The Company is subject to lawsuits and pending or asserted claims with respect to matters generally arising in the ordinary course of business.

		As previously disclosed, a lawsuit was brought against the Company and a number of its insulation installation companies alleging that certain of their practices violated provisions of the federal antitrust laws. The case was filed in October 2004 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Columbus Drywall & Insulation, Inc., Leo Jones Insulation, Inc., Southland Insulators, Inc., Southland Insulators of Maryland, Inc. d/b/a Devere Insulation, Southland Insulators of Delaware LLC d/b/a Delmarva Insulation, and Whitson Insulation Company of Grand Rapids, Inc. against the Company, its subsidiaries Masco Contractors Services Group Corp., Masco Contractor Services Central, Inc. (“MCS Central”) and Masco Contractor Services East, Inc., and several insulation manufacturers (the “Columbus Drywall case”). In February 2009, the court certified a class of 377 insulation contractors. Another suit was filed in March 2003 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia by Wilson Insulation Company, Wilson Insulation of Augusta, Inc. and The Wilson Insulation Group, Inc. against the Company, Masco Contractor Services, Inc., and MCS Central that alleged anticompetitive conduct. This case has been removed from the court’s active docket. In March 2007, Albert Von Der Werth and Valerie Good filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against the Company, its subsidiary Masco Contractor Services, and several insulation manufacturers seeking class action status and alleging anticompetitive conduct. This case was subsequently transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia and has been administratively stayed by the court. An additional suit, which was filed in September 2005 and alleged anticompetitive conduct, was dismissed with prejudice in December 2006.

		The Company is vigorously defending the Columbus Drywall case. Based upon the advice of its outside counsel, the Company believes that the conduct of the Company and its insulation installation companies, which is the subject of the above-described lawsuits, has not violated any antitrust laws. The Company is unable at this time to reliably estimate any potential liability which might occur from an adverse judgment. There cannot be any assurance that the Company will ultimately prevail in these lawsuits, or, if unsuccessful, that the ultimate liability would not be material and would not have a material adverse effect on its businesses or the methods used by its insulation installation companies in doing business.