Contingencies	27 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2013
Contingencies	Note 15. Contingencies The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, lawsuits and administrative actions, which are of an ordinary or routine nature for a company of its size and sector. In addition, due to the bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and other primary defendants, among other things, the Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a number of silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. In the Company’s experience to date, the substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company bears responsibility. Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the “Products”). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products. The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors’ legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary. The latest of these actions, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial District, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the “Adams County Case”). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company. In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the excess insurer defendants for approximately the amount of such defendant’s policy that was subject to the lawsuit. A related action was brought by certain insurance companies against the Company and defendants in the Adams County Case. In this lawsuit, Continental Casualty Company, et al. v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., filed on October 31, 2012, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department Chancery Division, as case number 12CH40019 (the “Cook County Case”), the plaintiff insurance companies are seeking a declaration of the parties’ respective rights and obligations under certain insurance policies. Substantially all of the Company’s expected future recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case and the Cook County Case. The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company’s anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products described above; the Company’s experience that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such matters; and the Company’s prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the Company’s historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Other Liabilities within the Consolidated Balance Sheet includes a $69.7 million litigation reserve as of March 31, 2013 with respect to potential liability arising from the Company’s asbestos-related litigation. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. However, at this time, based on presently available information, the Company views this possibility as remote. The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to several sites designated for cleanup under U.S. federal “Superfund” or similar state laws that impose liability for cleanup of certain waste sites and for related natural resource damages. Persons potentially liable for such costs and damages generally include the site owner or operator and persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances found at those sites. Although these laws impose joint and several liability, in application, the PRPs typically allocate the investigation and cleanup costs based upon the volume of waste contributed by each PRP. Based on currently available information, the Company was only a small contributor to these waste sites, and the Company has, or is attempting to negotiate, de minimis settlements for their cleanup. The cleanup of the remaining sites is substantially complete and the Company’s future obligations entail a share of the sites’ ongoing operating and maintenance expense. The Company is also addressing three on-site cleanups for which it is the primary responsible party. Two of these cleanup sites are in the operation and maintenance stage and the third is in the implementation stage. Based on currently available information, the Company does not anticipate that any of these sites will result in material additional costs beyond those already accrued on its balance sheet. The Company has an accrued liability on its balance sheet to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated for its remaining financial obligations for these matters. Based upon consideration of currently available information, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or competitive position as a result of compliance with federal, state, local or foreign environmental laws or regulations, or cleanup costs relating to the sites discussed above. It is the Company’s policy to expense legal costs as incurred. In connection with the Company’s entry into a definitive merger agreement with KKR, four purported shareholders have filed substantially similar complaints. On March 14, 2013, a purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County, Pennsylvania, which we refer to as the Chester County Common Pleas Court. The case caption of this complaint, which we refer to as the Carson Complaint, is: Jack Carson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., Renaissance Parent Corp., Renaissance Acquisition Corp., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., Michael C. Arnold, Donald G. Barger, John D. Craig, Raymond R. Hipp, David D. Petratis, Diane K. Schumacher, Charles L. Szews, Richard L. Thompson and Michael M. Larsen, No. 13-02341. On March 15, 2013, a second purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a substantially similar complaint, which we refer to as the Shoemaker Complaint, in Chester County Common Pleas Court captioned Glenn Shoemaker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., No. 13-02372. Unlike the Carson Complaint, the Shoemaker Complaint does not name Mr. Larsen or KKR as defendants. Both complaints assert that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent, Acquisition Sub and, in the case of the Carson Complaint, KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The Carson Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and seeks other equitable relief. The Shoemaker Complaint seeks money damages. On March 27, 2013, a third purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a substantially similar complaint, which we refer to as the White Complaint, in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Daniel White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Larsen, et al., C.A. No. 8439-VCN. The White Complaint asserts that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent, Acquisition Sub and KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The White Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and an award of money damages. On April 22, 2013, a fourth purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a complaint, which we refer to as the Minzer Complaint, in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Shoshana Minzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Larsen, et al., C.A. No. 8498. The Minzer Complaint asserts that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger and in failing to make material disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent, Acquisition, Acquisition Sub and KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The Minzer Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and an award of money damages. On April 25, 2013, plaintiff Glenn Shoemaker filed a complaint, which we refer to as the Shoemaker Delaware Complaint, in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Glenn Shoemaker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8505. The Shoemaker Delaware Complaint makes substantively identical allegations to the Minzer Complaint: asserting that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger and in failing to make material disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the merger, and that Parent, Acquisition Sub and KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The Shoemaker Delaware Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger. The Company believes that the lawsuits filed in connection with the Company’s entry into a merger agreement with KKR are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. There is no assurance that the Company or any of the other defendants will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any potential future lawsuits.

Note 15. Contingencies

The Company is a party to various legal proceedings, lawsuits and administrative actions, which are of an ordinary or routine nature for a company of its size and sector. In addition, due to the bankruptcies of several asbestos manufacturers and other primary defendants, among other things, the Company has been named as a defendant in a number of asbestos-related personal injury lawsuits. The Company has also been named as a defendant in a number of silica-related personal injury lawsuits. The plaintiffs in these suits allege exposure to asbestos or silica from multiple sources and typically the Company is one of approximately 25 or more named defendants. In the Company’s experience to date, the substantial majority of the plaintiffs have not suffered an injury for which the Company bears responsibility.

Predecessors to the Company sometimes manufactured, distributed and/or sold products allegedly at issue in the pending asbestos and silica-related lawsuits (the “Products”). However, neither the Company nor its predecessors ever mined, manufactured, mixed, produced or distributed asbestos fiber or silica sand, the materials that allegedly caused the injury underlying the lawsuits. Moreover, the asbestos-containing components of the Products, if any, were enclosed within the subject Products.

The Company has entered into a series of agreements with certain of its or its predecessors’ legacy insurers and certain potential indemnitors to secure insurance coverage and/or reimbursement for the costs associated with the asbestos and silica-related lawsuits filed against the Company. The Company has also pursued litigation against certain insurers or indemnitors where necessary. The latest of these actions, Gardner Denver, Inc. v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, et al., was filed on July 9, 2010, in the Eighth Judicial District, Adams County, Illinois, as case number 10-L-48 (the “Adams County Case”). In the lawsuit, the Company seeks, among other things, to require certain excess insurer defendants to honor their insurance policy obligations to the Company, including payment in whole or in part of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits filed against the Company. In October 2011, the Company reached a settlement with one of the excess insurer defendants for approximately the amount of such defendant’s policy that was subject to the lawsuit. A related action was brought by certain insurance companies against the Company and defendants in the Adams County Case. In this lawsuit, Continental Casualty Company, et al. v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., filed on October 31, 2012, in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, County Department Chancery Division, as case number 12CH40019 (the “Cook County Case”), the plaintiff insurance companies are seeking a declaration of the parties’ respective rights and obligations under certain insurance policies. Substantially all of the Company’s expected future recoveries of the costs associated with the asbestos-related lawsuits are the subject of the Adams County Case and the Cook County Case.

The Company believes that the pending and future asbestos and silica-related lawsuits are not likely to, in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity, based on: the Company’s anticipated insurance and indemnification rights to address the risks of such matters; the limited potential asbestos exposure from the Products described above; the Company’s experience that the vast majority of plaintiffs are not impaired with a disease attributable to alleged exposure to asbestos or silica from or relating to the Products or for which the Company otherwise bears responsibility; various potential defenses available to the Company with respect to such matters; and the Company’s prior disposition of comparable matters. However, inherent uncertainties of litigation and future developments, including, without limitation, potential insolvencies of insurance companies or other defendants, an adverse determination in the Adams County Case, or other inability to collect from the Company’s historical insurers or indemnitors, could cause a different outcome. While the outcome of legal proceedings is inherently uncertain, based on presently known facts, experience, and circumstances, the Company believes that the amounts accrued on its balance sheet are adequate and that the liabilities arising from the asbestos and silica-related personal injury lawsuits will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations or liquidity. Other Liabilities within the Consolidated Balance Sheet includes a $69.7 million litigation reserve as of March 31, 2013 with respect to potential liability arising from the Company’s asbestos-related litigation. In the event of unexpected future developments, it is possible that the ultimate resolution of these matters may be material to the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operation or liquidity. However, at this time, based on presently available information, the Company views this possibility as remote.

The Company has been identified as a potentially responsible party (“PRP”) with respect to several sites designated for cleanup under U.S. federal “Superfund” or similar state laws that impose liability for cleanup of certain waste sites and for related natural resource damages. Persons potentially liable for such costs and damages generally include the site owner or operator and persons that disposed or arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances found at those sites. Although these laws impose joint and several liability, in application,

the PRPs typically allocate the investigation and cleanup costs based upon the volume of waste contributed by each PRP. Based on currently available information, the Company was only a small contributor to these waste sites, and the Company has, or is attempting to negotiate, de minimis settlements for their cleanup. The cleanup of the remaining sites is substantially complete and the Company’s future obligations entail a share of the sites’ ongoing operating and maintenance expense.

The Company is also addressing three on-site cleanups for which it is the primary responsible party. Two of these cleanup sites are in the operation and maintenance stage and the third is in the implementation stage. Based on currently available information, the Company does not anticipate that any of these sites will result in material additional costs beyond those already accrued on its balance sheet.

The Company has an accrued liability on its balance sheet to the extent costs are known or can be reasonably estimated for its remaining financial obligations for these matters. Based upon consideration of currently available information, the Company does not anticipate any material adverse effect on its results of operations, financial condition, liquidity or competitive position as a result of compliance with federal, state, local or foreign environmental laws or regulations, or cleanup costs relating to the sites discussed above. It is the Company’s policy to expense legal costs as incurred.

In connection with the Company’s entry into a definitive merger agreement with KKR, four purported shareholders have filed substantially similar complaints. On March 14, 2013, a purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a complaint styled as a class action lawsuit in the Court of Common Pleas in Chester County, Pennsylvania, which we refer to as the Chester County Common Pleas Court. The case caption of this complaint, which we refer to as the Carson Complaint, is: Jack Carson, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., Renaissance Parent Corp., Renaissance Acquisition Corp., Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., L.P., Michael C. Arnold, Donald G. Barger, John D. Craig, Raymond R. Hipp, David D. Petratis, Diane K. Schumacher, Charles L. Szews, Richard L. Thompson and Michael M. Larsen, No. 13-02341.

On March 15, 2013, a second purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a substantially similar complaint, which we refer to as the Shoemaker Complaint, in Chester County Common Pleas Court captioned Glenn Shoemaker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., No. 13-02372. Unlike the Carson Complaint, the Shoemaker Complaint does not name Mr. Larsen or KKR as defendants. Both complaints assert that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent, Acquisition Sub and, in the case of the Carson Complaint, KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The Carson Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and seeks other equitable relief. The Shoemaker Complaint seeks money damages.

On March 27, 2013, a third purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a substantially similar complaint, which we refer to as the White Complaint, in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Daniel White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Larsen, et al., C.A. No. 8439-VCN. The White Complaint asserts that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent, Acquisition Sub and KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The White Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and an award of money damages.

On April 22, 2013, a fourth purported shareholder of Gardner Denver filed a complaint, which we refer to as the Minzer Complaint, in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Shoshana Minzer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Larsen, et al., C.A. No. 8498. The Minzer Complaint asserts that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger and in failing to make material disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the merger, and that Gardner Denver, Parent, Acquisition, Acquisition Sub and KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The Minzer Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger and an award of money damages.

On April 25, 2013, plaintiff Glenn Shoemaker filed a complaint, which we refer to as the Shoemaker Delaware Complaint, in the Delaware Court of Chancery captioned Glenn Shoemaker, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, v. Gardner Denver, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 8505. The Shoemaker Delaware Complaint makes substantively identical allegations to the Minzer Complaint: asserting that the members of the Board of Directors breached their fiduciary duties in agreeing to the merger and in failing to make material disclosures in the preliminary proxy statement filed in connection with the merger, and that Parent, Acquisition Sub and KKR aided and abetted in the breaches of fiduciary duties. The Shoemaker Delaware Complaint seeks to enjoin the merger.

The Company believes that the lawsuits filed in connection with the Company’s entry into a merger agreement with KKR are without merit and intends to vigorously defend against them. Additional lawsuits arising out of or relating to the merger agreement or the merger may be filed in the future. There is no assurance that the Company or any of the other defendants will be successful in the outcome of the pending or any potential future lawsuits.