Exhibit 99.77E
         The United States Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") identified
the Company as one of several potentially responsible persons ("PRP") in respect
to environmental harm to a farm denoted as "Boarhead" located in Upper Black
Eddy, Bucks County, Pennsylvania. That matter as explained in the following
paragraphs has progressed, is ongoing, unresolved and material.

         In November 1998 EPA, after naming the PRPs, issued a Record of
Decision ("ROD") relative to estimated future cleanup costs. Those together with
EPA's remedial costs already incurred totaled approximately $26,000,000.
Responsibility for paying these incurred and potential costs (before considering
cost allocation among responsible persons) depended upon evidence linking
generators to the site.

         At the outset of the "linking" aspect of EPA investigation, based upon
the Company's perception of linking evidence then available, it committed to
participate in a first cleanup phase relative to groundwater, known as operable
unit one ("OU 1"). A condition of the participation was that expenses so
incurred would be subject to reallocation after all available linking, volume
and toxicity evidence was found and analyzed. Because the evidence linking the
Company to the site and produced after it joined OU 1 was, in counsel's view,
weak, and because the Company's waste product did not involve drummed waste, the
Company declined to participate in drum removal, related soil cleanup and past
EPA costs ("OU 2").

         Until recently, there were seven entities sharing costs in the OU 1
defense group ("the OU 1 Group") of which the Company was one. The Company's
contracted share was one third of a one-fifth share. (The Company and two others
of the seven owned an alleged waste generator in Malvern Pennsylvania at
different times and together are considered one member. They did business at
pertinent times as "National Rolling Mills" or "NRM.") In early 2006 one of the
seven entitles (other than from the NRM group) withdrew support for the cleanup
effort; accordingly the Company will be sharing one-third of a one-fourth share
of the OU 1 costs. The Company has reserved $150,000 as its estimate to pay its
share of OU 1 yearly operation and maintenance and EPA oversight costs. In
counsel's view the OU 1 expenses for these items will continue for at least
three more years going forward.

         Some members of the OU 1 Group participated in the OU 2 work and paid
EPA past costs (the "OU 2 Group."). To recover OU 1 and OU 2 costs and amounts
reimbursed to the EPA, all allegedly in excess of their ratable liability,
members of the OU 2 Group, acting as a unit, on June 18, 2002 began a
contribution suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
under the caption BOARHEAD FARM AGREEMENT GROUP v. ADVANCED ENVIRONMENTAL
TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION ET AL., No. 02-cv-3830 (since amended to include the
individual members). The group in its fifth amended complaint, advances three
categories of claims. All three fall into categories of contribution or cost
recovery counts. The first is funding for soil aeration and treatment of VOC hot
spots (OU 1) and the second, excavation and off-site disposal of buried drums
(OU 2). The estimated, combined cost for these is approximately $6,200,000
(exclusive of ongoing operation and maintenance costs of unknown durations and
amounts). The third is reimbursement of the past costs to EPA. They were
negotiated down from $13,000,000 to $7,000,000. Additional EPA costs claimed to
be recoverable are $500,000. To these sums are added future costs in an
indefinite amount to cover ongoing operation and maintenance in groundwater
purification to meet EPA standards. As above, counsel had determined that the
Company's share of the ongoing costs would be $150,000 covering a three year
period, and in the past reserved that amount. Counsel could not estimate with
reasonable accuracy the Company's overall liability.

         Unlike the OU 1 contract claims in which the Company has a one-twelfth
share (subject to equitable reallocation) in the current litigation the Company
is one of some six non-settling defendants. A first round of discovery produced
some linkage evidence respecting virtually all of the defendants. A second round
has been completed about volumes of the wastes produced by each PRP. A third
round, recently completed was of various experts testifying to the relative harm
each PRP's waste caused, or that in one expert's view, that it was impossible to
allocate such harm. Based upon all the developed information and recent
settlement negotiations between plaintiffs and the Company and between
plaintiffs and others similarly situate, counsel for the Company now estimates
the Company's exposure in the litigation, including its ratable share of future
costs is between $750,000 and $1,500,000 with $1,000,000 being counsel's best
estimate of additional liability. The current net asset value of the Company's
stock was computed taking counsel's best estimate into account.



         The Company has a separate claim against the corporate successor to the
NRM business, Worthington Industries. There is credible precedence in regard to
this indemnity claim. During or following the principal litigation, it will
pursue this claim vigorously.

         In February 2008, in response to a request for information, the Company
through counsel responded respecting a further environmental site known as
ChemFab in Doylestown, Pennsylvania. At this time the Company has insufficient
information to appraise this situation or determine whether it will develop into
litigation.