company as of September 30, 2013 (with Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania and West Virginia having the largest number of cases), as compared with 153 cases that were pending as of January 1, 2013. During the current fiscal year commencing January 1, 2013 through September 30, 2013, 43 new cases were filed against the Company, and the Company was dismissed from 21 cases and settled zero cases. Most of the pending cases have not advanced beyond the early stages of discovery, although a number of cases are on schedules leading to, or are scheduled for trial. The Company believes that its insurance coverage is adequate for the cases currently pending against the Company and for the foreseeable future, assuming a continuation of the current volume, nature of cases and settlement amounts. However, the Company has no control over the number and nature of cases that are filed against it, nor as to the financial health of its insurers or their position as to coverage. The Company also presently believes that none of the pending cases will have a material adverse impact upon the Company’s results of operations, liquidity or financial condition.

On October 12, 2012 the Company received a letter from the Sheet Metal Workers’ Local Union No. 80 (“the Union”) alleging that the Company had completely withdrawn from the Union’s Pension Trust Fund (“the Fund”) and may claim an amount up to $5.3 million plus interest. The Company has obtained legal counsel and plans to vigorously defend itself.

One of our subsidiaries, Fisher-Klosterman, Inc. (“FKI”), is a defendant party in a products liability lawsuit filed in Harris County, Texas on August 23, 2010 by three Valero refining companies. The plaintiffs claim that FKI (and its co-Defendants) used an allegedly defective refractory material included in cyclones it supplied to Valero that caused damages to refineries they own and operate. Plaintiffs claim to have suffered property damages including catalyst loss, regenerator repair costs, replacement part costs, damage to other property and business interruption loss of up to $75 million. The Company intends to vigorously defend this matter.

On January 14, 2013, CECO Environmental Corp., The Kirk & Blum Manufacturing Company and K&B Duct were served as defendants in the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia. The plaintiffs are Jeffrey Hodges, Tommy Lee Bonds, and John Paul Spangler. It is a product liability case in which the plaintiffs are alleging (i) breach of warranty with respect to aluminum dust collection equipment, including back-blast dampers and (ii) negligence, including in the design of the explosion isolation control equipment (back-blast dampers). CECO Environmental Corp. (but not its subsidiaries) has been dropped as a defendant. Two of the plaintiffs are asking for $5 million each plus interest and costs. The third plaintiff is asking for $1 million, plus interest and costs. To date the Company’s insurance carrier has agreed to defend the claims, and have retained counsel to defend the Company. We intend to vigorously defend this suit.

On January 13, 2011, the SEC initiated a non-public formal investigation of the Company. The investigation focused on certain activities by a former director of the Company, which director settled with the SEC in September 2013. The Company believes, after discussions with the staff of the SEC’s Enforcement Division, that the Company will not be subject to any claims.

Met-Pro and the Met-Pro former board of directors are named as defendants in a putative class action lawsuit brought by an alleged former Met-Pro shareholder who challenged the proposed Mergers filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The case is captioned Raymond Gold v. Met-Pro Corporation, et al., filed July 8, 2013, Civil Action No. 2:13-CV-03948 and alleges, among other things, that the Met-Pro board of directors breached its fiduciary duties to Met-Pro and its shareholders in approving the Merger Agreement at an unfair price, unduly restricting other potential bidders from making competing offers, failing to consult with other bidders to create a competitive bid process, and unduly limiting the board’s ability to consider and potentially accept an alternative proposal. The complaint further alleges that the Met-Pro board of directors and management were conflicted and improperly motivated to approve the Merger Agreement in order to secure benefits that are not available to Met-Pro’s shareholders, including the accelerated vesting of certain securities and change in control payments, and that the joint proxy statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 23, 2013, as amended by the filing of Amendment No. 1 on July 3, 2013, did not make sufficient disclosures regarding the Mergers. The action seeks an award of unspecified money damages. Met-Pro and CECO believe that these claims are without merit; however, in order to avoid the risk of delaying the consummation of the Mergers and to avoid the costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation, on July 20, 2013, Met-Pro entered into a memorandum of understanding (the “MOU”) with the plaintiff to settle the foregoing action without admitting any liability or wrongdoing. The MOU provides, among other things, that the parties will seek to enter into a stipulation of settlement which provides for the conditional certification of a non-opt out class, for settlement purposes only, that includes any and all persons or entities who held shares of Met-Pro common stock, either of record or beneficially, at any time between April 22, 2013, the date Met-Pro announced the Merger Agreement, and the date of consummation. The settlement and any attorneys’ fees award are subject to court approval. There can be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of settlement or that the court will approve such settlement. Additionally, as part of the MOU, Met-Pro agreed to make certain additional disclosures related to the proposed Mergers, which disclosures were incorporated into the final joint proxy statement/prospectus sent to the former Met-Pro shareholders.

The Company was involved in an arbitration proceeding initiated in April 2011 by William L. Heumann, Gerald J. Plappert, and Paul S. Brannick, related to the 2008 acquisition of Fisher-Klosterman Inc., in which the plaintiffs were claiming amounts owed pursuant to an earn-out provision in the purchase agreement. The arbitrator ruled on February 15, 2012 favorably to the Company resulting in a payment of the Company’s stock worth $21 and half of the plaintiffs’ legal and arbitrator costs of $106.

The Company is also a party to routine contract and employment-related litigation matters and routine audits of state and local tax returns arising in the ordinary course of its business.

The final outcome and impact of open matters, and related claims and investigations that may be brought in the future, are subject to many variables, and cannot be predicted. In accordance with ASC 450, “Contingencies,” and related guidance, we record reserves for estimated losses relating to claims and lawsuits when available information indicates that a loss is probable and the amount of the loss, or range of loss, can be reasonably estimated. Accordingly, we have accrued $2.5 million as of September 30, 2013, which is included within “Accounts payable and accrued expenses” on the condensed balance sheets. While it is currently not possible to reasonably estimate the aggregate amount of costs which we may incur in connection with these matters, such costs could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, liquidity, results of operations, or cash flows. The Company expenses legal costs as they are incurred.

We are not aware of pending claims or assessments, other than as described above, which may have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial position, results of operations, or cash flows.