AMENDMENT NO.1 TO SC 14D-9

(Name, address and telephone numbers of person authorized to receive notices and communications

This Amendment No. 1 amends and supplements the Solicitation/Recommendation Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (as amended and supplemented from time to time, the “Schedule 14D-9”) initially filed on January 27, 2014 with the Securities and Exchange Commission by American Pacific Corporation (“AMPAC” or the “Company”). The Schedule 14D-9 relates to the tender offer by Flamingo Merger Sub Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Merger Sub”) and a wholly owned subsidiary of Flamingo Parent Corp., a Delaware corporation (“Parent”), to purchase any and all of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock, par value $0.10 per share, at a purchase price of $46.50 per share, net to the seller in cash, without interest thereon and less any applicable withholding taxes, upon the terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Offer to Purchase dated January 24, 2014, and in the related Letter of Transmittal, as each may be amended or supplemented from time to time.

Except as specifically set forth herein, the Schedule 14D-9 remains unchanged and is incorporated herein by reference as relevant to the items in this Amendment No. 1. Capitalized terms used but not defined in this Amendment No. 1 have the meanings ascribed to them in the Schedule 14D-9.

Item 8, “Additional Information” is hereby amended and supplemented by replacing the section under the heading “Stockholder Litigation” in its entirety with the following:

On January 16, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Quick, et al. v. American Pacific Corp., et al., Case No. A-14-694633-C, was filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada regarding the proposed acquisition and subsequently amended on January 30, 2014. The amended complaint (the “Quick Complaint”) was purportedly filed on behalf of the public stockholders of AMPAC, and names as defendants AMPAC, each of the AMPAC’s directors, Parent, Merger Sub and H.I.G. The Quick Complaint alleges, among other things, that AMPAC’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by failing to maximize stockholder value in a proposed sale of AMPAC and by engaging in self-dealing. The Quick Complaint further alleges that AMPAC’s directors failed to provide material information relating to the acquisition and that AMPAC and H.I.G. aided and abetted the alleged breaches by AMPAC’s directors. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action status, an injunction preventing the completion of the acquisition, monetary damages and the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On January 29, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit captioned Berger v. Campbell, et al., Case No. 9292, was filed in the Court of Chancery in the State of Delaware regarding the proposed acquisition. The complaint (the “Berger Complaint”) was purportedly filed on behalf of the public stockholders of AMPAC, and names as defendants AMPAC, each of AMPAC’s directors, Parent, Merger Sub, and H.I.G. The Berger Complaint alleges, among other things, that AMPAC’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by agreeing to deal protection devices designed to prevent unsolicited bids and by engaging in self-dealing. The Berger Complaint further alleges that AMPAC’s directors failed to provide material information relating to the acquisition and that AMPAC’s directors effectuated a scheme to temporarily lower AMPAC’s share price through deliberate misleading acts, allowing a sale of AMPAC to take place and providing immediate liquidity for the stock holdings of AMPAC’s directors and management. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, class action status, an injunction preventing the completion of the acquisition, monetary damages and the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

On January 30, 2014, two putative class action lawsuits captioned Norcini v. American Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. A-14-695381-B, and Solak v. American Pacific Corporation, et al., Case No. A-14695365-C were filed in the Eighth Judicial District Court in Clark County, Nevada regarding the proposed acquisition. The complaints (the “Norcini Complaint” and “Solak Complaint”, respectively) were purportedly filed on behalf of the public stockholders of AMPAC and name as defendants AMPAC, each of AMPAC’s directors, Parent, Merger Sub, and H.I.G. The Norcini and Solak Complaints allege, among other things, that AMPAC’s directors breached their fiduciary duties by not maximizing stockholder value and not fully informing themselves about whether greater value could be achieved. The Norcini and Solak Complaints further allege that AMPAC’s directors agreed to onerous deal protection devices that assured consummation of the deal and collectively engaged in a scheme to unfairly sell AMPAC to H.I.G. at a bargain price. The Solak Complaint further alleges that AMPAC’s directors failed to provide material information relating to the acquisition. The plaintiffs seek, among other things, class action status, an injunction preventing the completion of the acquisition, monetary damages and the payment of attorneys’ fees and expenses.

Each of AMPAC, Parent, Merger Sub and H.I.G. believes the allegations in these complaints lack merit, and each of them intends to vigorously defend the actions.

The Company may be subject to similar litigation relating to the Merger in the same or other jurisdictions.

After due inquiry and to the best of my knowledge and belief, I certify that the information set forth in this statement is true, complete and correct.


AMERICAN PACIFIC CORPORATION

By:		/s/ JOSEPH CARLEONE
Name:		Joseph Carleone
Title:		Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer)