Note 2 — Acquisition:

On December 14, 2010, the Company completed its acquisition of Energy Steel, a nuclear code accredited fabrication and specialty machining company located in Lapeer, Michigan dedicated primarily to the nuclear power industry.

This transaction was accounted for under the acquisition method of accounting. Accordingly, the results of Energy Steel were included in the Company’s Consolidated Financial Statements from the date of acquisition. The purchase price was $17,899 in cash, subject to the adjustments described below. Acquisition-related costs of $676 were expensed in fiscal 2011 and were included in selling, general and administrative expenses in the Consolidated Statement of Operations. During fiscal 2012, the Company received $384 from the seller due to a reduction in purchase price based upon the final determination of the working capital acquired in accordance with the purchase agreement. The Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2011 was recast to reflect this adjustment to the purchase price and is included in the table below.

The purchase agreement also included a contingent earn-out, which ranges from $0 to $2,000, dependent upon Energy Steel’s earnings performance in calendar years 2011 and 2012. In fiscal 2012, $1,000 of the earn-out was paid. If achieved, the remaining earn-out will be payable in the fiscal year ending March 31, 2013 (“fiscal 2013”). A liability of $1,498 was recorded on the acquisition date for the contingent earn-out and was treated as additional purchase price. Based on Energy Steel’s performance to date, the expected value of the remaining earn-out, including discounting the future payment back to March 31, 2012, was $931. The Consolidated Statement of Operations for fiscal 2012 includes $230 in selling, general and administrative expense and $204 in interest expense for this adjustment.

In addition, the Company and Energy Steel entered into a five-year lease agreement with ESSC Investments, LLC for Energy Steel’s manufacturing and office facilities located in Lapeer, Michigan, which lease includes an option to renew for an additional five-year term. The Company and Energy Steel also have an option to purchase the leased facility for $2,500 at any time during the first two years of the lease term. ESSC Investments, LLC is partly owned by the former sole shareholder of Energy Steel.

The cost of the acquisition was preliminarily allocated to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed based upon their estimated fair values at the date of the acquisition and the amount exceeding the fair value of $7,404 was recorded as goodwill, which is not deductible for tax purposes. During fiscal 2012, the allocation of the purchase price was finalized and the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2011 was recast to reflect the adjustments. The following table presents the impact of the adjustments on individual line items in the Company’s Consolidated Balance Sheet at March 31, 2011:

The following table summarizes the final allocation of the cost of the acquisition to the assets acquired and liabilities assumed as of the close of the acquisition:

The fair values of the assets acquired and liabilities assumed were determined using one of three valuation approaches: (i) market; (ii) income; and (iii) cost. The selection of a particular method for a given asset depended on the reliability of available data and the nature of the asset, among other considerations. The market approach, which estimates the value for a subject asset based on available market pricing for comparable assets, was utilized for work in process inventory. The income approach, which estimates the value for a subject asset based on the present value of cash flows projected to be generated by the asset, was used for certain intangible assets such as permits, tradename and backlog. The projected cash flows were discounted at a required rate of return that reflects the relative risk of the Energy Steel transaction and the time value of money. The projected cash flows for each asset considered multiple factors, including current revenue from existing customers, the competition-limiting effect of nuclear permits due to the significant time, effort and resources required to obtain them, and expected profit margins giving consideration to historical and expected margins. The cost approach was used for the majority of personal property, raw materials inventory and customer relationships. The cost to replace a given asset reflects the estimated replacement cost for the asset, less an allowance for loss in value due to depreciation or obsolescence, with specific consideration given to economic obsolescence if indicated.

The fair value of the work in process inventory acquired was estimated by applying a version of the market approach known as the comparable sales method. This approach estimates the fair value of the asset by calculating the potential sales generated from selling the inventory and subtracting from it the costs related to the sale of that inventory and a reasonable profit allowance. Based upon this methodology, the Company recorded the inventory acquired at fair value resulting in an increase in inventory of $196. During fiscal 2012 and fiscal 2011, the Company expensed $49 and $147, respectively, of the step-up value relating to the acquired inventory sold in cost of products sold. As of March 31, 2012, there was no inventory step-up value remaining in inventory to be expensed. Raw materials inventory was valued at replacement cost.

The purchase price was allocated to specific intangible assets as follows:

Backlog consisted of firm purchase orders received from customers that had not yet entered production or were in production at the date of the acquisition. The fair value of backlog was computed as the present value of the expected sales attributable to backlog less the remaining costs to fulfill the backlog. The life was based upon the period of time in which the backlog was expected to be converted to sales.

Customer relationships represent the estimated fair value of customer relationships Energy Steel had with nuclear power plants as of the acquisition date. These relationships were valued using the replacement cost method based upon the cost to obtain and retain the limited number of customers in the nuclear power market. The Company determined that the estimated useful life of the intangible assets associated with the existing customer relationships is 15 years. This life was based upon historical customer attrition and management’s understanding of the industry and regulatory environment.

Nuclear permits are required and critical to generate all of the revenue of Energy Steel, due to the strict regulatory environment of the nuclear industry. The permits are inherently valuable as a result of their competition-limiting effect due to the significant time, effort and resources required to obtain them. The Company intends to continually renew the permits and maintain all quality programs and processes, as well as abide by all required regulations of the nuclear industry. As a result, an indefinite life has been assigned to the permits. The permits will be tested annually for impairment. In fiscal 2012, the Company renewed the permits.

The tradename represents the estimated fair value of the corporate name acquired from Energy Steel which will be utilized by the Company in the future. The Company believes the use of the tradename, which the Company expects will be instrumental in enabling it to maintain or expand its market share, is inherently valuable. The Company currently intends to utilize the tradename for an indefinite period of time, therefore, the intangible asset is not being amortized but will be tested for impairment on an annual basis.

The excess of the purchase price over the fair value of net tangible and intangible assets acquired of $6,914 was allocated to goodwill. Various factors contributed to the establishment of goodwill, including the value of Energy Steel’s highly trained assembled workforce and management team and the expected revenue growth over time that is attributable to increased market penetration. There was not a material change in goodwill during fiscal 2012.

The Consolidated Statement of Operations for fiscal year 2011 included net sales from Energy Steel of $5,808. The following unaudited pro forma information presents the consolidated results of operations of the Company as if the Energy Steel acquisition had occurred at the beginning of each of the fiscal periods presented:

The unaudited pro forma information presents the combined operation results of Graham Corporation and Energy Steel, with the results prior to the acquisition date adjusted to include the pro forma impact of the adjustment of amortization of acquired intangible assets, depreciation of fixed assets based on the preliminary purchase price allocation, inventory step-up amortization, the adjustment to interest income reflecting the cash paid in connection with the acquisition, including acquisition-related expenses, at the Company’s weighted average interest income rate, and the impact of income taxes on the pro forma adjustments utilizing the applicable statutory tax rate.

The unaudited pro forma results are presented for illustrative purposes only. These pro forma results do not purport to be indicative of the results that would have actually been obtained if the acquisition occurred as of the beginning of each of the periods presented, nor does the pro forma data intend to be a projection of results that may be obtained in the future.