Crompton Corporation manufactures and markets a wide variety of polymer and specialty products.

The original Complaint charges Crompton and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Complaint alleges that during the class period, Defendants caused Crompton's shares to trade at artificially inflated levels through the issuance of false and misleading financial statements by: (a) agreeing to charge prices at certain levels and otherwise to fix, increase, maintain or stabilize prices of rubber chemicals sold in the United States; (b) selling rubber chemicals at the agreed upon prices; and (c) inflating their profits via the above acts. As a result, the Company's shares traded at inflated prices enabling the Company to refinance its debt and consummate a major acquisition using its inflated securities as currency.

Crompton Corporation and certain of its officers and directors face two securities class actions filed in California and Connecticut during the period from July 18, 2003 to July 31, 2003.

According to the docket filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, on October 16, 2003, a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal was filed by the Plaintiff, and on October 21, 2003, the Court entered the Order by U.S. District Judge Illston dismissing the case. The civil case is terminated in California, but the case continued in Connecticut.

As summarized by the Company’s FORM 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007, the Company and the Crompton individual Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 17, 2004, which is now fully briefed and pending. The former directors of Witco Corp. filed a motion to dismiss in February 2005, which is pending. On July 22, 2005, the court granted a motion by the Company and the Crompton Individual Defendants to stay discovery in the related Connecticut shareholder derivative lawsuit, pending resolution of the motion to dismiss by the Company and Crompton individual Defendants.

Prior to any ruling on the Defendants' motions to dismiss, parties entered mediation for settlement. On December 1, 2008 a Stipulation of Settlement was filed with the court outlining the $20,650,000 agreement. According to the class notice, lead Counsel intends to apply for fees of 25% of the net settlement fund and reimbursement of expenses in the amount of $235,000.