UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 14A

Proxy Statement Pursuant to Section 14(a) of the Securities

Exchange Act of 1934

Filed by the Registrant þ

Filed by a Party other than the Registrant ¨

Check the appropriate box:

¨ Preliminary Proxy Statement

¨ Confidential, for Use of the Commission Only (as permitted by Rule 14a-6(e)(2))

þ Definitive Proxy Statement

¨ Definitive Additional Materials

¨ Soliciting Material Pursuant to §240.14a-12

GenCorp Inc.

(Name of Registrant as Specified In Its Charter)

(Name of Person(s) Filing Proxy Statement, if other than the Registrant)

Payment of Filing Fee (Check the appropriate box):

þ No fee required.

¨ Fee computed on table below per Exchange Act Rules 14a-6(i)(4) and 0-11.

1) Title of each class of securities to which transaction applies:

2) Aggregate number of securities to which transaction applies:

3) Per unit price or other underlying value of transaction computed pursuant to Exchange Act Rule 0-11 (set forth the amount on which the filing fee is calculated and state how it was determined):

4) Proposed maximum aggregate value of transaction:

5) Total fee paid:

¨ Fee paid previously with preliminary materials.

¨ Check box if any part of the fee is offset as provided by Exchange Act Rule 0-11(a)(2) and identify the filing for which the offsetting fee was paid previously. Identify the previous filing by registration statement number, or the Form or Schedule and the date of its filing.

1) Amount Previously Paid:

2) Form, Schedule or Registration Statement No.:

3) Filing Party:

4) Date Filed:

2001 Aerojet Road                Rancho Cordova, CA 95742

February 17, 2012

Dear Shareholder:

You are cordially invited to attend the 2012 Annual Meeting of Shareholders of GenCorp Inc., which will be held on March 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern time, at the Omni Berkshire Place, 21 East 52nd Street, New York, New York. Details of the business to be presented at the meeting can be found in the accompanying Notice of Annual Meeting and Proxy Statement.

We have elected to take advantage of the Securities and Exchange Commission’s rule that allows us to furnish our proxy materials to our shareholders over the Internet. We believe electronic delivery will expedite the receipt of materials and, by printing and mailing a smaller volume, will reduce the environmental impact of our annual meeting materials and help lower our costs. On or about February 17, 2012, a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (the “Notice of Internet Availability”) will be mailed to our shareholders. This Notice contains instructions on how to access the Notice of Annual Meeting, Proxy Statement and Annual Report to Shareholders online. You will not receive a printed copy of these materials, unless you specifically request one. The Notice of Internet Availability contains instructions on how to receive a paper copy of the proxy materials. For those participants who hold shares of GenCorp’s common stock in the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan, you will receive a full set of annual meeting materials and a proxy card by mail.

On behalf of the Board of Directors and the management of GenCorp Inc., I extend our appreciation for your continued support.

Very truly yours,

JAMES R. HENDERSON

Chairman of the Board

2001 Aerojet Road                Rancho Cordova, CA 95742

NOTICE OF ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

TIME:	9:00 a.m. Eastern time on Wednesday, March, 28, 2012
PLACE:	The Omni Berkshire Place, 21 East 52nd Street, New York, New York
ITEMS OF BUSINESS:	1.  To elect eight directors to our Board of Directors to serve until the 2013 annual meeting of shareholders and until their respective successors have been duly elected and qualified;
	2.  To approve an amendment to the GenCorp Amended and Restated 2009 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan to increase the number of shares authorized and reserved for issuance thereunder by 3,000,000 shares;
	3.  To consider and approve an advisory resolution regarding the compensation of GenCorp’s Named Executive Officers;
	4.  To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, as independent auditors of the Company for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2012; and
	5.  To consider and act on such other business as may properly be brought before the meeting or any adjournments or postponements thereof.
RECORD DATE:	You are entitled to vote at the 2012 Annual Meeting if you were a shareholder of record at the close of business on January 31, 2012.
ANNUAL MEETING ADMISSION:	In addition to a form of valid photo identification, you must bring evidence of your ownership of GenCorp common stock (which, if you are a beneficial holder, can be obtained from your bank, broker or other record holder of your shares) in order to be admitted.
PROXY VOTING:	It is important that your shares be represented and voted at the meeting. You may vote your shares by voting in person at the meeting, by Internet, by telephone or by completing, signing, dating and returning a proxy card which will be mailed to you if you request delivery of a full set of proxy materials. Participants in the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan must follow the voting instructions provided by Fidelity Management Trust Company. See details under the heading “How do I vote?”
INSPECTION OF LIST OF SHAREHOLDERS OF RECORD:	A list of the shareholders of record as of the record date will be available for inspection at the Annual Meeting.

By Order of the Board of Directors,

/s/    KATHLEEN E. REDD

Vice President,

Chief Financial Officer and Secretary

2001 Aerojet Road
Rancho Cordova, CA 95742

PROXY STATEMENT

FOR THE 2012 ANNUAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS

To Be Held On March 28, 2012

GENERAL INFORMATION

The Board of Directors (the “Board”) of GenCorp Inc., an Ohio corporation (“GenCorp” or the “Company”) solicits the enclosed proxy for use at the Company’s 2012 annual meeting of shareholders (the “Annual Meeting”) to be held at the Omni Berkshire Place, 21 East 52nd Street, New York, New York on March 28, 2012 at 9:00 a.m. Eastern time.

FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS

WHY DID I RECEIVE THIS PROXY STATEMENT?

The Board is soliciting your proxy to vote at the Annual Meeting because you were a shareholder of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.10 per share (“Common Stock”), at the close of business (5:00 p.m. Eastern time) on January 31, 2012, (the “Record Date”) and therefore you are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. This Proxy Statement contains information about the matters to be voted on at the meeting and the voting process, as well as information about the Company’s Board of Directors (“Directors”) and executive officers.

We are providing you with a Notice of Internet Availability of Proxy Materials (“Notice of Internet Availability”) and access to these proxy materials in connection with the solicitation by the Board of the Company to be used at the Annual Meeting and at any adjournment or postponement. The Notice of Internet Availability will be sent to shareholders of record and beneficial shareholders starting on or around February 17, 2012. The Proxy materials, including the Notice of Annual Meeting, Proxy Statement, and 2011 Annual Report, will be made available to shareholders on the Internet on February 17, 2012. For those participants who hold shares of GenCorp’s Common Stock in the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan, you will receive a full set of annual meeting materials and a proxy card for those shares.

WHY DID I RECEIVE A NOTICE OF INTERNET AVAILABILITY OF PROXY MATERIALS THIS YEAR INSTEAD OF A FULL SET OF PROXY MATERIALS?

Pursuant to the rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), we are providing access to the Company’s proxy materials over the Internet rather than printing and mailing them to all shareholders. We believe electronic delivery will expedite the receipt of these materials, reduce the environmental impact of our annual meeting materials and will help lower our costs. Therefore, the Notice of Internet Availability will be mailed to shareholders (or e-mailed, in the case of shareholders that have previously requested to receive proxy materials electronically) starting on or around February 17, 2012. The Notice of Internet Availability will provide instructions as to how shareholders may access and review the proxy materials on the website referred to in the Notice of Internet Availability or, alternatively, how to request that a copy of the proxy materials, including a proxy card, be sent to them by mail. The Notice of Internet Availability will also provide voting instructions. In addition, shareholders may request to receive the proxy materials in printed form by mail or electronically by e-mail on an ongoing basis for future shareholder meetings. Please note that, while our proxy materials are available at www.proxyvote.com referenced in the Notice of Internet Availability, no other information contained on the website is incorporated by reference in or considered to be a part of this Proxy Statement.

1

WHY DID I RECEIVE MORE THAN ONE NOTICE OF INTERNET AVAILABILITY?

You may receive multiple Notices of Internet Availability if you hold your shares of GenCorp’s Common Stock in multiple accounts (such as through a brokerage account). If you hold your shares of GenCorp’s Common Stock in multiple accounts you should vote your shares as described in each separate Notice of Internet Availability you receive.

IF GENCORP IS UTILIZING NOTICE OF INTERNET AVAILABILILTY, WHY DID I RECEIVE A FULL SET OF ANNUAL MEETING MATERIALS AND A PROXY CARD?

For those participants who hold shares of GenCorp’s Common Stock in the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan, you will receive a full set of annual meeting materials and proxy card for those shares. Fidelity Management Trust Company, (the “Trustee”), is not utilizing Notice of Internet Availability for the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan participants.

WHAT AM I VOTING ON?

You are voting on the following items of business at the Annual Meeting:

• To elect eight directors to our Board of Directors (the Board’s nominees are: Thomas A. Corcoran; James R. Henderson; Warren G. Lichtenstein; David A. Lorber; James H. Perry; Scott J. Seymour; Martin Turchin; and Robert C. Woods) to serve until the 2013 annual meeting of shareholders and until their respective successors have been duly elected and qualified (“Proposal 1”);

• To approve an amendment to the GenCorp Amended and Restated 2009 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (the “2009 Incentive Plan”) to increase the number of shares authorized and reserved for issuance thereunder by 3,000,000 shares (“Proposal 2”);

• To consider and approve an advisory resolution regarding the compensation of GenCorp’s Named Executive Officers (“Proposal 3”);

• To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (“PwC”), an independent registered public accounting firm, as independent auditors of the Company for the fiscal year ending November 30, 2012 (“Proposal 4”); and

• Any other matter that may properly be brought before the Annual Meeting.

WHO IS ENTITLED TO VOTE?

Shareholders of record as of the Record Date are entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting. Each share of Common Stock is entitled to one vote.

WHAT ARE THE VOTING RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE BOARD?

The Board recommends that you vote your shares “FOR” each of the Board’s eight nominees standing for election to the Board; “FOR” approval of an amendment to the 2009 Incentive Plan to increase the number of shares authorized and reserved for issuance thereunder by 3,000,000 shares; “FOR” the advisory resolution regarding the compensation of GenCorp’s Named Executive Officers; and “FOR” the ratification of PwC, an independent registered public accounting firm, as independent auditors of the Company.

HOW DO I VOTE?

It is important that your shares are represented at the Annual Meeting whether or not you attend the meeting in person. To make sure that your shares are represented, we urge you to vote as soon as possible.

2

SHARES HELD IN THE GENCORP RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLAN

Please follow the voting instructions provided by Fidelity Management Trust Company, the Trustee. You may sign, date and return a voting instruction card to the Trustee or submit voting instructions by telephone or the Internet. If you provide voting instructions by mail, telephone, or the Internet, the Trustee will vote your shares as you have directed (or not vote your shares, if that is your direction). If you do not provide voting instructions, the Trustee will vote your shares in the same proportion as shares for which the Trustee has received voting instructions. You must submit voting instructions to the Trustee by no later than March 23, 2012 at 11:59 p.m. Eastern time in order for your shares to be voted as you have directed by the Trustee at the Annual Meeting. GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan participants may not vote their Plan shares in person at the Annual Meeting.

SHARES HELD BY YOU, YOUR BROKER, BANK OR OTHER HOLDER OF RECORD

You may vote in several different ways:

In person at the Annual Meeting

You may vote in person at the Annual Meeting. You may also be represented by another person at the meeting by executing a proxy properly designating that person. If you are the beneficial owner of shares held in “street name,” you must obtain a legal proxy from your broker, bank or other holder of record and present it to the inspectors of election with your ballot to be able to vote at the meeting.

By telephone

You may vote by calling the toll-free telephone number indicated on your proxy card. Easy-to-follow voice prompts allow you to vote your shares and confirm that your voting instructions have been properly recorded.

By Internet

You may vote by going to the Internet web site indicated on your proxy card. Confirmation that your voting instructions have been properly recorded will be provided.

By mail

You may vote by completing, signing, dating and returning a proxy card which will be mailed to you if you request delivery of a full set of proxy materials. A postage-paid envelope will be provided along with the proxy card.

Telephone and Internet voting for shareholders of record will be available until 11:59 p.m. Eastern time on March 27, 2012. A mailed proxy card must be received by March 27, 2012 in order to be voted at the Annual Meeting. The availability of telephone and Internet voting for beneficial owners of other shares held in “street name” will depend on your broker, bank or other holder of record and we recommend that you follow the voting instructions on the Notice of Internet Availability that you receive from them.

If you are mailed a set of proxy materials and a proxy card or voting instruction card and you choose to vote by telephone or by Internet, you do not have to return your proxy card or voting instruction card. However, even if you plan to attend the Annual Meeting, we recommend that you vote your shares in advance so that your vote will be counted if you later decide not to attend the meeting.

MAY I ATTEND THE MEETING?

All shareholders and properly appointed proxy holders may attend the Annual Meeting. Shareholders who plan to attend must present valid photo identification. If you hold your shares in a brokerage account,

3

please also bring proof of your share ownership, such as a broker’s statement showing that you owned shares of the Company on the Record Date, or a legal proxy from your broker or nominee. A legal proxy is required if you hold your shares in a brokerage account and you plan to vote in person at the Annual Meeting. Shareholders of record will be verified against an official list available at the Annual Meeting. The Company reserves the right to deny admittance to anyone who cannot adequately show proof of share ownership as of the Record Date.

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOLDING SHARES AS A SHAREHOLDER OF RECORD AND AS A BENEFICIAL OWNER?

If your shares are registered directly in your name with GenCorp’s transfer agent, Computershare Shareowner Services, LLC, you are considered a “shareholder of record” or a “registered shareholder” of those shares. In this case, your Notice of Internet Availability has been sent to you directly by Broadridge Financial Solutions, Inc. If your shares are held in a stock brokerage account or by a bank, trust or other nominee or custodian, including shares you may own as a participant in the Company’s Retirement Savings Plan, you are considered the “beneficial owner” of those shares, which are held in “street name.” A Notice of Internet Availability has been forwarded to you by or on behalf of your broker, bank, trustee or other holder who is considered the shareholder of record of those shares. As the beneficial owner, you have the right to direct your broker, bank, trustee or other holder of record as to how to vote your shares by following their instructions for voting.

WHAT ARE BROKER NON-VOTES AND HOW ARE THEY COUNTED?

Broker non-votes occur when nominees, such as brokers and banks holding shares on behalf of the beneficial owners, are prohibited from exercising discretionary voting authority for beneficial owners who have not provided voting instructions at least ten days before the Annual Meeting. If no instructions are given within that time frame, the nominees may vote those shares on matters deemed “routine” by the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”). On non-routine matters such as Proposal Nos. 1 through 3, nominees cannot vote without instructions from the beneficial owner, resulting in so-called “broker non-votes.” Broker non-votes are not counted for the purposes of determining the number of shares present in person or represented by proxy on a voting matter. For these reasons, please promptly vote by telephone, or Internet, or sign, date and return the voting instruction card your broker or nominee has enclosed, in accordance with the instructions on the card.

MAY I CHANGE MY VOTE?

If you are a shareholder of record, you may revoke your proxy at any time before it is voted at the Annual Meeting by:

• Returning a later-dated, signed proxy card;

• Sending written notice of revocation to the Company, c/o the Secretary;

• Submitting a new, proper proxy by telephone, Internet or paper ballot, after the date of the earlier voted proxy; or

• Attending the Annual Meeting and voting in person.

If you are a beneficial owner of shares, you may submit new voting instructions by contacting your broker, bank or other nominee. You may also vote in person at the Annual Meeting if you obtain a legal proxy as described above.

4

WHAT VOTE IS REQUIRED TO APPROVE EACH PROPOSAL?

Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting. Votes cast for a nominee will be counted in favor of election. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not count either in favor of, or against, election of a nominee. Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of Directors set by the Board for election. Proposals 2 through 4, will require the affirmative vote of a majority of all of the votes cast. Abstentions and broker non-votes will have no effect on the outcome of the vote on Proposals 2 through 4.

DO SHAREHOLDERS HAVE CUMULATIVE VOTING RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO THE ELECTION OF DIRECTORS?

No. Shareholders do not have cumulative voting rights with respect to the election of Directors.

WHAT CONSTITUTES A QUORUM?

As of the Record Date, 59,707,500 shares of Common Stock were outstanding. A majority of the outstanding shares entitled to vote at the Annual Meeting, represented in person or by proxy, will constitute a quorum. Shares represented by a proxy that directs that the shares abstain from voting or that a vote be withheld on a matter and broker “non-votes” will be included at the Annual Meeting for quorum purposes. Shares represented by proxy as to which no voting instructions are given as to matters to be voted upon will be included at the Annual Meeting for quorum purposes.

WHAT IS THE COMPANY’S INTERNET ADDRESS?

The Company’s Internet address is www.GenCorp.com. You can access this Proxy Statement and the Company’s 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K at this Internet address. The Company’s filings with the SEC are available free of charge via a link from this address. Copies are also available in print to any shareholder or other interested person who requests it by writing to Secretary, GenCorp Inc., 2001 Aerojet Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95742.

WILL ANY OTHER MATTERS BE VOTED ON?

As of the date of this Proxy Statement, our management knows of no other matter that will be presented for consideration at the Annual Meeting other than those matters discussed in this Proxy Statement. If any other matters properly come before the Annual Meeting and call for a vote of the shareholders, validly executed proxies in the enclosed form will be voted in accordance with the recommendation of the Board.

WHO IS SOLICITING PROXIES UNDER THIS PROXY STATEMENT?

The proxies being solicited hereby are being solicited by our Board. The cost of soliciting proxies in the enclosed form will be borne by the Company. Officers and regular employees of the Company may, but without compensation other than their regular compensation, solicit proxies by further mailing or personal conversations, or by telephone, facsimile or electronic means. The Company will, upon request, reimburse brokerage firms and others for their reasonable expenses in forwarding solicitation material to the beneficial owners of stock.

ARE THERE DISSENTER’S OR APPRAISAL RIGHTS?

The Company’s shareholders are not entitled to dissenter’s or appraisal rights under Ohio law in connection with any of the Items of Business.

5

PROPOSAL 1

ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

The Company’s Amended Code of Regulations provides for a Board of not less than seven or more than seventeen Directors, and authorizes the Board to determine from time to time the number of Directors within that range that will constitute the Board by the affirmative vote of a majority of the members then in office. The Board has fixed the number of Directors to be elected at the Annual Meeting at eight.

The Board has proposed the following nominees for election as Directors at the Annual Meeting: Thomas A. Corcoran; James R. Henderson; Warren G. Lichtenstein; David A. Lorber; James H. Perry; Scott J. Seymour; Martin Turchin; and Robert C. Woods. Each nominee elected as a Director will continue in office until the next annual meeting of shareholders at which their successor has been elected, or until his resignation, removal from office, or death, whichever is earlier.

The Board recommends a vote FOR the election of these nominees as Directors.

Director Qualifications and Experience

The Board, acting through the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, seeks a Board that, as a whole, possesses the experience, skills, background and qualifications appropriate to function effectively in light of the Company’s current and evolving business circumstances. The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee reviews the size of the Board, the tenure of its Directors and their skills, backgrounds and experiences in determining the slate of nominees and whether to seek one or more new candidates. The Committee seeks directors with established records of significant accomplishments in business and areas relevant to the Company’s strategies. With respect to the nomination of continuing Directors for re-election, the individual’s contributions to the Board are also considered.

All of our Directors bring to our Board a wealth of executive leadership experience derived from their service as executives and, in some cases, chief executive officers of large corporations. They also bring extensive board experience. The process undertaken by the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee in recommending qualified director candidates is described in the Director Nominations section on page 15.

Set forth below are the names and ages of the nominees for Directors and their principal occupations at present and for the past five years, as well as their particular experience, qualifications, attributes or skills that led the Board to conclude that the person should serve as a Director for the Company. There are, to the knowledge of the Company, no agreements or understandings by which these individuals were so selected. No family relationships exist between any Directors or executive officers, as such term is defined in Item 402 of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). The information concerning the nominees set forth below is given as of December 31, 2011.

THOMAS A. CORCORAN

Director since 2008

Mr. Corcoran has been a Senior Advisor of The Carlyle Group, a private equity investment firm, and the President of Corcoran Enterprises, LLC, a management consulting company, since 2001. Previously Mr. Corcoran was also the President and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”) of Gemini Air Cargo, Inc., a cargo airline owned by The Carlyle Group, from 2001 to 2004. Prior to that, Mr. Corcoran was President and CEO of Allegheny Teledyne Incorporated, a specialty metals producer from 1999 to 2000. Prior to that, Mr. Corcoran was President and Chief Operating Officer (“COO”) of Lockheed Martin’s Electronics and Space Sectors from 1993 to 1999. Mr. Corcoran began his career in 1967 at General Electric Company in

6

various positions. In 1990, Mr. Corcoran was elected a corporate officer and rose to the number two position in G.E. Aerospace as Vice President and General Manager of G.E. Aerospace Operations. Mr. Corcoran is a director with L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. (Chairman of the Audit Committee) and ARINC, Inc., a Carlyle Group company. Mr. Corcoran is also Chairman of ONPATH Technologies, Inc., a privately owned high tech company. Mr. Corcoran was a Director with Force Protection, Inc., REMEC, Inc., United Industrial Corporation, LaBarge, Inc. (Audit Committee member), Aer Lingus, Ltd. based in Dublin, Ireland and Serco, Ltd. based in Surry, UK. Mr. Corcoran serves as a director of American Ireland Fund, is on the board of trustees of Stevens Institute of Technology and is a trustee emeritus at Worcester Polytechnic Institute. Mr. Corcoran brings to the Board considerable industry knowledge gained from extensive experience as a senior executive in the aerospace industry. Mr. Corcoran also brings to the Board significant public company board experience, including service as a director of a Fortune 500 company. Mr. Corcoran currently serves as a member of the Organization & Compensation Committee. Age 67.

JAMES R. HENDERSON

Director since 2008

Mr. Henderson was a Managing Director and operating partner of Steel Partners LLC (“Steel Partners”), a subsidiary of Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (“SPH”), a global diversified holding company that owns and operates businesses and has significant interests in leading companies in a variety of industries, including diversified industrial products, energy, defense, banking, insurance, and food products and services, until April 2011. He was associated with Steel Partners and its affiliates from August 1999 until April 2011. Mr. Henderson served as a director of DGT Holdings Corp., a manufacturer of proprietary high-voltage power conversion subsystems and components, from November 2003 until December 2011. Mr. Henderson also served as a director of SL Industries, Inc. (“SLI”), a company that designs, manufactures and markets power electronics, motion control, power protection, power quality electromagnetic and specialized communication equipment, from January 2002 to March 2010. Mr. Henderson was an Executive Vice President of SP Acquisition Holdings, Inc. (“SPAH”), a company formed for the purpose of acquiring one or more businesses or assets, from February 2007 until October 2009. He was a director of Angelica Corporation, a provider of healthcare linen management services, from August 2006 to August 2008. Mr. Henderson was a director and CEO of the predecessor entity of SPH, WebFinancial Corporation (“WebFinancial”), from June 2005 to April 2008, President and COO from November 2003 to April 2008, and was the Vice President of Operations from September 2000 to December 2003. He was also the CEO of WebBank, a wholly-owned subsidiary of SPH, from November 2004 to May 2005. He was a director of ECC International Corp., a manufacturer and marketer of computer controlled simulators for training personnel to perform maintenance and operation procedures on military weapons, from December 1999 to September 2003 and was acting CEO from July 2002 to March 2003. He served as the Chairman of the Board of Point Blank Solutions, Inc. (“Point Blank”), a designer and manufacturer of protective body armor, from August 2008 until October 2011, CEO from September 2009 until October 2011, and was Acting CEO from April 2009 to August 2009. Mr. Henderson was also the CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors of certain subsidiaries of Point Blank. On April 14, 2010, Point Blank and certain of its subsidiaries filed voluntary petitions for relief under Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware. The Chapter 11 petitions are being jointly administered under the caption “In re Point Blank Solutions, Inc., et. al.” Case No. 10-11255, which case is ongoing. He has served as the CEO of Point Blank Enterprises, Inc., the successor to the business of Point Blank, since October 2011. Mr. Henderson serves as a Manager of the Board of Managers of Easton Development Company, LLC, a subsidiary of GenCorp. Mr. Henderson’s substantial experience advising and managing public companies provides the Board with well-developed leadership skills and ability to promote the best interests of shareholders. Mr. Henderson currently serves as Chairman of the Board and Chairman of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee. Age 54.

7

WARREN G. LICHTENSTEIN

Director since 2008

Mr. Lichtenstein has served as the Chairman of the Board and CEO of the general partner of SPH since July 15, 2009. He is also the Chairman and CEO of Steel Partners and has been associated with Steel Partners and its affiliates since 1990. He is a Co-Founder of Steel Partners Japan Strategic Fund (Offshore), L.P., a private investment partnership investing in Japan, and Steel Partners China Access I LP, a private equity partnership investing in China. He also co-founded Steel Partners II, L.P., a private investment partnership that is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of SPH, in 1993. He has served as Chairman of the Board of Handy & Harman Ltd., a diversified manufacturer of engineered niche industrial products, since July 2005. He has served as a director of SLI since March 2010. He previously served as a director (formerly Chairman of the Board) of SLI from January 2002 to May 2008 and served as CEO from February 2002 to August 2005. Mr. Lichtenstein served as the Chairman of the Board, President and CEO of SPAH from February 2007 until October 2009. Mr. Lichtenstein has served as a director (currently Chairman of the Board) of Steel Excel Inc., a company whose business is expected to consist primarily of capital redeployment and identification of new, profitable operations in the sports, training, education, entertainment and lifestyle businesses, since October 2010. He served as a director of WebFinancial from 1996 to June 2005, as Chairman and CEO from December 1997 to June 2005 and as President from December 1997 to December 2003. From May 2001 to November 2007, Mr. Lichtenstein served as a director (formerly Chairman of the Board) of United Industrial Corporation, a company principally focused on the design, production and support of defense systems, which was acquired by Textron Inc. He served as a director of KT&G Corporation, South Korea’s largest tobacco company, from March 2006 to March 2008. Mr. Lichtenstein served as a director of Layne Christensen Company, a provider of products and services for the water, mineral, construction and energy markets, from January 2004 to October 2006. Mr. Lichtenstein is qualified to serve as a director due to his expertise in corporate finance, record of success in managing private investment funds and his service as a director of, and advisor to, a diverse group of public companies. Mr. Lichtenstein currently serves as a member of the Organization & Compensation Committee. Age 46.

DAVID A. LORBER

Director since 2006

Mr. Lorber is a Co-Founder and Portfolio Manager for FrontFour Capital Group LLC, a hedge fund since 2007. Mr. Lorber is also a Co-Founder and Principal of FrontFour Capital Corp. Previously, Mr. Lorber was a Senior Investment Analyst at Pirate Capital LLC, a hedge fund from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, Mr. Lorber was an Analyst at Vantis Capital Management LLC, a money management firm and hedge fund from 2001 to 2003 and an Associate at Cushman & Wakefield, Inc. Mr. Lorber also serves as a Director of Fisher Communications Inc. and Huntingdon Real Estate Investment Trust and was a Trustee for IAT Air Cargo Facilities Income Fund from January 2009 to December 2009. Mr. Lorber brings to the Board significant financial and investment industry experience and experience as a public company director. Mr. Lorber currently serves as Chairman of the Organization & Compensation Committee and as a member of the Audit Committee. Age 33.

JAMES H. PERRY

Director since 2008

Mr. Perry has been a self employed financial consultant since 2008. Previously, Mr. Perry served as Vice President of United Industrial Corporation, which, through its wholly-owned subsidiary AAI Corporation, designs, produces and supports aerospace and defense systems, from 1998 to 2007, as Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”) from 1995 to 2007, as Treasurer from 1994 to 2005, and as Controller from 2005 to 2007.

8

Mr. Perry served as CFO of AAI Corporation from 2000 to 2007, as Treasurer from 2000 to 2005, and as Vice President from 1997 to 2007. Mr. Perry, a certified public accountant, held various positions in the Assurance practice of Ernst & Young LLP, a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services, from 1987 to 1994. Mr. Perry’s background as a financial consultant, senior executive and certified public accountant provides the Board with sophisticated financial expertise and oversight. Mr. Perry currently serves as Chairman of the Audit Committee and as a member of the Organization & Compensation Committee. Age 50.

SCOTT J. SEYMOUR

Director since 2010

Mr. Seymour joined the Company on January 6, 2010, as President and CEO of the Company and was appointed President of Aerojet-General Corporation (“Aerojet”) on January 26, 2010. Prior to that, Mr. Seymour had served as a consultant to Northrop Grumman Corporation, a global defense and technology company (“Northrop”), since March 2008. Mr. Seymour joined Northrop in 1983. Prior to becoming a consultant in March 2008, Mr. Seymour most recently served as Corporate Vice President and President of Integrated Systems Sector of Northrop from 2002 until March 2008. Mr. Seymour also served as Vice President, Air Combat Systems, Vice President and B-2 Program Manager and Vice President, Palmdale Operations, of Northrop, from 1998 to 2001, 1996 to 1998 and 1993 to 1996, respectively. Prior to joining Northrop, Mr. Seymour was involved in the manufacture and flight-testing of F-14A, EF-111A and F/A-18A aircraft for each of Grumman Aerospace Corporation and McDonnell Aircraft Company. Mr. Seymour is a member of the National Museum United States Air Force Board of Managers and the Board of the Air Warrior Courage Foundation. He is also a member of the Florida Institute of Technology Board of Trustees and a director of the Astronauts Memorial Foundation. Mr. Seymour serves as a Manager of the Board of Managers of Easton Development Company, LLC, a subsidiary of GenCorp. Mr. Seymour’s extensive experience as a senior executive provides the Board with significant operational expertise and an in-depth knowledge of the aerospace and defense industry. Age 61.

MARTIN TURCHIN

Director since 2008

Mr. Turchin is a Vice-Chairman of CB Richard Ellis, the world’s largest real estate services company, a position he has held since 2003. Previously, Mr. Turchin served as a Vice-Chairman of a subsidiary of Insignia Financial Group, a real estate brokerage, consulting and management firm from 1996 to 2003. Prior to that, Mr. Turchin was a principal and Vice-Chairman of Edward S. Gordon Company, a real estate brokerage, consulting and management firm from 1985 to 1996. Mr. Turchin has been a director of Boston Properties, a real estate investment trust, for more than ten years. Mr. Turchin held various positions with Kenneth E. Laub & Company, Inc., a real estate company, where he was involved in real estate acquisition, financing, leasing and consulting from 1971 to 1985. Mr. Turchin also serves as a trustee for the Turchin Family Charitable Foundation. Mr. Turchin serves as a Manager of the Board of Managers of Easton Development Company, LLC, a subsidiary of GenCorp. Mr. Turchin’s considerable experience in the real estate industry and service as a director of public companies provides the board with valuable expertise in real estate matters and experience in advising companies. Mr. Turchin currently serves as a member of the Audit Committee and as a member of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee. Age 70.

ROBERT C. WOODS

Director since 2006

Mr. Woods is CEO and Founder of Palladian Capital Advisors, a national investment bank that provides capital raising and corporate finance advisory services for clients in the commercial real estate, home building, shipping and oil and gas industries. Mr. Woods has been an Investment Banker at Cornerstone

9

Capital Advisors (“Cornerstone”), a real estate investment bank, since 1987. Mr. Woods has also been a real estate developer for Palladian Partners (“Palladian”), a real estate development company since 1983. At both Cornerstone and Palladian, Mr. Woods’ experience includes developing and financing master planned communities. Previously, Mr. Woods was the Vice President of Development for the Cullen Center in Houston, Texas from 1982 to 1983, a Project Manager and Vice President of Development for Hines Interests LLC, a real estate development company from 1980 to 1983, a Project Manager for Trammell Crow, a real estate development company from 1979 to 1980. Mr. Woods was also a consulting professor of real estate finance at Stanford University from 2000 to 2005. Mr. Woods is a Chartered Financial Analyst (“CFA”). As a CFA and through extensive experience, Mr. Woods brings to the Board significant financial and real estate related knowledge and expertise. Mr. Woods currently serves as a member of the Audit Committee and as a member of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee. Age 59.

The Board unanimously recommends that shareholders vote FOR each of these nominees as Directors by executing and returning the proxy card or voting by one of the other ways indicated thereon. Proxies solicited by the Board will be so voted unless shareholders specify otherwise.

Voting for Directors

The Company has no provision for cumulative voting in the election of Directors. Therefore, holders of Common Stock are entitled to cast one vote for each share held on the Record Date for each of the candidates for election. Directors are elected by a plurality of the votes cast at the Annual Meeting; however, the Board has adopted a majority vote policy. Pursuant to such policy, in an uncontested election, any nominee for Director who receives a greater number of votes “withheld” for his election than votes “for” such election (a “Majority Withheld Vote”) shall promptly tender his resignation after such election for consideration by the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee. In determining its recommendation to the Board, the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee will consider all factors deemed relevant by its members. These factors may include the underlying reasons why shareholders “withheld” votes for election from such Director (if ascertainable), the length of service and qualifications of the Director whose resignation has been tendered, the Director’s contributions to the Company, whether by accepting such resignation the Company will no longer be in compliance with any applicable law, rule, regulation or governing document, and whether or not accepting the resignation is in the best interests of the Company and our shareholders. Within 90 days thereafter, the Board, taking into account the recommendation of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee and such additional information and factors that the Board believes to be relevant, must determine whether to accept or reject the resignation. The Director that tendered the resignation shall not participate in the consideration or determination of whether to accept such resignation. The Board shall disclose by press release its decision to accept or reject the resignation and, if applicable, the reasons for rejecting the resignation. If a majority of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee members receive a Majority Withheld Vote at the same election, then the independent Directors who did not receive a Majority Withheld Vote will appoint a committee of independent Directors to consider the resignation offers and recommend to the Board whether to accept or reject them.

Votes cast for a nominee will be counted in favor of election. Abstentions and broker non-votes will not count either in favor of, or against, election of a nominee. It is the intention of the persons named in the accompanying form of proxy to vote for the election of the Board’s nominees, unless authorization to do so is withheld. Proxies cannot be voted for a greater number of persons than the number of Directors set by the Board for election. If, prior to the Annual Meeting, a nominee becomes unable to serve as a Director for any reason, the proxy holders reserve the right to substitute another person of their choice in such nominee’s place and stead. It is not anticipated that any nominee will be unavailable for election at the Annual Meeting.

10

Retirement Policy

Under the Board’s retirement policy, a Director’s term of office normally expires at the annual meeting of shareholders following their 75th birthday. The Board’s retirement policy also provides that the Board may waive immediate compliance with the policy and request that a Director postpone their retirement until a subsequent date.

Meetings of the Board

The Board held eight meetings during fiscal year 2011. All of the Directors who served during fiscal year 2011 attended at least 75% of the regularly scheduled and special meetings of the Board and Board committees on which they served and to which they were invited in fiscal year 2011, except Mr. Lichtenstein. All of the Board’s nominees for election at the Annual Meeting are expected to attend the Annual Meeting. All but one of the Directors nominated for election at the 2011 annual meeting of shareholders were present at such meeting.

Meetings of Non-Employee Directors

Non-employee Directors (consists of all Directors other than Mr. Seymour) meet in executive session as part of each regularly scheduled Board meeting. In 2011, the Chairman of the Board, presided at all such executive sessions. In the event of the Chairman’s absence, a non-employee Director is chosen on a rotating basis to preside.

Board Leadership Structure

In February 2007, as part of its ongoing commitment to corporate governance, the Board made a decision to separate the positions of Chairman of the Board and CEO. Prior to February 2007, the positions of Chairman of the Board and CEO were historically held by the same person. In March 2007, the Company’s shareholders approved the Board’s recommendations to amend the Company’s Amended Code of Regulations (the “Code of Regulations”) to allow the Board the flexibility to choose whether to elect a non-executive Chairman, who would not be an officer of the Company, or have one person serve in both capacities. Since March 2007, the Board has appointed a non-executive to serve as Chairman of the Board.

Pursuant to the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, the duties of the non-executive Chairman of the Board include:

• preparing the agenda for Board meetings in consultation with the CEO;

• presiding over all meetings of the shareholders and Board, including all executive sessions of the independent Directors;

• serving as liaison between the CEO and the Board;

• collaborating with senior management to provide timely information to the Board; and

• collaborating with the Organization & Compensation Committee to review the performance of the CEO.

As directors continue to have increasingly more oversight responsibilities, the Company believes it is beneficial to have an independent Chairman whose sole responsibility is leading the Board, leaving the CEO’s main focus on the Company’s business goals and promoting both short-term and long-term growth.

Pursuant to the Code of Regulations and the Company’s corporate governance guidelines, the Board determines the leadership structure of the Company. As part of the Board’s annual self-evaluation process, the Board evaluates the Company’s leadership structure to ensure that it provides the optimal structure for the Company and shareholders. At this time, the Board believes the current leadership structure, with

11

Mr. Seymour serving as CEO and Mr. Henderson serving as Chairman of the Board, is the most advantageous for the Company. However, the Board recognizes that there is no single, generally accepted approach to providing corporate leadership, and the Company’s leadership structure may change in the future as circumstances warrant.

Board Role in Risk Oversight

Management has the primary responsibility for identifying and managing the risks facing the Company, subject to the oversight of the Board. The Board strives to effectively oversee the Company’s enterprise-wide risk management in a way that balances managing risks while enhancing the long-term value of the Company for the benefit of the shareholders. The Board of Directors understands that its focus on effective risk oversight is critical to setting the Company’s tone and culture towards effective risk management. To administer its oversight function, the Board seeks to understand the Company’s risk philosophy by having discussions with management to establish a mutual understanding of the Company’s overall appetite for risk. The Company’s Board of Directors maintains an active dialogue with management about existing risk management processes and how management identifies, assesses and manages the Company’s most significant risk exposures. The Company’s Board receives frequent updates from management about the Company’s most significant risks so as to enable it to evaluate whether management is responding appropriately.

The Board of Directors relies on each of its committees to help oversee the risk management responsibilities relating to the functions performed by such committees. The Audit Committee periodically discusses with management the Company’s major financial risk exposures and the steps management has taken to monitor and control such exposures, including the Company’s risk assessment and risk management policies. The Organization & Compensation Committee helps the Board to identify the Company’s exposure to any risks potentially created by our compensation programs and practices. The Governance & Nominating Committee oversees risks relating to the Company’s corporate compliance programs and assists the Board and management in promoting an organizational culture that encourages commitment to ethical conduct and a commitment to compliance with the law. Each of these committees is required to regularly report on its actions and to make recommendations to the Board, including recommendations to assist the Board with its overall risk oversight function. The Board retains oversight responsibility for all subject matters not specifically assigned to a committee, including risks presented by the Company’s business strategy, competition, regulation, general industry trends, and capital structure.

Determination of Independence of Directors

The Board has determined that to be considered independent, a Director may not have a direct or indirect material relationship with the Company. A material relationship is one which impairs or inhibits, or has the potential to impair or inhibit, a Director’s exercise of critical and disinterested judgment on behalf of the Company and its shareholders. In making its assessment of independence, the Board considers any and all material relationships not merely from the standpoint of the Director, but also from that of persons or organizations with which the Director has or has had an affiliation, or those relationships which may be material, including commercial, industrial, banking, consulting, legal, accounting, charitable and familial relationships, among others. The Board also considers whether a Director was an employee of the Company within the last five years. The Board consults with the Company’s counsel to ensure that the Board’s determinations are consistent with all relevant securities and other laws and regulations regarding the definition of “independent” Director, including those set forth in pertinent listing standards of the NYSE as in effect from time to time. The NYSE’s listing standards require that all listed companies have a majority of independent directors. For a director to be “independent” under the NYSE listing standards, the board of directors of a listed company must affirmatively determine that the director has no material relationship with the company, or its subsidiaries or affiliates, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an

12

organization that has a relationship with the company or its subsidiaries or affiliates. In accordance with the NYSE listing standards, the Board has affirmatively determined that each of the Board’s nominees, other than Mr. Seymour, have no material relationships with the Company, either directly or as a partner, shareholder or officer of an organization that has a relationship with the Company.

To determine the independence of its Directors, the Company examined the following NYSE listing standards, which provide that a director is not independent if:

• the director is, or has been within the last three years, an employee of the listed Company, or an immediate family member is, or has been within the last three years, an executive officer of the listed Company;

• the director has received, or has an immediate family member who has received, during any twelve-month period within the last three years, more than $120,000 in direct compensation from the listed Company, other than director and committee fees and pension or other forms of deferred compensation for prior service (provided such compensation is not contingent in any way on continued service);

• (a) the director is a current partner or employee of a firm that is the listed Company’s internal or external auditor; (b) the director has an immediate family member who is a current partner of such a firm; (c) the director has an immediate family member who is a current employee of such a firm and personally works on the listed Company’s audit; or (d) the director or an immediate family member was within the last three years (but is no longer) a partner or employee of such a firm and personally worked on the listed Company’s audit within that time;

• the director or an immediate family member is, or has been within the last three years, employed as an executive officer of another company where any of the listed Company’s present executive officers at the same time serves or served on that company’s compensation committee; or

• the director is a current employee, or an immediate family member is a current executive officer, of a company that has made payments to or received payments from, the listed Company for property or services in an amount which, in any of the last three fiscal years, exceeds the greater of $1 million, or 2% of such other listed Company’s consolidated gross revenues.

On September 9, 2011, the Company repurchased $15.5 million principal amount of its 2 ¹/4% convertible subordinated debentures from SPH Group Holdings LLC for an aggregate purchase price of $15,438,000, plus brokerage commissions and accrued and unpaid interest, which was a related party transaction. A member of the Company’s Board of Directors, Mr. Lichtenstein, is the Chairman and CEO of the manager of SPH Group Holdings LLC.

Each of the Board’s nominees, other than Mr. Seymour, has been determined to be “independent” by the NYSE listing standards.

Board Committees

The Board maintains three standing committees: the Audit Committee; the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee; and the Organization & Compensation Committee. In addition, non-standing committees include the Pricing Committee, the Authorization Committee, and the Benefits Management Committee. Assignments to, and chairs of, the committees are recommended by the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee and approved by the Board. All committees report on their activities to the Board. Each standing committee operates under a charter approved by the Board. The charters for each of the standing committees are posted on the Company’s web site at www.GenCorp.com and in print to any shareholder or interested party who requests them by writing to Secretary, GenCorp Inc., 2001 Aerojet Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95742.

13

The following table provides the membership and total number of meetings held by each standing committee of the Board in fiscal year 2011:

Name	Audit	Corporate Governance & Nominating	Organization  & Compensation
Scott J. Seymour
Thomas A. Corcoran			X
James R. Henderson		X*
Warren G. Lichtenstein			X
David A. Lorber	X		X*
James H. Perry	X*		X
Martin Turchin	X	X
Robert C. Woods	X	X
Total meetings in fiscal year 2011	5	2	5

* Committee Chairman

The Audit Committee is a separately designated standing committee established in accordance with Section 3(a)(58)(A) of the Exchange Act. The Board has determined that each member of the Audit Committee meets all applicable independence and financial literacy requirements under the NYSE listing standards. The Board has also determined that Mr. Perry is an “audit committee financial expert” under the applicable rules promulgated pursuant to the Exchange Act. The Audit Committee reviews and evaluates the scope of the audits to be performed by, the adequacy of services performed by, and the fees and compensation of, the independent auditors. The Audit Committee also reviews the Company’s audited financial statements with management and with the Company’s independent auditors and recommends to the Board to include the audited financial statements in the Annual Report on Form 10-K; approves in advance all audit and permitted non-audit services to be provided by the independent auditors; reviews and considers matters that may have a bearing upon continuing audit or independence; prepares the report of the Audit Committee to be included in the Company’s Proxy Statement; appoints the independent auditors to examine the consolidated financial statements of the Company; reviews and evaluates the scope and appropriateness of the Company’s internal audit function, internal audit plans and system of internal controls; reviews and evaluates the appropriateness of the Company’s selection or application of accounting principles and practices and financial reporting; receives periodic reports from the internal audit and law departments; and reviews and oversees the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements.

The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee periodically reviews and makes recommendations to the Board concerning the criteria for selection and retention of Directors, the composition of the Board (including the Chairman of the Board), the structure and function of Board committees, and the retirement policy of Directors. The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee also assists in identifying, and recommends to the Board, qualified candidates to serve as Directors of the Company and considers and makes recommendations to the Board concerning Director nominations submitted by shareholders. The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee also periodically reviews and advises the Board regarding significant matters of public policy, including proposed actions by foreign and domestic governments that may significantly affect the Company; reviews and advises the Board regarding adoption or amendment of major Company policies and programs relating to matters of public policy; monitors the proposed adoption or amendment of significant environmental legislation and regulations and advises the Board regarding the impact such proposals may have upon the Company and, where appropriate, the nature of the Company’s response thereto; periodically reviews and advises the Board regarding the status of the Company’s environmental policies and performance under its environmental compliance programs; and periodically

14

reviews and reports to the Board regarding the status of, and estimated liabilities for, environmental remediation. The Board has determined that each member of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee meets all applicable independence requirements under the NYSE listing standards.

The Organization & Compensation Committee advises and recommends to the independent Directors the total compensation of the President and CEO. In addition, the Organization & Compensation Committee, with the counsel of the CEO, considers and establishes base pay and incentive pay for the other executive officers of the Company. The Organization & Compensation Committee also administers the Company’s deferred compensation plan and the 2009 Incentive Plan. The Organization & Compensation Committee periodically reviews the organization of the Company and its management, including major changes in the organization of the Company and the responsibility of management as proposed by the CEO; monitors executive development and succession planning; reviews the effectiveness and performance of senior management and makes recommendations to the Board concerning the appointment and removal of officers; periodically reviews the compensation philosophy, policies and practices of the Company and makes recommendations to the Board concerning major changes, as appropriate; annually reviews changes in the Company’s employee benefit, savings and retirement plans and reports thereon to the Board; and approves, and in some cases recommends to the Board for approval, the compensation of officers, and executives of the Company. The Organization & Compensation Committee also reviews and makes recommendations to the Board regarding the compensation and benefits for Directors.

From time to time, the Board forms special committees to address specific matters.

Director Nominations

The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee identifies potential director candidates through a variety of means, including recommendations from members of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, the Board, management and shareholders. The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee also may retain the services of a consultant to assist in identifying candidates. The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee will consider nominations submitted by shareholders. A shareholder who would like to recommend a nominee should write to the Chairman of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, c/o Secretary, GenCorp Inc., 2001 Aerojet Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95742. Any such recommendation must include (i) the name and address of the candidate; (ii) a brief biographical description, including his or her occupation for at least the last five years, and a statement of the qualifications of the candidate; and (iii) the candidate’s signed consent to serve as a Director if elected and to be named in the Proxy Statement.

Such nominations must be received by the Chairman of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee no later than December 1^st immediately preceding the date of the annual meeting of shareholders at which the nominee is to be considered for election. Since the date of the Company’s 2011 Proxy Statement, there have been no material changes to the procedures by which shareholders of the Company may recommend nominees to the Board.

The Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee seeks to create a Board that is, as a whole, strong in its collective knowledge and diversity of skills and experience and background with respect to accounting and finance, management and leadership, business judgment, industry knowledge and corporate governance. Although the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee does not have a formal diversity policy relating to the identification and evaluation of nominees, the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, in addition to reviewing a candidate’s qualifications and experience in light of the needs of the Board and the Company at that time, reviews candidates in the context of the current composition of the Board and the evolving needs of the Company’s businesses.

15

Communications with Directors

Shareholders and other interested parties may communicate with the Board or individual Directors by mail addressed to: Chairman of the Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee, c/o Secretary, 2001 Aerojet Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95742. The Secretary may initially review communications to the Board or individual Directors and transmit a summary to the Board or individual Directors, but has discretion to exclude from transmittal any communications that are, in the reasonable judgment of the Secretary, inappropriate for submission to the intended recipient(s). Examples of communications that would be considered inappropriate for submission to the Board or a Director include, without limitation, customer complaints, solicitations, commercial advertisements, communications that do not relate directly or indirectly to the Company’s business or communications that relate to improper or irrelevant topics.

Compensation Committee Interlocks and Insider Participation

The Organization & Compensation Committee is composed entirely of non-employee independent Directors. As of November 30, 2011, the members of the Organization & Compensation Committee included David A. Lorber (Chairman), Thomas A. Corcoran, Warren G. Lichtenstein and James H. Perry. All non-employee independent Directors participate in decisions regarding the compensation of the President and CEO. None of the Company’s executive officers serve as a member of the Board or compensation committee of any entity that has one or more of its executive officers serving as a member of the Company’s Organization & Compensation Committee. In addition, none of the Company’s executive officers serve as a member of the Organization & Compensation Committee of any entity that has one or more of its executive officers serving as a member of the Company’s Board.

Director Compensation

The compensation of the Company’s non-employee Directors is determined by the Board upon the recommendations made by the Organization & Compensation Committee. The current Director compensation program was implemented by the Company in 2010 after evaluation of the recommendations by the Hay Group when retained by the Organization & Compensation Committee as outside consultants to assess the overall compensation structure for its non-employee Directors. Specifically, the Organization & Compensation Committee requested the Hay Group to measure the Company’s director compensation (in total and by pay component) against similarly sized U.S. companies in the aerospace/defense industry and in the broader general industry, using both proprietary compensation surveys and its knowledge of industry practices. The compensation program was re-evaluated in 2011 and determined to be competitive with the current market. The Director compensation program is more fully described below.

Annual Retainer Fees

Under our Director compensation program effective for the period ending on the date of each annual meeting of shareholders, each non-employee Director will receive an annual retainer fee of $55,000, with the exception of the Chairman of the Board who will receive an annual retainer fee of $110,000. Each non-employee Director will receive $5,000 for service on a standing or long-term special committee of the Board and $3,250 for service on a limited-purpose special committee of the Board. Non-employee Directors who served as Chairman of the Organization & Compensation Committee or Corporate Governance & Nominating Committee will receive an additional annual fee of $10,000 and the Chairman of the Audit Committee will receive an additional $15,000. Non-employee Directors who attend Board meetings in excess of six meetings between any two annual meetings of shareholders will receive $2,000 per each additional Board meeting and non-employee Directors who attend meetings of any single standing or long-term special committee meetings held in excess of six meetings between any two annual meetings of

16

shareholders will receive $1,500 per each additional committee meeting. The annual cash compensation for each non-employee Director serving as a Manager on the Board of Managers of Easton Development Company, LLC is $15,000.

Non-Employee Directors are given a choice to receive all such Director fees in cash or receiving all or part, but no less than 50%, of such fees in the form of fully vested Company Common Stock, calculated based on the closing price of the Common Stock as reported in the NYSE Composite Transactions in the Wall Street Journal (or if such information in such source is unavailable, a source providing similar information selected by the Company) as of the applicable Director pay date, pursuant to the 2009 Incentive Plan. If a non-employee Director elects for any year to receive all or a portion of such fees in the form of fully-vested Common Stock, an additional grant of restricted shares of Common Stock will be given equal in value to 50% of the amount of fees paid in fully-vested Common Stock vesting on the earlier of the Director’s retirement from service from the Board or one year from the date of grant.

Equity Grants

In March 2011, each non-employee Director received $75,000 worth of equity compensation, with the exception of the Chairman of the Board, who received $95,000 worth of equity compensation pursuant to the 2009 Incentive Plan. This grant consisted of 3,119 restricted shares of Common Stock and 15,454 Stock Appreciation Rights (“SARs”) for non-employee Directors other than the Chairman of the Board, who received 3,951 restricted shares of Common Stock and 19,576 SARs. These awards vest in 50% increments on the six-month and twelve-month anniversary of the grant date. Non-Employee Directors also receive a one-time award of 500 restricted shares of Common Stock as part of their initial election to the Board. All restricted shares of Common Stock may be voted, but ownership may not transfer until such shares are vested. Unless otherwise approved by the Board, unvested shares will be forfeited in the event of a voluntary resignation or refusal to stand for re-election. The SARs have a seven-year term under the 2009 Incentive Plan.

Equity Ownership Guidelines for Non-employee Directors

In October 2007, the Board adopted equity ownership guidelines under which non-employee Directors are required to own equity in the Company in an amount equal to $150,000. In calculating the amount of equity owned by a Director, the Board looks at the value of Common Stock owned by such Director (restricted stock and stock owned outright), the value of any phantom stock owned by such Director as part of the Deferred Compensation Plan for Non-Employee Directors, if any and the value of any vested “in the money” options or SARs (i.e. market value of Company stock in excess of the strike price for the stock option or SAR). Directors have five years to meet the thresholds set forth in these equity ownership guidelines. The Board routinely reviews these guidelines and considers adjustments when appropriate, including adjustments for material fluctuations in the Company’s stock price. The following table shows the current status of equity ownership for each non-employee Director as of January 10, 2012.

Name	Value of Equity Ownership*		Date of Election	Years as a  Director
Thomas A. Corcoran		$  269,712	09/24/08	3.3
James R. Henderson		630,324	03/05/08	3.9
Warren G. Lichtenstein		372,985	03/05/08	3.9
David A. Lorber		420,753	03/31/06	5.9
James H. Perry		419,565	05/16/08	3.7
Martin Turchin		473,201	03/05/08	3.9
Robert C. Woods		192,398	03/31/06	5.9

* Value is based on the stock price on January 10, 2012 of $5.50.

17

Other

The GenCorp Foundation matches employee and Director gifts to accredited, non-profit colleges, universities, secondary and elementary public or private schools located in the United States. Gifts made were matched dollar for dollar up to $3,000 per calendar year.

Non-employee Directors may also elect to participate in the same health benefits programs at the same cost as offered to all of the Company’s employees. Three Directors participated in this plan in fiscal 2011. The Company also reimburses Directors for actual travel and other expenses incurred in attending Board and Committee meetings.

2011 DIRECTOR COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table sets forth information regarding compensation earned or paid to each non-employee Director who served on the Board of Directors in fiscal year 2011. Employee Directors are not compensated for services as a director.

Name	Fees Earned or Paid ($)(1)		Stock Awards ($)(2)(3)		Option/SARs Awards ($)(2)(3)		All Other Compensation ($)(4)		Total ($)
Thomas A. Corcoran	$	66,987	$	35,489	$	56,248	$	3,000	$  161,724
James R. Henderson		146,990		97,233		71,251		—	315,474
Warren G. Lichtenstein		69,988		53,731		56,248		—	179,967
David A. Lorber		86,988		62,234		56,248		—	205,470
James H. Perry		90,486		63,980		56,248		—	210,714
Martin Turchin		83,990		60,736		56,248		3,000	203,974
Robert C. Woods		67,000		18,745		56,248		—	141,993

(1) The amounts reported in this column for each non-employee Director reflect the dollar amount of the Board and Committee fees paid in fiscal year 2011. Non-employee Directors have a choice to receive all or a portion of their director fees in fully vested Common Stock of the Company, in which the number of shares is determined by the closing price of the Common Stock as of the applicable pay date. If a Director elects to receive fees in Common Stock, an additional grant of restricted shares of Common Stock are given in an amount equal in value to 50% of the amount of fees paid in fully vested Common Stock. This additional grant is reported in the “Stock Awards” column. The following table shows director fees that were paid in fully vested Common Stock in fiscal year 2011.

Pay Date		Thomas A. Corcoran		James R. Henderson		Warren G. Lichtenstein		David A. Lorber		James H. Perry		Martin Turchin		Robert C. Woods
01-18-11	Stock Awards (#)		1,334		5,339		2,669		2,669		2,669		2,669		—
01-18-11	Grant Date Fair Value		$    6,870		$  27,496		$  13,745		$  13,745		$  13,745		$  13,745		$  —
04-15-11	Stock Awards (#)		1,924		9,641		4,297		6,838		7,361		6,390		—
04-15-11	Grant Date Fair Value		$  12,871		$  64,498		$  28,747		$  45,747		$  49,245		$  42,749		$  —
07-15-11	Stock Awards (#)		1,100		4,440		2,200		2,200		2,200		2,200		—
07-15-11	Grant Date Fair Value		$    6,875		$  27,500		$  13,750		$  13,750		$  13,750		$  13,750		$  —
10-17-11	Stock Awards (#)		1,558		6,235		3,117		3,117		3,117		3,117		—
10-17-11	Grant Date Fair Value		$    6,871		$  27,496		$  13,746		$  13,746		$  13,746		$  13,746		$  —

(2) The amounts reported in these columns for each non-employee Director reflect the grant date fair value of stock awards given in fiscal year 2011. A description of these awards can be found under the section entitled Long-Term Incentives (Equity-Based Compensation) on page 33. A discussion of the assumptions used in calculating these values may be found in Note 9(c) in the audited financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2011.

18

The following table shows each grant of restricted stock and SARs granted during fiscal year 2011 to each non-employee Director who served as a Director in fiscal year 2011, and the aggregate grant date fair value for each award.

Name	Grant Date		Stock Awards (#)			SARs Awards (#)			Grant Date Fair Value ($)
Thomas A. Corcoran		01-18-11		667	(A)					$  3,435
		03-30-11					15,454	(B)		56,248
		03-30-11		3,119	(B)					18,745
		04-15-11		962	(A)					6,436
		07-15-11		550	(A)					3,438
		10-17-11		779	(A)					3,435
James R. Henderson		01-18-11		2,669	(A)					13,745
		03-30-11					19,576	(B)		71,251
		03-30-11		3,951	(B)					23,746
		04-15-11		4,820	(A)					32,246
		07-15-11		2,200	(A)					13,750
		10-17-11		3,117	(A)					13,746
Warren G. Lichtenstein		01-18-11		1,334	(A)					6,870
		03-30-11					15,454	(B)		56,248
		03-30-11		3,119	(B)					18,745
		04-15-11		2,148	(A)					14,370
		07-15-11		1,100	(A)					6,875
		10-17-11		1,558	(A)					6,871
David A. Lorber		01-18-11		1,334	(A)					6,870
		03-30-11					15,454	(B)		56,248
		03-30-11		3,119	(B)					18,745
		04-15-11		3,419	(A)					22,873
		07-15-11		1,100	(A)					6,875
		10-17-11		1,558	(A)					6,871
James H. Perry		01-18-11		1,334	(A)					6,870
		03-30-11					15,454	(B)		56,248
		03-30-11		3,119	(B)					18,745
		04-15-11		3,680	(A)					24,619
		07-15-11		1,100	(A)					6,875
		10-17-11		1,558	(A)					6,871
Martin Turchin		01-18-11		1,334	(A)					6,870
		03-30-11					15,454	(B)		56,248
		03-30-11		3,119	(B)					18,745
		04-15-11		3,195	(A)					21,375
		07-15-11		1,100	(A)					6,875
		10-17-11		1,558	(A)					6,871
Robert C. Woods		03-30-11					15,454	(B)		56,248
		03-30-11		3,119	(B)					18,745

(A) These shares vest on the earlier of the Director’s retirement from the Board or the one year anniversary of the grant date.

19

(B) These equity awards vest in 50% increments on the six-month and twelve-month anniversary of the grant date.

(3) The following table shows the amount of outstanding and unexercised SARs awards and unvested stock awards as of November 30, 2011 for each non-employee Director who served as a Director in fiscal year 2011. No Director held stock options as of November 30, 2011.

Name	Unvested Stock Awards	Outstanding and Unexercised SARs
Thomas A. Corcoran	23,391	63,933
James R. Henderson	35,405	100,512
Warren G. Lichtenstein	26,573	78,933
David A. Lorber	27,844	83,933
James H. Perry	28,105	78,933
Martin Turchin	27,620	78,933
Robert C. Woods	20,433	83,933

(4) All Other Compensation includes matching donations made by the GenCorp Foundation for gifts made in fiscal year 2011.

20

Security Ownership of Officers and Directors

The following table lists share ownership of Common Stock by the Company’s current Directors and the Named Executive Officers, as well as the number of shares beneficially owned by all of the current Directors and executive officers as a group. Unless otherwise indicated, share ownership is direct. Amounts owned reflect ownership as of February 3, 2012.

Beneficial Owner	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership(1)(2)	Percent of  Class
Directors
Thomas A. Corcoran(3)	45,139	*
James R. Henderson	110,290	*
Warren G. Lichtenstein	63,916	*
David A. Lorber	72,601	*
James H. Perry	72,385	*
Martin Turchin(4)	80,217	*
Robert C. Woods	31,082	*
Executive Officers
Scott J. Seymour(5)	279,393	*
Kathleen E. Redd(6)	93,909	*
Richard W. Bregard	61,878	*
Chris W. Conley	62,788	*
Christopher C. Cambria	—	*
All Current Directors and Executive Officers as a group (12 persons)	973,598	1.6%

  * Less than 1.0%

(1) Includes restricted shares granted under the 1999 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan, the 2009 Incentive Plan, and shares owned outright. The number of shares beneficially owned by a current officer of the Company includes shares credited in the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan as of January 27, 2012.

(2) Includes shares issuable upon the exercise of stock options that may be exercised within 60 days after February 3, 2012 as follows: Mr. Seymour — 66,667; Ms. Redd — 40,749; and Mr. Conley — 17,875; and all current executive officers as a group — 125,291 shares. No Director held outstanding stock options.

(3) Includes 21,135 shares held in the Thomas A. Corcoran TTEE U/A DTD 07/16/2001.

(4) 7,500 shares are held in the name of Martin Turchin IRA Rollover, 3,000 shares are held in the name of Peter Turchin Trust, 1,000 shares are held in the name of Coulter Turchin Trust, and 1,000 shares are held in the name of Tyler Turchin Trust.

(5) 80,000 shares are held through the Scott J. Seymour and Kathleen T. Goette Seymour Family Trust.

(6) 20,795 shares are held through the Revocable Trust of Paul K. and Kathleen E. Redd.

Code of Ethics and Corporate Governance Guidelines

The Company has adopted a code of ethics known as the Code of Business Conduct that applies to the Company’s employees including the principal executive officer and principal financial officer. Copies of the

21

Code of Business Conduct and the Company’s Corporate Governance Guidelines are available on the Company’s web site at www.GenCorp.com (copies are available in print to any shareholder or other interested person who requests them by writing to Secretary, GenCorp Inc., 2001 Aerojet Road, Rancho Cordova, California 95742).

Related Person Transaction Policy

The Company has a written policy for the review of transactions in which the Company is a participant, the amount exceeds the lesser of $120,000 or 1% of the average of the Company’s total assets at year end for the last two completed fiscal years, and in which any of the Company’s Directors or executive officers, or their immediate family members, had a direct or indirect material interest. Any such related party transaction was to be for the benefit of the Company and upon terms no less favorable to the Company than if the related party transaction was to an unrelated party. The Company’s Board is responsible for approving any such transactions and the Company’s CEO is responsible for maintaining a list of all existing related party transactions.

On September 9, 2011, the Company repurchased $15.5 million principal amount of its 2 ¹/4% convertible subordinated debentures from SPH Group Holdings LLC for an aggregate purchase price of $15,438,000, plus brokerage commissions and accrued and unpaid interest, which was a related party transaction. A member of the Company’s Board of Directors, Mr. Lichtenstein, is the Chairman and CEO of the manager of SPH Group Holdings LLC. There were no other material related party transactions in fiscal year 2011, nor are there any currently proposed related party transactions. There were no related party transactions in fiscal year 2010.

22

REPORT OF THE AUDIT COMMITTEE

The Audit Committee assists the Board of Directors in fulfilling its responsibilities for general oversight of (i) the quality and integrity of the Company’s financial statements, (ii) the performance of the Company’s financial reporting process, internal control system, internal audit function, (iii) the Company’s compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, all areas for which management has the primary responsibility, and (iv) the independent auditor’s performance, qualifications and independence. The Audit Committee manages the Company’s relationship with its independent auditors, who report directly to the Audit Committee. The Audit Committee has the authority to obtain advice and assistance from outside legal, accounting or other advisors as the Audit Committee deems necessary to carry out its duties, with funding from the Company for such advice and assistance. Management is primarily responsible for establishing and maintaining the Company’s system of internal controls and preparing financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”).

In fulfilling its responsibilities, the Audit Committee reviewed and discussed with management the audited financial statements in the Annual Report including a discussion of the reasonableness of significant judgments and the clarity of disclosures in the financial statements.

The Audit Committee reviewed and discussed the Company’s financial statements with PwC, the Company’s independent auditors, who are responsible for expressing an opinion on the conformity of those audited financial statements with GAAP, and discussed such other matters as are required to be discussed with the Audit Committee under generally accepted auditing standards. In addition, the Audit Committee discussed with the independent auditors matters required to be discussed by Statement on Auditing Standards No. 61, as amended (AICPA, Professional Standards Vol. 1, AU Section 380), as adopted by the Public Accounting Oversight Board in Rule 3200T. PwC also provided to the Audit Committee the written disclosures and the letter required by applicable requirements of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board regarding PwC’s communications with the Audit Committee concerning independence, and the Audit Committee discussed with PwC their independence from management and the Company.

The Audit Committee also reviewed with management and the independent auditors the preparation of the financial statements and related disclosures contained in the Company’s earnings announcements and quarterly reports.

The Audit Committee discussed with the Company’s internal and independent auditors the overall scope and plans for their respective audits. The Audit Committee met with the internal and independent auditors, with and without management present, to discuss the results of their examinations, their evaluations of the Company’s internal controls, and the overall quality of the Company’s financial reporting. The Audit Committee also received PwC’s report on the Company’s internal controls over financial reporting. The Company outlined these reports in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2011.

The Audit Committee met five times during fiscal year 2011.

In reliance on the reviews and discussions referred to in the foregoing paragraphs, the Audit Committee recommended to the Board of Directors (and the Board approved) that the audited financial statements be included in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2011 for filing with the SEC. The Audit Committee appointed PwC as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for fiscal year 2012.

Submitted by the Audit Committee,

James H. Perry, Chairman

David A. Lorber

Martin Turchin

Robert C. Woods

January 25, 2012

23

ORGANIZATION & COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Organization & Compensation Committee has reviewed and discussed the Compensation Discussion and Analysis required by Item 402(b) of Regulation S-K with management and, based on such review and discussion, the Organization & Compensation Committee recommended to the Board that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be included in this Proxy Statement and the Company’s 2011 Annual Report on Form 10-K. The Board has approved that recommendation.

Submitted by the Organization & Compensation Committee,

David A. Lorber, Chairman

Thomas A. Corcoran

Warren G. Lichtenstein

James H. Perry

January 24, 2012

EXECUTIVE COMPENSATION

Executive Officers of the Registrant

The following information is given as of December 31, 2011.

Name	Title	Other Business Experience	Age
Scott J. Seymour	President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company and President of Aerojet (since January 2010)	Consultant to Northrop Grumman Corporation (“Northrop”) March 2008 — January 2010; Corporate Vice President and President of Integrated Systems Sector of Northrop 2002 — March 2008; Vice President, Air Combat Systems of Northrop 1998 — 2001; Vice President and B-2 Program Manager of Northrop 1996 — 1998; and Vice President, Palmdale Operations, of Northrop 1993 — 1996.		61
Kathleen E. Redd	Vice President, Chief Financial Officer (since January 2009), and Secretary (since February 2009)	Vice President, Controller and Acting Chief Financial Officer September 2008 — January 2009; Vice President, Finance 2006 — 2008; Assistant Corporate Controller, 2002 — 2006; Acting Vice President Controller GDX Automotive, 2003 — 2004 (concurrent with Assistant Corporate Controller position during divestiture activities); Vice President, Finance, for Grass Valley Group, 2001 — 2002; Vice President, Finance for JOMED, Inc., 2000 — 2001; Controller for EndoSonics Corporation, 1996 — 2000.		50

24

Name	Title	Other Business Experience	Age
Richard W. Bregard	Deputy to the President (since June 2010)	Vice President, Defense Programs 2007 — 2010; Executive Director, Missile Defense Programs 2004 — 2007, Director of Smart Weapons at Northrop 2002 — 2004, Director of Smart Weapons at Aerojet 1998 — 2002, Director of Tactical Systems at Nichols Research 1997 — 1998, prior to 1997, U.S. Army Defense Systems Acquisitions.		69
Chris W. Conley	Vice President Environmental, Health and Safety (since October 1999)	Director Environmental, Health and Safety, March 1996 — October 1999; Environmental Manager, 1990 — 1996.		53
Christopher C. Cambria	Vice President, General Counsel (since September 2011)	Self employed legal consultant 2010 — 2011. Senior Vice President and Senior Counsel, Mergers and Acquisitions for L-3 Communications Holdings 2006 — 2009; Senior Vice President, Secretary and General Counsel 2001 — 2006; and Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary 1997 — 2001. Associate with Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson 1994 — 1997. Associate with Cravath, Swaine & Moore 1986 —1993.		53

The Company’s executive officers generally hold terms of office of one year and/or until their successors are elected.

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Overview and Compensation Objectives

Our compensation program is designed to support our business goals and promote both short-term and long-term growth. In this section of the Proxy Statement, we explain how our compensation program is designed and operates with respect to our Named Executive Officers. The 2011 compensation program covered our President and CEO, Vice President, CFO and Secretary, and the Named Executive Officers who were officers as of the end of fiscal year 2011. The 2011 compensation program also covered other key employees of the Company.

We have designed our executive compensation program, under the direction of the Organization & Compensation Committee of our Board, to attract and retain highly qualified executive officers and directly link pay to performance. The Company’s strategic goals include improving the Company’s financial performance. Accordingly, as discussed in more detail below, the Organization & Compensation Committee set performance targets for annual cash incentives for 2011 for our officers related to contract profit, cash flow, contract awards, and certain other goals that include individual performance and accomplishments of a particular executive.

25

The Organization & Compensation Committee determines all matters of executive compensation and benefits, although our President and CEO provides input and initial recommendations to the Organization & Compensation Committee with respect to the Named Executive Officers other than the President and CEO. Our President and CEO, Scott J. Seymour, our Deputy to the President, Richard W. Bregard and our Vice President, CFO and Secretary, Kathleen E. Redd, provided input to the Organization & Compensation Committee with respect to the 2011 compensation program. The Organization & Compensation Committee advises and makes compensation recommendations to the independent members of the Board with respect to compensation for the President and CEO.

The objectives of our compensation program are as follows:

• Performance Incentives — provides a compensation structure under which a meaningful portion of total compensation is based on achievement of performance goals;

• Competitive Compensation — provides compensation that is competitive with compensation for executive officers providing comparable services, taking into account our size and complexity and the markets we serve;

• Retention Incentives — provides incentives for long-term continued employment with us; and

• Stakeholder Incentives — promotes an ownership interest that aligns management and shareholders. In this regard, the Organization & Compensation Committee approved share ownership guidelines that apply to our Named Executive Officers, where over a period of time, each Named Executive Officer is expected to own shares of our Common Stock equal in total market value to a designated multiple of such executive officer’s annual salary.

Use of Independent Compensation Consultant

In assessing competitive overall compensation, the Organization & Compensation Committee engages, from time to time, independent outside consulting firms to aid in the review and evaluation of the total compensation provided to the Named Executive Officers. In fiscal 2010, the Company retained the Hay Group to review the design of the Company’s annual and long-term incentive programs and to assist in developing an executive compensation structure that was based on the internal hierarchy of jobs and aligned with external market practices. In performing its duties, the Hay Group worked with senior management and the Chairman of the Organization & Compensation Committee to understand the Company’s business strategy, the competitive market for talent, the accountabilities of the executives and perceptions of the Company’s current compensation programs. The Hay Group was also instructed to develop an executive compensation comparator group of 16 publicly traded companies in the aerospace/defense industry. Based on the information presented by the Hay Group and input from our President and CEO and our Vice President, CFO and Secretary, the Organization & Compensation Committee exercised its business judgment as to setting base salaries and incentive compensation levels for the Named Executive Officers.

The aggregate fees for the services provided by the Hay Group in fiscal year 2010 to the Company and the Organization & Compensation Committee was $122,588, $12,404 of which was incurred by the Organization & Compensation Committee for consulting on Director compensation and $110,184 was incurred by the Company for consulting services for Executive compensation and additional services.

In fiscal 2011, the Company retained the Hay Group to provide ad hoc consulting related to executive compensation. The total fees for the services provided by the Hay Group to the Company in fiscal year 2011 were $26,846.

26

Benchmarking

The Organization & Compensation Committee used the results of the compensation study completed by the Hay Group in fiscal year 2010 to determine pay for 2011. The Organization & Compensation Committee set base salaries, target annual cash incentive levels and target annual long-term incentive award values generally at the 50^th percentile of competive market levels for comparable aerospace/defense companies. This approach was the starting point of the analysis, then adjustments were made to some executives’ target compensation to reflect other factors such as the executive’s experience, breadth of responsibilities, tenure in the position, overall individual performance, and the Company’s performance overall.

The study conducted by the Hay Group in fiscal year 2010 compared total executive compensation against similarly sized U.S. companies in the aerospace/defense industry and in the broader general industry, using data from the Hay Group’s Executive Compensation Survey and the Mercer Human Resource Consulting’s US Mercer Benchmark Database and the Pearl Meyer & Partners (ChiPS) Executive and Senior Management Total Compensation Survey. In addition, the Hay Group was instructed to develop an executive compensation comparator group of 16 publicly traded companies in the aerospace/defense industry. In selecting the comparator group, the Hay Group considered companies with revenues of approximately one-half times to two times the Company’s revenues and companies in the aerospace and defense industry, excluding those that were exclusively focused on services. The purpose of the comparator group was to compare target and actual compensation levels of the Company’s President and CEO and Vice President, CFO and Secretary, to the Named Executive Officers of the comparator group.

The comparator group was comprised of the following companies:

BE Aerospace, Inc.	Hexcel Corp.
MOOG Inc.	Transdigm Group Inc.
Curtiss Wright Corp.	Heico Corp.
Teledyne Technologies Incorporated.	Ducommun Inc.
Esterline Technologies Corp.	Ceradyne, Inc.
AAR Corp.	Argon St, Inc.
Triumph Group, Inc.	Ladish Co., Inc.
Orbital Sciences Corp.	Kratos Defense & Security Solutions, Inc.

Mr. Seymour’s total compensation was benchmarked against the comparative data included in the Hay Group’s broad based industry study and the comparator group. Mr. Seymour’s targeted total direct compensation for fiscal 2011 was at the 50^th percentile of the industry study and 37^th percentile of the comparator group. Based on the Organization & Compensation Committee’s assesment of Mr. Seymour’s relative experience and performance, his actual total direct compensation was at or near the 55^th percentile of the industry study and at or near the 43^rd percentile of the comparator group. Ms. Redd’s total compensation was benchmarked against both the comparative data included in the Hay Group’s broad based industry study and the comparator group, each of which were given a weighting of 66.67% and 33.33%, respectively, and blended into one comparative benchmark. Ms. Redd’s targeted total direct compensation for fiscal 2011 was at the 58^th percentile of the blended comparative benchmark. Based on the Organization & Compensation Committee’s assessment of Ms. Redd’s relative experience and performance, with input from our CEO, Ms. Redd’s actual total direct compensation was at or near the 66^th percentile of the blended comparative benchmark. Messrs. Bregard’s and Conley’s total compensation was benchmarked against the comparative data included in the Hay Group’s broad based industry study. For fiscal 2011, Mr. Bregard’s targeted total direct compensation was at the 60^th percentile of the benchmark and Mr. Conley’s targeted total direct compensation was at the 70^th percentile of the benchmark. Based on the Organization & Compensation Committee’s assessment of Messrs. Bregard’s and Conley’s relative experience and performance, with input from our CEO, Mr. Bregard’s actual total direct compensation was at or near the 74^th percentile of the benchmark and Mr. Conley’s actual total direct compensation was at or near the 80^th percentile of the

27

benchmark. The actual total compensation for each of Ms. Redd and Messrs. Seymour, Bregard and Conley was above the applicable benchmark due to the Company’s financial success (compared to many of the companies included in the comparative data or comparative group, as applicable) and the incentive bonuses resulting from that success. In addition, due to the Company’s environmental legacy issues, Mr. Conley’s expertise and knowledge were given more weight, which further increased his compensation above the benchmark.

Since Mr. Cambria joined the Company in September 2011, his total direct compensation was not benchmarked. Mr. Cambria’s total compensation package consisted of a prorated compensation package pursuant to his employment offer.

Compensation Elements

The compensation program for executive officers has historically consisted of the following principal elements:

• Short-term compensation, including base salaries and annual cash incentive awards;

• Long-term compensation equity incentive awards, including restricted stock, stock options and cash-settled SARs; and

• In-service and post-retirement/employment benefits — pension and 401(k) savings plans, however pension benefits were frozen effective fiscal year 2009.

The Committee believes that these elements of compensation create a flexible package that reflects the long-term nature of the Company’s businesses and rewards both short and long-term performance of the Company and individual in accordance with the objectives of the compensation program.

Short-term Compensation

Base Salaries

Base salaries are used to provide a fixed amount of compensation for the executive’s regular work. Each year, the Organization & Compensation Committee holds a meeting, where it reviews and, in some cases, makes adjustments to base salaries. Typically, the effective date of merit increases in base salaries is in April of each year. Base salary increases can also occur upon an executive’s promotion. Any base salary increase for the Company’s executive officers must be approved by the Organization & Compensation Committee. In determining the amount of any increases in salaries, the Organization & Compensation Committee (i) compares current cash compensation with compensation for relevant executive positions set forth in broad-based industry studies, (ii) assesses the individual performance of each of the executives, and (iii) takes into account the timing and amount of the last salary increase for each of the executives.

In fiscal 2011, the Organization & Compensation Committee approved an increase in base salary for certain of the Company’s Named Executive Officers based on several factors, including the individual’s performance, sustained levels of contribution to the Company, the amount of wage increases received over the last three years, a review of executive and senior management total compensation study conducted by the Hay Group in 2010 on the Company’s behalf, and with respect to Mr. Seymour and Ms. Redd, the total compensation of similarly situated executive officers included in the comparator group developed by Hay Group. Based on the foregoing and as reflected in the Summary Compensation Table, Ms. Redd’s salary increased 4.5%, and Mr. Conley’s salary increased 3.25%.

28

Annual Cash Incentive Program

The primary objective of our annual cash incentive program is to reward fiscal year performance and achievement of designated business strategic goals to provide competitive compensation to our senior management team. To those ends, the Organization & Compensation Committee sets performance targets such that total cash compensation (base salary plus annual cash incentive) will be within a competitive range of total cash compensation if performance targets are met. In addition, our senior management team has individual performance targets. The annual cash incentive program follows our “pay for performance” philosophy. If individual or business targets are met, cash incentives are paid; if minimum targets are not met, we will pay less or nothing at all. If targets are exceeded, the Organization & Compensation Committee has discretion to adjust payments to the executives. The Organization & Compensation Committee has discretion to increase, reduce or eliminate payments.

The Organization & Compensation Committee set performance targets for the annual cash incentive program for our Named Executive Officers for fiscal year 2011. These targets consist of contract profit, cash flow, contract awards, and certain other individual goals.

The Organization & Compensation Committee approves the annual cash incentive program for the executive officers of the Company. The target annual incentive pay is established through an analysis of compensation for other relevant executive positions as noted in broad-based studies and is intended to provide a competitive level of compensation when the executives achieve their performance objectives. With the input of our President and CEO, Deputy to the President, Vice President, CFO and Secretary, and Human Resources, the Organization & Compensation Committee determines the following:

• sets the overall Company and performance objectives and payout ranges for the fiscal year;

• sets performance measures for the fiscal year;

• establishes a target, threshold, and maximum incentive opportunity for each executive officer; and

• measures performance and determines awards for the prior fiscal year.

Annual cash incentives are paid at the beginning of each fiscal year for the prior fiscal year’s performance. Incentives paid are based upon the Organization & Compensation Committee’s (with input from the President and CEO, Deputy to the President and Vice President, CFO and Secretary) assessment of actual performance (individually and Company-wide) against pre-established Company and business segment performance objectives to determine the appropriate amount payable with respect to the applicable target incentive opportunity. The Organization & Compensation Committee has discretion to increase, reduce or eliminate payments.

The Organization & Compensation Committee tailors both performance measures and targets in order to most accurately approximate success criteria for both of our business segments and the Company’s performance overall. The payout levels are subject to change every year. For fiscal year 2011, our current Named Executive Officers are subject to a payout level based on their position in the Company and will receive the following percentages of their actual achievement of the performance measures set forth below:

• Scott J. Seymour, President and CEO — 125%

• Kathleen E. Redd, Vice President, CFO and Secretary — 50%

• Richard W. Bregard, Deputy to the President — 50%

• Chris W. Conley, Vice President, Environmental, Health & Safety — 45%

• Christopher C. Cambria, Vice President, General Counsel — 50%

29

The criteria used in fiscal year 2011 applicable to our Corporate Named Executive Officers including Messrs. Seymour, Cambria and Ms. Redd were the following:

Executive Targets	Target     Opportunity		Maximum     Opportunity			Actual     Performance			Actual     Achievement
(Dollars in millions)
Contract Profit(1)		25.00%		50.00%			$	91.9	30.15%
• Threshold — under $73.3 — 0%
• Target — $73.3 to $88.0 — 1% to 100%
• Maximum —$88.1 to $106.8 —101% to 200%
Total Cash Flow(2)		25.00%		50.00%			$	75.5	50.00%
• Threshold — under $41.6 — 0%
• Target — $41.6 to $53.3 — 1% to 100%
• Maximum — $53.4 to $58.6 — 101% to 200%
Contract Awards(3)		25.00%		50.00%			$	1,015.8	31.24%
• Threshold — under $826.9 — 0%
• Target — $826.9 to $991.1 — 1% to 100%
• Maximum —$991.2 to $1,090.2 —101% to 200%
Personal Factors(4)		25.00%		25.00%					23.00% — 25.00%
• Threshold — 0 x multiplier — 0%
• Target — 1 x multiplier — 1% to 100%
Other(5)		0.00%		10.00%					0.00% — 2.5%
• + / - 10%
Totals		100.00%		185.00%	(6)				134.39% — 138.89%

(1) We defined Contract Profit to be net sales recognized for our Aerospace and Defense segment less cost of sales of our Aerospace and Defense segment, exclusive of certain corporate costs, certain retirement benefit costs and other non-contract related costs.

(2) We defined Cash Flow to be the GenCorp cash provided by operating activities net of cash used in financing activities, exclusive of debt issuance costs, repayments on debt and proceeds from the issuance of debt.

(3) We defined Contract Awards to be the amount of money to be received for a contract of our Aerospace and Defense segment that has been directly appropriated by the U.S. Congress or for which a purchase order has been received from a commercial customer.

(4) Personal Factors for Mr. Seymour were oversight on environmental issues, leadership in the Enterprise Resource Planning (“ERP”) system project, value creation for the Company and strategies to increase the Company’s stock price. For Ms. Redd, personal factors were financial results for the fiscal year, improvements in the Company’s capital structure, pension fund management, and leadership in the ERP project. Mr. Cambria’s personal factors were leadership in mergers and acquisitions activities, and representation of the Company on legal matters concerning environmental issues. For fiscal 2011, the actual personal factor, as determined by the President and CEO, for Ms. Redd was 24% and for Mr. Cambria was 23%. The Organization & Compensation Committee determined the actual personal factor for Mr. Seymour at 25%.

(5) Components of this category include customer satisfaction, corporate responsibility, employee engagement, and sustainability.

(6) Under the terms of the Company’s annual incentive plan, each Named Executive Officer has the opportunity to earn up to 185% of his or her base salary multiplied by a payout level of 125% for the President and CEO, or 50% for Ms. Redd, and Mr. Cambria if the performance goals are achieved at the maximum level.

30

The criteria used in fiscal year 2011 applicable to our Aerojet Named Executive Officers including Messrs. Bregard and Conley were the following:

Executive Targets (Dollars in millions)	Target       Opportunity		Maximum        Opportunity			Actual       Performance		Actual     Achievement
Contract Profit(1)		25.00%		50.00%		$	91.9	30.15%
•   Threshold — under $73.3 — 0%
•   Target — $73.3 to $88.0 — 1% to 100%
•   Maximum —$88.1 to $106.8 —101% to 200%
Aerojet Cash Flow(2)		25.00%		50.00%		$	117.5	50.00%
•   Threshold — under $87.5 — 0%
•   Target — $87.5 to $99.1 — 1% to 100%
•   Maximum —$99.2 to $109.0 —101% to 200%
Contract Awards(3)		25.00%		50.00%		$	1,015.8	31.24%
•   Threshold — under $826.9 — 0%
•   Target — $826.9 to $991.1 — 1% to 100%
•   Maximum —$991.2 to $1,090.2 —101% to 200%
Personal Factors(4)		25.00%		25.00%				23.00% — 24.00%
•   Threshold — 0 x multiplier — 0%
•   Target — 1 x multiplier — 1% to 100%
Other(5)		0.00%		10.00%				2.50%
•   + / - 10%
Totals		100.00%		185.00%	(6)			136.89% — 137.89%

(1) We defined Contract Profit to be net sales recognized for our Aerospace and Defense segment less cost of sales of our Aerospace and Defense segment, exclusive of certain corporate costs, certain retirement benefit costs and other non-contract related costs.

(2) We defined Aerojet Cash Flow to be the Aerospace and Defense segment cash provided by operating activities and cash used in financing activities, exclusive of debt issuance costs, repayments on debt and proceeds from the issuance of debt.

(3) We defined Contract Awards to be the amount of money to be received for a contract of our Aerospace and Defense segment that has been directly appropriated by the U.S. Congress or for which a purchase order has been received from a commercial customer.

(4) Personal Factors for Mr. Bregard were developing the Company’s leadership development program, leadership in the ERP project, and affordability initiatives. Mr. Conley’s personal factors were Environmental, Health & Safety (“EH&S”) leadership efforts, including removing obsolete structures, improving safety processes, developing plans for the resolution of environmental remediation funding matters and affordability initiatives. For fiscal 2011, the actual personal factor, as determined by the CEO, for Mr. Bregard was 24% and for Mr. Conley was 23%.

(5) Components of this category include customer satisfaction, corporate responsibility, employee engagement, and sustainability.

(6) Under the terms of the Company’s annual incentive plan, each Named Executive Officer has the opportunity to earn up to 185% of his or her base salary multiplied by a payout level of 50% for Mr. Bregard, or 45% for Mr. Conley if the performance goals are achieved at the maximum level.

31

The calculations for the final payment of the annual cash incentive award for each Named Executive Officer for fiscal 2011 were as follows, which are also reported in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table, which follows this Compensation Discussion and Analysis:

Name	Payout          Level	Base Salary	Actual   Performance   Achievement Percentage	Cash Incentive Awards
				Award at 100% Target   Performance	Award at 185% Maximum   Performance	Actual Awards at Achievement Percentage(1)
Scott J. Seymour	125%	$550,000	136.0%	$687,500	$1,271,875	$935,000
Kathleen E. Redd	50%	351,120	137.5%	175,560	324,786	241,000
Richard W. Bregard	50%	252,728	137.5%	126,364	233,773	174,000
Chris W. Conley	45%	232,210	136.5%	104,495	193,315	143,000
Christopher C. Cambria(2)	50%	310,000	134.0%	38,750	71,688	52,000

(1) Awards are rounded to the nearest thousand.

(2) Mr. Cambria’s cash incentive award was prorated for three months as his employment with the Company began in September 2011. The target, maximum and actual award is presented prorated.

Determining the Individual Compensation of our Named Executive Officers

The Company’s performance and the Named Executive Officer’s individual performance, measured against the performance goals described above, are used to determine each Named Executive Officer’s target cash incentive award as well as each Named Executive Officer’s individual performance and contribution as related to the achievement of such performance goals. For each Named Executive Officer, other than the President and CEO, the Organization & Compensation Committee considered individual performance, as assessed by the President and CEO. The performance of the President and CEO was assessed directly by the Board.

The assessments described below pertain to fiscal 2011 performance and were used to help the Organization & Compensation Committee determine the size of each Named Executive Officer’s 2011 annual incentive payment.

For Mr. Seymour, our President and CEO, the Organization & Compensation Committee considered his improved oversight on various corporate environmental issues and leadership and oversight in the common ERP system project. He also provided key leadership to the Company’s ongoing value creation strategy. Also considered was Mr. Seymour’s development of strategies to increase the Company’s stock price.

For Ms. Redd, our Vice President, CFO and Secretary, the President and CEO considered her key role in the achievement of our financial results for 2011. He also considered her leadership roles in creating additional flexibility in the Company’s capital structure through the closing of a new Senior Credit Facility. Ms. Redd also provided key leadership and oversight to the Company’s common ERP system and shared services initiatives, and led the pension fund management activities.

For Mr. Bregard, our Deputy to the President and CEO, the President and CEO considered his efforts in developing and conducting the Company’s leadership development program including the Program Management Leadership Conference and the Executive Leadership Development programs. He also provided the leadership and oversight to the common ERP system project steering committee as Chairman, and led the Company’s affordability initiatives to reduce the corporate overhead rates and consolidate operations and facilities across the enterprise.

For Mr. Conley, our Vice President, EH&S, the President and CEO considered his role in providing the EH&S leadership to support efforts to remove nearly one hundred structures from the Sacramento facility,

32

standardizing and improving safety processes and procedures from four former legacy companies, developing and implementing plans for the resolution of certain government environmental remediation funding matters, and meeting budgetary requirements while driving affordability initiatives to reduce sustaining environmental remediation costs.

For Mr. Cambria, our Vice President, General Counsel, the President and CEO considered his efforts in transitioning into the role of General Counsel including his immediate leadership role providing counsel to ongoing merger and acquisition activities, representing GenCorp in ongoing discussions between government and Company officials concerning environmental and other matters, in addition to the initial activities working with Aerojet and Easton subsidiaries to gain cognizance of outstanding legal matters including work being handled by outside counsel.

On February 3, 2012, the Organization & Compensation Committee met and approved fiscal 2011 annual cash incentive awards, which are reported above and in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column of the Summary Compensation Table, which follows this Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

Long-Term Incentives (Equity-Based Compensation)

The Company, upon the recommendation and approval of the Organization & Compensation Committee, established the performance objectives and other terms of the Company’s 2011 Long-Term Incentive Program (the “2011 LTIP”) for executive officers and other eligible employees of the Company. The 2011 LTIP has a 32 month performance period for performance grants and a three year vesting period for service based grants. The Company uses long-term incentive compensation for executives to reinforce four strategic objectives:

• to focus on the importance of returns to shareholders;

• to promote the achievement of long-term performance goals;

• to encourage executive retention; and

• to promote higher levels of Company stock ownership by executives.

Historically, the Company has strived to set a sizeable portion of the Named Executive Officer’s compensation in an equity-based form. This type of compensation, coupled with the Company’s share ownership guidelines, will result in the executives becoming shareholders with considerable personal financial interest in the fiscal health and performance of the Company.

The amount of equity-based awards granted to executives has been determined by subtracting the executive’s annual cash compensation opportunity from the total targeted annual compensation that is competitive with the market based on broad based industry studies. The ultimate value of these equity-based awards has been driven in part by the executive’s performance in the past fiscal year and in part by their ability to increase the value of the Company going forward.

Our equity-based compensation in fiscal year 2011 included awards of restricted stock and stock options and are described as follows:

• Restricted stock — A grant of restricted stock is an award of shares of Common Stock that vests over a period of time after the grant date (depending upon the vesting conditions set by the Organization & Compensation Committee), provided that underlying goals are met in the case of performance-based grants or that the participant remains employed with the Company for the specified amount of time in the case of non-performance, time-based grants. Restricted stock awards are designed to attract and retain executives by providing them with some of the benefits associated with stock ownership during the restriction period, while incentivizing them to remain with the Company. During the restricted

33

period, the executives may not sell, transfer, pledge, assign or otherwise convey their restricted stock. However, executives may vote their shares and are entitled to receive dividend payments, if any are made. Executives who voluntarily resign or are terminated for cause prior to the end of the restriction period forfeit their restricted stock unless otherwise determined by the Organization & Compensation Committee.

• Stock options — A grant of stock options represents the right to purchase the Company’s stock at a fixed price for a defined period of time. The value of stock options reflect the difference between the value of shares of Common Stock at the time of exercise of the stock options and a predetermined exercise price. Stock options are designed to attract and retain executives by compensating them for increases in shareholder value over time. Time-based stock options are generally exercisable in one-third increments at one year, two years, and three years from the date of grant. Performance-based stock options vest at the end of the performance period provided that underlying goals are met. All stock options have a seven-year contractual life from the date of grant. As with restricted stock grants, executives who voluntarily resign or are terminated for cause immediately forfeit all unvested stock options unless otherwise determined by the Organization & Compensation Committee.

The 2011 LTIP consists of two performance-based grants and a limited participation service-based grant. The grants for the 2011 LTIP were made on March 30, 2011 and the performance-based grants vest on or about January 31, 2014 based on meeting performance targets at November 30, 2013, and subject to the approval by the Organization & Compensation Committee. The service-based grants vest on March 30, 2014.

The performance target for the first performance-based grant is Economic Value Added. The Economic Value Added target group includes grants of restricted stock and stock options. Participants in the Economic Value Added restricted stock were Mr. Seymour with 92,726 shares, Ms. Redd with 31,723 shares, and Mr. Conley with 6,500 shares. Participants in the Economic Value Added stock options were Mr. Seymour with 65,621 options and Ms. Redd with 22,449 options.

The performance targets for the second performance-based grant are (i) revenue, (ii) earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization, and retirement benefit expense, (“EBITDAP”) and (iii) asset utilization (“GenCorp financial targets”). This group also includes grants of restricted stock and stock options. The participant in this group of restricted stock is Mr. Bregard with 12,174 shares. The participant in this group of stock options is Mr. Conley with 5,367 options.

The service-based grant consisted only of restricted stock. The participants of the service-based restricted stock were Mr. Bregard with 12,174 shares and Mr. Conley with 3,250 shares.

In determining the grants of the 2011 LTIP, three groups were created. The first group was made up of the President and CEO, and the Vice President, CFO and Secretary. This group was given 100% performance awards relating to the Economic Value Added performance target with a 70% weighting on restricted stock and 30% weighting for stock options. This mix was given to promote the achievement of long-term performance goals to add value to the Company, and to focus on returns to shareholders.

The second group consists of the Vice President, EH&S. This group was given 50% performance restricted stock award with a performance target of Economic Value Added, 25% performance stock options with the GenCorp financial targets, and 25% service-based restricted stock. This mix was given to promote achievement of the Company’s long-term goals, and to create appropriate performance expectations aligned with position and to encourage retention.

The third group consists of all other participants including the Deputy to the President. This group was given 50% performance restricted stock with the GenCorp financial targets, and 50% service-based restricted stock. This mix was given to create appropriate performance expectations aligned with position and to encourage retention.

34

In order to strengthen the alignment between the interests of shareholders and the interests of executives of the Company, the Organization & Compensation Committee approved share ownership guidelines that apply to the Company’s executive officers. Under these guidelines, each executive officer is expected to have equity in the Company equal in aggregate market value to a designated multiple of such officer’s annual salary (CEO — five times base salary and Vice Presidents — one times base salary.) In calculating the amount of equity owned by an executive, the Organization & Compensation Committee looks at the value of Company stock owned by the executive which includes vested or unvested restricted stock as well as unvested performance based restricted shares at the percentage expected to vest, and the value of any vested “in the money” stock options or SARs (i.e. market value of stock in excess of the strike price for the stock option or SAR.) Newly appointed executives are expected to be in compliance with the ownership guidelines within five years of their appointments. As of January 10, 2012, because of the low price of the Company’s stock and the amount of time the Named Executive Officers have been in his or her position, not all of the Named Executive Officers held equity in the Company equal in market value to these guidelines; however, some of the Named Executive Officers are in the transition period set forth in these guidelines. The Organization & Compensation Committee routinely reviews these guidelines, and considers adjustments when appropriate.

Name	Value of Equity     Ownership*	Date of Election	Years as an  Officer
Scott J. Seymour	$  914,997	01/06/2010	2.0
Kathleen E. Redd	305,959	07/01/2006	5.6
Richard W. Bregard	244,945	02/11/2006	6.0
Chris W. Conley	264,660	10/01/1999	12.5
Christopher C. Cambria	—	09/12/2011	0.3

* Value is based on the stock price on January 10, 2012 of $5.50.

Pension Plans, 401(k) Savings Plan and Benefit Restoration Plans

Pension Plans

The Company’s defined benefit pension and benefits restoration plans (“BRP”) are frozen and no longer accruing benefits. Effective February 1, 2009 and July 31, 2009, future benefit accruals for all non-collectively bargaining unit employees including the Named Executive Officers and collective bargaining unit employees respectively, were discontinued. No employees lost their previously earned pension benefits. The changes in pension value reported for the Named Executive Officers is only due to changes in actuarial assumptions in the calculation of the actuarial present value and not accrual of further benefits.

The Named Executive Officers participate in the same tax-qualified pension plans as other employees with the exception of Messrs. Seymour and Cambria who do not participate in a pension plan because their employment commenced after benefit accruals were discontinued. These plans include the Qualified Pension Plan, a tax-qualified defined benefit plan, and the 2009 Pension BRP Plan, a non-qualified defined benefit plan. The purpose of the 2009 Pension BRP Plan was to restore the pension plan benefits which executives and other highly compensated management personnel and their beneficiaries would otherwise lose as a result of the limitations under Section 401(a)(17) or 415 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) or any successor provisions from a tax-qualified pension plan, upon accrual and/or payment of benefits from the Qualified Pension Plan. By restoring such benefits, the 2009 Pension BRP Plan permits the total benefits to be provided on the same basis as applicable to all other employees under the Qualified Pension Plan. There were no employee contributions required in order to participate in these defined benefit plans. Eligibility to participate in the 2009 Pension BRP Plan was designated by the Organization & Compensation Committee.

35

Further details regarding benefits under these plans, including the estimated value of retirement benefits for each Named Executive Officer, are found in the section entitled 2011 Pension Benefits on page 43. The change in the actuarial pension value from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011 is presented in the “Change in Pension Value” column of the Summary Compensation Table on page 38 which represents the change in present value of benefits accrued up until the freeze date.

401(k) Savings Plan

The Named Executive Officers are also eligible to participate in the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan, a 401(k) tax-qualified defined contribution savings plan which is available to all Company employees. The Company matches 100% of the first 3% of employee contributions, and 50% of the next 3% of employee contributions for all participating employees.

2009 401(k) Benefits Restoration Plan

The Named Executive Officers participate in the related non-qualified, unfunded 2009 Benefits Restoration Plan for the GenCorp Inc. 401(k) Plan (the “2009 401(k) BRP Plan”) which enables participants to defer their compensation on a pre-tax basis. The Company matches employee contributions if the participant has reached the 402(g) limit in the 401(k) Savings Plan. Details about the 2009 401(k) BRP Plan are presented in the section entitled 2011 Non-qualified Deferred Compensation on page 44.

Severance Agreement, Employment Agreement and Plan Provisions

Scott J. Seymour Employment Agreement

On January 6, 2010, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Seymour to serve as the Company’s President and CEO. Pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Seymour will earn an annual base salary of $550,000, and is eligible for an annual incentive pay based on a target opportunity up to 125% of his annual base salary. On January 6, 2010, Mr. Seymour received 120,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock and an option to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Option”). The Option has a per share exercise price equal to the last sales price reported for the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on the date of grant. Mr. Seymour is also eligible to participate in future grants pursuant to the 2009 Incentive Plan and other Company performance incentive plans extended to the senior executives of the Company generally, at levels commensurate with his position. Mr. Seymour’s employment agreement has a five-year term, unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms. In the event that the Company terminates Mr. Seymour’s employment for Cause or Mr. Seymour resigns other than for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in his employment agreement), the Company’s obligations will generally be limited to paying Mr. Seymour his annual base salary through the termination date. If Mr. Seymour’s employment is terminated at his or the Company’s election at any time due to his death or disability, or for reasons other than Cause or Voluntary Resignation (as defined in his employment agreement), Mr. Seymour will be entitled to receive the benefits described above and severance payments and benefits equal to the following, subject to certain limitations: (i) one year of his annual base salary paid in installments; (ii) an incentive payment based upon the amount of the previous year’s incentive, prorated based on the number of months of the year that Mr. Seymour worked for the Company prior to the termination paid in a lump sum; (iii) immediate vesting of any shares of the Company’s restricted common stock or options that are scheduled to vest within one year of the date of termination of employment and (iv) incentives earned but unpaid with respect to the fiscal year ending on or preceding the date of termination pursuant to the annual cash incentive program.

Also under this employment agreement, for a termination in connection with a change in control in which Mr. Seymour’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or by the executive for

36

good reason within two years following a change in control, Mr. Seymour will be entitled to receive a severance payment and benefits as follows: (i) a lump sum payment equal to two times the sum of his base salary plus the target incentive amount for the year in which the termination takes place; (ii) immediate full vesting of outstanding restricted shares and options; (iii) and payment of any accrued incentive through the date of termination.

Chris W. Conley Retention Agreement

On April 15, 2009, the Company entered into a retention agreement with Mr. Conley in which the Company agreed to pay Mr. Conley a retention bonus of $200,000 if he continued to be employed by the Company on March 6, 2011. The terms of the agreement were met and Mr. Conley received the bonus in 2011.

Richard W. Bregard Retention Agreement

On February 6, 2012, the Company’s subsidiary, Aerojet, entered into a Retention Agreement with Mr. Bregard. (the “Retention Agreement”) to ensure that Mr. Bregard remains with Aerojet through at least November 30, 2012 and to encourage a successful transition to Mr. Bregard’s retirement. The Retention Agreement provides that Mr. Bregard shall receive a payment equal to his annual base salary then in effect if he stays with Aerojet through at least November 30, 2012 or his termination qualifies as an Eligible Early Termination (as defined below). In the event of an Eligible Early Termination, Mr. Bregard shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment equal to the base salary that he would have received from but excluding the termination date through and including November 30, 2012 and reimbursement of health insurance premiums payable under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986. Mr. Bregard shall be entitled to participate in the fiscal 2012 short term cash incentive program in the event that he remains with Aerojet through November 30, 2012 or his termination qualifies as an Eligible Early Termination, but shall not participate in the long-term incentive or equity-based compensation programs in fiscal 2012 or thereafter. An “Eligible Early Termination” means a termination of Mr. Bregard before November 30, 2012 either (i) at the request or upon the initiation of Aerojet other than for Cause as defined in the Retention Agreement, (ii) due to the death or Disability as defined in the Retention Agreement of Mr. Bregard, or (iii) at the request or initiation of Mr. Bregard in the event that (A) he is no longer a direct report to Scott J. Seymour, or (B) an individual other than Mr. Seymour or Mr. Bregard is elected or appointed to act as President of Aerojet and, in either case, Mr. Bregard suffers a significant change or diminution in his duties and responsibilities.

Other

The GenCorp Foundation matches all employee and Director gifts to accredited, non-profit colleges, universities, secondary and elementary public or private schools located in the United States. Gifts made are matched dollar for dollar up to $3,000 per calendar year per donor.

As part of an employment offer, the Company paid a hiring bonus of $25,000 to Mr. Cambria. The bonus is conditioned upon Mr. Cambria’s acceptance of the employment offer and employment with the Company for a period of one year. In the event Mr. Cambria voluntarily terminates his employment with the Company or is terminated for cause within the one-year period, Mr. Cambria has agreed to reimburse the Company within 30 days of termination.

Tax Deductibility under Section 162(m)

Section 162(m) of the Code imposes limits on the deductibility of certain compensation in excess of $1 million paid to the CEO and other executive officers of public companies. Management and the Organization & Compensation Committee have reviewed the regulations and feel that the current compensation program and policies are appropriate. Depending upon a variety of factors (including

37

Company performance), it is possible for one current executive officer to surpass the $1 million dollar threshold under the executive officer compensation program. In addition, severance payments paid to certain of the former executive officers under the executive severance agreements may exceed the $1 million threshold. At this time, the Organization & Compensation Committee believes that accommodating the Internal Revenue Service regulations will not produce material benefits or increases in shareholder value. However, the Organization & Compensation Committee intends to review this issue regularly and may change its position in future years.

Employee Compensation Policies Relating to Risk Management

The Organization & Compensation Committee believes none of the Company’s compensation policies and practices are reasonably likely to motivate inappropriate risk-taking behavior or have a material adverse effect on the Company. The Company believes that its compensation plans effectively balance risk and reward and are generally uniform in design and operation throughout the Company.

SUMMARY COMPENSATION TABLE

The following table sets forth information regarding compensation for each of the Named Executive Officers for fiscal years 2011, 2010 and 2009.

Name and Principal Position	Year		Salary(1)			Bonus				Stock Awards(2)				Options/SARs   Awards(2)				Non-Equity Incentive Plan  Compensation(3)			Change in Pension Value(4)			All Other  Compensation(5)			Total
Scott J. Seymour(6)		2011		$	550,000		$	—			$	278,642	(7)		$	116,149	(7)		$	935,000		$	—		$	87,046		$	1,966,837
President and CEO; President of Aerojet-General Corporation		2010			495,529			—				856,800				771,513				845,625			—			53,087			3,022,554
Kathleen E. Redd(12)		2011			347,003			—				95,328	(8)			39,735	(8)			241,000			26,199			12,100			761,365
Vice President, CFO and Secretary		2010 2009			324,969 294,308			— 70,000				— 43,133				121,799 34,286				206,640 230,000			32,662 73,100			375 2,600			686,445 752,427
Richard W. Bregard		2011			250,712			35,000				109,749	(9)			—				174,000			311			10,676			580,448
Deputy to the President		2010			225,890			4,660				82,858				—				146,254			8,490			—			468,152
Chris W. Conley		2011			229,736			200,000	(13)			39,065	(10)			9,500	(11)			143,000			85,605			13,583			720,489
Vice President, Environmental, Health & Safety		2010 2009			222,119 212,328			— —				29,866 12,033				17,469 7,347				136,064 148,000			99,719   240,190			1,290 1,840			506,527 621,738
Christopher C. Cambria(14)		2011			65,577			25,000	(15)			—				69,766				52,000			—			10,132			222,475
Vice President, General Counsel

  (1) The amount reported in this column for each Named Executive Officer reflects the dollar amount of base salary earned in each listed fiscal year.

  (2) The amounts reported in these columns for each Named Executive Officer represents the aggregate grant date fair value of awards granted in each of the three years presented. The grant date fair value of stock awards is equal to the closing price of our stock on the date of grant times the number of shares awarded. The grant date fair value of stock options and SARs awards was estimated using the Black-Scholes Model. A discussion of the assumptions used in calculating these values may be found in Note 9(c) in the audited financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2011. A description of these awards can be found under the section entitled Long-Term Incentives (Equity-Based Compensation) on page 33.

  (3) The amount reported in this column for each Named Executive Officer reflects annual cash incentive compensation, which is based on performance in each listed fiscal year. This annual incentive compensation is discussed further under the section entitled Short-Term Compensation on page 28.

  (4) The Company’s defined benefit pension and BRP are frozen and no longer accruing benefits. As such, only the Named Executive Officers that commenced employment with the Company before that date (Ms. Redd, Messrs. Bregard and Conley) are participants in the plan. Further, because the plans are frozen, the amount included here represents changes in actuarial assumptions, primarily the decrease in the discount rate and a change in the mortality assumption used to measure the present value of benefits accrued up until the freeze date, which is the same for all plan participants. There is no further accrual of pension benefits for service.

38

The amount reported in this column for each Named Executive Officer reflects the aggregate increase in the actuarial present value of their accumulated benefits under all pension plans. The following table shows the measurement dates and discount rates used for each year presented in the table:

Year	Measurement Period	Discount Rate for Qualified Pension Plan	Discount Rate for Pension BRP Plan
2011	December 1, 2010 to November 30, 2011	4.95%	4.98%
2010	December 1, 2009 to November 30, 2010	5.21%	5.34%
2009	September 1, 2008 to November 30, 2009	5.65%	5.60%

These amounts were determined using the actuarial assumptions consistent with those used in the Company’s financial statements with the exception of assumed retirement age and the absence of pre-retirement mortality and termination assumptions. A discussion of the assumptions used for financial reporting purposes may be found in Note 6 in the audited financial statements in the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for fiscal year 2011. Information regarding these pension plans is set forth in further detail under the section entitled 2011 Pension Benefits on page 43.

  (5) The amounts reported in this column for each Named Executive Officer include the following for fiscal year 2011:

Name	Severance		Company Matching Contribution to 401(k) Plan		Company Matching Contribution to Benefits Restoration Plan- Savings Plan		Matching Gift by the GenCorp Foundation		Perquisites And Other Personal Benefits(A)		Total
Scott J. Seymour	$	—	$	11,025	$	51,598	$	3,000	$	21,423	$	87,046
Kathleen E. Redd		—		11,025		—		1,075		—		12,100
Richard W. Bregard		—		10,676		—		—		—		10,676
Chris W. Conley		—		7,570		5,253		760		—		13,583
Christopher C. Cambria		—		—		—		—		10,132		10,132

(A) This column includes items paid by the Company or reimbursed to the employee for relocation expenses.

  (6) Mr. Seymour started his employment with the Company on January 6, 2010.

  (7) As of November 30, 2011 the company expects 50% of this performance restricted stock grant and 50% of this performance stock options grant to vest. The grant date fair value at the maximum vesting of 125% would be $696,604 for the restricted stock grant and $290,373 for the stock options grant.

  (8) As of November 30, 2011 the company expects 50% of this performance restricted stock grant and 50% of this performance stock options grant to vest. The grant date fair value at the maximum vesting of 125% would be $238,319 for the restricted stock grant and $99,337 for the stock options grant.

  (9) Mr. Bregard’s stock awards compensation consists of $73,166 for a service based restricted stock grant and $36,583 for a performance based restricted stock grant that is expected to vest at 50%. The grant date fair value of the performance restricted stock grant at the maximum vesting of 125% would be $91,457.

(10) Mr. Conley’s stock awards compensation consists of $19,533 for a service based restricted stock grant and $19,533 for a performance based restricted stock grant that is expected to vest at 50%. The grant date fair value of the performance restricted stock grant at the maximum vesting of 125% would be $48,831.

(11) As of November 30, 2011 the company expects 50% of this performance stock options grant to vest. The grant date fair value at the maximum vesting of 125% would be $23,749.

(12) Ms. Redd received a discretionary bonus for 2009 performance as approved by the Organization & Compensation Committee.

(13) On April 15, 2009, the Company entered into a retention agreement in which the Company agreed to pay Mr.Conley a retention bonus of $200,000 if he continued to be employed by the Company on March 6, 2011. The terms of the agreement were met and the Company paid Mr. Conley $200,000.

(14) Mr. Cambria started his employment with the Company on September 12, 2011.

(15) Mr. Cambria received a $25,000 sign-on bonus upon commencement of his employment with the Company. A further description of this bonus can be found on page 37 under the section entitled Other of the Compensation Discussion and Analysis.

39

2011 GRANTS OF PLAN-BASED AWARDS

The following table provides information for each of the Named Executive Officers for fiscal year 2011 annual and long-term incentive award opportunities, including the range of possible payments under non-equity incentive plans.

Name	Grant Date		Estimated Possible Payouts Under Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards ($)(1)								Estimated Future Payouts Under Equity Incentive Plan Awards(#)						Other Stock Awards: Number of Shares of Stock or Units(#)		All Other Option Awards: Number of Securities Underlying Options(#)	Exercise or Base Price of Options/SARs ($/Sh)		Grant Date        Fair Value       of Stock and       Option/SARs       Awards
			Threshold(2)		Target			Maximum			Threshold		Target		Maximum
Scott J. Seymour
Annual Incentive Award			$	—	$	687,500		$	1,271,875
Restricted Stock		03-30-11										46,363		92,726		115,908						$	278,642	(3)
Stock Options		03-30-11										32,811		65,621		82,026				$	6.01		116,149	(4)
Kathleen. E. Redd
Annual Incentive Award				—		175,560			324,786
Restricted Stock		03-30-11										15,862		31,723		39,654							95,328	(3)
Stock Options		03-30-11										11,225		22,449		28,061					6.01		39,735	(4)
Richard W. Bregard
Annual Incentive Award				—		126,364			233,773
Restricted Stock		03-30-11										6,087		12,174		15,218							36,583	(3)
Restricted Stock		03-30-11																12,174					73,166
Chris W. Conley
Annual Incentive Awards				—		104,495			193,315
Restricted Stock		03-30-11										3,250		6,500		8,125							19,533	(3)
Restricted Stock		03-30-11																3,250					19,533
Stock Options		03-30-11										2,684		5,367		6,709					6.01		9,500	(4)
Christopher C. Cambria
Annual Incentive Awards				—		38,750	(5)		71,688	(5)
SARs		09-12-11																20,000			4.00		69,766	(6)

(1) Reflects the possible payout amounts of non-equity incentive plan awards that could have been earned in fiscal year 2011. See the Summary Compensation Table on page 38 for the amounts actually earned and paid out in the first quarter of fiscal year 2012.

(2) If targets are not met, the annual incentive award will not be earned.

(3) As of November 30, 2011, the Company expects 50% of this performance restricted stock grant to vest. The grant date fair value at the maximum of 125% vesting would be $696,604 for Mr. Seymour, $238,319 for Ms. Redd, $91,457 for Mr. Bregard and $48,831 for Mr. Conley.

(4) As of November 30, 2011, the Company expects 50% of this performance stock options grant to vest. The grant date fair value at the maximum of 125% vesting would be $290,373 for Mr. Seymour, $99,337 for Ms. Redd, and $23,749 for Mr. Conley. The fair value of these stock options was estimated using a Black-Scholes Model with the following weighted average assumptions at the date of grant: Expected life — seven years; Volatility — 57.19%; Risk-free interest rate — 2.53%; Dividend yield — 0.00%.

(5) Mr. Cambria’s cash incentive award was prorated for three months as his employment with the Company began in September 2011. The target and maximum award is presented prorated.

(6) The fair value of this SAR grant was estimated using the Black-Scholes Model with the following weighted average assumptions at the grant date: Expected life — seven years; Volatility — 57.00%; Risk-free interest rate – 1.65%; Dividend yield — 0.00%.

40

OUTSTANDING EQUITY AWARDS AT 2011 FISCAL YEAR END

The following table provides information for each of the Named Executive Officers regarding outstanding stock options, SARs, and stock awards held by the officers as of November 30, 2011.

Name	Option/SARs Awards												Stock Awards
	Number of Securities Underlying Unexercised Options/SARs (#) Exercisable		Number of     Securities     Underlying     Unexercised     Options/SARs     (#)     Unexercisable			Equity     Incentive     Plan Awards:     Number of     Securities     Underlying     Unexercised     Unearned     Option/SARs     (#)			Option/ SARs Exercise Price ($)		Option/ SARs Expiration Year		Service-Based Equity Awards					Equity Incentive Plan Awards
													Number of     Shares or     Units of     Stock That     Have Not     Vested     (#)			Market Value of Shares or Units of Stock That Have Not Vested ($)(1)		Number of     Unearned     Shares, Units     or Other     Rights That     Have     Not     Vested     (#)			Market or     Payout Value     of Unearned     Shares, Units     or Other     Rights That     Have Not     Vested     ($)(1)
Scott J. Seymour
Restricted Stock														80,000	(2)	$	435,200
																			92,726	(3)	$	504,429
Stock Options		—		—			65,621	(3)	$	6.01		2018
		—		—			239,464	(4)		4.91		2017
		33,334		66,666	(2)		—			7.14		2017
Kathleen E. Redd
Restricted Stock																			30,000	(5)		163,200
																			31,723	(3)		172,573
SARs		20,000		—			—			4.25		2018
		1,500		—			—			13.75		2017
		2,560		—			—			13.19		2016
		2,500		—			—			18.71		2015
Stock Options		—		—			35,000	(5)		4.54		2019
		—		—			22,449	(3)		6.01		2018
		—		—			81,923	(4)		4.91		2017
		2,666		—			—			9.29		2013
		1,333		—			—			10.85		2012
Richard W. Bregard
Restricted Stock																			10,000	(5)		54,400
																			9,455	(4)		51,435
														9,455	(6)		51,435
																			12,174	(3)		66,227
														12,174	(7)		66,227
SARs		1,500		—			—			13.75		2017
		4,256		—			—			13.19		2016
Stock Options		—		—			10,000	(5)		4.54		2019
Chris W. Conley
Restricted Stock																			7,500	(5)		40,800
																			3,408	(4)		18,540
														3,408	(6)		18,540
																			6,500	(3)		35,360
														3,250	(7)		17,680
SARs		12,000		—			—			13.75		2017
		13,800		—			—			19.34		2016
		2,000		—			—			18.51		2015
Stock Options		—		—			7,500	(5)		4.54		2019
		—		—			5,367	(3)		6.01		2018
		—		—			11,750	(4)		4.91		2017
		5,000		—			—			7.73		2013
		5,000		—			—			15.43		2012
Christopher C. Cambria
SARs		—		20,000	(8)		—			4.00		2018

41

(1) The market value was calculated by multiplying the number of shares by the closing market price of the Company’s Common Stock of $5.44 on November 30, 2011.

(2) Mr. Seymour’s unvested time-based stock options and restricted stock have been vesting in one-third increments on January 6^th of each year becoming fully vested in 2013. On January 6, 2012, Mr. Seymour vested in 40,000 restricted shares and 33,333 stock options.

(3) The vesting date for these performance-based stock option and restricted stock awards is on or about January 31, 2014, subject to approval by the Organization & Compensation Committee. These awards will only vest if performance targets are met through November 30, 2013.

(4) The vesting date for these performance-based stock option and restricted stock awards is on or about January 31, 2013, subject to approval by the Organization & Compensation Committee. These awards will only vest if performance targets are met through November 30, 2012.

(5) The vesting date for these performance-based stock option and restricted stock awards was February 3, 2012. Performance targets were met through November 30, 2011 resulting in this grant vesting at 105%. As a result Ms. Redd had 36,750 stock options vest and 31,500 stock awards vest, Mr. Bregard had 10,500 stock options vest and 10,500 stock awards vest, and Mr. Conley had 7,875 stock options vest and 7,875 stock awards vest. The vesting of the stock options over 100% (1,500, 500, and 375 stock options for Ms. Redd, and Messrs. Bregard and Conley, respectively) were granted on February 3, 2012 at an exercise price of $6.00 per share, the closing price of the Company’s common stock on that day, pursuant to and in accordance with the terms of their 2009 Performance Stock Option Grants dated August 24, 2009. In addition, Ms. Redd, and Messrs. Bregard and Conley received a grant of 425, 121, and 91 shares, respectively of the Company’s common stock to compensate them for the increase in the exercise price per share for the options granted on February 3, 2012 over the exercise price per share under the 2009 Performance Stock Option Grants. Messrs. Seymour and Cambria were not employees of the Company at the time of the 2009 Performance Grant.

(6) The vesting date for these time based restricted stock awards is November 30, 2013.

(7) The vesting date for these time based restricted stock awards is March 30, 2014.

(8) Mr. Cambria’s unvested SARs vests in one-third increments on September 12^th of each year becoming fully vested in 2014.

2011 OPTION/SAR EXERCISES AND STOCK VESTED

The following table provides information for each of the Named Executive Officers regarding stock option and SARs exercises and stock award vestings during fiscal year 2011.

Name	Option/SARs Awards(1)				Stock Awards
	Number of Shares Acquired on Exercise (#)		Value Realized on Exercise ($)		Number of Shares Acquired on Vesting (#)(2)		Value Realized on Vesting ($)(3)
Scott J. Seymour		—	$	—		40,000	$	211,200
Kathleen E. Redd		—		—		—		—
Richard W. Bregard		—		—		—		—
Chris W. Conley		—		—		—		—
Christopher C. Cambria		—		—		—		—

(1) No stock options or SARs were exercised during fiscal year 2011.

(2) The amounts reported in this column reflect restricted stock awards that vested during fiscal year 2011.

(3) The value realized on vesting is calculated by multiplying the number of shares by the closing market price of the Company’s Common Stock on the vesting date.

42

2011 PENSION BENEFITS

The Company’s defined benefit pension and BRP are frozen and no longer accruing benefits. Effective February 1, 2009 and July 31, 2009, future benefit accruals for all non-collective bargaining unit employees, including the Named Executive Officers and collective bargaining unit employees respectively, were discontinued. No employees lost their previously earned pension benefits. The changes in pension value reported for the Named Executive Officers are only due to changes in actuarial assumptions in the calculation of the actuarial present value and not accrual of further benefits.

Qualified Pension Plan

The Qualified Pension Plan is a tax-qualified defined benefit plan covering substantially all collectively bargaining unit and non-collectively bargaining unit employees hired before the freeze date. In general, normal retirement age is 65, with certain plan provisions allowing for earlier retirement. Before the freeze date, pension benefits were calculated under formulas based on compensation and length of service for salaried employees and under negotiated non-wage based formulas for bargaining unit and hourly employees. Participants will receive the highest benefit calculated under any of the formulas for which they were eligible to participate through the freeze date.

2009 Pension BRP Plan

Total pension benefits for the Named Executive Officers and certain other highly compensated employees were determined under a combination of the 2009 Pension BRP Plan, which is a non-qualified plan, and the Qualified Pension Plan. As set forth above, the Qualified Pension Plan is a qualified pension plan that provides pension benefits for employees, the amount of which is limited under Section 401(a)(17) or 415 of the Code (or any successor provisions). The 2009 Pension BRP Plan restored the pension plan benefits which executives and their beneficiaries would otherwise lose as a result of the limitations under Section 401(a)(17) or 415 of the Code (or any successor provisions). Eligibility to participate in the 2009 Pension BRP Plan was designated by the Organization & Compensation Committee.

The Company funded into a grantor trust an amount equal to the present value of the accrued pension benefits under the 2009 Pension BRP Plan for all participants in such plan as of March 5, 2008. These non-qualified benefits may be paid out of the grantor trust (pre-funded) or the Company’s general assets.

The following table provides information regarding the actuarial present values of accumulated benefits under the Qualified Pension Plan and the 2009 Pension BRP Plan of the Named Executive Officers who were eligible for pension benefits prior to the freeze date of the plans as of November 30, 2011. Messrs. Seymour and Cambria are not participants in either of the pension plans as their employment with the Company commenced after the freeze date.

Name	Plan Name	Number of Years          Credited Service           (#)(1)	Present Value       of Accumulated       Benefit       ($)(2)	Payments       During Fiscal       Year 2011       ($)
Kathleen E. Redd	Qualified Pension Plan	6.50	$    199,820	$    —
	2009 Pension BRP Plan	6.50	53,476	—
Richard W. Bregard	Qualified Pension Plan	4.50	196,975	—
	2009 Pension BRP Plan	4.50	16,313	—
Chris W. Conley	Qualified Pension Plan	26.50	732,822	—
	2009 Pension BRP Plan	26.50	163,805	—

(1) Credited service under the Qualified Pension Plan and the 2009 Pension BRP Plan is determined for all participants in accordance with such plans and is through February 1, 2009, the freeze date for these plans in which the

43

Company discontinued future benefit accruals for all non-collectively bargaining unit employees, including the Named Executive Officers. This number is being presented unrounded.

(2) The amounts reported in this column were calculated based on the accrued benefit as of February 1, 2009, the date benefit accruals were frozen for non-collectively bargaining unit employees. Present values were calculated assuming no pre-retirement mortality or termination. The values under the Qualified Pension Plan and the 2009 Pension BRP Plan are the actuarial present values as of November 30, 2011 of the benefits earned as of the freeze date and payable at the earliest age eligible for unreduced benefits for the Qualified Pension Plan (the earlier of age 65, or age 62 with 10 years of service) and the current benefit election date on record for the 2009 Pension BRP Plan.

The discount rate assumption is 4.95% for the Qualified Pension Plan and 4.98% for the 2009 Pension BRP Plan. The post-retirement mortality assumption of the two pension plans is RP 2000 no-collar, projected to 2019. In order to determine the change in pension values for the Summary Compensation Table on page 38, the values of the Qualified Pension Plan, the 2009 Pension BRP Plan were calculated as of November 30 of each year for the benefits earned as of the freeze date. The discount rate assumption used for the Qualified Pension Plan was 5.21% for fiscal year 2010 and 5.65% for fiscal year 2009. The discount rate assumption used for the 2009 Pension BRP was 5.34% for fiscal year 2010 and 5.60% for fiscal year 2009. These were also the assumptions used for financial reporting purposes for fiscal year 2010 and 2009. Other assumptions used to determine the values as of November 30, 2010 and 2009 were primarily the same as those used as of November 30, 2011. The assumptions reflected in this footnote are the same as the ones used for the Qualified Pension Plan and the 2009 Pension BRP Plan for financial reporting purposes with the exception of assumed retirement age and the absence of pre-retirement mortality and termination assumptions.

2011 NON-QUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION

Benefits Restoration Plan — 2009 401(k) BRP Plan

The 2009 401(k) BRP Plan is a non-qualified, unfunded plan designed to enable participants to defer their compensation on a pre-tax basis. Under the 2009 401(k) BRP Plan, a select group of employees approved by the Board, elect to defer compensation earned in the current year such as salary and certain other incentive compensation that would otherwise be paid in the current year. Effective January 1, 2009, obligations with respect to benefits that were earned or vested under the Prior Pension BRP after December 31, 2004, and were related to the restoration of 401(k) benefits which such employees and their beneficiaries would otherwise have lost as a result of Code limitations upon accrual and/or payment of benefits from the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan, along with all associated earnings, were transferred to, and will be maintained under and paid from the 2009 401(k) BRP Plan. Accordingly, only benefits that are exempt from Section 409A of the Code will be maintained under and paid from the Prior Pension BRP, in accordance with the terms of the Prior Pension BRP.

The Company matches contributions in an amount equal to 100% of the participant’s contribution up to the first 3% of the participant’s eligible compensation and 50% up to the next 3% of the participant’s eligible compensation if the participant has reached the 402(g) limit in the 401(k) Savings Plan. The maximum company match is 4.5%. Participants indicate how they wish their deferred compensation and the company matching contributions to be notionally invested among the same investment options available through the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan. Non-qualified benefits may be paid out of either the grantor trust (pre-funded) or the Company’s general assets.

44

The following table provides information for each of the Named Executive Officers regarding aggregate officer and Company contributions and aggregate earnings for fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year-end account balances under the 2009 401(k) BRP Plan.

Name	Executive Contributions in fiscal year 2011 ($)(1)		Company Contributions in fiscal year 2011 ($)(2)		Aggregate Earnings in fiscal year 2011 ($)(3)			Aggregate Withdrawals/ Distributions ($)		Aggregate Balance at November 30, 2011 ($)
Scott J. Seymour	$	283,356	$	51,598	$	16,967		$	—	$	495,751
Kathleen E. Redd		—		—		(575	)		—		42,252
Richard W. Bregard		—		—		—			—		—
Chris W. Conley		10,453		5,253		233			—		54,691
Christopher C. Cambria		—		—		—			—		—

(1) The amounts reported in this column reflect compensation earned in fiscal year 2011 and deferred under the 2009 401(k) BRP Plan. These amounts are also included in the “Salary” column in the Summary Compensation Table on page 38.

(2) The amounts reported in this column reflect company matches under the 2009 401(k) BRP Plan earned in fiscal year 2011. The company match for fiscal year 2011 was not credited to the participant’s accounts until 2012 with an effective date of January 3, 2012. These amounts are also included in the “All Other Compensation” column in the Summary Compensation Table on page 38.

(3) The amounts reported in this column reflect interest credited on account holdings and the change in value of other investment holdings.

Employment Agreement and Indemnity Agreements

On January 6, 2010, the Company entered into an employment agreement with Mr. Seymour to serve as the Company’s President and CEO. Pursuant to his employment agreement, Mr. Seymour will earn an annual base salary of $550,000, and is eligible for an annual incentive based on a target opportunity up to 125% of his annual base salary. On January 6, 2010, Mr. Seymour received 120,000 shares of the Company’s restricted common stock and an option to purchase 100,000 shares of the Company’s common stock (the “Option”). The Option has a per share exercise price equal to the last sales price reported for the Company’s common stock on the NYSE on the date of grant. Mr. Seymour is also eligible to participate in future grants pursuant to the 2009 Incentive Plan and other Company performance incentive plans extended to the senior executives of the Company generally, at levels commensurate with his position. Mr. Seymour’s employment agreement has a five-year term, unless earlier terminated in accordance with its terms. In the event that the Company terminates Mr. Seymour’s employment for Cause or Mr. Seymour resigns other than for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in his employment agreement), the Company’s obligations will generally be limited to paying Mr. Seymour his annual base salary through the termination date. If Mr. Seymour’s employment is terminated at his or the Company’s election at any time due to his death or disability, or for reasons other than Cause or Voluntary Resignation (as defined in his employment agreement), Mr. Seymour will be entitled to receive the benefits described above and severance payments and benefits equal to the following, subject to certain limitations: (i) one year of his annual base salary paid in installments; (ii) an incentive payment based upon the amount of the previous year’s incentive, prorated based on the number of months of the year that Mr. Seymour works for the Company prior to the termination paid in a lump sum; (iii) immediate vesting of any shares of the Company’s restricted common stock or options that are scheduled to vest within one year of the date of termination of employment and (iv) incentives earned but unpaid with respect to the fiscal year ending on or preceding the date of termination pursuant to the Company’s Annual Incentive Plan.

45

Also under this employment agreement for a termination in connection with a change in control in which Mr. Seymour’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or by the executive for good reason within two years following a change in control, Mr. Seymour will be entitled to receive a severance payment and benefits as follows: (i) a lump sum payment equal to two times the sum of his base salary plus the target incentive amount for the year in which the termination takes place; (ii) immediate full vesting of outstanding restricted shares and options; (iii) and payment of any accrued incentive through the date of termination.

On February 6, 2012, the Company’s subsidiary, Aerojet, entered into a Retention Agreement with Mr. Bregard to ensure that Mr. Bregard remains with Aerojet through at least November 30, 2012 and to encourage a successful transition to Mr. Bregard’s retirement. For more detail on the agreement see page 47.

The Company has entered into indemnification agreements with each of its Directors and the Named Executive Officers with the exception of Mr. Bregard pursuant to which the Company is required to defend and indemnify such individuals if or when they are party or threatened to be made a party to any action, suit, proceeding or claim, whether civil, criminal, administrative or investigative, by reason of the fact that such individual is or was a Director and/or Named Executive Officer of the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

Potential Payments upon Termination of Employment or Change in Control

Termination Benefits for Scott J. Seymour

According to the employment agreement entered into between the Company and Mr. Seymour as discussed in the section above, in the event that the Company terminates Mr. Seymour’s employment for Cause or Mr. Seymour resigns other than for Good Reason (as such terms are defined in his employment agreement), the Company’s obligations will generally be limited to paying Mr. Seymour his annual base salary through the termination date. If Mr. Seymour’s employment is terminated at his or the Company’s election at any time due to his death or disability, or for reasons other than Cause or Voluntary Resignation (as defined in his employment agreement), Mr. Seymour will be entitled to receive severance payments and benefits equal to the following, subject to certain limitations: (i) one year of his annual base salary paid in installments; (ii) an incentive payment based upon the amount of the previous year’s incentive, prorated based on the number of months of the year that Mr. Seymour worked for the Company prior to the termination paid in a lump sum; (iii) immediate vesting of any shares of the Company’s restricted common stock and options that are scheduled to vest within one year of the date of termination of employment and (iv) incentives earned but unpaid with respect to the fiscal year ending on or preceding the date of termination pursuant to the Company’s Annual Incentive Plan.

Also under this employment agreement for a termination in connection with a change in control in which Mr. Seymour’s employment is terminated by the Company without cause or by the executive for good reason within two years following a change in control, Mr. Seymour will be entitled to receive a severance payment and benefits as follows: (i) a lump sum payment equal to two times the sum of his base salary plus the target incentive amount for the year in which the termination takes place; (ii) immediate full vesting of outstanding restricted shares and options; (iii) and payment of any accrued incentive through the date of termination.

Mr. Seymour’s employment agreement has a five year term beginning January 6, 2010.

Termination Benefits for Other Named Executive Officers

The Company does not have a severance plan in place for the Named Executive Officers with the exception of Mr. Seymour discussed above. The Company does have a policy for a reduction in force, pursuant to which Ms. Redd and Messrs. Bregard, Conley and Cambria, as well as all other employees of

46

the Company, would receive one week’s pay for each full or partial year of service with a minimum of two weeks’ pay and a maximum of 26 weeks’ pay. The policy also provides for health benefits and life insurance coverage for three months. Four weeks of additional pay and eligibility to participate in medical and dental coverage for an additional three months may be granted if a release is executed.

Treatment of Equity Awards

Equity awards made to employees including the Named Executive Officers generally provide for the immediate accelerated vesting of the award, including stock options, performance-based stock options, SARs, time-based restricted stock and performance-based restricted stock (regardless of whether or not the performance target is ultimately met) upon a change in control of the Company regardless of whether a termination occurs.

Estimated Cost of Termination Benefits

The amounts of estimated incremental compensation and benefits payable to the Named Executive Officers assuming a qualifying termination of employment as of November 30, 2011, are shown in the following table.

Name	Cash Severance
Scott J. Seymour Termination without Cause	$	2,330,625
Scott J. Seymour Termination with Change in Control		3,410,000
Kathleen E. Redd		—
Richard W. Bregard		—
Chris W. Conley		—
Christopher C. Cambria		—

As of November 30, 2011, there are no other scenarios other than what is discussed in this section in which a Named Executive Officer would get benefits above and beyond normal employee policy.

On February 6, 2012, the Company’s subsidiary, Aerojet, entered into a Retention Agreement with Mr. Bregard to ensure that Mr. Bregard remains with Aerojet through at least November 30, 2012 and to encourage a successful transition to Mr. Bregard’s retirement. The Retention Agreement provides that Mr. Bregard shall receive a payment equal to his annual base salary then in effect if he stays with Aerojet through at least November 30, 2012 or his termination qualifies as an Eligible Early Termination (as defined below). In the event of an Eligible Early Termination, Mr. Bregard shall be entitled to receive a lump sum payment equal to the base salary that he would have received from but excluding the termination date through and including November 30, 2012 and reimbursement of health insurance premiums payable under the Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1986. Mr. Bregard shall be entitled to participate in the fiscal 2012 short term cash incentive program in the event that he remains with Aerojet through November 30, 2012 or his termination qualifies as an Eligible Early Termination, but shall not participate in the long-term incentive or equity-based compensation programs in fiscal 2012 or thereafter. An “Eligible Early Termination” means a termination of Mr. Bregard before November 30, 2012 either (i) at the request or upon the initiation of Aerojet other than for Cause as defined in the Retention Agreement, (ii) due to the death or Disability as defined in the Retention Agreement of Mr. Bregard, or (iii) at the request or initiation of Mr. Bregard in the event that (A) he is no longer a direct report to Scott J. Seymour, or (B) an individual other than Mr. Seymour or Mr. Bregard is elected or appointed to act as President of Aerojet and, in either case, Mr. Bregard suffers a significant change or diminution in his duties and responsibilities.

47

Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners

The Company believes that the following table is an accurate representation of beneficial owners of more than 5% of the 59,707,500 shares of the Common Stock outstanding as of January 31, 2012. The table is based on reports of Schedule 13D and Schedule 13G filed with the SEC on or prior to February 14, 2012.

Beneficial Owner	Amount and Nature of Beneficial Ownership	Percent of Class
GAMCO Investors, Inc. One Corporate Center Rye, NY 10580	8,575,486 (1)	14.4%
Marcato Capital Management LLC 235 Pine Street, Suite 1650 San Francisco, CA 94104	5,681,571(2)	9.5%
BlackRock, Inc. 40 East 52nd Street New York, NY 10022	4,585,938(3)	7.7%
Steel Partners Holdings L.P. 590 Madison Avenue 32nd Floor New York, NY 10022	4,065,737(4)	6.8%
GenCorp Retirement Savings Plans c/o Fidelity Management Trust Company 82 Devonshire Street Boston, MA 02109	3,729,613(5)	6.2%
Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC 101 John F. Kennedy Parkway Short Hills, NJ 07078	3,183,737(6)	5.3%

(1) Includes shares beneficially owned by Mario J. Gabelli and various affiliated entities, including Gabelli Funds, LLC, GAMCO Asset Management Inc., Teton Advisors, Inc., GGCP, Inc., and GAMCO Investors, Inc. Gabelli Funds, LLC reported sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to 3,112,073 shares. GAMCO Asset Management Inc. reported sole voting power with respect to 4,575,213 shares and sole dispositive power with respect to 4,668,213 shares. Teton Advisors, Inc. reported sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to 775,200 shares. GGCP, Inc. reported sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to 20,000 shares. GAMCO Investors, Inc. reported sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to 0 shares. Includes 622,140 shares with respect to which the reporting persons have the right to acquire beneficial ownership upon conversion of the Company’s 4 ¹/16% and 2 ¹/4% convertible subordinated debentures. All of the foregoing information is according to Amendment No. 49 to a Schedule 13D dated October 26, 2010 and filed with the SEC on October 26, 2010.

(2) Marcato Capital Management LLC and Richard T. McGuire III reported shared voting power and shared dispositive power with respect to 5,681,571 shares. Mr. McGuire is the managing member of Marcato Capital Management LLC. The foregoing information is according to a Schedule 13G dated February 14, 2012 and filed with the SEC on February 14, 2012.

(3) BlackRock, Inc. reported sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to the 4,585,938 shares. The foregoing information is according to Amendment No. 2 to a Schedule 13G dated January 20, 2012 and filed with the SEC on February 13, 2012.

(4) Consists of shares owned directly by SPH Group Holdings LLC (“SPHG Holdings”). Steel Partners Holdings L.P. (“Steel Holdings”) owns 99% of the membership interests of SPH Group LLC (“SPHG”). SPHG is the sole member of SPHG Holdings. Steel Partners Holdings GP Inc. (“Steel Partners GP”) is the general partner of Steel Holdings, the managing member of SPHG and the manager of SPHG Holdings. By virtue of these relationships,

48

each of Steel Holdings, SPHG and Steel Holdings GP may be deemed to beneficially own the shares owned directly by SPHG Holdings. Each of the foregoing may be deemed to have shared voting and dispositive power with respect to such shares. All of the foregoing information is according to Amendment No. 21 to a Schedule 13D dated January 3, 2012 and filed with the SEC on January 3, 2012.

(5) Shares held as of December 31, 2011 by Fidelity Management Trust Company, the Trustee for the GenCorp Retirement Savings Plan.

(6) Includes shares beneficially owned by one or more open-end investment companies or other managed accounts which, pursuant to investment management contracts, are managed by Franklin Mutual Advisers, LLC (“FMA”), an indirect wholly owned subsidiary of Franklin Resources, Inc. FMA reported sole voting power and sole dispositive power with respect to such shares pursuant to such investment management contracts. All of the foregoing information is according to Amendment No. 3 to Schedule 13G dated January 31, 2012 and filed with the SEC on February 3, 2012.

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Section 16(a) of the Exchange Act requires the Company’s Directors and certain officers and persons who own more than 10% of the outstanding Common Stock to file reports of ownership and changes in ownership on Forms 3, 4 and 5 with the SEC and the NYSE. The SEC also requires such persons to furnish the Company with copies of the Forms 3, 4 and 5 they file. Based solely on our review of the copies of such forms that the Company has received, the Company believes that all of its Directors, executive officers and greater than 10% beneficial owners complied with all filing requirements applicable to them with respect to transactions during fiscal year 2011 with one exception. Due to an administrative oversight, Mr. Cambria’s Form 4 to report a SARs grant was due to be filed by September 14, 2011 with the SEC, but was not filed until September 21, 2011.

49

PROPOSAL 2

APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENCORP AMENDED AND RESTATED 2009 EQUITY AND PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

On March 25, 2009, the Company’s shareholders approved the adoption of the GenCorp 2009 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan and on March 24, 2010, the Company’s shareholders approved the adoption of the GenCorp Amended and Restated 2009 Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (referred to in this section of the Proxy Statement as the “Plan”). The Plan allows for the issuance of up to 2,000,000 shares of GenCorp common stock for award grants. The Plan provides equity-based compensation through the grant of cash-based awards, nonqualified stock options, incentive stock options, stock appreciation rights (“SARs”), restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares, performance units and other stock-based awards. On January 26, 2011, the Board, upon the recommendation and approval of the Organization & Compensation Committee (referred to in this section of the Proxy Statement as the “Compensation Committee”) approved certain amendments, effective January 26, 2011, to the Plan. The January 2011 amendment did not require prior shareholder approval. On February 17, 2011, the Company’s shareholders approved an amendment to the Plan to eliminate the limitation on the number of shares of GenCorp common stock available to be issued as Full Value Awards.

The Company’s shareholders are now being asked to approve an amendment to the Plan to increase the number of shares of GenCorp common stock that the Company may issue under the Plan by 3,000,000. Under the Plan, as amended and restated by this proposal, the total shares available for award grants will equal 5,000,000.

The Company believes that an adequate reserve of shares available for issuance under the Plan is necessary to enable the Company to attract, motivate, and retain key employees and Directors and to provide an additional incentive for such individuals through stock ownership and other rights that promote and recognize the financial success and growth of the Company. For this purpose, subject to the approval of shareholders, the Board adopted the amendment to the Plan on January 25, 2012. If shareholders do not approve the amendment to the Plan, the Plan will remain in place in accordance with its terms prior to such amendment.

A copy of the revised Plan is attached to this Proxy Statement as Exhibit A, and a summary of the Plan, as amended and restated, is set forth below. The summary is qualified in its entirety by reference to the Plan.

Other than the proposed amendments to the Plan to increase the number of shares of GenCorp common stock that the Company may issue under the Plan, there have been no other material changes to the Plan which would require prior shareholder approval.

The Company intends to register the 3,000,000 share increase on a Registration Statement on Form S-8 under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, as soon as is practicable after receiving shareholder approval.

Summary of the Amended Plan

Purpose of the Plan.    The Plan is intended as an incentive to attract, motivate, and retain employees and Directors upon whose judgment, initiative, and efforts the financial success and growth of the business of the Company largely depend, and to provide an additional incentive for such individuals through stock ownership and other rights that promote and recognize the financial success and growth of the Company and create value for shareholders.

Administration of the Plan.    The Plan is to be administered by the Compensation Committee consisting of two or more directors who are “non-employee directors” within the meaning of Rule 16b-3 and, “outside directors” within the meaning of Section 162(m) of the Code. In the event that for any reason the

50

Compensation Committee is unable to act or if the Compensation Committee at the time of any grant, award or other acquisition under the Plan does not consist of two or more “non-employee directors,” or if there is no such committee, then the Plan will be administered by the Board.

Subject to the other provisions of the Plan, the Compensation Committee will have the authority, in its discretion: (i) to grant cash-based awards, nonqualified stock options, incentive stock options, SARs, restricted stock, restricted stock units, performance shares, performance units and other stock-based awards, all of which are referred to collectively as “Awards”; (ii) to determine the terms and conditions of each Award granted (which need not be identical); (iii) to interpret the Plan and all Awards granted thereunder; and (iv) to make all other determinations necessary or advisable for the administration of the Plan.

Eligibility.    The persons eligible for participation in the Plan as recipients of Awards include employees and Directors to the Company or any subsidiary or affiliate of the Company. Approximately 200 individuals are currently eligible to participate in the Plan. In selecting participants, and determining the number of shares of Common Stock covered by each Award, the Compensation Committee may consider any factors that it deems relevant.

Shares Subject to the Plan.    Subject to the conditions outlined below, the total number of shares of Common Stock which may be issued pursuant to Awards granted under the Plan may not exceed 5,000,000 shares of Common Stock. The Plan provides for annual limits on the size of Awards for any particular participant.

In the event of certain corporate events or transactions (including, but not limited to, the sale of all, or substantially all, of the assets of the Company or a change in the shares of the Company or the capitalization of the Company), the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, in order to prevent dilution or enlargement of a participant’s rights under the Plan, shall substitute or adjust, as applicable, the number and kind of shares of Common Stock that may be issued under the Plan or under particular forms of Awards, the number and kind of shares of Common Stock subject to outstanding Awards, the option price or grant price applicable to outstanding Awards, the annual Award limits, and other value determinations applicable to outstanding Awards.

Options.    An option granted under the Plan is designated at the time of grant as either an incentive stock option or as a non-qualified stock option. Upon the grant of an option to purchase shares of Common Stock, the Compensation Committee will specify the option price, the maximum duration of the option, the number of shares of Common Stock to which the option pertains, the conditions upon which an option shall become vested and exercisable, and such other provisions as the Compensation Committee shall determine which are not inconsistent with the terms of the Plan. The purchase price of each share of Common Stock purchasable under an option will be determined by the Compensation Committee at the time of grant, but may not be less than 100% of the fair market value of such share of Common Stock on the date the option is granted, provided, however, that an option granted outside the United States to a person who is a non-U.S. taxpayer may be granted with an option price less than the fair market value of the underlying shares on the date of grant if necessary to utilize a locally available tax advantage. No option shall be exercisable later than the seventh anniversary date of its grant, provided, that for options granted to participants outside the United States who are non-U.S. taxpayers, the Compensation Committee has the authority to grant options that have a term greater than seven years.

SARs.    SARs will be exercisable at such time or times and subject to such terms and conditions as determined by the Compensation Committee. The term of SARs granted under the Plan shall be determined by the Compensation Committee, in its sole discretion, and except as determined otherwise by the Compensation Committee, no stock appreciation right shall be exercisable later than the seventh anniversary date of its grant, provided, however, that for SARs granted to participants who are non-U.S. taxpayers, the Compensation Committee has the authority to grant SARs that have a term greater than seven years.

51

Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units.    Shares of restricted stock and/or restricted stock units may be granted under the Plan aside from, or in association with, any other Award and will be subject to certain conditions and contain such additional terms and conditions, not inconsistent with the terms of the Plan, as the Compensation Committee deems desirable. Except with respect to a maximum of 5% of the shares authorized under the Plan or as otherwise provided in the Plan, any Awards of restricted stock and/or restricted stock units which vest on the basis of the participant’s continued employment with or provision of service to the Company shall not provide for vesting which is any more rapid than annual pro rata vesting over a three year period and any Awards of restricted stock and/or restricted stock units which vest upon the attainment of performance goals shall provide for a performance period of at least 12 months.

Performance Units/Performance Shares.    Subject to the terms and provisions of the Plan, the Compensation Committee, at any time and from time to time, may grant performance units and/or performance shares to participants in such amounts and upon such terms as the Compensation Committee shall determine. Each performance unit shall have an initial value that is established by the Compensation Committee at the time of grant. Each performance share shall have an initial value equal to the fair market value of a share of Common Stock on the date of grant. The Compensation Committee shall set performance goals in its discretion which, depending on the extent to which they are met, will determine the value and/or number of performance units/performance shares that will be paid out to the participant.

Cash-Based Awards and Other Stock-Based Awards.    Subject to the provisions of the Plan, the Compensation Committee may grant cash-based awards or other types of equity-based or equity-related awards not otherwise described by the terms of the Plan (including the grant or offer for sale of unrestricted shares of Common Stock) in such amounts and subject to such terms and conditions, as the Compensation Committee shall determine. Such Awards may involve the transfer of actual shares of Common Stock to participants, or payment in cash or otherwise of amounts based on the value of shares of Common Stock and may include, without limitation, Awards designed to comply with or take advantage of the applicable local laws of jurisdictions other than the United States. Each cash-based award shall specify a payment amount or payment range as determined by the Compensation Committee. Each other stock-based award shall be expressed in terms of shares of Common Stock or units based on shares of Common Stock, as determined by the Compensation Committee.

Restrictions on Transferability.    The Awards granted under the Plan are not transferable and may be exercised solely by a participant during his lifetime or after his death by the person or persons entitled thereto under his will or the laws of descent and distribution or as otherwise required by law. Any attempt to transfer, assign, pledge or otherwise dispose of, or to subject to execution, attachment or similar process, any Award contrary to the provisions set forth in the Plan will be void and ineffective and will give no right to the purported transferee.