Official Parties to Grace's Chapter 11 Cases Three creditors' committees, two representing asbestos claimants, the Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants (the "PI Committee") and the Official Committee of Asbestos Property Damage Claimants (the "PD Committee"), and the third representing other unsecured creditors, and the Official Committee of Equity Security Holders (the "Equity Committee"), have been appointed in the Chapter 11 Cases. These committees, a legal representative of future asbestos personal injury claimants (the "PI FCR") and a legal representative of future asbestos property damage claimants (the "PD FCR"), have the right to be heard on all matters that come before the Bankruptcy Court and have important roles in the Chapter 11 Cases. The Debtors are required to bear certain costs and expenses of the committees and the representatives of future asbestos claimants, including those of their counsel and financial advisors.

As discussed below, the Debtors, the Equity Committee, the PI Committee and the PI FCR have filed a joint plan of reorganization, subsequently amended, with the Bankruptcy Court that is designed to address all pending and future asbestos-related claims and all other pre-petition claims as outlined therein (as amended to date, the "Joint Plan"). The committee representing general unsecured creditors, the PD Committee and the PD FCR are not co-proponents of the Joint Plan. On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming the Joint Plan. On January 31, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the "District Court") issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order, denying all appeals of the confirmation order and confirming the Joint Plan in its entirety. Appeals have been filed and further appeals may be filed challenging the District Court order confirming the Joint Plan. The resolution of any such appeals could have a material effect on the terms and timing of Grace's emergence from Chapter 11. In order for the Joint Plan to become effective, all conditions to the effective date set forth in the Joint Plan must be satisfied or waived.

Plans of Reorganization Prior to 2008, competing plans of reorganization were filed by Grace and jointly by the PI Committee and the PI FCR. Grace filed its first proposed plan with the Bankruptcy Court in November 2004 and amended it in January 2005 (the "Prior Plan"). However, in April 2008, the Debtors reached an agreement in principle with the PI Committee, the PI FCR, and the Equity Committee designed to resolve all present and future asbestos-related personal injury claims (the "PI Settlement"). A trial for estimating liability for such claims began in January 2008 but was suspended in April 2008 as a result of the PI Settlement.

As contemplated by the PI Settlement, in September 2008, the Debtors, supported by the Equity Committee, the PI Committee and the PI FCR, as co-proponents, filed the Joint Plan to reflect the terms of the PI Settlement. The Joint Plan supersedes all previously filed plans.

In November 2008, the Debtors reached an agreement in principle (the "ZAI PD Term Sheet") with the Putative Class Counsel to the U.S. ZAI claimants, the PD FCR, and the Equity Committee designed to resolve all present and future U.S. ZAI property damage claims and demands.

In January 2011, the Company, Grace Canada, Inc. and legal representatives of Canadian ZAI property damage claimants became parties to an agreement that would settle all Canadian ZAI property damage claims and demands (the "Canadian ZAI Settlement"). Under that agreement, all Canadian ZAI property damage claims and demands would be paid through a separate Canadian ZAI property damage claims fund of CDN$8.6 million. The Canadian ZAI Settlement is subject to the effectiveness of the Joint Plan.

The Joint Plan is designed to address all pending and future asbestos-related claims and all other pre-petition claims as outlined therein. Under the Joint Plan, two asbestos trusts would be established under Section 524(g) of the Bankruptcy Code. All asbestos-related personal injury claims would be channeled for resolution to one asbestos trust (the "PI Trust") and all asbestos-related property damage claims, including U.S. and Canadian ZAI property damage claims, would be channeled to a separate asbestos trust (the "PD Trust"). Amendments and technical modifications to the Joint Plan and several associated documents were filed by the Debtors and co-proponents on nine occasions from December 2008 through December 2010 to, among other things, reflect the agreements described above.

The Joint Plan assumes that Cryovac, Inc. ("Cryovac"), a wholly owned subsidiary of Sealed Air Corporation ("Sealed Air"), will fund the PI Trust and the PD Trust with an aggregate of: (i) $512.5 million in cash (plus interest at 5.5% compounded annually from December 21, 2002); and (ii) 18 million shares (reflecting a two-for-one stock split) of common stock of Sealed Air, pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement resolving asbestos-related, successor liability and fraudulent transfer claims against Sealed Air and Cryovac, as further described below (the "Sealed Air Settlement"). The value of the Sealed Air Settlement changes daily with the accrual of interest and the trading value of Sealed Air common stock. The Joint Plan also assumes that Fresenius AG ("Fresenius") will fund the PI Trust and the PD Trust with an aggregate of $115.0 million pursuant to the terms of a settlement agreement resolving asbestos-related, successor liability and fraudulent transfer claims against Fresenius, as further described below (the "Fresenius Settlement"). The Sealed Air Settlement and the Fresenius Settlement have been approved by the Bankruptcy Court but remain subject to the fulfillment of specified conditions.

Any plan of reorganization, including the Joint Plan and any plan of reorganization that may be filed in the future by a party-in-interest, will become effective only after a vote of eligible creditors and with the approval of the Bankruptcy Court and the District Court. All classes of creditors entitled to vote accepted the Joint Plan in May 2009. The class of general unsecured creditors, who voted on a provisional basis pending a determination by the Bankruptcy Court as to whether the class is impaired and therefore entitled to a vote, voted to reject the Joint Plan. Objections to the Joint Plan have generally related to demands for interest at rates higher than provided for in the Joint Plan, assertions that the Joint Plan may impair insurers' contractual rights, assertions that the Joint Plan discriminates against Libby, Montana personal injury claimants and the classification and treatment of claims under the Joint Plan. On January 31, 2011, the Bankruptcy Court issued an order confirming the Joint Plan and overruling all objections. On January 31, 2012, the District Court issued an order affirming the Bankruptcy Court's confirmation order, denying all appeals of the confirmation order and confirming the Joint Plan in its entirety. In order for the Joint Plan to become effective, all conditions for effectiveness set forth in the Joint Plan must be satisfied or waived.

Agreements have been reached among Grace, the PI Committee, BNSF railroad and the representatives of Libby, Montana, asbestos personal injury claimants to settle certain objections to the Joint Plan. The agreements are subject to the approval of the Bankruptcy Court. Pursuant to the agreements, the objections to the Joint Plan by the Libby claimants and BNSF would be settled, and those parties would forego any further appeals to the confirmation of the Joint Plan. Among the items covered in the agreements is a requirement for Grace to transfer responsibility for the current Grace-operated Libby Medical Program to a locally administered trust (whose formation is subject to the approval of a Montana court), and to fund the trust with a one-time payment of $19.5 million. Payments to Libby claimants under the Joint Plan are not affected by the Grace-Libby agreement. Grace expects to record an expense of $19.5 million when the necessary court approvals are obtained.

Appeals have been filed and further appeals may be filed in the federal appellate court challenging the District Court order confirming the Joint Plan. Such appeals may take a significant period of time to resolve and, while they are pending, certain conditions to the effectiveness of the Joint Plan, including for example, payments pursuant to the Sealed Air Settlement and the Fresenius Settlement and the availability of the third-party funding that Grace requires to fund the Joint Plan, might not be satisfied. If any such appeals are resolved adversely to Grace and the other Joint Plan proponents, the Joint Plan may not become effective, which could have a material effect on the terms and timing of Grace's emergence from Chapter 11. In that instance, and if the Joint Plan cannot be amended to address any deficiencies identified by the appellate court, the Debtors would expect to resume the estimation trial, which was suspended in April 2008 due to the PI Settlement, to determine the amount of its asbestos-related liabilities. Under those circumstances, a different plan of reorganization may ultimately be confirmed and become effective. Under a different plan of reorganization, the interests of holders of Company common stock could be substantially diluted or cancelled. The value of Company common stock would be significantly affected by the amount of Debtors' asbestos-related liability established under a different plan of reorganization.

Joint Plan of Reorganization Under the terms of the Joint Plan, claims under the Chapter 11 Cases would be satisfied as follows:

All pending and future asbestos-related personal injury claims and demands ("PI Claims") would be channeled to the PI Trust for resolution. The PI Trust would use specified trust distribution procedures to satisfy allowed PI Claims.

All pending and future asbestos-related property damage claims and demands ("PD Claims") would be channeled to the PD Trust for resolution. The PD Trust would contribute CDN$8.6 million to a separate Canadian ZAI PD Claims fund through which Canadian ZAI PD Claims would be resolved. The PD Trust would generally resolve U.S. ZAI PD Claims that qualify for payment by paying 55% of the claimed amount, but in no event would the PD Trust pay more per claim than 55% of $7,500 (as adjusted for inflation each year after the fifth anniversary of the effective date of the Joint Plan). The PD Trust would satisfy other allowed PD Claims pursuant to specified trust distribution procedures with cash payments in the allowed settlement amount. Unresolved PD Claims and future PD claims would be litigated pursuant to procedures to be approved by the Bankruptcy Court and, to the extent such claims were determined to be allowed claims, would be paid in cash by the PD Trust in the amount determined by the Bankruptcy Court.

The PD Trust would contain two accounts, the PD account and the ZAI PD account. U.S. ZAI PD Claims would be paid from the ZAI PD account and other PD Claims would be paid from the PD account. The separate Canadian ZAI PD Claims would be paid by a separate fund established in Canada. Each account would have a separate trustee and the assets of the accounts would not be commingled. The two accounts would be funded as follows:

All payments to the PD Trust that were not to be paid on the effective date of the Joint Plan would be secured by the Company's obligation to issue 50.1% of its outstanding common stock (measured as of the effective date of the Joint Plan) to the PD Trust in the event of default. Grace would have the right to conduct annual audits of the books, records and claim processing procedures of the PD Trust.

All allowed administrative claims would be paid in cash and all allowed priority claims would be paid in cash with interest. Secured claims would be paid in cash with interest or by reinstatement. Allowed general unsecured claims would be paid in cash, including any post-petition interest as follows: (i) for holders of pre-petition bank credit facilities, post-petition interest at the rate of 6.09% from the Filing Date through December 31, 2005 and thereafter at floating prime, in each case compounded quarterly; and (ii) for all other unsecured claims that are not subject to a settlement agreement providing otherwise, interest at 4.19% from the Filing Date, compounded annually, or if pursuant to an existing contract, interest at the non-default contract rate. The general unsecured creditors that hold pre-petition bank debt have asserted that they are entitled to post-petition interest at the default rate specified under the terms of the underlying credit agreements which, at the time of their court filings in April 2011 they asserted, was approximately an additional $140 million and growing (Grace believes that if default interest was ultimately determined to be payable, the additional amount of accrued interest would be substantially less than that asserted by the general unsecured creditors.). The Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have overruled this assertion and the general unsecured creditors that hold pre-petition bank debt have appealed these rulings to the appellate court. Unsecured employee-related claims such as pension, retirement medical obligations and workers compensation claims would be reinstated.

The Joint Plan provides that Company common stock will remain outstanding at the effective date of the Joint Plan, but that the interests of existing shareholders would be subject to dilution by additional shares of Company common stock issued under the warrant or in the event of default in respect of the deferred payment obligations to the PI Trust or the PD Trust under the Company's security obligation.

In order to preserve significant tax benefits which are subject to elimination or limitation in the event of a change in control (as defined by the Internal Revenue Code) of Grace, the Joint Plan provides that under certain circumstances, the Board of Directors would have the authority to impose restrictions on the transfer of Grace common stock with respect to certain 5% shareholders. These restrictions will generally not limit the ability of a person that holds less than 5% of Grace common stock after emergence to either buy or sell stock on the open market. In addition, the Bankruptcy Court has approved trading restrictions on Grace common stock until the effective date of a plan of reorganization. These restrictions prohibit (without the consent of the Company) a person from acquiring more than 4.75% of the outstanding Grace common stock or, for any person already holding more than 4.75%, from increasing such person's holdings. This summary of the stock transfer restrictions does not purport to be complete and is qualified in its entirety by reference to the order of the Bankruptcy Court, which has been filed with the SEC.

Claims Filings The Bankruptcy Court established a claims bar date of March 31, 2003, for claims of general unsecured creditors, PD Claims (other than ZAI PD Claims) and medical monitoring claims related to asbestos. The March 31, 2003 claims bar date did not apply to PI Claims or claims related to ZAI PD Claims.

Approximately 14,900 proofs of claim were filed by the March 31, 2003, claims bar date. Of these claims, approximately 9,500 were non-asbestos-related, approximately 4,400 were PD Claims, and approximately 1,000 were for medical monitoring. Under the Joint Plan, the medical monitoring claims would be channeled to the PI Trust for resolution. In addition, approximately 800 proofs of claim were filed after the claims bar date.

Approximately 6,685 non-asbestos-related claims were filed by employees or former employees (the "Employee Claims") for benefits arising from Grace's employee benefit plans. As of March 31, 2012, approximately 255 of these claims remain pending and are to be addressed through the claim objection process and the dispute resolution procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court.

The remaining non-asbestos, non-employee related claims include claims for amounts due under pre-petition credit facilities, leases and other contracts, environmental remediation, taxes, and non-asbestos-related personal injury. As of March 31, 2012, of the approximately 3,300 of these claims filed, approximately 120 claims remain pending and are to be addressed through the claim objection process and the dispute resolution procedures approved by the Bankruptcy Court. As of March 31, 2012, of the approximately 4,335 non-ZAI PD Claims filed, approximately 20 claims remain pending and are to be addressed through the property damage case management order approved by the Bankruptcy Court and/or the Joint Plan or another plan of reorganization.

Additionally, by order dated June 17, 2008, the Bankruptcy Court established October 31, 2008 as the claims bar date for ZAI PD Claims related to property located in the U.S. Approximately 17,960 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed prior to the October 31, 2008 claims bar date and, as of March 31, 2012 an additional 1,310 U.S. ZAI PD Claims were filed. Under the Canadian ZAI Settlement, all Canadian ZAI PD Claimants who filed a proof of claim by December 31, 2009, would be entitled to seek compensation from the Canadian ZAI PD Claims Fund. Approximately 14,100 Canadian ZAI PD Claims were filed by December 31, 2009. The Joint Plan provides for the channeling of U.S. ZAI PD Claims and Canadian ZAI PD Claims to the Asbestos PD Trust created under the Joint Plan, and the subsequent transfer of Canadian ZAI PD Claims to a Canadian fund. No claims bar date has been set for personal injury claims related to ZAI. The Joint Plan provides that ZAI PI Claims would be channeled to the Asbestos PI Trust created under the Joint Plan.

Grace is continuing to analyze and review unresolved claims in relation to the Joint Plan. Grace believes that its recorded liabilities for claims subject to the March 31, 2003 claims bar date represent a reasonable estimate of the ultimate allowable amount for claims that are not in dispute or have been submitted with sufficient information to both evaluate the merit and estimate the value of the claim. The PD Claims are considered as part of Grace's overall asbestos liability and are being accounted for in accordance with the conditions precedent under the Prior Plan, as described in Note 3.

Debt Capital All of the Debtors' pre-petition debt is in default due to the Filing. The accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets reflect the classification of the Debtors' pre-petition debt within "liabilities subject to compromise."

On March 2, 2010, Grace terminated its debtor-in-possession (DIP) facility and replaced it with a $100 million cash-collateralized letter of credit facility with a commercial bank to support existing and new financial assurances.

Accounting Impact The accompanying Consolidated Financial Statements have been prepared in accordance with ASC 852 "Reorganizations". ASC 852 requires that financial statements of debtors-in-possession be prepared on a going concern basis, which contemplates continuity of operations and realization of assets and liquidation of liabilities in the ordinary course of business. However, as a result of the Filing, the realization of certain of the Debtors' assets and the liquidation of certain of the Debtors' liabilities are subject to significant uncertainty. While operating as debtors-in-possession, the Debtors may sell or otherwise dispose of assets and liquidate or settle liabilities for amounts other than those reflected in the Consolidated Financial Statements. Further, the ultimate plan of reorganization could materially change the amounts and classifications reported in the Consolidated Financial Statements.

Pursuant to ASC 852, Grace's pre-petition and future liabilities that are subject to compromise are required to be reported separately on the balance sheet at an estimate of the amount that will ultimately be allowed by the Bankruptcy Court. As of March 31, 2012, such pre-petition liabilities include fixed obligations (such as debt and contractual commitments), as well as estimates of costs related to contingent liabilities (such as asbestos-related litigation, environmental remediation and other claims). Obligations of Grace subsidiaries not covered by the Filing continue to be classified on the Consolidated Balance Sheets based upon maturity dates or the expected dates of payment. ASC 852 also requires separate reporting of certain expenses, realized gains and losses, and provisions for losses related to the Filing as reorganization items. Grace presents reorganization items as "Chapter 11 expenses, net of interest income," a separate caption in its Consolidated Statements of Operations.

As discussed in Note 3, Grace has not adjusted its accounting for asbestos-related assets or liabilities to reflect the Joint Plan.

Grace has not recorded the benefit of any assets that may be available to fund asbestos-related and other liabilities under the Fresenius Settlement and the Sealed Air Settlement, as under the Joint Plan, these assets will be transferred to the PI Trust and the PD Trust. The estimated fair value available under the Fresenius Settlement and the Sealed Air Settlement as measured at March 31, 2012, was $1,305 million comprised of $115 million in cash from Fresenius and $1,190 million in cash and stock from Cryovac under the Joint Plan. Payments under the Sealed Air Settlement will be made directly to the PI Trust and the PD Trust by Cryovac.

Grace's Consolidated Balance Sheets separately identify the liabilities that are "subject to compromise" as a result of the Chapter 11 proceedings. In Grace's case, "liabilities subject to compromise" represent both pre-petition and future liabilities as determined under U.S. GAAP. Changes to pre-petition liabilities subsequent to the Filing Date reflect: (1) cash payments under approved court orders; (2) the terms of the Prior Plan, as discussed above and in Note 3, including the accrual of interest on pre-petition debt and other fixed obligations; (3) accruals for employee- related programs; and (4) changes in estimates related to other pre-petition contingent liabilities. The accounting for the asbestos-related liability component of "liabilities subject to compromise" is described in Note 3.

(In millions)	March 31, 2012			December 31, 2011

Asbestos-related contingencies	$	1,700.0		$	1,700.0
Pre-petition bank debt plus accrued interest		914.6			907.3
Environmental contingencies		146.3			149.9
Unfunded special pension arrangements		129.5			129.0
Income tax contingencies		70.3			69.3
Postretirement benefits other than pension		64.1			64.6
Drawn letters of credit plus accrued interest		34.9			34.5
Accounts payable		31.3			31.3
Retained obligations of divested businesses		29.0			28.4
Other accrued liabilities		92.0			89.8
Reclassification to current liabilities(1)		(9.3	)		(8.4	)

Total Liabilities Subject to Compromise	$	3,202.7		$	3,195.7

Note that the unfunded special pension arrangements reflected above exclude non-U.S. pension plans and qualified U.S. pension plans that became underfunded subsequent to the Filing. Contributions to qualified U.S. pension plans are subject to Bankruptcy Court approval.

The following table is a reconciliation of the changes in pre-filing date liability balances for the period from the Filing Date through March 31, 2012.

(In millions) (Unaudited)	Cumulative Since Filing

Balance, Filing Date April 2, 2001	$	2,366.0
Cash disbursements and/or reclassifications under Bankruptcy Court orders:
Payment of environmental settlement liability		(252.0	)
Freight and distribution order		(5.7	)
Trade accounts payable order		(9.1	)
Resolution of contingencies subject to Chapter 11		(130.0	)
Other court orders for payments of certain operating expenses		(364.9	)
Expense/(income) items:
Interest on pre-petition liabilities		519.5
Employee-related accruals		115.2
Provision for asbestos-related contingencies		744.8
Provision for environmental contingencies		352.7
Provision for income tax contingencies		(98.8	)
Balance sheet reclassifications		(35.0	)

Balance, end of period	$	3,202.7

Additional liabilities subject to compromise may arise due to the rejection of executory contracts or unexpired leases, or as a result of the Bankruptcy Court's allowance of contingent or disputed claims.

For the holders of pre-petition bank credit facilities, beginning January 1, 2006, Grace agreed to pay interest on pre-petition bank debt at the prime rate, adjusted for periodic changes, and compounded quarterly. The effective rate for the three months ended March 31, 2012 and 2011 was 3.25%. From the Filing Date through December 31, 2005, Grace accrued interest on pre-petition bank debt at a negotiated fixed annual rate of 6.09%, compounded quarterly. The general unsecured creditors that hold pre-petition bank credit facilities have asserted that they are entitled to post-petition interest at the default rate specified under the terms of the underlying credit agreements which, at the time of their court filings in April 2011, they asserted was approximately $140 million greater than the interest currently accrued and growing (Grace believes that if default interest was ultimately determined to be payable, the additional amount of accrued interest would be substantially less than that asserted by the general unsecured creditors.). The Bankruptcy Court and the District Court have overruled this assertion and the general unsecured creditors that hold pre-petition bank debt have appealed these rulings to the appellate court.

For the holders of claims who, but for the Filing, would be entitled under a contract or otherwise to accrue or be paid interest on such claim in a non-default (or non-overdue payment) situation under applicable non-bankruptcy law, Grace accrues interest at the rate provided in the contract between the Grace entity and the claimant or such rate as may otherwise apply under applicable non-bankruptcy law.

For all other holders of allowed general unsecured claims, Grace accrues interest at a rate of 4.19% per annum, compounded annually, unless otherwise negotiated during the claim settlement process.

Pursuant to ASC 852, interest income earned on the Debtors' cash balances must be offset against Chapter 11 expenses.

W. R. Grace & Co.—Chapter 11 Filing Entities
Debtor-in-Possession Statements of Operations

	Three Months Ended March 31,

(In millions) (Unaudited)	2012			2011
Net sales, including intercompany	$	364.3		$	314.3

Cost of goods sold, including intercompany, exclusive of depreciation and amortization shown separately below		226.0			183.2
Selling, general and administrative expenses		67.5			65.2
Defined benefit pension expense		13.5			11.6
Depreciation and amortization		16.5			16.9
Chapter 11 expenses, net of interest income		4.5			5.8
Research and development expenses		9.3			9.0
Interest expense and related financing costs		10.3			9.8
Restructuring expenses		2.4			0.2
Provision for environmental remediation		0.4			—
Other income, net		(12.6	)		(14.0	)

		337.8			287.7

Income before income taxes and equity in net income of non-filing entities		26.5			26.6
Provision for income taxes		(10.0	)		(10.7	)

Income before equity in net income of non-filing entities		16.5			15.9
Equity in net income of non-filing entities		44.4			38.3

Net income attributable to W. R. Grace & Co. shareholders	$	60.9		$	54.2

W. R. Grace & Co.—Chapter 11 Filing Entities
Debtor-in-Possession Statements of Cash Flows

	Three Months Ended March 31,

(In millions) (Unaudited)	2012			2011
Operating Activities
Net income attributable to W. R. Grace & Co. shareholders	$	60.9		$	54.2
Reconciliation to net cash used for operating activities:
Depreciation and amortization		16.5			16.9
Equity in net income of non-filing entities		(44.4	)		(38.3	)
Provision for income taxes		10.0			10.7
Income taxes paid, net of refunds		(0.2	)		(15.4	)
Defined benefit pension expense		13.5			11.6
Payments under defined benefit pension arrangements		(110.7	)		(204.5	)
Changes in assets and liabilities, excluding the effect of foreign currency translation:
Trade accounts receivable		6.3			(21.6	)
Inventories		11.5			(16.5	)
Accounts payable		(23.9	)		24.2
All other items, net		(23.0	)		(13.3	)

Net cash used for operating activities		(83.5	)		(192.0	)

Investing Activities
Capital expenditures		(15.7	)		(13.3	)
Transfer to restricted cash and cash equivalents		(6.9	)		—
Other		—			0.2

Net cash used for investing activities		(22.6	)		(13.1	)

Net cash provided by (used for) financing activities		12.9			(1.3	)

Net decrease in cash and cash equivalents		(93.2	)		(206.4	)
Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of period		788.6			787.2

Cash and cash equivalents, end of period	$	695.4		$	580.8

W. R. Grace & Co.—Chapter 11 Filing Entities
Debtor-in-Possession Balance Sheets

(In millions) (Unaudited)	March 31, 2012		December 31, 2011

ASSETS
Current Assets
Cash and cash equivalents	$	695.4	$	788.6
Restricted cash and cash equivalents		89.8		82.9
Trade accounts receivable, net		119.2		125.5
Accounts receivable—unconsolidated affiliate		13.2		10.2
Receivables from non-filing entities, net		150.4		143.1
Inventories		148.5		160.0
Other current assets		62.5		67.3

Total Current Assets		1,279.0		1,377.6
Properties and equipment, net		418.0		418.8
Deferred income taxes		721.9		752.7
Asbestos-related insurance		500.0		500.0
Loans receivable from non-filing entities, net		371.9		362.3
Investment in non-filing entities		369.4		333.6
Investment in unconsolidated affiliate		76.4		70.8
Other assets		60.6		63.7

Total Assets	$	3,797.2	$	3,879.5

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY (DEFICIT)
Liabilities Not Subject to Compromise
Current liabilities (including $7.5 due to unconsolidated affiliate) (2011—$3.5)	$	212.6	$	250.7
Underfunded defined benefit pension plans		75.9		215.5
Other liabilities (including $19.4 due to unconsolidated affiliate) (2011—$18.3)		55.1		58.1

Total Liabilities Not Subject to Compromise		343.6		524.3
Liabilities Subject to Compromise		3,202.7		3,195.7

Total Liabilities		3,546.3		3,720.0
Total W. R. Grace & Co. Shareholders' Equity (Deficit)		250.8		159.4
Noncontrolling interests in Chapter 11 filing entities		0.1		0.1

Total Equity (Deficit)		250.9		159.5

Total Liabilities and Equity (Deficit)	$	3,797.2	$	3,879.5

In addition to Grace's financial reporting obligations as prescribed by the SEC, the Debtors are also required, under the rules and regulations of the Bankruptcy Code, to periodically file certain statements and schedules with the Bankruptcy Court. This information is available to the public through the Bankruptcy Court. This information is prepared in a format that may not be comparable to information in Grace's quarterly and annual financial statements as filed with the SEC. These statements and schedules are not audited and do not purport to represent the financial position or results of operations of Grace on a consolidated basis.