Commitments and Contingencies

6 Months Ended

12 Months Ended

May 31, 2013

Nov. 30, 2012

Note 7. Commitments and Contingencies

a. Legal Matters

The Company and its subsidiaries are subject to legal proceedings, including litigation in U.S. federal and state courts, which arise out of, and are incidental to, the ordinary course of the Company’s on-going and historical businesses. The Company is also subject from time to time to governmental investigations by federal and state agencies. The Company cannot predict the outcome of such proceedings with any degree of certainty. Loss contingency provisions are recorded for probable losses at management’s best estimate of a loss, or when a best estimate cannot be made, a minimum loss contingency amount is recorded. These estimates are often initially developed substantially earlier than when the ultimate loss is known, and are refined each quarterly reporting period as additional information becomes available. For legal settlements where there is no stated amount for interest, the Company will estimate an interest factor and discount the liability accordingly.

Groundwater Litigation

In December 2011, Aerojet received notice of a lawsuit, Sun Ridge LLC, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 34-2011-00114675, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. The complaint, which also names McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now Boeing Corporation), was filed by owners of properties adjacent to the Aerojet property in Rancho Cordova, California and alleges damages attributable to contamination of groundwater including diminution of property value and increased costs associated with ensuring water supplies in connection with real estate development. That matter was dismissed without prejudice and the parties entered into settlement discussions. The parties participated in mediation in February 2013 and negotiations are continuing. A further mediation is scheduled for early July 2013.

Asbestos Litigation

The Company has been, and continues to be, named as a defendant in lawsuits alleging personal injury or death due to exposure to asbestos in building materials, products, or in manufacturing operations. The majority of cases are pending in Texas and Pennsylvania. There were 135 asbestos cases pending as of May 31, 2013.

Given the lack of any significant consistency to claims (i.e., as to product, operational site, or other relevant assertions) filed against the Company, the Company is unable to make a reasonable estimate of the future costs of pending claims or unasserted claims. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued.

In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to assume the defense of sixteen asbestos cases, involving 271 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana, and reimbursement of over $1.7 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet agreed to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet declined to accept the liability and requested additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. On April 3, 2013, AMEC filed a complaint for breach of contract against Aerojet in Sacramento County Superior Court, AMEC Construction Management, Inc. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, Case No. 342013001424718. Although AMEC served the complaint on Aerojet, Aerojet was granted an open extension of time in which to file a response in order to facilitate additional sharing of information and potential settlement negotiations. No estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of May 31, 2013.

b. Environmental Matters

The Company is involved in over forty environmental matters under the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the Resource Conservation Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and other federal, state, local, and foreign laws relating to soil and groundwater contamination, hazardous waste management activities, and other environmental matters at some of its current and former facilities. The Company is also involved in a number of remedial activities at third party sites, not owned by the Company, where it is designated a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) by either the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and/or a state agency. In many of these matters, the Company is involved with other PRPs. In many instances, the Company’s liability and proportionate share of costs have not been determined largely due to uncertainties as to the nature and extent of site conditions and the Company’s involvement. While government agencies frequently claim PRPs are jointly and severally liable at such sites, in the Company’s experience, interim and final allocations of liability and costs are generally made based on relative contributions of waste or contamination. Anticipated costs associated with environmental remediation that are probable and estimable are accrued. In cases where a date to complete remedial activities at a particular site cannot be determined by reference to agreements or otherwise, the Company projects costs over an appropriate time period not exceeding fifteen years; in such cases, generally the Company does not have the ability to reasonably estimate environmental remediation costs that are beyond this period. Factors that could result in changes to the Company’s estimates include completion of current and future soil and groundwater investigations, new claims, future agency demands, discovery of more or less contamination than expected, discovery of new contaminants, modification of planned remedial actions, changes in estimated time required to remediate, new technologies, and changes in laws and regulations.

As of May 31, 2013, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $181.5 million to $313.9 million and the accrued amount was $181.5 million. See Note 7(c) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 95% relates to the Company’s U.S. government contracting business and a portion of this liability is recoverable. The significant environmental sites are discussed below. The balance of the accrued liabilities relates to other sites for which the Company’s obligations are probable and estimable.

Sacramento, California Site

In 1989, a federal district court in California approved a Partial Consent Decree (“PCD”) requiring Aerojet, among other things, to conduct a Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (“RI/FS”) to determine the nature and extent of impacts due to the release of chemicals from the Sacramento, California site, monitor the American River and offsite public water supply wells, operate Groundwater Extraction and Treatment facilities (“GETs”) that collect groundwater at the site perimeter, and pay certain government oversight costs. The primary chemicals of concern for both on-site and off-site groundwater are trichloroethylene (“TCE”), perchlorate, and n-nitrosodimethylamine (“NDMA”). The PCD has been revised several times, most recently in 2002. The 2002 PCD revision (a) separated the Sacramento site into multiple operable units to allow quicker implementation of remedy for critical areas; (b) required the Company to guarantee up to $75 million (in addition to a prior $20 million guarantee) to assure that Aerojet’s Sacramento remediation activities are fully funded; and (c) removed approximately 2,600 acres of non-contaminated land from the EPA superfund designation.

Aerojet is involved in various stages of soil and groundwater investigation, remedy selection, design, and remedy construction associated with the operable units. In 2002, the EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) requiring Aerojet to implement the EPA-approved remedial action in the Western Groundwater Operable Unit. An identical order was issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley (“Central Valley RWQCB”). On July 7, 2011, the EPA issued Aerojet its Approval of Remedial Action Construction Completion Report for Western Groundwater Operable Unit and its Determination of Remedy as Operational and Functional. On September 20, 2011, the EPA issued two UAOs to Aerojet to complete a remedial design and implement remedial action for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. One UAO addresses groundwater and the other addresses soils within the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Issuance of the UAOs is the next step in the superfund process for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Aerojet submitted a final Remedial Investigation Report for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2010 and a revised Feasibility Study for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2012. A draft Remedial Investigation Report for the Island Operable Unit was submitted in January 2013. The remaining operable units are under various stages of investigation.

The entire southern portion of the site known as Rio Del Oro was under state orders issued in the 1990s from the Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) to investigate and remediate environmental contamination in the soils and the Central Valley RWQCB to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination. On March 14, 2008, the DTSC released all but approximately 400 acres of the Rio Del Oro property from DTSC’s environmental orders regarding soil contamination. Aerojet expects the approximately 400 acres of Rio Del Oro property that remain subject to the DTSC orders to be released once the soil remediation has been completed. The Rio Del Oro property remains subject to the Central Valley RWQCB’s orders to investigate and remediate groundwater environmental contamination emanating offsite from such property. Pursuant to a settlement agreement entered into in 2009, Aerojet and Boeing have defined responsibilities with respect to future costs and environmental projects relating to this property.

As of May 31, 2013, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $134.6 million to $216.1 million and the accrued amount was $134.6 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(c) below for further discussion on recoverability.

Baldwin Park Operable Unit (“BPOU”)

As a result of its former Azusa, California operations, in 1994 Aerojet was named a PRP by the EPA in the area of the San Gabriel Valley Basin superfund site known as the BPOU. Between 1995 and 1997, the EPA issued Special Notice Letters to Aerojet and eighteen other companies requesting that they implement a groundwater remedy. On June 30, 2000, the EPA issued a UAO ordering the PRPs to implement a remedy consistent with the 1994 record of decision. Aerojet, along with seven other PRPs (“the Cooperating Respondents”) signed a Project Agreement in late March 2002 with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, and five water companies. The Project Agreement, which has a term of fifteen years, became effective May 9, 2002 and will terminate in May 2017. It is uncertain as to what remedial actions will be required beyond 2017. However, the Project Agreement stipulates that the parties agree to negotiate in good faith in an effort to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of an extension of the term in the event that a Final Record of Decision anticipates, or any of the parties desire, the continued operation of all or a substantial portion of the project facilities. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, the Cooperating Respondents fund through an escrow account the capital, operational, maintenance, and administrative costs of certain treatment and water distribution facilities to be owned and operated by the water companies. There are also provisions in the Project Agreement for maintaining financial assurance.

Aerojet and the other Cooperating Respondents entered into an interim allocation agreement that establishes the interim payment obligations of the Cooperating Respondents for the costs incurred pursuant to the Project Agreement. Under the interim allocation, Aerojet is responsible for approximately two-thirds of all project costs, including government oversight costs. All project costs are subject to reallocation among the Cooperating Respondents. Since entering into the Project Agreement, two of the cooperating respondents, Huffy Corporation (“Huffy”) and Fairchild Corporation (“Fairchild”), have filed for bankruptcy. Aerojet and the other cooperating respondents have assumed Fairchild’s financial obligations while only the non-Aerojet cooperating respondents have assumed Huffy’s obligations. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Fairchild filed suit against the other Cooperating Respondents, but there has been little action in that litigation to date. The interim allocation agreement expired, but until recently all Cooperating Respondents were paying in accordance with their interim allocations.

On June 24, 2010, Aerojet filed a complaint against Chubb Custom Insurance Company in Los Angeles County Superior Court, Aerojet-General Corporation v. Chubb Custom Insurance Company Case No. BC440284, seeking declaratory relief and damages regarding Chubb’s failure to pay certain project modification costs and failure to issue an endorsement to add other water sources that may require treatment as required under insurance policies issued to Aerojet and the other Cooperating Respondents. Aerojet agreed to dismiss the case without prejudice and a settlement was reached. The Fairchild Bankruptcy Court must approve the settlement before it becomes effective. A hearing is likely to be scheduled for August or September 2013.

As part of Aerojet’s sale of its Electronics and Information Systems (“EIS”) business to Northrop in October 2001, the EPA approved a Prospective Purchaser Agreement with Northrop to absolve it of pre-closing liability for contamination caused by the Azusa, California operations, which liability remains with Aerojet. As part of that agreement, the Company agreed to provide a $25 million guarantee of Aerojet’s obligations under the Project Agreement.

As of May 31, 2013, the estimated range of anticipated costs through the term of the Project Agreement for the BPOU site, which expires in 2017, was $28.6 million to $60.0 million and the accrued amount was $28.6 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. As the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the costs and expenses of this matter after the expiration of the Project Agreement, no reserve has been accrued for this matter for the period after such expiration. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(c) below for further discussion on recoverability.

Toledo, Ohio Site

The Company previously manufactured products for the automotive industry at a Toledo, Ohio site, which was adjacent to the Ottawa River. This facility was divested in 1990 and the Company indemnified the buyer for claims and liabilities arising out of certain pre-divestiture environmental matters. In August 2007, the Company, along with numerous other companies, received from the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service a notice of a Natural Resource Damage (“NRD”) Assessment Plan for the Ottawa River and Northern Maumee Bay. A group of PRPs, including the Company, was formed to respond to the NRD assessment and to pursue funding from the Great Lakes Legacy Act for primary restoration. The restoration project performed by the group consisted of river dredging and land-filling river sediments with a total project cost in the range of approximately $47 million to $49 million, one half of which was funded through the Great Lakes Legacy Act and the net project costs to the PRP group was estimated at $23.5 million to $24.5 million. The dredging of the river that began in December 2009 has been completed. In February 2011, the parties reached an agreement on allocation. As of May 31, 2013, the estimated range of the Company’s share of anticipated costs for the NRD matter was $0.1 million to $0.5 million. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable. Still unresolved at this time is the actual NRD Assessment itself. Negotiations with the State and Federal Trustees are ongoing.

In 2008, Textileather, the current owner of the former Toledo, Ohio site, filed a lawsuit against the Company claiming, among other things, that the Company failed to indemnify and defend Textileather for certain contractual environmental obligations. A second suit related to past and future RCRA closure costs was filed in late 2009. On May 5, 2010, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby dismissing the claims in the initial action. Textileather appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 11, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision with respect to Textileather’s CERCLA cost recovery claims, but reversed the decision to dismiss its breach of contract claims. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals. On May 31, 2013, the parties entered into a tentative settlement resolving the dispute for a release for all non-PCB related environmental issues for $4.3 million to be paid in two payments in 2013. The Company has a reserve of $4.8 million for the settlement and PCB related environmental issues as of May 31, 2013.

c. Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries

Environmental Reserves

The Company reviews on a quarterly basis estimated future remediation costs and has an established practice of estimating environmental remediation costs over a fifteen-year period, except for those environmental remediation costs with a specific contractual term. Environmental liabilities at the BPOU site are estimated through the term of the Project Agreement, which expires in 2017. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs increases, the reliability of such estimates decreases. These estimates consider the investigative work and analysis of engineers, outside environmental consultants, and the advice of legal staff regarding the status and anticipated results of various administrative and legal proceedings. In most cases, only a range of reasonably possible costs can be estimated. In establishing the Company’s reserves, the most probable estimate is used when determinable; otherwise, the minimum amount is used when no single amount in the range is more probable. Accordingly, such estimates can change as the Company periodically evaluates and revises these estimates as new information becomes available. The Company cannot predict whether new information gained as projects progress will affect the estimated liability accrued. The timing of payment for estimated future environmental costs is influenced by a number of factors such as the regulatory approval process, and the time required to design, construct, and implement the remedy.

A summary of the Company’s environmental reserve activity is shown below:


	Aerojet - Sacramento			Aerojet - BPOU			Other Aerojet Sites			Total Aerojet			Other			Total Environmental Reserve
	(In millions)
November 30, 2012	$	140.5		$	31.2		$	10.8		$	182.5		$	7.0		$	189.5
Adjustments		3.2			(0.3	)		(0.7	)		2.2			2.9			5.1
Expenditures		(9.1	)		(2.3	)		(1.4	)		(12.8	)		(0.3	)		(13.1	)

May 31, 2013	$	134.6		$	28.6		$	8.7		$	171.9		$	9.6		$	181.5

The effect of the final resolution of environmental matters and the Company’s obligations for environmental remediation and compliance cannot be accurately predicted due to the uncertainty concerning both the amount and timing of future expenditures and due to regulatory or technological changes. The Company continues its efforts to mitigate past and future costs through pursuit of claims for recoveries from insurance coverage and other PRPs and continued investigation of new and more cost effective remediation alternatives and associated technologies.

As part of the acquisition of the Atlantic Research Corporation (“ARC”) propulsion business in 2003, Aerojet entered into an agreement with ARC pursuant to which Aerojet is responsible for up to $20.0 million of costs (“Pre-Close Environmental Costs”) associated with environmental issues that arose prior to Aerojet’s acquisition of the ARC propulsion business. Pursuant to a separate agreement with the U.S. government which was entered into prior to the completion of the ARC acquisition, these costs are recovered through the establishment of prices for Aerojet’s products and services sold to the U.S. government. A summary of the Pre-Close Environmental Costs is shown below (in millions):


Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	20.0
Amount spent through May 31, 2013		(14.9	)
Amount included as a component of reserves for environmental remediation costs in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2013		(3.5	)

Remaining Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	1.6

Estimated Recoveries

On January 12, 1999, Aerojet and the U.S. government implemented the October 1997 Agreement in Principle (“Global Settlement”) resolving certain prior environmental and facility disagreements, with retroactive effect to December 1, 1998. Under the Global Settlement, Aerojet and the U.S. government resolved disagreements about an appropriate cost-sharing ratio with respect to the clean-up costs of the environmental contamination at the Sacramento and the former Azusa sites. The Global Settlement cost-sharing ratio does not have a defined term over which costs will be recovered. Additionally, in conjunction with the sale of the EIS business in 2001, Aerojet entered into an agreement with Northrop (the “Northrop Agreement”) whereby Aerojet is reimbursed by Northrop for a portion of environmental expenditures eligible for recovery under the Global Settlement, subject to annual and cumulative limitations. The current annual billing limitation to Northrop is $6.0 million.

Pursuant to the Global Settlement covering environmental costs associated with Aerojet’s Sacramento site and its former Azusa site, prior to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, approximately 12% of such costs related to the Sacramento site and former Azusa site were charged to the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, because the Company’s estimated environmental costs reached the reimbursement ceiling under the Northrop Agreement, approximately 37% of such costs will not be reimbursable and were therefore directly charged to the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations.

Allowable environmental costs are charged to the Company’s contracts as the costs are incurred. Aerojet’s mix of contracts can affect the actual reimbursement made by the U.S. government. Because these costs are recovered through forward-pricing arrangements, the ability of Aerojet to continue recovering these costs from the U.S. government depends on Aerojet’s sustained business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business. Annually, the Company evaluates Aerojet’s forecasted business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs and the relative size of Aerojet’s commercial business as part of its long-term business review.

The Rocketdyne Business acquisition could not be considered in the evaluation of the forecasted business volume under U.S. government contracts and programs prior to June 14, 2013 (the closing date of the Acquisition). Accordingly, since the acquisition of the Rocketdyne Business closed in the third quarter of fiscal 2013, the prospective mix of contracts may affect the actual reimbursement made by the U.S. government. The Company has requested approval from the U. S. government to allocate Global Settlement environmental costs to the newly acquired business. If approval from the U.S. government is received, this change may materially and favorably affect the Company’s results of operations in the period received along with future periods.

Pursuant to the Northrop Agreement, environmental expenditures to be reimbursed are subject to annual limitations and the total reimbursements are limited to a ceiling of $189.7 million. A summary of the Northrop Agreement activity is shown below (in millions):


Total reimbursable costs under the Northrop Agreement	$	189.7
Amount reimbursed to the Company through May 31, 2013		(98.2	)

Potential future cost reimbursements available(1)		91.5
Long-term receivable from Northrop in excess of the annual limitation included in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2013		(69.5	)
Amounts recoverable from Northrop in future periods included as a component of recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs in the unaudited condensed consolidated balance sheet as of May 31, 2013		(22.0	)

Potential future recoverable amounts available under the Northrop Agreement	$	—

(1)	Includes the short-term receivable from Northrop of $6.0 million as of May 31, 2013.

The Company’s applicable cost estimates reached the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement during the third quarter of fiscal 2010. The Company has expensed $19.4 million of environmental remediation provision adjustments above the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement through May 31, 2013. Accordingly, subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company has incurred a higher percentage of expense related to additions to the Sacramento site and BPOU site environmental reserve until an arrangement is reached with the U.S. government. While the Company is currently seeking an arrangement with the U.S. government to recover environmental expenditures in excess of the reimbursement ceiling identified in the Northrop Agreement, there can be no assurances that such a recovery will be obtained, or if not obtained, that such unreimbursed environmental expenditures will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

Environmental reserves and estimated recoveries impact to unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations

The expenses associated with adjustments to the environmental reserves are recorded as a component of other expense, net in the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations. Summarized financial information for the impact of environmental reserves and recoveries to the unaudited condensed consolidated statements of operations is set forth below:


	Three months ended May 31,				Six months ended May 31,
	2013		2012		2013		2012
	(In millions)
Estimated recoverable amounts under U.S. government contracts	$	2.7	$	4.4	$	1.6	$	5.3
Charge to unaudited condensed consolidated statement of operations		4.0		2.0		3.5		2.5

Total environmental reserve additions	$	6.7	$	6.4	$	5.1	$	7.8

Note 7.

Commitments and Contingencies

Lease Commitments and Income

The Company and its subsidiaries lease certain facilities, machinery and equipment, and office buildings under long-term, non-cancelable operating leases. The leases generally provide for renewal options ranging from one to ten years and require the Company to pay for utilities, insurance, taxes, and maintenance. Rent expense was $11.8 million in fiscal 2012, $12.9 million in fiscal 2011, and $11.3 million in fiscal 2010.

The Company also leases certain surplus facilities to third parties. The Company recorded lease income of $5.0 million in fiscal 2012, $6.7 million in fiscal 2011, and $6.8 million in fiscal 2010 related to these arrangements, which have been included in net sales.

The future minimum rental commitments under non-cancelable operating leases with initial or remaining terms of one year or more and lease revenue in effect as of November 30, 2012 were as follows:


Year Ending November 30,	Future Minimum Rental Commitments		Future Minimum Rental Income
	(In millions)
2013	$	8.2	$	5.4
2014		6.2		5.7
2015		3.4		4.6
2016		2.5		2.4
2017		1.4		0.2
Thereafter		0.7		—

	$	22.4	$	18.3

Legal Matters

Groundwater Litigation

In December 2011, Aerojet received notice of a lawsuit, Sun Ridge LLC, et al. v. Aerojet-General Corporation, et al., Case No. 34-2011-00114675, filed in Sacramento County Superior Court. The complaint, which also names McDonnell Douglas Corporation (now Boeing Corporation), was filed by owners of properties adjacent to the Aerojet property in Rancho Cordova, California and alleges damages attributable to contamination of groundwater including diminution of property value and increased costs associated with ensuring water supplies in connection with real estate development. That matter was dismissed without prejudice and the parties entered into settlement discussions. The parties have tentatively agreed to participate in mediation in the first half of 2013. Since this matter is in the early stages, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what the outcome of this complaint will be. Accordingly, no estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of November 30, 2012.

Asbestos Litigation

In 2011, Aerojet received a letter demand from AMEC, plc, the successor entity to the 1981 purchaser of the business assets of Barnard & Burk, Inc., a former Aerojet subsidiary, for Aerojet to assume the defense of twenty-one asbestos cases, involving 264 plaintiffs, pending in Louisiana and reimbursement of over $1.0 million in past legal fees and expenses. AMEC is asserting that Aerojet retained those liabilities when it sold the Barnard & Burk assets and agreed to indemnify the purchaser therefor. Under the relevant purchase agreement, the purchaser assumed only certain, specified liabilities relating to the operation of Barnard & Burk before the sale, with Barnard & Burk retaining all unassumed pre-closing liabilities, and Aerojet agreed to indemnify the purchaser against unassumed liabilities that are asserted against it. Based on the information provided, Aerojet declined to accept the liability and requested additional information from AMEC pertaining to the basis of the demand. Accordingly, no estimate of liability has been accrued for this matter as of November 30, 2012.

Subpoena Duces Tecum

On September 23, 2010, the Company received a subpoena duces tecum from the U.S. Army Criminal Investigation Command, acting on behalf of the Office of the Inspector General of the DoD, requesting that the Company produce a variety of documents pertaining to the use of certain cost estimating factors under its contracts with the DoD. The Company has completed its response to the subpoena through multiple document productions, and met with the investigators on September 27, 2012 and February 1, 2013 and provided further analysis regarding the use of factors on certain contracts compared to incurred material costs. The investigation continues but no financial demand has been made; accordingly, the Company is currently unable to reasonably estimate what the outcome of this civil investigation will be or the impact, if any, the investigation may have on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows. Accordingly, no estimate of future liability has been accrued for at November 30, 2012. The Company has and continues to cooperate fully with the investigation.

Snappon SA Wrongful Discharge Claims

In November 2003, the Company announced the closing of a manufacturing facility in Chartres, France owned by Snappon SA, a subsidiary of the Company, previously involved in the automotive business. In accordance with French law, Snappon SA negotiated with the local workers’ council regarding the implementation of a social plan for the employees. Following the implementation of the social plan, approximately 188 of the 249 former Snappon employees sued Snappon SA in the Chartres Labour Court alleging wrongful discharge. The claims were heard in two groups. On February 19, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 2 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded €1.9 million plus interest. On April 7, 2009, the Versailles Court of Appeal issued a decision in favor of Group 1 plaintiffs and based on this, the Court awarded €1.0 million plus interest. During the second quarter of fiscal 2009, Snappon SA filed for declaration of suspensions of payments with the clerk’s office of the Paris Commercial Court. The employee claims were discharged through the liquidation proceedings, except as to two former employees whose claims remain outstanding. During fiscal 2009, the Company accrued a loss contingency of €2.9 million plus interest for this matter. During fiscal 2012, the Company released $3.8 million of the loss contingency reserve to reflect the discharged employee claims leaving a reserve of $0.2 million as of November 30, 2012.

Environmental Matters

As of November 30, 2012, the aggregate range of these anticipated environmental costs was $189.5 million to $320.9 million and the accrued amount was $189.5 million. See Note 7(d) for a summary of the environmental reserve activity. Of these accrued liabilities, approximately 97% relates to the Company’s U.S. government contracting business and a portion of this liability is recoverable. The significant environmental sites are discussed below. The balance of the accrued liabilities relates to other sites for which the Company’s obligations are probable and estimable.

Sacramento, California Site

Aerojet is involved in various stages of soil and groundwater investigation, remedy selection, design, and remedy construction associated with the operable units. In 2002, the U.S. EPA issued a Unilateral Administrative Order (“UAO”) requiring Aerojet to implement the U.S. EPA-approved remedial action in the Western Groundwater Operable Unit. An identical order was issued by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Valley (“Central Valley RWQCB”). On July 7, 2011, EPA issued Aerojet its Approval of Remedial Action Construction Completion Report for Western Groundwater Operable Unit and its Determination of Remedy as Operational and Functional. On September 20, 2011, the EPA issued two UAOs to Aerojet to complete a remedial design and implement remedial action for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. One UAO addresses groundwater and the other addresses soils within the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Issuance of the UAOs is the next step in the superfund process for the Perimeter Groundwater Operable Unit. Aerojet submitted a final Remedial Investigation Report for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2010 and a revised Feasibility Study for the Boundary Operable Unit in 2012. The remaining operable units are under various stages of investigation.

As of November 30, 2012, the estimated range of anticipated costs discussed above for the Sacramento, California site was $140.5 million to $220.5 million and the accrued amount was $140.5 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(d) below for further discussion on recoverability.

Baldwin Park Operable Unit (“BPOU”)

As a result of its former Azusa, California operations, in 1994 Aerojet was named a PRP by the EPA in the area of the San Gabriel Valley Basin superfund site known as the BPOU. Between 1995 and 1997, the EPA issued Special Notice Letters to Aerojet and eighteen other companies requesting that they implement a groundwater remedy. On June 30, 2000, the EPA issued a UAO ordering the PRPs to implement a remedy consistent with the 1994 record of decision. Aerojet, along with seven other PRPs (“the Cooperating Respondents”) signed a Project Agreement in late March 2002 with the San Gabriel Basin Water Quality Authority, the Main San Gabriel Basin Watermaster, and five water companies. The Project Agreement, which has a term of fifteen years, became effective May 9, 2002 and will terminate in May 2017. It is uncertain as to what remedial actions will be required beyond 2017. However, the Project Agreement stipulates that the parties agree to negotiate in good faith in an effort to reach agreement as to the terms and conditions of an extension of the term in the event that a Final Record of Decision anticipates, or any of the parties desire, the continued operation of all or a substantial portion of the project facilities. Pursuant to the Project Agreement, the Cooperating Respondents fund through an escrow account: the capital, operational, maintenance, and administrative costs of certain treatment and water distribution facilities to be owned and operated by the water companies. There are also provisions in the Project Agreement for maintaining financial assurance.

Aerojet and the other Cooperating Respondents entered into an interim allocation agreement that establishes the interim payment obligations of the Cooperating Respondents for the costs incurred pursuant to the Project Agreement. Under the interim allocation, Aerojet is responsible for approximately two-thirds of all project costs, including government oversight costs. All project costs are subject to reallocation among the Cooperating Respondents. Since entering into the Project Agreement, two of the cooperating respondents, Huffy Corporation and Fairchild Corporation (“Fairchild”), have filed for bankruptcy. Aerojet and the other cooperating respondents have assumed Fairchild’s financial obligations while only the non-Aerojet cooperating respondents have assumed Huffy’s obligations. Prior to filing for bankruptcy, Fairchild filed suit against the other Cooperating Respondents, but there has been little action in that litigation to date. The interim allocation agreement expired, but until recently all Cooperating Respondents were paying in accordance with their interim allocations.

As of November 30, 2012, the estimated range of anticipated costs through the term of the Project Agreement for the BPOU site, which expires in 2017, was $31.2 million to $63.5 million and the accrued amount was $31.2 million included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. As the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the costs and expenses of this matter after the expiration of the Project Agreement, no reserve has been accrued for this matter for the period after such expiration. Expenditures associated with this matter are partially recoverable. See Note 7(d) below for further discussion on recoverability.

Toledo, Ohio Site

The Company previously manufactured products for the automotive industry at a Toledo, Ohio site, which was adjacent to the Ottawa River. This facility was divested in 1990 and the Company indemnified the buyer for claims and liabilities arising out of certain pre-divestiture environmental matters. In August 2007, the Company, along with numerous other companies, received from the United States Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service a notice of a Natural Resource Damage (“NRD”) Assessment Plan for the Ottawa River and Northern Maumee Bay. A group of PRPs, including the Company, was formed to respond to the NRD assessment and to pursue funding from the Great Lakes Legacy Act for primary restoration. The restoration project performed by the group consisted of river dredging and land-filling river sediments with a total project cost in the range of approximately $47 million to $49 million, one half of which was funded through the Great Lakes Legacy Act and the net project costs to the PRP group was estimated at $23.5 million to $24.5 million. The dredging of the river that began in December 2009 has been completed. In February 2011, the parties reached an agreement on allocation. As of November 30, 2012, the estimated range of the Company’s share of anticipated costs for the NRD matter was zero to $0.4 million. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable. Still unresolved at this time is the actual NRD Assessment itself. Negotiations with the State and Federal Trustees are ongoing.

In 2008, Textileather, the current owner of the former Toledo, Ohio site, filed a lawsuit against the Company claiming, among other things, that the Company failed to indemnify and defend Textileather for certain contractual environmental obligations. A second suit related to past and future RCRA, closure costs was filed in late 2009. On May 5, 2010, the District Court granted the Company’s Motion for Summary Judgment, thereby dismissing the claims in the initial action. Textileather appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 11, 2012, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s decision with respect to Textileather’s CERCLA cost recovery claims, but reversed the decision to dismiss its breach of contract claims. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The District Court is likely to address such issues as allocation of costs subject to GenCorp’s indemnification obligations as well as significant defenses raised by GenCorp in its Motion for Summary Judgment, which was not ruled on by the Court when it granted GenCorp’s Summary Judgment Motion. At the direction of the District Court, the principals commenced informal settlement negotiations. The settlement negotiations were unsuccessful and the Court is preparing a Case Management Order that will likely set a trial date near the end of 2013. As of November 30, 2012, the estimated anticipated costs and accrued amount for the Textileather matter was $2.6 million which is included as a component of the Company’s environmental reserves. None of the expenditures related to this matter are recoverable.

Environmental Reserves and Estimated Recoveries

Reserves

The Company reviews on a quarterly basis estimated future remediation costs that could be incurred over the contractual term or next fifteen years of the expected remediation. The Company has an established practice of estimating environmental remediation costs over a fifteen year period, except for those environmental remediation costs with a specific contractual term. As the period for which estimated environmental remediation costs increases, the reliability of such estimates decreases. These estimates consider the investigative work and analysis of engineers, outside environmental consultants, and the advice of legal staff regarding the status and anticipated results of various administrative and legal proceedings. In most cases, only a range of reasonably possible costs can be estimated. In establishing the Company’s reserves, the most probable estimate is used when determinable; otherwise, the minimum amount is used when no single amount in the range is more probable. Accordingly, such estimates can change as the Company periodically evaluates and revises these estimates as new information becomes available. The Company cannot predict whether new information gained as projects progress will affect the estimated liability accrued. The timing of payment for estimated future environmental costs is influenced by a number of factors such as the regulatory approval process, the time required to design, construct, and implement the remedy.

A summary of the Company’s environmental reserve activity is shown below:


	Aerojet - Sacramento			Aerojet - BPOU			Other Aerojet Sites			Total Aerojet			Other			Total Environmental Reserve
	(In millions)
November 30, 2009	$	152.5		$	47.8		$	10.8		$	211.1		$	11.6		$	222.7
Additions		6.7			9.5			11.7			27.9			8.6			36.5
Expenditures		(19.4	)		(11.2	)		(2.4	)		(33.0	)		(8.5	)		(41.5	)

November 30, 2010		139.8			46.1			20.1			206.0			11.7			217.7
Additions		21.2			5.9			5.9			33.0			(0.1	)		32.9
Expenditures		(30.3	)		(13.4	)		(13.9	)		(57.6	)		(2.4	)		(60.0	)

November 30, 2011		130.7			38.6			12.1			181.4			9.2			190.6
Additions		24.5			5.9			3.8			34.2			0.5			34.7
Expenditures		(14.7	)		(13.3	)		(5.1	)		(33.1	)		(2.7	)		(35.8	)

November 30, 2012	$	140.5		$	31.2		$	10.8		$	182.5		$	7.0		$	189.5

As part of the acquisition of the Atlantic Research Corporation (“ARC”) propulsion business, Aerojet entered into an agreement with ARC pursuant to which Aerojet is responsible for up to $20.0 million of costs (“Pre-Close Environmental Costs”) associated with environmental issues that arose prior to Aerojet’s acquisition of the ARC propulsion business. Pursuant to a separate agreement with the U.S. government which was entered into prior to the completion of the ARC acquisition, these costs are recovered through the establishment of prices for Aerojet’s products and services sold to the U.S. government. A summary of the Pre-Close Environmental Costs is shown below (in millions):


Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	20.0
Amount spent through November 30, 2012		(13.9	)
Amount included as a component of reserves for environmental remediation costs in the consolidated balance sheet as of November 30, 2012		(4.5	)

Remaining Pre-Close Environmental Costs	$	1.6

Estimated Recoveries

Pursuant to the Global Settlement covering environmental costs associated with Aerojet’s Sacramento site and its former Azusa site, prior to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, approximately 12% of such costs related to the Sacramento site and former Azusa site were charged to the consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, because the Company reached the reimbursement ceiling under the Northrop Agreement, approximately 37% of such costs are expensed to the consolidated statements of operations.


Total reimbursable costs under the Northrop Agreement	$	189.7
Amount reimbursed to the Company through November 30, 2012		(93.7	)

Potential future cost reimbursements available(1)		96.0
Long-term receivable from Northrop in excess of the annual limitation included in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of November 30, 2012		(69.3	)
Amounts recoverable from Northrop in future periods included as a component of recoverable from the U.S. government and other third parties for environmental remediation costs in the Consolidated Balance Sheet as of November 30, 2012		(26.7	)

Potential future recoverable amounts available under the Northrop Agreement	$	—

(1)	Includes the short-term receivable from Northrop of $6.0 million as of November 30, 2012.

The Company’s applicable cost estimates reached the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement during the third quarter of fiscal 2010. The Company has accumulated $18.2 million of environmental remediation provision adjustments above the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement through November 30, 2012. Accordingly, subsequent to the third quarter of fiscal 2010, the Company has incurred a higher percentage of expense related to additions to the Sacramento site and BPOU site environmental reserve until an arrangement is reached with the U.S. government. While the Company is currently seeking an arrangement with the U.S. government to recover environmental expenditures in excess of the reimbursement ceiling identified in the Northrop Agreement, there can be no assurances that such a recovery will be obtained, or if not obtained, that such unreimbursed environmental expenditures will not have a materially adverse effect on the Company’s operating results, financial condition, and/or cash flows.

Environmental reserves and estimated recoveries impact to the Consolidated Statements of Operations

The expenses associated with adjustments to the environmental reserves are recorded as a component of other expense, net in the consolidated statements of operations. Summarized financial information for the impact of environmental reserves and recoveries to the consolidated statements of operations is set forth below:


	Estimated Recoverable Amounts from Northrop		Estimated Recoverable Amounts from U.S. Government		Total Estimated Recoverable Amounts Under U.S. Government Contracts		Charge to Consolidated Statement of Operations(1)		Total Environmental Reserve Additions
	(In millions)
Fiscal 2012	$	—	$	23.1	$	23.1	$	11.6	$	34.7
Fiscal 2011		—		24.3		24.3		8.6		32.9
Fiscal 2010		2.8		24.9		27.7		8.8		36.5

(1)	Includes $18.2 million of environmental remediation provision adjustments above the cumulative limitation under the Northrop Agreement through November 30, 2012.

Arrangements with Off-Balance Sheet Risk

As of November 30, 2012, arrangements with off-balance sheet risk consisted of:

•

$44.8 million in outstanding commercial letters of credit expiring within the next twelve months, the majority of which may be renewed, primarily to collateralize obligations for environmental remediation and insurance coverage.

•

$39.3 million in outstanding surety bonds to satisfy indemnification obligations for environmental remediation coverage.

•

Up to $120.0 million aggregate in guarantees by GenCorp of Aerojet’s obligations to U.S. government agencies for environmental remediation activities (see Note 7(b) for additional information).

•

Guarantees, jointly and severally, by the Company’s material domestic subsidiaries of its obligations under its Senior Credit Facility.

In addition to the items discussed above, the Company has and will from time to time enter into certain types of contracts that require the Company to indemnify parties against potential third-party and other claims. These contracts primarily relate to: (i) divestiture agreements, under which the Company may provide customary indemnification to purchasers of its businesses or assets including, for example, claims arising from the operation of the businesses prior to disposition, liability to investigate and remediate environmental contamination existing prior to disposition; (ii) certain real estate leases, under which the Company may be required to indemnify property owners for claims arising from the use of the applicable premises; and (iii) certain agreements with officers and directors, under which the Company may be required to indemnify such persons for liabilities arising out of their relationship with the Company. The terms of such obligations vary. Generally, a maximum obligation is not explicitly stated.

Additionally, the Company issues purchase orders to suppliers for equipment, materials, and supplies in the normal course of business. These purchase commitments are generally for volumes consistent with anticipated requirements to fulfill purchase orders or contracts for product deliveries received, or expected to be received, from customers and would be subject to reimbursement if a cost-plus contract is terminated.

- Definition

The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.

+ References+ Details